I'll take the hello world, thx.
So, women==people, but also soylent_green==people.
I'd set up some cams to see what the visitors point at (getting the password or a narrow alphabetical space to bruteforce), and try to sniff their smartphone (fake open AP) so i get what the user could be. That will teach those suckers to look up their pass in public
This review looks in-depth at a pre-release prototype board (so-called Generation Zero, a development run of 50 units), giving you a pretty complete overview of what the finished board will look like.""
Link to Original Source
To me it doesn't change anything. This is about possible details of implementation of the universe, very useful scientifically, not so much philosophically.
You have a black box with I/O. You experience the output and can tweak the input. This piece of news says one can find a model that explains how the output behaves.
You can ask yourself "is the black box containing the circuitry that implements my model"? But you have to stop there, as you still don't have access to the box. It could be the circuitry you imagined, it could be something completely different.
This is the trolling style I prefer. Well done, sire.
> So, Microsoft finally does something no geek could object to...
A PR exercise, you mean?
Did I get it wrong or the NSA or some other agency can force a business to reveal its costumers' data AND keep silent about it?
If so, every privacy and encryption statement should include this fact. It doesn't? Then it's a PR exercise.
Do you NOT object to PR exercise about something as delicate as online security? I do.
If you think human behavior is not intangibly arcane, you haven't frequented enough women. Given that this is slashdot, there is no need for further elaboration.
Scientists can zap synapses to make this intangibly arcane stuff more or less variated, so what?
The personal computer is not a form factor, it is a philosophy.
No dependence on centralized service, computing done by the user, for the user.
Unless done properly, cloud and toys (smartphones, tablets) are a regression into the mainframe era. Give your toys enough control and you'll see.
Also, safety is dependent on the situation. A heavy car is safer when somebody crunches into you, but what about having to brake and/or change direction quickly to avoid something or somebody?
Electronics forgive many mistakes but what about an assisted steering failure that suddenly gives the driver a heavy wheel, and by the time that you think "what the fu..." you're already off the road?
Or what about the car getting outside the parameters that electronics can handle? From a reactive and predictable thing to a two ton, jelly wheeled, impossible to correct monster in less than 1 sec.
So, labeling the car as difficult to drive is a good thing, staying wary of all the other cars which are reportedly easier to drive is even better.
As I like to put it:
plants steal each other the light of the sun;
herbivores eat plants;
carnivores eat herbivores:
we set the record straight.
Corporations are persons and don't vote. Maybe chimps will be able to lobby, though.
What if I train a primate-turned-legal-person to shoot somebody? right now i'd be the assassin and the primate a weapon, I guess if the primate is a person it will collect responsibility and the judge will have to prove I am the instigator?
I duped the comment below, you can bring out the champagne.