Actually, I have it on good authority that Bitcoin was written by time traveling aliens from Sirius 2. The same people that built the pyramids, and gave mankind astrology. The block chain was first implemented by the Inkas, and passed down for generations on tree bark. There were millions of copies of the ledger, and mining was done with toothpicks and lasers. If you look at the numerological value of the name Satoshi Nakamoto, you get 9. Osiris was also 9. Coincidence? I think not. I think all you non believers just need to wake up and realize that the alien gods are now among us, and they're terraforming our financial system! Make no mistake my friends, they're in with the Illuminati, and they know where Lora Palmer is buried, because Satoshi Nakamoto is an alien who knows everything! Why do you think the NSA need to spy on us like that? Why do you think Alex Jones is buying evil death robots, and keeping them in his basement? Seriously. I don't know how people can look at the overwhelming evidence for all of this, and come to the conclusion that we're not like, totally, in serious trouble.
My father is brilliant, but he's not a computer person. So the last time a virus took out his system, I treated him like any other non technical user on my network. I limited his ability to do damage to himself and others. NT user permissions in Windows 7 are useful for this. You can adjust anyone's group permissions, be they on a single PC or an Active Directory. It's not difficult to learn how to use these things, if you're not a systems administrator; and my dad hasn't had a single problem with viruses since I set it up for him. Remember, when you're running any PC, a virus needs admin permissions to do real damage. Deprive your users of admin rights, and (while you may still have issues with viruses) you're not going to fry your PC.
I don't really see where the problem is. You shouldn't be using horrible kluges to track your campaigns anyway. Even if it did kill your ability to track who is opening what... who fucking cares? The fact that a person opens an email has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they're going to buy it. Email marketing is still interruption marketing, for the most part. It's flawed in its basic premise. Innovation is the only way to stay in business long term. Stay ahead of the curve, it's more profitable. Adapt, or die.
Arbitrary simulations are not evidence of anything. If you can't even accurately model the planet in a simulation for weather patterns, how do you expect to model something as complex as the universe?
I would like to be spied on by a free market intelligence agency, where I pay a subscription to be spied on, and can optionally opt-out. Ideally, this agency would be run by Cowboy Neal.
I don't think they can actually do that.
That's hilarious. Sure, why not throw in a a few more of false dichotomies? Banning censorship in science is like mandating that puppies need to be murdered, and candy should be taken away from children. Why not? Right?
We've got that one, and the christmas special. Then it's another year of waiting. Those bastards at the BBC just love screwing with our heads.
If sports teams couldn't get tax payers to flip the bill for stadiums, there would be fewer stadiums. At least fewer in small towns where the taxes are unsustainable.
They are in fact changing the comments system to 'Comments are Magic' - and slashdot will henceforth be known as 'My Little Slashy'.
I draw the line at slashdot becoming a pony cartoon. Anything short of that I think I'm okay with... especially if it pisses off the hipsters.
The only outcome of censorship, logically, is less of whatever it is you are trying to censor. So yes, if the objective is more science, and you would hope it would be, then you do not want the government interfering with it.
You know, reading Chinese state media is always funny to me. They're always so friendly when they talk about changing the way the monetary system works, and they do the same thing on other topics.
I like Netflix. But I don't like Netflix more than I like the web.
It's a false dichotomy to assume that having DRM in the standard makes the web any more or less free. What you get it useless, easily bipassable security features that placates content providers for the time being. At some point, I think they're all going to give up DRM, and we'll regard it as silly as the pay walls nobody ever uses, that are built into the http.
DRM doesn't change anything meaningful.
You still have a choice as to whether or not you're going to use it on your site. If you don't like DRM, fine. Don't implement it. The web will not cease to exist because people want to stream movies on Netflix using standards compliant code.
It would work, too, if the value of these services was not in a perpetual downward spiral. In order to make this happen, you would need some compelling reason this was a sensible investment. Honestly, while I think the idea is pretty cool... I'm just not seeing how it could possibly work. Maybe if you had a whole bevy of similar or inter-related services offered by commodity providers?
Right. And Lycos and the other second generation search engines were always getting hacked. My big concern here, is that Watson is a great AI, but it doesn't have anywhere near the experience in ranking that Google does. I'm sure IBM has the ability to retrofit it if they want to, but knowing the answer to a question, and judging the quality of a website are two completely different things.