He's been repeatedly asked for an executable we can have a bash at, and he's refused (apparently it's too much work). I've seen this on usenet waaaay too many times in the 90's. Some new aspiring unsung-encrypting-genius will pop up on comp.programming (or similar) and boast about their encryption algorithm without giving any details about it. Suffice to say someone usually managed to decode their ciphertext within a few hours.

This appears to be more of the same - at least the usenet newbies had the grace to provide something that we could attempt to crack; this poster, as sincere as he sounds, doesn't even want the free crack-testing that we are offering, so yes, he probably *does* think that he's come up with a DRM solution that is better than anything that came before.

This troll is finally not totally off-topic :-)

You make a good point - BTC is only useful if you have no other options. That being said, there is not a single spot on earth where you have no options other than BTC, which makes BTC slightly less desirable than a chocolate teapot.

That's news to me - when did *anyone* seriously consider bitcoin other than as a commodity?

Now you've got me curious - which currencies are *not* backed by force?

Funny all the trained CNC machinists with 3D printers are all anonymous. The non-anonymous ones readily admit that if a thing you want is all of cheap, fragile and made of cheap plastic then a home 3D printer would suit you just fine, otherwise get a cheapie mill or lathe, or pay 10-20 times that amount for a decent 3D printer.

Using these goalposts even real intelligence, nevermind AI, would never meet the standard - if it has been directly programmed to learn new responses, ilke humans for example, then you would still fail it as intelligence using this criteria.

How about if what you directly programmed it to do was to write code to handle unexpected situations/inputs/etc? Perhaps in an iterative fashion, using previously gathered data? Using code fragments that are reassembled in new combinations, testing each mutation for success against the inputs? Because AIUI this is what the majority of chatbots *currently* do - use previously acquired data to refine their outputs.

The consequences, in this particular case, is that the someone will forever be shunned by institutions. The only good thing to come out of this is that they will never work again. Their name is forever tainted due to the large amount of non-science that they did. The other party of this little drama will continue being a well-respected nobel prize-winner working on cancer research, with offers of employment and requests for assistance pouring in.

The witch-hunter in this round fully got what she deserved. When your publicly available CV does not match up to publicly available information *AND* that particular fact is the first hit on google you may as well kill yourself - no one else is ever going to believe a word you say about your competence again.

Are you really so dim that you would really take the thus far unsubstantiated word of a couple of activists over tens of the worlds most eminent female scientists? That you believe that sexist jokes are a bigger issue than plagiarism? In the science world (yeah, I used to work as one) plagiarism is the biggest sin one can commit. Religion ideals like you tend to espouse? Not so much.

What? No MRA conspiracy post? No violent invective hurled at imaginary manbabies? Your standards are dropping poperatzo :-)

How the hell is this insightful? She claims to have published stuff that she hadn't. She claims to have worked in positions that she hasn't. There is a large body of evidence that she has fabricated her CV. She now claims a nobel prize-winner said sexist things. Many of the eminent female scientists, as well as people who were actually at the toast her gave disputes this, yet you jump to her defence? What the hell is wrong with you?

That's because the goal isn't to be productive, it's to remind the plebs of their places. Offices are reserved for those who are higher in the organisation, not those who require offices. It's a class system and its' designed to remind you that you are the cattle.

The occasional loyal worker will, of course, argue that open-plan is better ("collaboration", "exchange of ideas", etc), but that's because they consider themselves important enough to the organisation that they will one day get their own office - IOW they aren't poor, they're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

There are no credible reports that estimate anything above 8%. There are very very few that find above 4%. I generally round up to 10% when talking about the homosexual population. In general, any "report" that finds above 4% (including bisexuals) is suspect.