Yeah, we'll see how much Gabe believes that when he releases Half-Life 3 without DRM.........
Bwah? Did you even read what he said, or are you having serious logic fail? To be consistent with what he said, he needs to release HL3 everywhere in the world, 24x7, purchasable from the convenience of your PC, without region-locking, at the same time as the US release, and not just in brick-and-mortar stores. Nothing in what he said implies he thinks it needs to be DRM-free. Unless you think he intends to withhold the release from Steam, it seems quite likely he believes what he said absolutely 100%.
For a technical magazine with a thousand subscribers that might work, but in general this technique is dumb. So what if a DVD leaked online which was watermarked as belonging to Anonymous C. Oward ? There's zero liability due to viruses and trojans. The risk of public shaming will not secure the computers of the world (if only it would be that easy... "THIS is the picture of the idiot who wants to increase his manhood by software").
Ah, that stupid fallacy again. A measure won't completely and totally solve a problem 100%, and therefore it has no value at all whatsoever.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, where binary thinking is stupid and reality is analog, a solution that reduces the problem has value, even if it doesn't stop all cases. The kind of piracy this measure is aimed at reducing is effectively reduced by this measure. The only relevant question is, does the amount of reduction justify the cost. Whether John Obvious-Alias Doe distributes it freely on the torrents is utterly irrelevant to the question. The torrent users are mostly a lost cause, the goal is to discourage Alice from giving a copy to Bob.
Is this what the singularity looks like?
Consider it a small sneak preview...
I'm guessing the next big revolution in AI is the quest to figure out how to get digital problem solvers to teach us meat heads how they actually figured this stuff out.
The thing, we already know exactly how they figured it out -- we wrote the instructions they followed to do so. We know exactly how they figured it out, we just don't understand the solution.
It might not be security theatre but it is still security circus. Anyone think a dedicated terrorist of the muslim kind would care? If the light turns red just blow up then and there.
Killing a dozen people at the terminal, instead of three hundred people on board an airplane. You just described the system working quite well at its job (keeping the airplane safe). Was that supposed to be an argument against it? It's supposed to be the airplane safe. It's not supposed to stop all terrorism. The people proposing this are well aware of the fact that no matter how much security you have at the airport, people can still blow themselves up somewhere (and frequently do -- busy markets are actually more frequent targets than aircraft). Not a pleasant fact, but beside the point here...
With a monolithic culture, a purely random process makes sense... Could you please direct me to that imaginary monolithic culture? I want to move there and F*ck it all up...
Imagine wasting 70 percent of your time searching grandmothers, children, and the handicapped instead of searching the more likely demographic. It's pure idiocy to think profiling is a bad thing. If you are profiling to harass then yes it is bad but if you are profiling because the profiled group is doing all of the bad things then profiling is not bad. Only an idiot can't see such an obvious truth...
If you have a building with four entrances, and you have twelve guards to cover them, do you put three at each entrance, covering each as best you can, or do you put nine on one entrance you think is most likely to see an attacker, and only one on each of the other three?
If you're an idiot, you do the latter. If you're not an idiot, you realize the former yields maximum security, because as soon as you put all your guards on one entrance, it becomes far easier for an attacker to get in, they just use one of the other three.
If you can understand that, you should be able to comprehend why searching any particular demographic more (and thus, by diverting resources, means you search others less) makes you less secure, not more. As soon as your move resources into an uneven distribution mode, you open up exploitable holes, and you're a moron if you think your enemy won't exploit that.
Your "obvious truth" is the kind of thing uneducated people who don't really understand the problem say. Answers always seem obvious when you don't understand the problem -- but you could actually try educating yourself before spouting off idiotic nonsense...
It can be gamed if you have enough volunteers for suicide missions. So some of them get searched and caught, woo hoo; one will get through eventually. You just have to not care about your cannon fodder (which given you're sending them to blow themselves up is pretty much a given....)
I don't think you grasp the fundamental concepts here. To "game" the system in this context means taking advantage of features of the system to make sure your fodder has a better chance of getting through. What you're describing is just accepting lower success rates because the system can't be gamed in that way.
Not all that flows is H2O. Not sure how they could determine the chemical composition of what formed these.
Well, for that matter, the delta-like feature could have been sculpted by aliens. However, it's generally safe to rule out any absurdly unlikely reason when a far more likely one is available. There aren't a lot of candidates for alternate liquids to occur in large enough quantities at that location. In fact, I'm only aware of the one candidate, unless you want to resort to bonkers-level improbabilities (the chemical equivalent of "aliens did it")...
Does absolutely nothing that high schools can't (Drivers Ed and school nurses) except take your money and waste your time.
You do nothing that a small shell script can't except post silly comments and waste our time.
Just because it's part of official propaganda doesn't mean you should take it on face value.
They weren't. They were pointing out that the Mongolia being referred to in the story is the independent country that's not a part of China, and making the distinction between the two Mongolias without getting bogged down in a discussion of internal Chinese politics that would be utterly irrelevant to the point being made.
In the end, greed ends humanity. Biblical or something.
Yes, this gets predicted every day going back to the invention of language. Alas, it never happens. We continue to lurch and stumble forward into the future like the large group of incompetent boobs that we are...
Does such a department even exist?
Of course it does. One does not accidentally create a headline so well fine tuned to misrepresent the contents of a story or contradict its conclusions. It requires careful editing...
She could keep it in a little bag though. No need to lug a suitcase around. And after many crashes she won't have any opportunity to grab her bags so she is going to be reliant on medical staff on the ground anyway. Since she can always get her insulin from a hospital in SF, is her bag really more important than the child burning to death behind her?
In the absence of burning children, the idiot who throws her bag into the fire without knowing whether it contains commonly found, easy to obtain insulin or something rare and possibly irreplaceable on short notice ought to be thrown into the fire before he actually kills someone with his rage instead of causing a minor inconvenience for this guy's wife. This guy's wife is probably being slightly unwise in an emergency. The guy who throws her bag in the fire is a dangerous psychopath, or at least has both extremely serious anger-management issues and poor judgement -- not a good combination.
"I just want to be a good engineer." -- Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computer, concluding his keynote speech at the 1988 AppleFest