I'll see your Spaceballs
and raise you Quark. (No not that one.)
2739 publicly visible posts • joined 29 Jul 2007
"That's the issue, the problem, electorates of 'free' societies now face."
And what is this problem? The statistically insignificant problem or terrorism? Predatory paedophiles who have always existed even if we chose to ignore them? Emmanuel Goldstein? (He's out there, you know.)
O.K. I'll tell you. The problem is, always has been, and probably always will be, the desire of those in power to grab more of it.
In short, nothing's changed.
█████ ██████████ █████ ███████ █ ███ █████ █ ██ ████ ████ ████ █████ ██████ ██████ ███ █████ ██████ ████████ █████ █████ ██████ ██████ █ ████ ████ ██████ ██████████ ████ ██████████ ███████ ████ █████████ ██████
█████████ ██████ █ ██████ ████████ ███ █ ████████ █████ ███████ ████ █████ ██ ████ ██ █████████ █████████ █ ███████████ ███████████ ███ ████ ████████ ███████ █ █████ █████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██████████ █████ █████ ██████ ██████████ ██████ █ █████ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ ████ █████ ███ █████ ████ ███████ █████ █████████ ███████ ████ █████████ ███ ████ ███████ ████ ████ ██████ █████ fishcakes!
"I'm sure HP and Dell would sell you a Ryzen box if they thought it was profitable."
I doubt that hashing would word since the forwarded message would probably not have the same hash as the original) and those with malicious intent could just change it) but with the appropriate network analytics it should be possible to send a warning to those likely to be targeted. It needn't be perfect. Just catching a majority might be enough to prevent the critical mass needed for mob violence. Of course, it won't work at all if there is a critical mass of people just wanting an excuse for violence but sometimes just questioning the message, sowing a seed of doubt, can be enough.
A second point. The problem here seems to be the familiar one that the internet can spread lies faster than the relevant authorities can deal with them. (Yes, something like that was always true, but improved communications made it a much less serious problem. Now, it seems, we are going backwards.) I don't see it as an unreasonable burden for the companies involved to be required to help deal with a problem they are a party to creating.
I beg to differ. But I as cannot possibly say it better than Patton Oswalt, I will refer you to his take on Sky Cake.
Patton Oswalt is wrong. The reason psychopaths don't get to do what they want is not because someone invented religion to fool them, but because most people are not psychopaths1. Indeed, given that "leaders" tend to be psychopaths, you could argue that every religion is creation by started by a psychopaths because it takes someone with an interest in controlling others to take an idea and turn it into an organisation.
1. Altruism and a sense of community came first2 or there wouldn't have been anybody to invent religion.
2. On second thought, don't ask a chimp. It'll probably try to rip your arm off. Ask a bonobo. It'll try to have sex with you but that's just it's way of saying hello.
Six to eight months is only a few hundred writes. Nowhere near enough to hit the cell write limit unless you've got some very badly written code that somehow manages to continually write the same locations. I suspect it's your dashcam that doesn't deserve the enterprise moniker
Refusing to hear an appeal is the default for the Supreme Court and, given the number of petitions for appeals, overwhelmingly the most common outcome. Basically the court will hear an appeal if it thinks there is a sufficiently important issue of law at stake. Otherwise the lower court's decision stands. In effect the decision is "legally speaking nothing to see here folks - go home".
I'm a bit older than five and I've never learnt how to catch a ball. It's just not something I can do. Meanwhile, we have drones that can build a bridge.
From what I've seen automated fruit picking is done by the simple expedient of vigorously shaking the tree. For heavier fruit though you probably can't afford to let it fall so you have to find a way to hold it. But holding it and twisting it off? Not necessarily. A human has only two arms. A robot can have as many arms (and thus hold as many tools) as it needs. I wouldn't be particularly confident that the human way is the best way in more than a very small number of cases. Except of course that making a tool to do it is the human way.