So they are going to pay extra to have proof that the letter was delivered, and to whom? What a giant waste of our money.
I think this would be difficult to prove. All experience in the music industry seems to indicate the opposite, that people who listen to music shared by their peers are MORE likely to buy it later than those who don't.
I don't think people are bothering to check Safari compatibility any more, unless they happen to use a Mac themselves. I'm finding more and more sites where Safari has buttons completely missed from the rendering (or hidden behind something else or otherwise invisible). If Safair won't run on anything but a mac then a large proportion of the dev community is never going to bother checking it.
Unless you have the backdoor key
It would be a shame if your son comes to harm in some foreign jail, perhaps we can come to some arrangement about Owd Sneedon?
It is now clear that github is unreliable in their core mission - to allow robust hosting and sharing of useful technology. Unfortunately for them they are in a legal jurisdiction which is no longer suitable for their core activity.
The Preston case was particularly pernicious - a whole article disappears from search results just because one person adds a comment to the article then decides to 'retract' their comment because 'it is not relevant any more'. It would have introduced a very easy attack route for anyone to take down any article they didn't like by posting a comment then asking Google to retract it thus hiding the whole article.
Is it really exponential growth? From 2011 to 2012, growth was infinity%, and between 2012 and 2013 it was only 125%. Growth seems to be slowing a lot.
This x 10^6 Anyone who has used the internet should have realised pretty early on that sending an email is equivalent to sending a postcard - it will probably arrive at the destination if you use the right address, but there are no guarantees, and you have no control over who sees the email on the way as it is not a private protocol. People should have to get a licence by demonstrating minimal competence before they are allowed to use potentially dangerous technology, just as they do with driving a car.
There is an obvious solution
From the Guardian article it looks as though CD is only charged with possessing documents: http://www.theguardian.com/law...
We seem to know already that the defendant CD is only charged with possessing documents, from how I read the Guardian's report: http://www.theguardian.com/law...
I guess you are trolling right? Even Facebook's facial recognition is consistently worse than a human's and a human's is significantly worse than perfect. If by robust you mean "frequently correct, and but wrong sometimes", then OK, but then that is what OP was saying about neural nets.
Neural networks are only one way to build machine learning classifiers. Everything we've learnt about machine learning tells us not to rely on a single method/methodology and that we will consistently get better results by taking the consensus of multiple methods. We just need to make sure that a majority of the other methods we use have different blind spots to the ones the neural networks have.
Healthcare will be redundant fairly shortly. The main problem facing humanity is too many people and not enough food and water, not too many sick people. The most important 21st century skill is going to be agriculture, and the production of more food from less resources.