It's likely you would be dead before then. Voyager 1 after 36 years is about 127 AU away. The oort cloud is believed to be at least 50,000 AU away [0]. So you'll have to wait about another 14,000 years.
485 karma · joined January 5, 2012
Today's 'unfalsifiable metaphysics' is tomorrow's Physics.
Neil deGrass Tyson makes a compelling point[0] that:
"But a careful reading of older texts, particularly those concerned with the universe itself, shows that the authors invoke divinity only when they reach the boundaries of their understanding. They appeal to a higher power only when staring into the ocean of their own ignorance".
He then goes on to show examples where Greats such as Newton proclaim some aspect of their work as only knowable by God, but then those same issues are tackled later by people who are unsatisfied by God as an explanation.
[0] http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/universe/211420/the-perimet...
It appears to me that that this could be a misunderstanding by the journalist. The entire rest of that paragraph is redacted. To my reading, it appears that this could just as easily be a case of "We want to bring to the court's attention the public's desire to have more information about these NSLs, including Google's denial of the scope of NSLs received in reaction to the Guardian article published on June 6th"
So that this would the attorney's way of showing the court that it's not just the redacted company that is affected, but also very public companies like Google.
Additionally, this informational Network Working Group draft has information on the status of existing dotless domains, without expressing an opinion on security or stability[1]
[0] - http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/sac053-dotless-d...
[1] - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffine-already-dotless-02
The original poster believes that this case is apparently the reason for Lavabit shutting down. The issue as hand is that a proper search warrant has been issued for the email address in the title. Lavabit appears to have chosen to shut down rather than respond to the search warrant (or has responded to the search warrant, but chosen to shut down rather than have it happen again)
[0] - http://lavabit.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U....
"in exchange for hosting a party on Speakeasy for our launch weekend"
From the article:
"The problem with this idea was two-fold: one, having previously worked in spirits marketing, I knew that spirits brands' turnaround time was way too long to get approval by February 14th"
Which seems to imply not only that they knew the law, but actively took it in to consideration.
Also note, that ultimately regardless of personal semicolon preference, this was an issue because of a parsing bug in JSMin. It was fixed in JSMin with this commit[0]. Other minifiers such as Closure and YUI did not exhibit any issues with the code as it had been written.
[0] https://github.com/douglascrockford/JSMin/commit/5ca277ea452...
[0] http://nodejs.org/download/
[1] https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Installing-Node.js-via-p...
One of the key facets of the the Xbox One is the Kinect as an always on device. As another poster pointed out, Microsoft has been quick to answer the privacy related questions that have been asked about this situation with the claim that the system has been built with privacy as a focus. As such, the reliability of those claims in light of this new leak appears to be relevant.
For example, given a court order, would Microsoft be required to:
1.) Provide law enforcement with Kinect data. (everything from as simple as "there were two people in the room" to "here is a live stream of the room"
2.) Be bound by gag orders not allowing Microsoft to reveal the existence of item 1.
3.) Be forced/coerced/enticed to provide bulk "wiretapping" of Kinect data.
Additionally, there is the question of "expectation of privacy". Many of the current privacy laws are based on this concept. However, could the courts decide that there is no expectation of privacy when a video and audio recording device has been placed in a private area, with full knowledge of the owner, also with knowledge that the data will be sent to a third party?
While these items might seem fringe (and before these leaks, I may have agreed), the scope of the current leaks seems to imply that these questions should at least be considered (even if a person chooses ultimately to accept the risk).
The following also works (from the command line):
ping 1249764136
From the linked article:
"This program is often confused with the financial bailouts provided to the then bankrupt GM and Chrysler, who were ineligible for the ATVM program, because a requirement of that program was good financial health."
So the real concern becomes, what happens when someone encodes something illegal in the block chain. As a trivial example, what happens when some sort of copyrighted material is embedded in the block chain. Can a country's court prevent it's citizens from participating in the bitcoin transactions as they hold a copy of the illegal material?
So the call is for a system whereby we bypass any legality issues by ensuring that encoding information in this way is not possible.
Is it an overreaction? Maybe it is, but since there may be real legal consequences to letting it continue, it seems prudent to put steps in place that prevent or hamper this possibility. Particularly as it has already been proven[0] that system has been used to store data in larger quantities.
Right about here:
_why was the first person to actually create art "around" and "about" software.
That statement is discarding the creative work of (at least) a whole generation of people. Certainly you claw a bit back by stating "but to my knowledge". However, the rest of your statement throws away that concession.
wench (wnch)
n.
1. A young woman or girl, especially a peasant girl.
2. A woman servant.
3. A wanton woman.
intr.v. wenched, wench·ing, wench·es
To consort or engage in sex with wanton women. Used of a man.
[0] http://www.virginmobileusa.com/shop/cell-phones/iphone-phone...
[1] Where unlimited data really means 2.5GB at full speed, and then 256KBps afterwards.
edit: Uses Sprint not Verizon
Similarly, the dart2js numbers are generated by compiling the benchmarks and harness to JavaScript and then running the generated code in V8.
Finally, the V8 numbers are generated using the same benchmarks written in JavaScript and with exactly the same harness rewritten in JavaScript.
From what I'm reading, this appears to suggest that Dart2js isn't faster than V8, but is instead faster than a handwritten code. Still a good achievement!
The reason I bring this up is because I was confused at how javascript (even compiled from Dart) could be faster than the engine that is running it.
Unfortunately, the Tao Manifesto is full of selective bias in order to convince readers of the benefits of τ over π. They pinpoint formulas that contain 2π while ignoring other formulas that do not.
This is semantically the same what Google does with their JSON responses [1]
[1] - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2669690/why-does-google-p...
A quick quiz of the people in my office shows that:
0% were wearing sunglasses inside at the time of asking
~7% said they wear sunglasses inside on a regular basis
~25% said they do not own sunglasses
I don't dispute the other points you make, but on this issue it seems you are a bit bubbled/optimistic.
Tire Size Comparison
Specification Sidewall Radius Diameter Circumference Revs/Mile Difference
245/45-19 4.3in 13.8in 27.7in 87.0in 729 0.0%
245/35-21 3.4in 13.9in 27.8in 87.2in 727 0.3%
Which is a 0.3% difference in total circumference. Which is not a significant source of discrepency.
[0] - http://www.teslamotors.com/models/specs [1] - http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html (I used the non-java form at the bottom of the page)
* sub-$50
* USB powered
* USB stick sized
* Plugs in to a monitor via USB
* Auto-suspends when removed.
* Auto-wake upon insertion
Using xml namespace: <input type="checkbox" ng:model="todo.done">
Using underscore in the attribute name: <input type="checkbox" ng_model="todo.done">
As an x-* attribute: <input type="checkbox" x-ng-model="todo.done">
As a HTML5 data attribute: <input type="checkbox" data-ng-model="todo.done">
I think their may be a few more, but in any case, Angular is flexible enough that you can choose the representation that is best for you and your team.