Precisely, it involves pressure, in that the pressure is precisely defined… And since 0K is pretty much defined to be absolute zero, you don't need anything else. What do I miss?
3439 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
I believe doing this will be far more difficult with driverless cars. To begin with, the driverless car will be far more adept at avoiding the collision than a normal driver. And even if you manage it, the driverless car will have complete records of the accident, including the suicidal behavior which caused it.
As far as I understand, Google already encrypts data from client to server, between servers, and at rest. They started doing this soon after the publication of the NSA slide which noted with a smiley that Google decrypted data as soon as it was on its network.
But that only makes it difficult for the NSA to hack user data. They can still get a secret court order (aka national security letter) and have Google hand it over.
The government has not made it mandatory to submit to examinations by mind-reading machines who will delve into your mind and read your every thought, despite the obvious advantage this would be for national security.
The question is, is the reason they haven't done it that they don't think the government has the right to do it, or is it only that these machines do not exist — yet?
Quite a lot of people would say that this is a feature, not a bug. Would you rather have the workstation salesmen undermine their own unit by pushing an inferior product, just because it is made by the same company?
At best, this would be inefficient; at worst, it can land you in regulatory trouble: See Microsoft and Internet Explorer.
Carriers certainly have a history of putting conditions for selling Android phones. E.g Verizon Galaxy Nexus phones were the only ones not to have the Google Wallet feature, because Verizon was trying to push its own payment solution.
It's hard to believe now, but at some point in the past Android was an underdog, and Google had to convince carriers to sell Android phones.
I think Yahoo has just decided that they needed to get rid of their shares of Alibaba, one way or another, with or without being taxed for it. So they might as well go ahead and do it now, since all preparations have already been done.
The IRS doesn't seem willing to decide fast, and Yahoo doesn't want to wait the possibly years it will take, when anyway it wouldn't change their decision.
The Spain experiment shows that publishers are actually benefiting from news aggregators rather than the reverse. In fact, if I remember correctly, publishers who want their articles to show up on Yahoo News actually have to pay Yahoo.
Considering Google's whole profits come from getting paid to show links to websites, they probably have a very good knowledge of who profits from what. It is understandable that they refuse to pay up.
I had to stop playing Blood Bowl because I was getting too attached to my players. Still, I proudly remember my best catcher, who had attained the level of Legend. He had gained so much agility that he could easily intercept within the tackle zone of two enemy players, then just walk away and score a touch down.
My last match, against a Chaos team, had me losing 1-0, the only goal just before the end of the game, and right after the KO by fouling of my last player still present on the field.
They didn’t consult us about the settlement, despite saying publicly that they had asked everyone
I've been following the whole story for a while, but I can't say I remember reading about Interactive Labs. Does anybody knows what they do? A cursory search did not return much, which is probably due to Google deliberately removing them from the results… Or the fact that there are bazillions of web pages containing the words "interactive labs".
The law does not force the website to remove the information. Some of them may even official government websites which are legally mandated to make the information available forever. This goes counter to the idea that irrelevant information should not be displayed.
The idea of the EU is that you can both have your cake and eat it by keeping the data on the website, and telling Google not to display these results in queries for personal names.
This certainly puts in perspective the very visible efforts at our company to insist on non-discriminatory treatment of minorities, encouragements for women to go for promotion and so on.
It seems that at this point, any large US company that is not publicly and ostentatiously pushing for gender equality at all levels opens itself to this type of lawsuit. I would had assumed that Microsoft had enough internal efforts to cover its ass, but maybe this lawsuit will prove me wrong.
Google has developed its ContentID music filtering technology to identify songs as they’re uploaded – but it refuses to turn it on.
Huh? Isn't ContentID famous for being not only turned on, but also trigger happy, and even abused by some media companies?
There was the time where it identified NASA footage of curiosity as being "owned" by a small TV company who hadn't bothered to remove it from their automatic uploads.
There was the time where half the let's play videos got flagged despite nobody having complained about it.
And a quick search finds many testimonials of how difficult it is for video creators to fight spurious claims from media outfits that are either by laziness or by dishonesty blindly confirming every single contested claim.
Does the law say "private data should exclusively be kept in our country", in a funny attempt to keep it safe from prying governments which I'm sure is making the NSA roll on the floor laughing, or does the law say "there should be a copy of the private data in our country" so they can have a look at it themselves?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019