Honestly, search might arguably be AI- or a big part of it.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Should github be involved? We could ramp it up and pretend the project was actually hateful, instead of not being that at all. When should github care? If they are an open source repo, shouldn't they be that?
Here's an emulator for Nintendo hardware. It's safe on legal grounds (even though console companies have lawyered up and taken down some emus by threatening the authors):
Here's an archive of "hacking tools". While almost everyone reading this post will understand the context of "hacking", and the fact that these are completely innocuous, would you put that past everyone in the world?
Remember, some people consider "hacking" to equal "a crime done to people that should be result in life in prison". Even among those that are a bit smarter than that, you could EASILY argue that labeling something a "hacking tool" is "encouraging people to commit a crime" or somesuch- there's a reason the crack pipes at the flea market are not labelled as such, and have a sign saying that if you call them that, they'll kick you out.
You could argue that the above two projects, along with MANY others, are offensive or encourage illegal activities. You may not agree, but the argument could be made.
If someone is concerned about some cock and balls jokes because some section of the population (certainly not "women" and not really even "feminists", but likely "people who professionally get offended about bullshit to honk their own horns"), I will point out that **there's already a ton of projects that would offend fucking SOMEONE**.
This shouldn't be a story at all.
Don't confuse murder and killing. States deem murder illegal, but self defense is trivially not murder, and that's also a kind of killing. There's a whole arc of crimes that someone can be guilty of (or not) after unambiguously killing someone.
Hypocrisy isn't a very good critique.
Plenty of reasons to want real encryption besides being a "suspected terrorist". The point is, if the government can get in, you have to trust ALL governments... and if the government can get in, so can a hacker.
Encryption is a software process, in all cases. If something "self encrypts", that means it has access to the key, and produced cyphertext from plaintext, and plaintext from cyphertext. There's literally NOTHING stopping:
> It could keep the key in some scrambled (and recoverable) form, rendering the encryption meaningless to anyone who knows how to access it physically.
> It could use an escrow algo such that the vendor or their appointed agents (aka, a distant freedom hostile government, hackers) can gleefully decrypt anything forever.
> It could use an implementation with a weakness (deliberately or accidentally) which allows anyone with knowledge of the weakness and sufficient cryptanalysis capabilities to decrypt.
Now, you COULD get around this in a few ways- but ultimately, it's just a bad idea to trust hardware encryption. It is fundamentally not trustworthy.
This is not a problem with the new lenovo, or lenovo in general, but rather with all self encrypting USB sticks, hard drives, SSD,s etc. Because nothing self encrypts!
BIG difference. Drug sniffing dogs primarily exist as a way for cops to fuck with the people they always wanted to fuck with. The fact that they are being used to ferret out private property is a big enough deal in the first place, but you would obviously expect them to try to please their trainers, and their trainers want to search THAT GUY for *reasons*. Reasons that they can't say out loud. Maybe the policeman has a hunch... or maybe he's just a racist asshole.
So the actual role of the drug dogs is just to give the cops a reason. That's not their claimed purpose, but the operators of the technology are just looking for excuses to infringe on liberties.
This scenario is, they actually want the dog to sniff out the disease. If you're interested in a dog who can diagnose, you don't gain anything from false responses.
A failed diagnostic dog is still a dog. Someone will likely have use for that dog. Perhaps it costs some dog somewhere a home, but you know that's not strictly the case.
What exactly is the human planning / thinking, and how can we replicate that process without the human?
Possible isn't easy. Dogs are redic capable at stuff like this.
"So you claim that some people can eat nothing and still put on weight? "
Cool, I didn't say that. In fact, I said the opposite. Maybe you should read my words? Nah, fuck that, vomitting out some AC bullshit is faster, rite bro?
The best part is where you freely admit that you are limiting yourself for the rest of your life. That's reasonable and good, but *do you think most people are doing this*? Has it even been a decade since you lost that weight? If you keep that weight off for a decade, you'll be in a single digit percent of formerly overweight dudes. Hell, you can do it. I don't like you, I think you're a cowardly uninformed dumbass, but I genuinely hope you pull it off.
But look around you. Look at the people who have never had weight issues.
Thanks for posting as AC to pile on with the current groupthink. Studies show a lot of things, including:
> Thin inmates who overate to try to gain weight could not.
> Hormonal levels from the blood of men who lost weight and kept it off for years versus ones who never had any weight issues are vastly different- the thin guys have to avoid food for days to generate hormones like the formely fat dudes live with forever.
> Gut biome transplants have resulted in some weight loss.
> Gut biome transplants have resulted in some massive weight gain.
Studies DON'T show that diet and exercise can lose weight and keep it off- not because they lose effectiveness, but because almost no one can keep the diet and exercise regime up. Obviously, you can starve weight off. But thin people are clearly not people who have made a habit of undernourishing themselves- almost no one does that.
You are all going to feel very fucking stupid as the science evolves on this. Good thing you all post as AC and can hide behind "-1 as disagree", "downvotes", and social media tricks to suck the dicks of the other groupthinkers, along with other assorted bullshit. Twenty years after obesity is solved medically, your old comments will look so unbelievably backwards that your best bet will be to pretend you never said them.
Cool, I got modded troll for speaking the truth. Hell, in high school, two brothers- the fat one ate almost exactly half of what the thin one ate. In his 20s, the thinner brother finally had to start paying attention to what he ate (not literally "twice what a normal person would think a meal is"), but he's definitely not fat to this day. The fat one did weight watchers and other shenanigans, and still struggles to have a reasonably body to this day. Yes, he was eating "more than he needed", but you fucking know what? He's essentially been hungry his whole life, and the "amount of food his body needs" is QUITE clearly an amount that he ends up in constant hunger over.
That's the important part about all this. Did you know that the blood of two normal weight men, one who lost weight YEARS ago, and one who never had any tendency towards fatness, have vastly different levels of the hormones linked to satiety and hunger?
Yes, of course you can lose weight by eating less than your body needs to maintain its current weight. But that's never NOT been the case, and "starve yourself thin" is not why thin people are thin. They aren't starving. That's the point. There's very clearly triggers. Assclowns can mod me -1 all they like- it's very clearly the truth.
What about the study where they tried to get inmates to gain weight by overeating, and none could? If you think it's as simple as food consumed, you're willfully blind to reality (presumably, a reality which benefits you in some way, or at least you believe that to be the case).
No one fucking spends years eating twinkies and goddamned ho-hos. Every thin person I know eats random fucking bullshit, and every fat person tries every fucking thing on the planet to lose the weight and monitors their intake. Posting as AC was wise in your case- you have jack shit to add except the same random bullshit that idiots have been spewing while a huge percentage of the population spends more time, willpower, and money trying to lose weight than ever before, all while everyone is gaining weight.
Why would this bother you? This is really cool for anyone who wants blue eyes.
Assault rifles are automatic weaponry, and are regulated under laws from the 1930s and the 1980s (and likely other decades). Assault weapons are an imaginary category dreamed up by politicians that weapons from the 18th century can easily fall under, or not, as the definitions are political and oscillate depending on whatever looks scary.
I think a lot of books would be better served with 4-8 hours of cinema instead of 2, which is ludicrous.
The problem is that books don't follow the "movie flow" (go 60 minutes into most movies and watch an action scene!), detailed, among many other places, here: http://www.davidbordwell.net/e...
Since books are written *to be books*, scenes have to be added to maintain the flow, or subtracted to maintain the flow. This is one reason why you'll see them power through or skip important scenes, giving you the information you need quickly, while being willing to drag out some other lesser scene- movies are as choreographed in their pacing as a sonnet is with its rhymes, and a good movie doesn't make a good book, or a good book a good movie, except by chance, without the writing team adapting it.
So if a book is long and contains action or plot reveals irregularly, it may be possible to break it into multiple movies (and that could easily be correct). But unless you can meaningfully find "separation of acts" in the source material you will be ignoring large chunks of it and making it two hours long, no matter how ruinous.