It's about biology. Our eyes are by nature more accustomed to view wide scenes instead of tall ones.
If you evolved on a planet that has Predators then you're alive because your ancestors paid attention to the trees.
As long as it's behind a decent firewall you shouldn't have any problems.
Yes, up to now, Windows has mainly been attacked by Hackers(TM) connecting to its daemons' ports, because Windows sysadmins forget to turn off all its services. It's an old story: mom forgot to uncheck "share passwords" or "be an open mail relay" and it's true that a firewall will help with those kinds of problems.
But what if Windows ever grows out of its mainly-for-servers role and gets popular on the desktop? Can you imagine what sort of problems might appear if people start using that OS to run web browsers or read email? A lot of good firewalls will do then. Sure, 2014 may be Yet Another Year of Linux on the desktop, but what about 2015?
That because every whiny turd who installs solar is selling it back to the grid when they don't need it, but expects to have power on tap when the fucking solar is useless.
Yes, sometimes-selling/sometimes-buying is the idea, but I totally don't get the "whiny turd" part.
That means the true cost is made higher for all the people who can't afford solar panels
True cost of what? Are you talking about the energy they're buying, or pollution they're mitigating, or the transmissions lines, or what? And aren't those true costs, things that are being reduced?
I don't produce solar energy so I'm just trying to figure out how someone is sticking it to me. If you know of a victim card I could be playing, then I'd be grateful if you would learn to write without sounding like a retard, just in case you have an actual real idea in there, somewhere.
If you were alluding to the subsidies for buying the panels, then I think you'd have an excellent point, but you didn't so much as mention that. You seem to be vaguely talking about the energy or the transmission, both of which solar is a win for everyone, whether you're producing or not.
You're talking about the post-scarcity dream (but not describing it that way): the AI success story where it's completely good and benign. 98% unemployment (2% still have to work as Blade Runners), where most everybody has nothing better to do than lay back on their couch while robot slaves feed them grapes, and where the nation is more of a "maker" than ever before, but nobody has to lift a finger to bring about that productivity. It's not a "service-based" economy; it's a "leisure-based" or "so much wealth that all the old economic textbooks were made obsolete-based" economy.
He's talking about Terminators and Forbin Projects and Demon Seeds and Matrices.
It probably depends on whether or not he's ruled by his fear. I know I might get killed (or horribly injured and maimed for life) in traffic if I drive to the grocery store. That is a very real threat and you would have to be insane or stupid to think it can't happen. But it's not likely (on any given day, or even in a given decade) either, and it'd be more insane/stupid, to starve to death instead of getting food. So I go. I don't even think about it, but if I ever said "it can't happen to me" then I'd deserve your derision.
Hawking says AI is a threat? BFD. Everyone already knows that. It's not even controversial. The real question is how likely the disaster is, and Hawking hasn't to-date said a damned thing that would lead anyone to suspect he has a specially privileged point of view on the subject.
As for old/insane, it depends on his policy. Is he in favor of pointing guns at AI researchers' heads, with the message "stop working, or else?" Or is he just just saying "be careful?" The former is insane, and the latter is just good advice and goes for driving to the grocery store too. Acknowledging that life has risks, isn't old/insane. It's only when you say "we must never take risks," (or "we must always take risks") that you've crossed the line.
It states that "Congress shall make no law..." but since this was a civil case, and did not involve congress, how does the first amendment apply?
Without Congress creating the court, how can there be a civil case? The court's decisions would be unenforcible, and they wouldn't have laws by which to judge cases anyway.
What if you search for a person and the results incorrectly suggests that the person is a pedophile? Does that qualify as libel,
I can't help but spot the word "suggest," as it's so critical. Forget Google: what if a natural person incorrectly suggests someone else is a pedophile? That wouldn't normally be libel, would it? (Would that be libel even in the UK, where the libel standards are so relatively loose? Serious question.)
I can tell you as a reader, there is a huge night-and-day difference between reading a claimed fact and reading a suggestion. Suggesting things is how discussions get started, where then people either back off due to lack of evidence, or follow through with actual claims/accusations.
I didn't even know W3C did geolocation (like Maxmind). Is there any chance you're talking about a page that uses the W3C geolocation API? That is, you're talking about what result some Javascript gets when it asks your web browser "where am I?"
If I'm not mistaken and that's what you're talking about, then look up how your browser gets its location.
If I'm mistaken and W3C actually has a ip-to-geo thing, oops, never mind. No idea what you're going to do about their database being wrong.
Well, tell those people to abandon their plans to sue the US for that in a US court, because even if they win, they won't get the domains they wanted. (Whereas prior to this decision, it would have worked?
I would get a VPS somewhere (e.g. linode) and install OpenVPN on it. Then VPN between there and your local machine, set up your incoming and outgoing connections to route through there, and update your DNS to point to the VPS. Net effect: you're still on Comcast, but the world sees you as being in some datacenter.
Remember, UNIX spelled backwards is XINU. -- Mt.
