Re: Why is it a fembot?
The reasons for it being female (or, indeed, having a gender at all) are more or less explained in the film.
181 posts • joined 15 Sep 2008
The reasons for it being female (or, indeed, having a gender at all) are more or less explained in the film.
Sometimes she gets naked first. Sometimes they record one half of the session and leave her bit out.
Sometimes they leave her out and then claim your partner was 13 years old. It doesn't matter that it wasn't true; a video of you wanking in front of a child will get you judged in the court of opinion and potentially ruin your life. It's easier and safer to pay, if it's not too much.
I hate all the victim-blaming that goes on here. This is a confidence trick. It relies on taking the time to build up trust.
Nxt is a proof of stake coin. There is no mining, hence no "insta-mine". The initial development was funded by crowd-sourcing, which anyone in the public could contribute to in exchange for an early stake. 73 people did. That was roughly a year ago. Since then the coin has had massive development, with many innovative "2.0" features being added, including messaging (with/without encryption), an asset exchange and a marketplace that runs trust-free. More features are on the way. As such it in no way matches the profile of a ponzi-coin, which are generally clones of Bitcoin or similar with no innovation or serious effort put into them.
LockStep, by Karl Schroeder, is built around it, and not just for long journeys. Not a great book, but definitely worth reading as an exploration of cryosleep.
Surely porn will fall foul of the uncanny valley? if you use computer models (as games will), the people will have dead eyes and unrealistic skin and generally not up to porn standards with live human models. If you use live human models, then you are stuck with whatever PoV the camera had when recording.
The card doesn't contain a battery.
Baking potatoes don't need to be peeled or chipped, and they don't need oil. Wash, prick and bake. Season them if you must. Eat the skins; they are nutritious.
The Apple watch has wireless charging, which should help keep it charged, and I hope it can sync time from your iPhone (which hopefully can sync from the network), as that should avoid any need to fiddle with it if it does go flat.
(My quartz watch uses solar power to top up its battery, and syncs time with a radio signal, so it hasn't needed any attention since I bought it.)
For me the killer feature would be payment by NFC, supposing the nation's infrastructure is up to it. For example, it should save me having to carry a pre-paid bus card. (Having NFC in a phone isn't enough for convenience, because getting a phone out isn't any harder than getting a wallet out; but my watch is already out.)
Other people want vibrate notifications for incoming messages and the like. Having the watch alert if it gets too far away from the phone would be useful for people who leave their phones behind, and having the phone lock/unlock depending on its proximity to the watch would useful for people who are concerned about their phones getting stolen.
Whether any of these features is included in any given smart watch product is another matter.
Wikileaks reused passwords, which is a basic security error. The Guardian journalist should not have published the password for his private sample anyway; but he had no way of knowing it had been reused on publically available archives.
from the profits from Guardians of the Galaxy?
True. Although removing the battery is itself a suspicious act that has helped persuade a jury that the accused was up to no good. Better to leave the phone at home (or wherever your alibi is).
Many people need the passwords to be available from a variety of machines. Their desktop, their phone, their tablet, etc. That's why the (encrypted) password database needs to be synced across the internet.
Do you think printing dollar bills has no environmental impact? Or forging pound coins? The cost of mining Bitcoin does not depend on how much it is used or how many new coins are created, so the current costs are about as bad as it gets, even as it scales to supplant other currencies which are less environmentally sound.
They could use Bitcoin or Nxt.
The expected lifetime of a fiat (ie, issued by government and not backed by anything) currency is about 30 years. You'd be surprised how many national currencies have failed within our lifetimes.
See http://georgewashington2.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/average-life-expectancy-for-fiat.html. "Twenty percent failed through hyperinflation, 21% were destroyed by war, 12% destroyed by independence, 24% were monetarily reformed, and 23% are still in circulation approaching one of the other outcomes."
There's a brief review for "Unlock with WiFi" here: http://lifehacker.com/5829514/unlock-with-wi-fi-saves-you-from-tedious-phone-passwords-when-youre-at-home. The review is dated 2011. Apple's application date is 2012. Apple were later.
"Unlock with WiFi" is the one I use. It sets the password to blank when it can see my home wireless network.
To make money from mining now, you need ASICs - application specific integrated circuits that are custom-designed to mine Bitcoin. They are much more efficient than GPUs at mining (and useless for anything else).
If you spent $800 by buying Bitcoins on an exchange, you get more coins than by spending the $800 on electricity for mining. If/when the price went up, you still be better off.
Mining generates 3,600 new coins a day, so 30,000 coins is less than 9 days worth. It's not a big volume.
The keys for these coins were held on the machine that ran the Silk Road. No-one is claiming to own them (because they would be incriminating themselves if they did so), so there is no-one to try. The chap they think ran the Silk Road has his own stash of coins, which won't be sold until after his trial (and then only if he's found guilty).
He's accused of rape. Rape is a serious crime.
Bitcoin lets you send money where-ever, and stores the balance in the block-chain, and does it all cheap, transparently and trust-free. If the bank isn't doing any of the clever stuff, why do we need it at all?
Do not send your coins to random addresses. That is not a good way to destroy them.
The correct way to destroy bitcoins is to send them with a transaction script that just has OP_RETURN. This type of transaction is provably unspendable, so there's no risk that someone secretly knows the private key and can resurrect them (much) later. This is also kinder to the network because it can be pruned from the "unspent transaction outputs" table.
Deliberately inserting virus signatures into the block chain has been talked about for a while. For example, http://pastebin.com/ct2WHUK5. Nor is this the first time it's happened, eg https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=559365. Unless there's evidence to the contrary, I would expect this to be deliberate.
That will happen on both consoles.
Bitcoins have value for the same reasons gold has value: both are hard to fake, available in limited supply, and facilitate trade. Bitcoins are hard to fake because there is a public ledger recording who owns them. Anyone can write updates to the ledger, but no-one else will believe them unless they have all the right digital signatures etc. That makes it almost impossible to spend coins you don't own.
However, because Bitcoin is distributed, it's possible to get two versions of the ledger, both equally valid, but different. In that case miners effectively vote for which one wins. To prevent someone stuffing the ballot box, votes are made expensive, and that's where the "proof of work" comes in: the winner is the (valid) ledger that has had the most CPU cycles spent on it.
So part of the complex number-crunching is for validating digital signatures, but most of it is for achieving consensus about ordering of updates.
The regulatory environment isn't as hostile as you seem to think it is. Both USA and UK governments consider Bitcoin to be legal, and issue guidance on how to pay taxes on profits you make with it.
Story is weak, and the game really isn't as good as the review implies. You can only jump or climb if the game has decided those actions make sense there, and you can only use rope arrows in marked places. It's frustrating how often plausible routes turn out not to have been thought of by the designers.
On the other hand, it's better than some other reviews. Dishonored is more fun, but at least Thief is a genuine sneaker. Dishonored devotes too much of the UI and game-play to combat.
Why repay? The Kickstarter folk were promised an early dev kit, which they were given, and that's the end of their involvement. People confuse funding via Kickstarter with buying shares. Kickstarter is used by companies that want money and don't want to give up their shares or control to get it.
Sony have already said theirs won't be available in 2014, and Microsoft seem even further away.
When you buy bitcoin from a reputable exchange, it will be subject to Know Your Customer and Anti-Money Laundering laws, so the coins are known to belong to you. Every transaction afterwards is published in the block-chain, which anyone can access. So bitcoin is actually very traceable, at least compared to cash. Whether anyone will bother is another matter, but if you get audited the data trail exists and can be used, either for you or against you.
And adverts. Don't forget the adverts.
Teach the controversy!
The Bitcoin protocol does not have any notion of "stolen", and nor does it have any central authority that could label coins as such. (Such an authority would have enormous power, and power corrupts; Bitcoin was invented as a distributed mechanism precisely to avoid such centralised power). Hence coins which one person claims are stolen, can still be freely traded under the Bitcoin protocol.
In theory you might try to reclaim stolen coins using conventional legal means. That would require identifying who currently possesses the coins so they can be reclaimed. That can be tricky because the coins are stored in (effectively) a numbered account and there is no registry that maps account numbers to real-world names and addresses. So for example, if the thief uses stolen coins to order a pizza, you might be able to discover the address the pizza was delivered to. That would require the cooperation of the pizza vendor; and if the thief holds onto the coins for 10 years without spending them there is little you can do for that long. Alternatively, you might be able to discover the IP address the coins were acquired through. Generally, there are things you can try, but there are also things the thief can do to defeat you. Identifying a Bitcoin thief requires technical know-how and resources (or a stupid thief).
In addition to technical challenges, you would have to prove the coins were stolen in some court that has jurisdiction. Lots of legal issues there. Arguably if the thief did not have good legal title to the coins, they couldn't pass good title to the pizza vendor, and you could reclaim the coins from him (much as you could reclaim a stolen car even if the current possessor had bought it in good faith; it would still be your car and your bitcoins). However, it's not clear Bitcoin works like that; cash doesn't, and Bitcoin was intended to work as cash, with transactions being irreversible.
Some of the sums involved in recent thefts are large enough that I would expect all legal and technical avenues to be pursued in recovering them. So maybe MtGox will get its coins back. It won't be quick, though.
You can already get insured storage of bitcoin. Eg https://www.elliptic.co/. They charge 2%/year. Presumably the rates will improve as they gain confidence with their security, and competition grows.
You can verify that a transaction has valid input and outputs, that the inputs contain the money specified, and that the signatures are correct so it is the owner of the coin that is spending them. You can do that yourself, locally, and it takes almost no time.
What that quick verification doesn't protect you from is double-spending. If the punter has a mate in a different country who tries to spend the same coin at the same time, only one of them will succeed, and it may not be the one who spent first (because "first" depends on network delays). Waiting 10 minutes mitigates that risk, and waiting for 6*10 minute confirmations generally makes it negligible. For small transactions, the risk of double-spending is low because the benefit is low, and its tricky to set up and you risk the wrong transaction winning anyway, and if it succeeds you probably won't be allowed in the pub again, so you might as well just do a runner instead.
Eventually vendors will probably be able to get insurance against double-spending, and we may even get "green-listed" bitcoin addresses which some trusted entity promises will not double-spend. There is still a role for banks, insurance companies and credit card companies in bitcoin, if/when they want to get involved.
(I don't know what that pub actually does.)
I'm not there either. I still have a Facebook app pre-loaded on my phone, which I can't uninstall. Now it repeatedly asks for updates, which I repeatedly refuse. The nagging is annoying.
This is not aimed at Bitcoin. It's aimed at illegal uses of Bitcoin. These coins are being treated no different to any other asset of a criminal enterprise. They're probably auctioning the server hardware too.
The Feds like Bitcoin. Check out the Senate hearing. They can see the benefits as well as anyone.
I want Pay By Bonk on my watch. It doesn't belong in a phone, because getting a phone out of you pocket isn't any easier than getting your wallet out. (By all means use the phone as a UI for the watch, though.)
@Mike Moyle: he said "many of them", not "all of them", so a few exceptions don't refute his point. And although gold etc has been used in the past, more recent history shows that many currencies moved off the gold standards because it is problematic. (Although not because gold has intrinsic value, but because governments found themselves unable to regulate its supply. They really want inflation to run at 2%/year or so, which is easy to arrange by printing more money but hard to arrange by mining more gold.)
That's my understanding too. (I don't have an XBox to check.) Apparently the juddering is most noticeable when the TV is outputting smoothly scrolling text, and when the 50Hz TV input is snapped alongside a 60Hz game. The XBox repeats every 5th frame, which some people notice and others don't.
It's been going for long enough to show you were wrong to dismiss it as a fad. And of course it won't improve your life if you don't use it. It improves my life by providing news and entertainment.
Unsigned integers are best avoided in C (and C-derived languages like C++ and Objective-C) because they are contagious. For example, (1u - 2) is not -1 as you might expect, but some huge number.
It's also useful to have -1 available to represent "no such number"; for example, the length of a file that doesn't exist. Use 0 would be wrong because it's a legitimate value. More generally, having invalid representations adds redundancy which can help error checking.
For me it's a bit bizarre how well TiVo are doing, given how archaic their platform is for the user. The UI is unbelievably slow. 9 seconds to redraw a screen. Scrolling through menus, it can't keep up with button clicks. It's also flakey; roughly one time in four the EPG won't give programme details are allow me to request a new recording. Some of the UI is in HD and some isn't. TiVo has its own app platform, but they live in a separate ghetto off the main menu which is rarely visited, and they don't integrate into the TV experience.
This standard may have been acceptable 11 years ago when I got my Series 1, but is shocking if you compare it to the experience from a modern smartphone. (Speaking of which, they've been promising us an Android app for years, but it's still not available.) Now we see the XBox One can snap its apps over the TV feed, it just rubs in how far TiVo is from what it could be.
They apparently didn't learn anything from the last time. It was a Guardian journalist who published the password to 250,000 unredacted US government cables.
Admittedly he didn't know the password for his file would unlock the "insurance" file, and WikiLeaks are at fault for reusing passwords (another basic fail), but he shouldn't have published the password anyway. Just knowing the general form that WikiLeaks uses (eg, that it contained a date in verbose format), would help someone trying to crack other WikiLeaks files. (See http://www.wikileaks.org/Guardian-journalist-negligently.html.)
Whether this justifies the interference with the press is another matter.
The PS4 has a more powerful GPU, with capacity to spare for non-graphics tasks. It has faster memory, with more of it available to games. Its internal hard-disk can be upgraded by the user. It's $100 cheaper. There's probably more that I forget.
But is it powerful enough? Few of us have had a chance to use it. John Carmack says it is (a) laggy; (b) like using a no-button mouse. I gather it can track arm positions, but not fingers, so no good way to "click" at a point. I hope it turns out to be better than it sounds, but currently it does not appear to be an asset worth paying the extra money for even if you liked that kind of thing.
Sony have always responded to the problem by, in effect, cheating and solving an easier problem. Their old Eye controller had a big sphere on it, so the camera could recognise it from any angle and deduce distance from its size. The new controller has bar light on it with known shape and colour, to similarly make life easier for the system. PS4 may be "less powerful", but if it works more effectively in real living rooms, it could be the better option.
It would have helped if they'd not locked down the desktop. I work for a software house. If we could have got our apps running on RT by just by recompiling them for ARM, we'd have seriously considered it. If it meant tweaking the UI to make it more finger-friendly, that might have been worth the effort too. Porting to a whole new API is much more work, and correspondingly harder to justify.
Using your phone for RFID payments is pointless because it's in your pocket, and if you have to get it out of your pocket you might as well get your wallet out instead. RFID belongs in a watch, so you can just push your hand close to the sensor until it vibrates to let you know it worked.