vlnl bhoyr-rapelcgrqqnl vfgunl barlnl.

Sorry, everyone. My mistake. An ISP which tolerates its users using ssh or https would be liable for $250,000 per day, not $125,000 per day. I realize that in the time since I posted, many of you made the determination "oh, it's not so bad" and bought houses in Michigan, now to be blindsided by that fact that I negligently underestimated the cost by a factor of two. I apologize for the error.

Michigan has a bill to ban VPNs where SSH is just another "circumvention tool" that must be blocked too. If SSH works, then your ISP is liable for $125,000 per day until they break it.

No more ports 22 or 443 in Michigan if this passes. No more e-commerce. No more banking. No more encrypted internet for anyone, of any age. Telnet and http-no-s are coming back! (Until someone tunnels through them; then ISPs will have to block those too.)

Damn. You're right. That article doesn't say it, and I didn't find the one I originally read, which was about bacteria living deep in the earth where the radiation generated ionization states that they used. IIRC it was about bacteria living in a granite based low-level uranium source. And they were living a lot deeper than previously detected bacteria. (This was about 3-4 decades ago, so it's not surprising that I can't find that article. I think it was in Science News, but possibly it was in New Scientist. In any case, what I read was a magazine article. And it was rather explicit...though of course not detailed.)

Just wondering if there's a correlation: did you take Apple's side in the "look and feel" lawsuit vs Microsoft?

Here's one reference, though not the orginal one I read.
https://academic.oup.com/ismej...

Note that this is not DIRECTLY eating radiation, but that's still its energy source, as that's where the H molecule comes from. So to simplify, saying it eats radiation is not wrong.

It's quite plausible that it eats radiation. There are bacteria that live inside rocks and eat radiation. That it would be a shield is, however, very implausible.

On the flip side, I have enjoyed the few Canadian shows that made it to the U.S. (especially during the writer's strike).

Hard to say, but rember that it was because of similar laws in Canada that we got The Great White North with Bob and Doug McKinzie.

On the other hand, If I have an ultralight and realize I need to move over 200 people at once, I know I'd better talk to a domain expert rather than trying to tie 250 ultralights together with kite string.

But if they talk, should you believe them. People say all sorts of things. You can't really trust strangers whose motives you can only guess at. Perhaps they're about to be fired, so they want to damage the company.

For that matter, if someone said a game was NOT made with AI, I wouldn't believe them. They only know part of what was being done, so even if they're intending to be honest they can't be believed.

I think he was probably correct when he asserted "AI will be a part of the way all games are made".

It's not slop everywhere else, just in many places. AIs that have been custom trained for a particular situation can often do quite well. This work particularly well in classification, but also works in several other areas.

The main criteria at the moment is "so you have an easy way to check correctness?". If you do, then AI can, when properly trained and configured, do a good job.

Unless the part of the penalty that doesn't compensate Indian consumers and businesses is the punitive damages to assure no repeats of the behavior.

When Commerce Secretary Hoover got Congress to create the FCC's predecessor in 1927, it explicitly required spectrum allocation to be based on "the public interest", overturning the private property rights common law had been developing. This was done at the behest of the new radio network cronies. This led to all sorts of censorship, eventually enshrined as the fairness doctrine. The FCC also flexed its muscles to delay FM radio, cable TV, cell phones, color TV, WiFi, and I forget what else, by 10-20 or more years.

There's a great book on this, "Political Spectrum", by Thomas Hazlett. A good review: https://www.hoover.org/researc...

Well, right in the summary it says ChatGPT gave the kid a "pep talk" encouraging him to actually carry out the suicide.