I doubt, free trade with non-free countries is beneficial to humanity. Though one can argue, that it makes such non-free countries more free, it is not at all evident, that that's what happened to China, for example.
Meanwhile, the US is gradually losing freedoms as there appear more and more things we aren't allowed to do or even say, and the list of places requiring identification is growing.
Remember that 90ies joke about software engineers designing cars? How such cars would only run on certain roads, require reboots to fix, etc.?
Somehow we've entered that alternative reality now...
basic taste, just like sweet, sour, salty, bitter and umami.
I must've missed the article about scientists identifying the fifth taste. For I have no idea, what the heck is "umami".
(Yes, I shall search the Internet and educate myself presently.)
At this time, computers are still a novelty, and no one has ever done automated translation. But you decide to attempt it. You write a program that examines each sentence and tries to understand the grammatical structure. It looks for verbs, the nouns that go with the verbs, the adjectives modifying nouns, and so on. With the grammatical structure understood, your program converts the sentence structure into English and uses a French-English dictionary to translate individual words.
For several decades, most computer translation systems used ideas along these lines — long lists of rules expressing linguistic structure. But in the late 1980s, a team from IBM’s Thomas J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, N.Y., tried a radically different approach. They threw out almost everything we know about language — all the rules about verb tenses and noun placement — and instead created a statistical model.
Link to Original Source
What the hell are you doing on slashdot?
Reading the articles, baby.
the sort of moralists who read HotAir
Seriously? You are going to attack a message based on who delivered it? Well, my first link was from CNN, is that Ok with you? I then went searching for any report on what happened to them — is it my fault, that the CNN had no attention span enough to follow-up on the story?
You are comparing two very different things.
Point is, the actions are both highly outrageous and unimaginable to anybody — their bosses and critics alike — until both happened...
Link to Original Source
The sheer amount of activity generated by apps with fake ads was what initially exposed the scam.
This is why the "honest" scammers can't have nice things.
Someone got greedy — a deadly sin.
Watching porn is not dangerous nor illicit activity.
It is highly illicit, if you are using employer-provided equipment to do that — contrary to the employer's wishes.
Ok, I have $200 burning here to pay you such a device. Can you make it installable outside? Under a roof, but still subject to temperature-changes? No? Ok, I'll set it up inside.
May need more than 10 hours, but doable within a day or so.
Sure. Take a week. But, if it does not work by then, you pay me back $300. Deal?
Wireshark for WiFi Sniffing and logging
Oops... I'm afraid, you didn't quite get it. I don't want to listen peer with their transmitters. I just want to log their appearing. My own side should be as passive as possible — to conceal my own capabilities.
'I am troubled by the allegations that such dangerous and illicit activity went undetected at a federal research facility'
Seriously? After reports of government lawyers watching porn on their office computers, nothing really surprises me about Federal government. Especially given the nincompoop we've twice elected to run it.
Because even among the above mentioned work-place masturbators none got fired.
Fourth: find out how to wire up brains. A brain is much smaller than a human, and you dont need manual user interfaces, or things like maintaining cabin pressure.
"Brain and brain! What is BRAIN? It is Controller, is it not?"
Every once in a while, a court rules in a way that seems like an attack on privacy, but in fact is just reiterating current standards of (non) privacy in certain weird conditions, because some plaintiff or defendant is trying to wildly re-construe privacy to include some bizarre condition they got caught up in.
If you butt-dial someone, the call is not private to the exclusion of the recipient the same way that if you accidentally email a sensitive document to the wrong person and then try to sue them for possessing the sensitive information.
Sometimes a court opinion makes sense. I had a boss who said "Don't act surprised when it works*," but that's hard to do with the modern legal system.
*He meant this in the context of customer demonstrations of our software, but the principle is broader than that.