There are dicks everywhere. People of all religions, ethnicities, colors, and even financial backgrounds don't like and/or trust other people who are not like them.
Well yes, but using extremes can often lead to a sort of moral relativism where everybody is equally bad even though one is a fringe movement and the other a mainstream sentiment. I'm sure there were a few black supremacists, but nothing like the KKK. I'm sure some Jews hated the Nazis, but nothing like the Holocaust. I don't know if it's been listed as a fallacy but the appeal to indifference certainly should be, like they were probably just as bad as us. No, they probably weren't.
No, the purpose of AI should be that it can problem solve and adapt to a situation as well, or better than us. With an unfair reaction benefit it can actually problem solve worse, yet still win simply because it has an external advantage. That doesn't sound like a win for AI to me.
If a self-driving car can drive better than you because it's got 360 degree vision, millisecond reaction time and the capacity to focus on ten different factors at once is that "cheating"? I think that's a matter of perspective, limiting it to the wheel's turning rate and the pedals' actuation force sounds like unreasonably hampering the performance. Maybe that's not a "fair" fight, but I'd say we probably want the computer to play to its strengths and not mimic our weaknesses.
If you think that SHA-3 somehow magically makes everything more secure for verifying data have not been modified in transit (e.g., installer gets corrupted while being downloaded) because you replaced all the SHA-2 hashes with SHA-3 hashes on the installer download page which is served over insecure HTTP, then I suspect you may not fully understand what threats you are trying to protect against.
The point is that if you're trying to use a hash instead of a checksum, it'll actually work as advertised. If you only care about random bit flips CRC32 will work very well and be much faster than MD5 or SHA-1. If you're doing major overkill you might not care that a hash doesn't function as a hash because you don't actually need a hash but that's no reason to use a bad hash. You should either use a good hash or use a lesser solution that doesn't pretend to make promises it can't hold.
You just accept them because you are affiliated with the same party.
THAT'S A GODDAMNED LIE.
See, that's exactly the short of fucked-up false-dichotomy thinking I was complaining about in the first place! I'm a LIBERTARIAN , not a Democrat.
The Clintons, both of them, are every bit as horrible as Trump.
That's the thing, THEY'RE REALLY NOT. The Clinton's are horrible in a "normal" corrupt-big-government sort of way, but they PALE IN COMPARSION to the damage to civil liberties and democracy itself that Trump is doing! The Clintons never (a) kicked the media out of white house briefings, (b) stuffed their administration full of LITERAL WHITE SUPREMACISTS, attempted to normalize lying to the public in a strategy straight out of 1984 or Mein Kampf, or done any of a hundred other ACTUALLY, LITERALLY, AND WITHOUT EXAGGERATION FASCIST things!
The socialist state IS the insurance.
But breeders, who are placing a greater load upon the system, actually get a deduction for each rug rat. They're expected to pay less in taxes because they're producing offspring we don't need, unless we're short on low-information voters.
I think Joe Branya would recommend turning them both off, as well as Flash and Silverlight.
If most people change the default to no JS, what steps should a developer of a web application take to convince prospective users that the web application is legitimate? Or should all applications instead be native and therefore specific to a single operating system?
Actually no. I went out and engaged in another activity other than sitting in front of my PC all day.
I didn't actually imply that I hurt your feelings. But clearly I insulted someone.
The rules changed last August for everyone, not just commercial guys.
Yeah, that's when the AMA published this information. Last August.
My ex was stupid enough to actually call the phone number they put up on the screen, after which some Indian guy asked her for money.
And there are people on YouTube who mess with those scammers in India and screencap it: Lewis's Tech, Thunder Tech, Each&Everything, etc.
Aww, did I hurt someone's poor wittwe feewings? Probably a pilot, huh? As an AMA member in good standing who actually reads his copies of Model Aviation I know that one doesn't know what one is talking about when one claims that you have to ask permission to fly within five miles of an airport. The AMA requires members to notify an airport if they wish to operate a model above 400' AGL when within 3 miles of an airport. The law requires all UAS pilots (registered or not) to notify an airport when operating within five miles. The AMA also informed me that "most" airport addresses and contact information are available at Skyvector.com but that if you can't make contact, or if you want to establish a permanent flying location, you should contact the AMA for assistance.
If you think you may not operate a drone within five miles of an airport without permission, you are badly, sadly mistaken.
Likewise, Obama's expansion of H-1b visas during a freakin' depression eventually pushed this guy over the edge.
Got to start the war somewhere.
Nah, they just do it by immigration status- H-1b's at 90% of standard salary are much cheaper.
As a hobbyist, you're required to get permission (good luck with that) to fly within 5 miles of any airport (including heliports and grass strips),
No. As a hobbyist, you are required to notify the airfield. You don't have to ask permission. You can send them a letter saying you're going to be flying out of a particular area frequently, too, so you don't have to notify them every time. Some airports have actually set up webpages so that you can notify them with a web form, e.g. Watsonville. I guess if you can get certification, I ought to get off my ass and get it as well.
"For a male and female to live continuously together is... biologically speaking, an extremely unnatural condition." -- Robert Briffault