Well, robbery would be a bit tougher than general mayhem. In the foreseeable future you'd probably need a human in the loop, for example to confirm that the victim actually complied with the order to "put ALL the money in the bag." Still that would remove the perpetrator from the scene of the crime. If there were an open or hackable wi-fi access point nearby it'd be tricky to hunt him down.
This kind of remote controlled drone mediated crime is very feasible now. It wouldn't take much technical savvy to figure out how to mount a shotgun shell on a quadcopter and fly it to a particular victim (if you have one). That's a lot less sophisticated than stuff terrorists do already; anyone with moderate technical aptitude could do it with off-the-shelf components. I'm sure we'll see our first non-state-actor controlled drone assassination in the next couple of years. Or maybe a hacktivist will detonate a party popper on the President or something like that.
Within our lifetime it'll surely be feasible for ordinary hackers to build autonomous systems that could fly into a general area and hunt down a particular victim using facial recognition. People have experimented with facial recognition with SBCs like the Raspberry Pi already.
You can forbid states from doing this all you want, but as technology advances the technology to do this won't be exotic. It'll be commonplace stuff used for work and even recreation.
Not necessarily a tyrant. Any psychopath with money.
The same thing could likely be said of all obtrusive advertising: it is a nuisance not a benefit.
They aren't exactly the same, because interstitial ads aren't just obtrustive, they're interfering. You can't simply mentally resolve to ignore them; if you want to continue you've got to either follow the ad or find a way to dismiss it. This presents the user with a Hobson's Choice: physically respond to the ad, or go back.
A lot depends on how motivated you are to get at the content. If it's something you've clicked out of idle curiosity, you'll back away. If it's something you really want to see you'll fight your way through. Since so much traffic on the Internet is driven by idle curiosity, the 69% figure doesn't surprise me at all. What would be interesting is to disaggregate that figure by types of target content.
Exactly right.
The incentive for people to contribute to a closed source project isn't all that much. Remember that open source isn't a gift by your company to the public, it is an offer of trade -- you let the public have the source, the public provides you with feedback (bug fixes, enhancements, etc.) and gets its suggestions provided back to it. It's a circle.
What you are suggesting sounds like you want the benefit of that deal, while negating the benefit for those who are doing work for you. Psychologically, it's a hard sell to say to someone -- "mow my lawn for me and I'll sell you a lemonade afterward at full price --- um yeah, I'd also sell you the lemonade at full price if you don't mow my lawn." You aren't going to get many takers for that deal, and the ones who do take it will have questionable motives (scoping out the property) or will just be naive and gullible (not a great foundation to build upon).
The statute the sent Oliver North to prison might apply here. https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Paragraph b, aside from other punishments, bars a person from holding public office.
The way I see it, the emails were filed with a public officer of the united states as required by par. a (HRC was a public officer so the emails sent/received were filed with her personally) and by deleting the emails, they were certainly "mutilated, obliterated, or destroyed". If deleting emails filed with the SOS is illegal, then that's good for 3 years in the pokey.
Next, under par. b, it is clear that HRC had custody of the records and again, destroyed them. If she is found guilty of par. b, she simply can't be president -- she couldn't be dog catcher. She'd be fully and finally retired.
The Rethuglikans are freaking out about Hillary. Absolutely losing their shit in a big way.
Let's be clear hear. HRC is a warmongering neo-con wallstreet cocksucker on the Democrat team. Some warmongering neo-con wallstreet cocksuckers on the Republican team hate her because she is on the other team.
I hate them all because they are war mongering neo-con wallstreet cocksuckers. I don't give a fuck about what team they're on -- I care about what they stand for.
You are conflating a world that is becoming warmer with a world that just *is* warmer. It may be true (I take no position) that a world that is 4-5 C warmer is better for certain classes of poor people (e.g., subsistence farmers). But a world that is changing rapidly is a calimity to poor people tied to the land, especially in a modern world with national boundaries and private property where you just can't pick up and move like our paleolithic ancestors would have.
This is marked funny, but the US Supreme Court recently affirmed that the joke is true.
This file will self-destruct in five minutes.