Bad mouthing isn't fraud.
Bad mouthing isn't fraud.
There's no more likelihood of civil war come November 9th than there was eight years ago when Obama became President. Yes, there will be some miserable losers, and this time they'll have a miserable loser in Donald Trump, but they'll do what they did eight years ago, be assholes on the Internet and get on with their lives.
Which, as Nate Silver pointed out, is a very poor example considering the lack of polling at the time, and the fact that even with the limited data, there was some indication of Truman pulling ahead.
If Ecuador has decided to shut off his Internet access to stop him from trying to fuck around with the US election, I have a feeling that they wouldn't be any more tolerant of him using alternative means to continue the campaign. I honestly think that his days hanging out in the Ecuadorian Embassy are numbered, and too much pursuing of his October Surprise strategy is likely to mean he's shown the door.
That's what they said about iTunes, and Apple found a way. So I wouldn't count them out here...
Only because the music industry was totally oblivious to what would happen when they let Apple control the DRM, the same way IBM let Microsoft control the OS. They had to drop DRM because they were being buttfucked by Apple who used their market power to sell cheap music and expensive iPods and all their customers were locked in since FairPlay protected music wouldn't play anywhere else.
The motion picture studios have never been that stupid, even long before iTunes they controlled CSS on DVDs, they control AACS/BD+ on BluRays and AACS 2.0 on UHD BluRay and they have no reason to drop DRM. At worst even if it's broken they can still try using the DMCA and EUCD to make decryption tools illegal. And unlike the iPod that filled a need for a device people didn't have there's already tons of ways to play movies and series.
It's of course possible that Apple could find their Achilles heel but I don't think it's very likely, with or without Jobs. The industry would most certainly smell a trap, even if they couldn't figure out what it was. As much as I'd like them to just give up and have the convenience of a torrent site I think it's just very wishful thinking. That said, there are a lot of cable cutters so maybe...
Circumstantial may mean there's a question mark, but it doesn't mean "no evidence at all". Certainly Russia would gain greatly from a President who was less willing to stand behind the US's European allies, and who, all in all, would likely represent a more inward-gazing US. Russia has no hope in hell of ever militarily dominating the West, but if it can divide, then it gains a great deal of strategic space.
Clinton's victory means the general policy towards Russia that has, by and large, been the US's strategy since the Truman Administration, remains intact, so it is clearly in Russia's interest to try to help the person that at least might represent a break with that strategy.
Yes, it is circumstantial, and there is a possible counterargument that not even Putin actually would want someone as potentially unpredictable as Donald Trump in the White House, but I still lean towards Russia wanting a more isolationist Administration in the White House, much as it wants the European Union and NATO to be weakened. These three entities; the US, the EU and NATO represent significant checks on Russia's ability to project its power, and if any or all of them can be weakened or eliminated, it is of enormous strategic advantage to Russia.
Ah yes, the real damaging ones are just around the corner...
It's less than three weeks away, and no modern presidential candidate has ever come from this far behind at this late a date, so if Assange and Friends really are interested in tanking the Clinton campaign, to wait until this late date, AFTER millions have already cast their ballots, would be idiotic.
The alternative explanation is that there really isn't anything there so odious that it's going to make a difference, and this is just Assange's latest "Look at me!" bid.
Probably his last, too, if the rumors that Ecuador is in discussions to kick his ass out of the embassy.
Phishing is a tool that can be used by scammers or hackers. In this case, yes, it was hacking.
I mean nothing wrong with having it on the platform, but it isn't exactly the pinnacle of modern tech. It was released in 2011, and the console versions were designed to target systems with 512MB of RAM (unified for the 360, 256/256 system/GPU for the PS3) at 1280x720@30fps. That was fairly low spec then, since the consoles were old (remember Oblivion released in 2006 as one of the first flight titles on the Xbox 360) and is really low spec now. It wouldn't at all surprise me if my Shield Tablet could handle it easily. It has more RAM, and its GPU seems to be at least as powerful as the 360/PS3 era stuff.
So while there's nothing wrong with Nintendo getting games like this, it isn't really some major win, or proof of a high spec system. We saw the same kind of thing happen with the Wii U where it got games that previously the Wii hadn't because of a lack of power.
The issue in the long run is that being too low spec can exclude games from being released on your platform. While people like to claim "graphics don't matter" they do and they sell games. That aside, there are a lot of things you could want to put in a game that will require more memory, more CPU, more GPU and so on. Developers aren't always going to be interested in either compromising on what they want to make, or producing a cut-down version to target the lower spec hardware.
there were two failures: the parachute release and the burn length. But both were likely set in the software on the lander, so I suspect parameters got borked somehow.
As in hardcoded on a timer? Unlikely. This is quite far into the descent and the parachute was probably supposed to jettison when a certain altitude/velocity was reached. That both the parachute and thusters was off suggests to me a sensor failure led the probe to think it was going much slower or flying much lower than reality. It would be odd for both systems to fail and at the same time be in good enough condition to send radio signals.
If it makes Windows solid, with no crashes and spyware? Sure bring it on, can't be any worse than what Google and Apple are doing.
And if you are saying this "cuz Linux" I honestly do not care, Linux can DIAF because for 20+ damned years we have watched the Linux community fuck themselves up and shoot themselves in the face over and over AND OVER with one dumb as fuck move after another. I swear after dealing with Linux for the better part of a decade I am now sure its run from bizzaroland, where the devs go "quick things am starting to get stable and users am happy! We must rip out major subsystem so the OS is sent backwards half a decade and will take years just to get back to where it was, then users will feel they am 'leet' if they can just get the thing to run! Aren't we am smart?"
So at this point I have zero fucks to give, if Billy came back and put out an OS that run was well as XP X64 or Win 7 X64? He could be as big a douchenozzle as he wanted, I have zero doubt you'd have hundreds of millions lining up to sing his praises after 3 stinkers in a row. Again couldn't be any worse than Google with their rigging search results to support their political investments and putting more and more APIs behind the Playwall or Apple hiring companies to make its products that treat workers so badly they had to put suicide nets outside the factories to keep visitors from being hit by falling workers.
The point I was making, that if a human can interpret the visual information it's given, then a car with a bigger sensor set can in theory do it too. It's all about software at that point, but there's no limitation on hardware here that a human doesn't have.
Yeah but... Tesla's claim is like saying the brain consumes about 20W, the car can deliver 20W so it's "ready to support an artifical brain". While that might be technically correct it is also grossly misleading, in that we don't have and don't really expect to have an AI working at all or so well and certainly not within the constraints of a human body in the foreseeable future. Same thing with cameras, I expect the first real SDCs to use optical and radar and lidar and every other trick in the book to overcome the shortcomings of the brain behind it. Same way some talk of trying to simulate the brain with >10 megawatt computers.
You might be able to salvage ~20% of them with humans aboard. Might. Meanwhile, humans are a massive added source of additional risk to a mission; they dramatically increase spacecraft size, complexity / part count, consumables, and just in general make things far more difficult.
Having people on board cause their own problems, you wouldn't have to improvise CO2 filters on Apollo 13 if there was no one that needed oxygen so they might cause aborts too not just salvage them. Having humans on board will also limit your alternatives and lead to its own time constraints because you have to keep the crew alive. And most importantly, humans are not expendable and unmanned probes couldn't have any realistic return plan even if you wanted to so in most cases they still wouldn't be an option.
And it's not like NASA just send things out there with plan A and no plan B or a static programming they're stuck with. They try to find possible failure modes, emergency states, when the rovers get stuck on Mars they have huge team back on Earth trying to find out how to best wiggle free. That said, I think a research outpost on Mars could be useful. But as for the rocketry, most problems will be totally catastrophic no matter what. I'm sure there's a lot more practical issues to having an outpost a human could deal with, though I admit it's a bit circular because the reason to have an outpost is so people can be there. Otherwise you'd just send specialized probes to do their one thing.
From what I can tell, Trump's only real strategy here is to use his presidential bid as a launching point for a TV network.
These people got plenty of practice from quote mining scientists' statements in the "Climategate" emails.
"Oh what wouldn't I give to be spat at in the face..." -- a prisoner in "Life of Brian"