Development of the surveillance state?
I think its neither my banks nor my governments responsibility or right to know precisely where I spend my money. Even if I trusted my government, I don't want shops to know my name or account ID, this would be the ultimate tracking for them. But I guess they are already developing face recognition based approaches that match my face with internet footage (like data bought from facebook) to get my identification.
I don't like the snooping and control the future has for the world.
Development of the surveillance state?
So I just don't install that crappy app. That's no argument.
You don't have to make a full blockchain run for every transaction. If you have enough transactions, you can also make a list with valid/invalid wallets and their balance and use that to tell whether transactions are valid.
What does anonymity have to do with fully transparent accounts?
The anonymity adding difference between bitcoin and traditional online banking is, that you don't have to go to the bank with your ID to open an account. In theory, that *is* anonymity. But at the interface between bitcoins and RL money it can be made non-anonymous.
Their current plan is to wait charged particles to affect electronics so that it forces a reboot.
Spacecraft are susceptible to charged particles zipping through deep space, many of which get trapped inside Earth’s magnetic field. If one of these particles strikes an electronics component in just the right way, it can cause a reboot. This is not an uncommon occurrence for CubeSats, or even larger spacecraft, for that matter. Cal Poly’s experience with CubeSats suggest most experience a reboot in the first three weeks; I spoke with another CubeSat team that rebooted after six.
Yes, there are special types of SMS the carrier can use to send commands to your baseband chip.
For enabling video inside html without flash. Welcome to the modern web!
This should have been:
(e.g. by giving them blood from animals)
So, that fraction of the species will die off, and the goal wasn't reached. What we should do instead is following: produce female mosquitoes who are pre-filled with blood (e.g. by giving them blood from ), and with a genetic switch so that their offsprings are only male, and release them every year into the wild. Now they will lay their eggs into the water, and will compete with the "normal" mosquitoes, reducing the overall number of female mosquitoes, because the mosquitoes in the eggs are only males. Now as the released mosquitoes lay their eggs themselves, they catch every spot the "normal" females would get, removing the need to deploy any poison to all possible locations. By keeping the release rates up every season, the modified fraction won't die off.
People get nutty because media get nutty. Media get nutty about terrorists attacks, because these are things to report about. Basically, they do exactly what the terrorists want them to do: spread the information about the event.
If a plane crashes, media report, because hundreds of people die at the same moment. No news channel will send live 4k helicopter footage from all 300 car accidents that would be needed to create a comparable number of deaths on the road.
If you are researching in the Neuroscience field, you have a simple descision: either you accept that most grant money is inside the "curing Altzheimer" corner, and start constructing a story how your research can heal patients from Altzheimer, Parkinson or HIV, or you are heroic and don't get grant money. Your competition does get the money though, so you end up with them having an advantage.
I mean this is an effect of giving money only to research that has curing these illnesses as goal. If you do the groundwork, you don't get any money, so you have to do some of the higher level stuff too, which perhaps others would do if grants were fairly distributed. You can debate whether this is good or bad, both sides have their points.
Welcome to slashdot!
thats four times LiteOS! Get some Huawei developers work on this, and they'll reduce this patch to 64 bytes.
Yes it doesn't mean, but when it says "google", your data land at their servers. And from a security standpoint, they have control.
No, the sensors are already there. The 'internet of things' hype is about giving control over machines and private information from sensors to large companies.
yes, but once your software becomes open source, your service can be replaced by that oss part and a off the shelf server. Usually, thats cheaper than your price. If its not cheaper, then you don't make money with your service, because your service will use that off the shelf server too. If you open source, you basically give away the additional value of your service for free.
You can do what facebook and google do of course, and only publish parts of the technology you developed: google published protobuf, facebook a php compiler.