I think the next step forward is to start adopting acronyms of acronyms, as we often do in technology names (AJAX). Clearly it takes far too many keystrokes to express such emotions. And as a bonus we can build up fun chains of searches in the dictionary.
OL = OMG LOL = Oh my god, laugh out loud.
IW = IMHO WTH/F = In my humble opinion, what the hell.
Personally I think people are just as self centered now as always and we've just gotten better (supposedly) at measuring it.
Considering each of the questions is on a scale perhaps a more accurate conclusion is that we've become more honest about our own lack of empathy; maybe because such tests have become more anonymous and we are far less accountable for our answers than we used to be. Although that would mean that we've gotten better at measuring it...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Is this a recurrence relation? Accidents in cars cause people
Seems to me, those that are _not_ predisposed to violence have a better chance of rehabilitating than those that aren't. Shouldn't they need less time in the slammer to rehabilitate?
Assuming that time in jail does rehabilitate, someone who is not predisposed to violence and has in spite of that committed a violent act is probably in need of more rehabilitation than someone who let slip their violent nature. Nevertheless, I believe all sentences should be equal, and exceptions like these allow for a corrupt system.
Obviously Texas lawmakers are unfamiliar with the legal principle "Sticks and stones make break my bones, but words will never hurt me!" If I post online that Cmdr Taco is a goat fucker, have I really "harmed" him or his reputation in any way? It's not slander unless a reasonable person would believe it to be true, and no rational person believes Taco actually dates outside his own species (unlike Captain Kirk).
We all saw it, time to put out an affidavit for the arrest of Coward, first name Anonymous.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the technological "leap" here seems to be that any node can be the server of a wireless communication.
Wi-Fi Direct devices can connect in pairs or in groups. With Wi-Fi Direct only one of the devices needs to be compliant with Wi-Fi Direct to establish the peer-to-peer connection. So, for example, a Wi-Fi Direct-enabled mobile phone could establish a connection with a non-Wi-Fi Direct notebook computer to transfer files between the two.
Seems to be suggesting that a Wi-Fi Direct device will host an access point for the notebook computer to connect to. Otherwise how could such communication with a non Wi-Fi Direct node be possible? There are already certain wireless cards that allow running your device in master mode (appearing as an access point) so that others can connect to you. Combined with a repeater configuration and wireless N speeds and you have the equivalent connectivity of Wi-Fi Direct. So is the leap here that it will be made easy and standard?
That said, it has always been the case with computers (and robots are just computers with moving appendages) that if a hacker has physical access to the device, you're basically screwed anyways.
Yes but the vulnerabilities they studied were all over the network vulnerabilities which could be exploited without physical access.
They speak of "compromising" these robots as if user programmable devices are inherently bad. I don't want to see devices locked down into black box "no touch" state because of some fear mongering.
All these robots need is a lightweight linux installation running an ssh daemon to communicate through. Then nobody has anything to worry about.
In every non-trivial program there is at least one bug.