Slashdot Mirror

Dude! These people look at video games all day! They'll be violent as fuck! The secret service will probably have to mow them down with the Presidential Gatling Gun to keep them off the POTUS!

nope, your clothing and shoes are made by hand.

Only because the materials used in clothing are flexible enough to make fully automated manufacturing challenging, and even that is likely to change in the very, very near future. Oh, and for shoes, it already has changed to a large extent.

And even in factories with low levels of automation, large parts of the work are still done by machine. Humans guide the material through the machines, but the sewing is still done by machine, not by hand stitching, which means orders of magnitude fewer people are involved than historically were. So when I say that manufacturing is mostly automated, that includes garments and shoes.

how is the work on your cars and trucks done? oh yeah, by mechanics.

The mechanics plug in a diagnostic machine, it figures out what part to replace, and a person replaces it. It's only a matter of time before that final step is automated. Once you train one robot to do the work, you can have a million robots doing that same task for the cost of building the hardware. The leap from robot manufacturing to robot repair is a lot smaller than you seem to believe. The minute one car company does it, they'll all rush to do it, because the labor cost on car repairs is downright insane. Frankly, if any industry is ripe for automation, that's it.

how is building inspection done? oh, by people.

Only because buildings are still built by people. When robot house builders take over that industry, the verification will be done by someone signing off on the wiring diagram, and inspections will be as unnecessary as the builders.

engineers design things, scientists study things, tradesmen build things, repairmen repair things......

If you look at electronics, engineers design things, machines build things, machines package things up for delivery, and soon machines will handle the delivery, too. If you honestly believe that any other manufacturing industry is significantly different in some way that will make it impractical to automated, I have a bridge to sell you.

And although you are correct that there will still be people doing repairs for a long time to come, that is true only for the sorts of repairs that involve going to the customer site, such as plumbing, refrigerator repair, etc. Car repairs and electronic repairs are on the short list for automation. Apple is already doing cell phone screen repairs by automated machine. By 2030, the only people doing electronic repairs by hand will be the independent repair shops, assuming the manufacturers' zero-labor repairs don't undercut them and run them out of business.

this won't change anytime soon, because AI is mostly a farce with nothing fundamental new in decades.

This has already changed, and if you haven't noticed, it's no surprise that you still think AI is a farce with nothing fundamentally new in decades.

It seems that a lot of people overestimate AI. There are just so many things that are insanely easy for humans that are really hard for machines.

People believe some sort of unsupervised deep learning method will come along and solve all these problems. But it might never come. Maybe deep learning will only work well with supervised data.

We might have to wait for the next breakthrough on unsupervised learning to achieve it and who knows when that will come.

nope, your clothing and shoes are made by hand.

Only because the materials used in clothing are flexible enough to make fully automated manufacturing challenging, and even that is likely to change in the very, very near future. Oh, and for shoes, it already has changed to a large extent.

And even in factories with low levels of automation, large parts of the work are still done by machine. Humans guide the material through the machines, but the sewing is still done by machine, not by hand stitching, which means orders of magnitude fewer people are involved than historically were. So when I say that manufacturing is mostly automated, that includes garments and shoes.

how is the work on your cars and trucks done? oh yeah, by mechanics.

The mechanics plug in a diagnostic machine, it figures out what part to replace, and a person replaces it. It's only a matter of time before that final step is automated. Once you train one robot to do the work, you can have a million robots doing that same task for the cost of building the hardware. The leap from robot manufacturing to robot repair is a lot smaller than you seem to believe. The minute one car company does it, they'll all rush to do it, because the labor cost on car repairs is downright insane. Frankly, if any industry is ripe for automation, that's it.

how is building inspection done? oh, by people.

Only because buildings are still built by people. When robot house builders take over that industry, the verification will be done by someone signing off on the wiring diagram, and inspections will be as unnecessary as the builders.

engineers design things, scientists study things, tradesmen build things, repairmen repair things......

If you look at electronics, engineers design things, machines build things, machines package things up for delivery, and soon machines will handle the delivery, too. If you honestly believe that any other manufacturing industry is significantly different in some way that will make it impractical to automated, I have a bridge to sell you.

And although you are correct that there will still be people doing repairs for a long time to come, that is true only for the sorts of repairs that involve going to the customer site, such as plumbing, refrigerator repair, etc. Car repairs and electronic repairs are on the short list for automation. Apple is already doing cell phone screen repairs by automated machine. By 2030, the only people doing electronic repairs by hand will be the independent repair shops, assuming the manufacturers' zero-labor repairs don't undercut them and run them out of business.

this won't change anytime soon, because AI is mostly a farce with nothing fundamental new in decades.

This has already changed, and if you haven't noticed, it's no surprise that you still think AI is a farce with nothing fundamentally new in decades.

What we need is a self-driving car with a fake wooden driver, so as not to alarm the other humans traveling on the road.

hat tip: horsey horseless.

None of the positive things have something to do with a walled garden. At best the malware thing has to do with an app store.
Walled garden only helps if somehow having e.g. root access makes you unable to resist installing random crap from the internet, but then I would say a better impulse control would on your side would be a worthy thing to strive for instead.
Security and updates you can mostly get from select vendors on Android as well, though admittedly it is a big issue because most smartphone companies are a sad joke when it comes to software competence, and the little they have they decide to spend on useless crap.

"Random crap from the internet"?!? Boy, THAT's rich!!!

HOW many reports of Malware have their been regarding APPROVED Apps from the Google Play Store?!?

https://9to5google.com/2018/01...

https://www.cnet.com/news/goog...

http://www.zdnet.com/article/p...

http://fortune.com/2017/09/14/...

https://www.digitaltrends.com/...

https://blog.malwarebytes.com/...

https://www.wired.com/story/go...

Genuinely sorry if there are (likely are) dups in the above list. But you get the picture.

And if you say "Well, but Google REMOVED these Apps, proving the system works!" It begs the question, how many people downloaded and had their information stolen, etc. BEFORE an App was removed?!?

This is a lie. It is not illegal.

Educate yourself. Local governments almost always grant exclusive monopolies to providers in exchange for fat paybacks - either increased tax revenues, big political donations, or often both. If you just bothered to RTFA, you would have learned that often Google was prevented from using PUBLIC poles via Government-granted monopolies to existing carriers.

I'm going to guess Apple pays $0 to SuperKendall, more likely actually checked the facts.

When you say Face ID was easily broken, do you mean easily broken with a $200 3D printed mask as long as the user turns off liveness detection?
Also not using just a photo but also a depth recording of your face

https://www.wired.com/story/ha...
http://bgr.com/2017/11/12/face...

I'm pretty damn sure Touch ID is way easier to crack than that.

Is this what you were talking about: https://www.wired.com/story/ag...

If so, it is quite far from what I am recommending with EPR, though such a metric could be one of the relevant dimensions in certain contexts.

You made a good choice to go vegan. There have been a number of studies that show positive outcomes for diabetics on vegan diets. Whether it's "no meat" or "calorie restriction" or something else, no one actually knows, but there is clear evidence that being vegan helps.

Interesting that you're now off the metformin. I've been a diabetic for 8 years, but never received any clear diagnosis of what type. The best guess from a Dr is that I have LADA. For treatment I take Lantus (long acting insulin) daily, Humalog (fast insulin) with each meal, and on top of that, I'm on the max dose of 2000mg of metformin each day. The research group attached to my endocrinologist are of the firm opinion that metformin is a "wonder drug" and that everyone should be on it, even non-diabetics. Here is an article about it.

So I'm going to keep taking the metformin in the hope that it improves my health beyond the negative effects of the diabetes.

As for diabetes management. Without a doubt, diet and exercise is the place to start. Be active. Don't drink. Don't smoke. Be on the best diet (vegan if you want to, but at the very least: whole foods, reduced carbs, somewhat calorie restricted from time to time) you can, and then take the bare minimum of medication (insulin or otherwise) to keep your blood sugars at the recommended levels.

Unfortunately, even with all of that, us diabetics have our life expectancy shortened by 10-20 years, so make the most of what you have, while you can. Good luck!

its a place of employment and it should be politically and culturally sterile. find another forum do express yourself outside of work.

The problem is that when you work for a company like Google, there is no place "outside of work". Employees are encouraged to spend their spare time at work. They don't go out to lunch. And they're even encouraged to pursue their hobbies while at work.

"Which has up to now been assumed to exist" assumed by who? Because I clearly remember apple trying to claim and also fight in court that jailbreaking is illegal Also that fixing your home button is illegal - they bricked phones over it before the backlash of stupid forced them to recant (FFS just disable the print reader not the phone) Tell this to farmers who can't repair thier own tractors because it's illegal, it goes on and on. We wouldn't need right to repair laws if it was always assumed.

While the general trend of automation has been to make life easier for people, it hasn't always been easy. The reason luddites came about in the first place was that industrialization led to dangerous and degrading employment that benefitted those who owned the means of production at the expense of those who worked in the factories. For over a century industrialization benefitted the few at the expense of the many. While we may look back and think it's worth it because of how it all worked out for our benefit, if we become the ones stuck in such a rut then it won't seem so rosy.

Furthermore, there are other factors that need to be considered. Everyone loves to praise the inefficiency of the U.S. government as a feature to prevent rash changes, but automation presents unique problems that will require our government to change in ways that may be barred by the Constitution. For instance, education is left to the states and this cannot be changed without a Constitutional amendment. Without blue-collar jobs or a massive implementation of welfare, automation will most definitely leave many destitute. And AI will only complicate matters further. So many of these STEM jobs that are currently being touted will be compromised by AI. Computer programming is an area that will probably soon become too complex for humans to do (how many here honestly think they could tinker with Google's code?).

The problem isn't just that automation will take jobs away. The problem is that the challenges of automation will force us to rethink distributive justice in ways that most people are unprepared to do. Automation will be inherently incompatible with laissez-faire capitalism, which is a sacred cow to roughly 50% of the voters in the U.S. Bill Joy warned us almost twenty years ago.

While none of what you quoted was incorrect, the bolding and selections appear to me to be either a misinterpretation or promotion of a false narrative.

I disagree. You give them a whole lot more benefit of the doubt than I do. I will agree that the legalese can probably be interpreted different ways, but when it is open to interpretation, you should assume it will be interpreted to the detriment of the user.

unique device identifier

However, a device ID on its own doesn't seem very compromising without tying it to a person

It is only treated as personally identifiable, if Apple combines it before selling it. A lot of advertisers have ways to combine it with other data themselves. For example, here is one article on how advertisers use the unique device identifier to identify users:
https://www.wired.com/2011/05/...

Referrers and IPs are just a reality across the whole of the web. I consider myself more sensitive to privacy issues than most and I've just come to accept it.

Yes, but my point is that they should be treated as personal information. Referral URLs often even include personal information like your address. Apple treats the Web sites you visit as non-personal information that they can do whatever they want with.

location share precise location data

Unless you provide consent, this location data is collected anonymously in a form that does not personally identify you.

I'm sorry, but even if your precise location history isn't tied to your name or any other information by Apple, it is trivial to do so. Someone can easily look at your location at night and see where you sleep and tie that to your identity.

You didn't highlight the our bit before it.

This is a news article about Apple, so I didn't think emphasizing that it was about Apple was necessary.

"We may collect, use, transfer, and disclose non-personal information for any purpose."

They might share a bunch of anonymized and/or aggregated information.

That's not what it says at all. They can use data tied to your unique identifier, location, and Web history for whatever purpose they want. That isn't anonymous or aggregate. .

"At times Apple may make certain personal information available to strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and services, or that help Apple market to customers."

Again, you omitted the Apple part which indicates it's for their own purposes only.

You are leaving out the part where they can share your personal information with "strategic partners." A "strategic partner" could be anyone who pays them if they want it to be. Where does it say for their own purposes? It says your personal information is used by Apple to market to Apple's customers, but it doesn't say they aren't providing that service to advertisers or even selling it as just mentioned.

They might share your email address with a company that handles their direct marketing campaigns, conduct surveys for them, or whatever. I'm their customer, it's not unexpected for them to try to contact me about future purchases. I don't opt-in to their marketing when asked and I've never gotten any direct marketing from them. The same is true for most of the large companies I've done business with, really.

IMO, that is a very naive response. You are aware that Apple runs an Ad network, right?
https://developer.apple.com/ne...
https://developer.apple.com/ne.

As Schmitt tells WIRED via email, âoeThese sex differences in neuroticism are not very large, with biological sex perhaps accounting for only 10 percent of the variance.â The other 90 percent, in other words, are the result of individual variation, environment, and upbringing.

Damore didn't say it wasn't both nature and nurture. This is questioning effect size, not effect existence.

âoeIt is unclear to me that this sex difference would play a role in success within the Google workplace (in particular, not being able to handle stresses of leadership in the workplace. Thatâ(TM)s a huge stretch to me),â writes Schmitt. So, yes, thatâ(TM)s the researcher Damore cites disagreeing with Damore.

This is attacking the strawman that Damore said women hired into positions at Google were unqualified and unable to handle it; no such claim was made.

âoeI would assume that women in technical positions at Google are more thing-oriented than the average woman,â Lippa says. âoeBut then an interesting question is, are they more thing-oriented than the average male Google employee? I donâ(TM)t know the answer to that.â

That's posing a question, not disagreeing. And regardless of that answer to that, Damore is talking about how to get more qualified applicants in, not how to exclude qualified applicants because of their gender. Further, this is right below a quote where he explicitly agrees with Damore's thesis:

âoeOn averageâ"and I emphasize that, on averageâ"men are more interested in thing-oriented occupations and fields, and that difference is actually quite large,â says Richard Lipp

So how's this guy saying Damore's wrong again?
And that's how AmiMoJo concluded that the authors "debunked" Damores conclusions. A few quotes that don't make that case at all in a clearly biased article (among other things, it says there's no solid evidence for differences in IQ between races, and anyone even talking about it is a racist, both components of that being absurd).

A key aspect of this decision is that they found his "scientific facts" to be dubious. The authors of the studies he cites have already said his conclusions were unwarranted, and I imagine that the Labour Board would defer to their opinions rather than trying to form their own.

https://www.wired.com/story/th...

Thus his appeal to science was considered to be merely an attempt to justify his discriminatory statements. Personally I think that's a bit harsh, the guy probably believed his conclusions were correct, but the result is the same in any case. Catastrophic error resulting in statements that got him justifiably fired by Google.

The technology originally created by the government to monitor and improve the lives of its citizens using social credit score is being used by private companies for profit.

Hey, wait are you calling Chinese citizens pigs!?!

At any rate, AI Bacon is a geek's dream come true.

Now I just need Blockchain Lettuce and Autonomous Tomato for a perfect Hype Sandwich!

China is using the similar model of development. The technology originally created by the government to monitor and improve the lives of its citizens using social credit score is being used by private companies for profit.

Reference to the FCC open-access agreement here.

Normally, it's the FTC's duty to investigate anti-consumer anti-competitive practices. The FCC is involved here only because the open-access rules were a stipulation of purchasing the 700 MHz band. So even if the FCC does nothing, the FTC can still step in.

Good design is mostly invisible. You won't find success stories. What you'll find is failure stories where a non-diverse team failed to notice something blindingly obvious.

Things like trackballs that are less useful if you're left-handed, or voice recognition systems which can't handle various accents, or the JSF helmet that would kill most women if they tried to eject while wearing it.

At current pay rates the industry is short 36,500 drivers. That's projected to get worse over time as the current drivers age out, because they're having a more and more difficult time replacing them with new drivers. Long haul trucking is a lousy long-term job, with many drivers away from home as much as 200 days out of the year. Those drivers would much rather work local routes, where they can go home at night.

Effectively, the efficiency gains from self-driving trucks comes from "team" driving and convoys. Instead of a real "team", the driver can sleep on the road as-if there is another driver, but use automation instead to create the required rest breaks. Between popular hubs, one of those single-driver "teams" can run the lead truck while several other trucks are programmed to automatically follow. Just being able to follow like that reduces fuel costs for a convoy of five trucks by 6%.

Yawn.

https://www.wired.com/story/di...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Ultimately, you have to take *someone's* word. Your standard of proof is ridiculous, and you know it. You're gaslighting. And you know it. Just admit it- you liked a few of the links.

"Seriously, how is this joke of a company still allowed to do business?"

Some links, if you haven't been following the story:

Equifax hired a music major as chief security officer and she has just retired.

Equifax Faces Mounting Costs and Investigations From Breach.

The Equifax Breach Was Entirely Preventable

Equifax's data breach sins live on to this year's tax season

Equifax, Fox, NFL top report of most-hated U.S. companies

You Can't Fire Equifax, but Your Employer Can. Mine Just Did.

Senators want 'massive' fines for data breaches at Equifax and other credit reporting firms

Thanks to Equifax, the risk of fraud is higher this tax season

This Will Make Equifax Think Twice About How They're Protecting Your Data
"If this policy had been in place during the Equifax breach last year, Equifax would have paid at least a $1.5 billion penalty, half of which would be returned to consumers affected by the breach."

Put a gas generator in the towed vehicle and charge using that. Easy-peasy.

https://www.wired.com/2010/11/...

As an aside, I was reading the letters a relative sent to their family when traveling from the US East to West coast during WW2. The roads were shit, the car was crap and like any long distance traveler in those days, they had numerous breakdowns and needed to plan their days around where the gas stations were located and the mechanics who could provide service. They waited on multiple occasions for multiple days for available parts. They carried all sorts of tools for on-the-road work. This was considered normal.

Widespread infrastructure doesn't grow overnight.

Assange is one of those rate people that, the more you find out about him the more loathsome he becomes.

Just read the court documents, the Guardian and New Statesman articles about him and watch the documentary I linked to. Literally everyone he convinced to trust him has turned against him.

He even shafted Manning

http://cryptome.org/0001/wikil...

A sends via PGPboard, 17 July 2010:

The recent limited financial disclosure from the Wau Holland Foundation has revealed that no European donor funds have been spent in the provision of a legal team for PFC Manning; in detention for passing documents to WIKILEAKS.

We all remember the recent emails requesting $50,000 in donations in order to hire, and fly a legal team out to Kuwait. As we speak no legal team has been provided, and no attorney provided by Wikileaks has made contact with the JAG office in Kuwait.

In addition to this, the Wau Holland financial release confirmed that there were sufficient funds available to provide immediate assistance to PFC Manning, and that they would have no objection in disbursing the funding such an initiative.

http://cryptome.org/0003/wikil...

8 December 2010

Immediately following Bradley's arrest in late June 2010, the whistle-blower website Wikileaks publicly solicited donations specifically for Bradley's legal defense expenses. In July 2010, Wikileaks pledged to contribute a "substantial amount" towards Bradley's legal defense costs. Since Bradley's selection of David Coombs as his civilian defense attorney in August 2010, the Bradley Manning Support Network has unsuccessfully attempted to facilitate the pledged Wikileaks contribution.

"We understand the difficult situation Wikileaks currently faces as the world's governments conspire to extinguish the whistle-blower website," explained Jeff Paterson, Bradley Manning Support Network steering committee member and project director of Courage to Resist (couragetoresist.org). "However, in order to meet Bradley Manning's legal defense needs, we're forced to clarify that Wikileaks has not yet made a contribution towards this effort. We certainly welcome any contribution from Wikileaks, but we need to inform our supporters that it may not be forthcoming and that their continued contributions and support are crucial."

http://www.wired.com/threatlev...

WikiLeaks has finally made good on a months-old pledge to contribute financially to the defense of 23-year-old Bradley Manning, according to a group raising money for the imprisoned Army private suspected of providing WikiLeaks its most important U.S. releases.

But the sum, $15,100, is less than half the $50,000 WikiLeaks originally promised. It's also less than the group pledged in December, when WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said WikiLeaks would immediately transfer $20,000 to Manning's defense fund.

...

WikiLeaks highlighted Manning's plight after his arrest, writing on Twitter, "We do not know if Mr. Manning is our source, but the U.S. military is claiming he is so we will defend [him]." In a fundraising e-mail last June, the organization said it needed more donations in part because it was "flying a legal team to Kuwait," where Manning was being held. "Any financial contributions will be of IMMEDIATE assistance." The group subsequently promised to send $50,000 to the Bradley Manning Support Network.

But while salaries were paid out to founder Julian Assange and other WikiLeaks members, the promised support to Manning failed to materialize. Assange recently received about $88,000 in retroactive salary for his work with WikiLeaks in 2010. He also recently signed a $1.5 million book deal to publish his memoir.

Loraine Reitman, a m

The FBI has been known to have a backdoor into Tor ...

+1 for reminding us about it
-4 for not providing technical details or following up on a three year old story

The "backdoor" was accomplished by having the Tor user access a web page containing a compromised Adobe Flash element. Obviously this would only work if the victim had not disabled Flash in their browser. If a user is going to do bad stuff and try to hide behind Tor, they should figure out how to run NoScript or at least disable flash. For some people this was apparently too technical. From the Wired article:

[Operation] Torpedo unfolded when the FBI seized control of a trio of Dark Net child porn sites based in Nebraska. Armed with a special search warrant crafted by Justice Department lawyers in Washington DC, the FBI used the sites to deliver the Flash application to visitors’ browsers, tricking some of them into identifying their real IP address to an FBI server. The operation identified 25 users in the US and an unknown number abroad.

Those 25 users are probably enjoying the "attention" of their fellow inmates at this moment. Child molesters are not popular in the house. Flash was (eventually) updated to make the exploit obsolete.

The decloaking demonstration eventually was rendered obsolete by a nearly idiot-proof version of the Tor client called the Tor Browser Bundle, which made security blunders more difficult. By 2011, Moore says virtually everyone visiting the Metasploit decloaking site was passing the anonymity test, so he retired the service. But when the bureau obtained its Operation Torpedo warrants the following year, it chose Moore’s Flash code as its “network investigative technique”—the FBI’s lingo for a court-approved spyware deployment.

The FBI then setup their own ISP in attempts to lure bad guys. They also started down the path of developing custom malware.

In late July 2013, computer security experts detected a similar attack through Dark Net websites hosted by a shady ISP called Freedom Hosting—court records have since confirmed it was another FBI operation. For this one, the bureau used custom attack code that exploited a relatively fresh Firefox vulnerability ...

A CAN bus is a serial bus used in cars.
You could have googled that.

If you need 'security' you have to harden the devices connected to it, not the bus.

Well both if you think 'defense in depth' is a useful concept in secure design.

In cars, CAN bus has been the conduit through which a hacker cracking the bluetooth audio is able to mess with the brakes. Ask Jeep. https://www.wired.com/2015/07/...

I've designed CAN bus systems in the past. There is no security aspect to the protocol. No authentication, no integrity, no encryption, no ACLs. People have been proposing them at conferences.. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/doc... . But with ISO in the mix, there is unlikely to be a quick path to fixing this.

If only someone would invent something that allows people in one small town to drive to another small town...

So your suggestion is that people drive to the next small town fifty miles away for lunch? That seems abusive.

And now the stupidity where the business license is being used as proof of government-granted monopoly status for ISPs. Will this never end?

Not if you insist on being obtuse. I was using restaurant licenses to stand in for monopoly agreements which outright prevent competition. It's not that complicated, please try to keep up.

You know, if some company thought it was profitable to wire your road to provide service to you, they would have. It's not because the evil government let's only one company do it, it's because NO company chooses to lose money trying to provide service to you.

That is patently false. It is because the evil [local] government only lets one company do it, and you are either ignorant or a liar. There's no third way. Educate yourself, or stop lying.

So you don't even have telephone service?

We paid them over $450B to provide 10+Mbps internet access to everyone with a telephone line, and they have been giving the money out to executives as bonuses instead of building the infrastructure we've paid them to build.

But since you ask, I cancelled my land line because it went dead and ATT said I would have to wait six weeks to get it back. I don't call that service, do you?

What if Taco Bell wins the fast food wars, and all restaurants are Taco Bell?

They haven't, and they aren't.

Whoosh!

The difference between physics and other, lesser forms of science like the social sciences and, God forbid, computer "science" is that with physics there are things the theories understand and they can make spectacularly accurate predictions. I.e. the 'known knowns' are very well known.

Then there are things physics doesn't know. I.e. it 'known unknowns'. And it has ruled out a lot of explanations but knows it doesn't know.

Going down the Rumsfeld hierarchy you get to unknown unknowns i.e. 'the ones we don't know we don't know'. Of course these exist but once they are discovered it often causes a dramatic shift in what theories are viable. E.g. the classical tests of General Relativity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Physics had a few 'known unknowns' before General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and most of those are now 'known knowns'. Ironically it's a lack of 'known unknowns' that caused it to stagnate. E.g. with the LHC there was hope to find a few experimental results that didn't agree with the Standard Model and which would narrow down the viable post Standard Model theories but that didn't happen.

https://www.wired.com/2016/08/...

But hey, how can you complain if the best theory you've got is so good that you can't find any experimental results it can't explain?

Now compare to fake science. Fake science claims to know everything and just rationalises away anywhere its predictions are wrong. Or maybe it doesn't even try to make any predictions in the first place, claims to be completely right but keeps changing radically.

I'm sure we can all think of examples of pseudoscience that does the things in the last paragraph.

Good Morning / afternoon / evening

It's a hobby for those that are into it, some people are real good.
this is a write-up back from 2006 that is still valid today.

https://www.wired.com/2006/02/...

while it's over my head the skills required
it's still a ton of fun looking at satellites and such
http://www.thehumanitystar.com... that's the disco ball
satellite that went up a few days ago and in 41 days it
will be over my house. I hope to see it with my eyes
and then binoculars.

Gates is parroting various post-scarcity or Star Trek-based economic theories that if technology can provide everything people want, so they will live for their own happiness and the well-being of society. Star Trek lore says they ended scarcity with "replicator" technology that can make anything people want; Gates is suggesting robotic automation will end scarcity instead, but the effect is the same.

https://www.wired.com/2016/05/...
https://medium.com/@RickWebb/t...

There's literally a book about it: https://www.amazon.com/Trekono...

Oh sorry, Strat, but the New York Attorney General has already received complaints from people who stated their identities were stolen to promote the actions of Ajit Pai, and the robo-writing has even been released.

Unlike say, Benghazi, where after tens of millions of dollars, the GOP produced nothing actionable. Or their recent memo which is already being laughed at for its Russian Twitter bots demanding it be exposed, then suddenly, hey wait, it's as authentic as your average diatribe.

Yeap, totally didn't happen. ISPs never blocked or throttled anything.

Yeap, totally didn't happen. ISPs never blocked or throttled anything.

Yeap, totally didn't happen. ISPs never blocked or throttled anything.

subsidizes the manufacturing of American solar panels then the tariff effectively inflates the cost of a new solar panel in America. Sounds like a bum deal to me and it does to these guys too - https://www.wired.com/story/wh... Also bear in mind that while producing power through solar panels in America is heavily subsidized, the manufacturing of the solar panels is not. Forbes notes that solar production is heavily subsidized by the American tax payer. I'm sure that hurts some people's feelings but honestly I think anything that creates a real incentive for Americans to invest in real green technology should be labeled A Good Thing. https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

They "dispute" the figure of course.

Around the time of WannaCry

"A reported 90 percent of NHS trusts run at least one Windows XP device, an operating system Microsoft first introduced in 2001 and hasn't supported since 2014."

https://www.wired.com/2017/05/...

indisputable evidence

That is disputed by the authors of the papers that he cites.

https://www.wired.com/story/th...

Is this a joke? This is your proof, balancing coins? On the Chinese train they're clearly leaning the coins against the window and the lip. But I have no doubt they're cheaper trains. Because they're built by exploiting the cheap labor who lives in squalor in China. Congratulations?

LOL there is no "leaning against the window", it's a well known experiment to demonstrate how stable China's trains are.

China's train is by far the most stable trains at 300+km/h, it has beaten the Germans and Japanese:

High Speed Train comfort quality balance coin
On my recent trip to Shanghai I tried successfully to balance a coin in the window of the train at 300 km/h.
(This is done by Ola von Koskull, from Sweden's Parliament)

Watch how long coin can balance on high-speed train traveling at 350 kph

China's High Speed Train in 300km/h ,12minutes survival of a coin ! It's amazing!!

Stand two tiny coins on CRH train at 302 kmph

Chinese high-speed rail survive coin balance test, Japan refuse to accept the result.

There are tons of technology involved to make the trains ultra stable at 350km/h, from the base to the aerodynamics, to mm level percision of the tracks, China have beaten everyone else.

China has the top two supercomputers and the rest of the world has the other 498 who's total power far suprasses Chinas total compute power on the list.

Wrong again.

machine boasts speeds five times faster than the best the US can muster.

Today, it not only has more than everyone else—including the United States—but its best machine boasts speeds five times faster than the best the US can muster. And, in a first, it achieves those speeds with purely China-made chips.

China has the largest number of computers among the top 500

Not only does China have the world’s fastest machine for the seventh consecutive time, it has the largest number of computers among the top 500 — a first for any country other than the United States.

China is in a desperate race to catch up to the rest of the world. In 50 years maybe they can start focusing on social progress.

LOL catch up to what? To be western banker's little bitch? To be the whipping boy of CIA like Germany?

China is the only country with the power to challenge the entire western financial system (AIIB), nobody else can do so.

China's economy is already #1 in in purchasing power parity, but it's just the beginning.

The world has changed and you don't even know it yet. You live in your little bubble thinking you're more advanced, but you are not, millions of

You are afraid of facts and challenges because you are weak.

Until China shown them how CPUs are made and kicked their ass.

China's New Supercomputer Puts the US Even Further Behind
https://www.wired.com/2016/06/...

China builds worldâ(TM)s fastest supercomputer without U.S. chips
Chinaâ(TM)s massive system runs real applications and is ânot just a stunt machine,â(TM) says top U.S. supercomputing researcher
https://www.computerworld.com/...

There is no U.S.-made system that comes close to the performance of China's new system, the Sunway TaihuLight. Its theoretical peak performance is 124.5 petaflops, according to the latest biannual release today of the world's Top500 supercomputers. It is the first system to exceed 100 petaflops. A petaflop equals one thousand trillion (one quadrillion) sustained floating-point operations per second.

why do people always post "cite your evidence.. i 'll wait" but cant seem to bother using GOOGLE??

Here is a 10 year old boy unlocking his moms phone https://www.wired.com/story/10...

here is a mask unlocking a phone https://www.macrumors.com/2017...

here is the face ID not working for apples own demo https://www.theverge.com/circu...

try using google..

And none of your examples demonstrate the AC's specific claim that a photograph can unlock Face ID. So please, by all means, go back to Google and find evidence of that. Once again, I'll wait.

why do people always post "cite your evidence.. i 'll wait" but cant seem to bother using GOOGLE??

Here is a 10 year old boy unlocking his moms phone
https://www.wired.com/story/10...

here is a mask unlocking a phone
https://www.macrumors.com/2017...

here is the face ID not working for apples own demo
https://www.theverge.com/circu...

try using google..

It's not just about appearances. It's about cost, drag, and power consumption. Lidar is a pain on all three of those (in addition to looks). You simply can't sell cars with big $10k domes bulging out of the top upping your drag coefficient by 10-20% and consuming a couple kilowatts of power. That would be a disaster to your range, and make your vehicle totally uncompetitive.

"More than one year after launching V2, Autopilot still lacks some of the functionality of the original, and there are many anecdotal reports from owners of unpredictable behavior."

Funny how you don't get anecdotal reports concerning the others, given that most of them don't have owners to make said anecdotal reports. And of most of the competitors' systems, they're comically bad. And they have the gall to actually market the car as currently "self-driving" (unlike Tesla which markets self-driving as an additional package which you can buy but won't be active for years).

Some of my favorite quotes from the test drive comparison:

One never really decides to engage Drive Pilot. You press two buttons on the left side of the dash, one for Distronic Cruise Control, the other for Automatic Steering, then press a button on the left side of the steering wheel, then, — when Drive Pilot decides conditions are suitable — it engages.

Is there an audible sound? None that I heard. Like Autopilot, a green steering wheel icon illuminates on the bottom center of the display, and is duplicated in the Heads-Up Display.

Engagement is made clear by the car’s instant and unsafe wandering in all but perfect conditions, and often in perfect conditions.

Unlike with Autopilot, placing your hands on the wheel and steering doesn’t instantly disengage Drive Pilot. I suppose this is intended as a method of allowing the user to guide Drive Pilot by making course corrections, but instead it resulted in an unwanted and stressful upper arm workout, without which I’d have been killed.

I got the Drive Pilot to “drive” itself for as long as sixty seconds, which is as along as Mercedes-Benz deems it safe. Trust me, you don’t want to take your hands off the wheel that long unless your car’s on fire and you’re reaching for a fire extinguisher, and even then.

Drive Pilot had a nasty habit of disengaging in good conditions before sixty seconds were up, with no obvious warning except the green steering icon going out, and lane drift. After the third time, I actually felt fear.

This is actually a dangerous product. The car will steer itself into oncoming traffic. It oscillates between lane markings like a drunk driver. No setting or speed is sufficient to compensate for the utter failure of this functionality.

Did anyone in Stuttgart drive a Tesla on Autopilot? Even once?

People need to be fired. Think I’m being harsh? Here’s another direct comparison between Drive Pilot and Autopilot, from Norway’s Autofil. Scroll down to the pictures comparing the two cars' lane keeping. Need more convincing? Here's Wired's take. Still don't believe me? Video is coming soon, via Drive on NBC Sports.

The only good thing about Drive Pilot is that your Mercedes will protect you from it. Did I trust it? Only at a crawl. Did I understand it? I don’t understand how Mercedes-Benz could release this to the public. I hated literally everything about it. It drove like a drunk ten year old, fighting for the wheel with a drunk fourteen year old.

Re "the content of the link itself, not the linked-to content."
Its all part of building on search features https://www.wired.com/2014/10/... (10.20.14) .

Amazon has to deal with extensive licensing and legal requests for data from many nations, some of whom have far more extensive monitoring than the USA. I'm particularly thinking of the "Great Firewall of China". There is also very little reason to think that AWS does not have the cloud equivalent of "Room 641A" formerly active in one of AT&T's hubs. See https://www.wired.com/2013/06/... for a news reports with links to more history about the system.

https://www.wired.com/2017/07/...

I wonder how successful it will be this time. At least courriel had the benefit of not increasing the syllable count.

https://www.wired.com/2003/07/...

Meanwhile other rockets such as the Delta are at 100% success rate.

So, almost no one has a 100% success rate. Note by the way, that this is part of why both the Dragon and Starliner(the Boeing capsule) have an ability for the capsule to separate if there's an issue with the rocket. It is interesting that you mention the Delta, since around 9% of Deltas have failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_(rocket_family)#Launch_reliability. Last I checked, 91% is not 100%. (Granted, many of the failures were early Deltas and many of those failures were partial failures where people in a capsule above might survive). But, in fact, NASA doesn't think that man-rating any version of the Delta makes sense https://www.wired.com/2008/07/why-nasa-isnt-t/, whereas NASA is in favor of man-rating the Falcon 9, Block 5, so the people who think about this sort of thing have thought very carefully about this. Part of why NASA won't man-rate the Delta is because its regular flight profile subjects payloads to 6 gs, but a major part is also its lack of redundant systems where adding them in would require massive work.

NASA is insisting, quite appropriately on at least a few Falcon 9 Block 5 flights before they put people on it. The Block 5 is going to be the final version of the rocket and has a lot of tweaks which will make reuse easier but also other bits that will improve safety and reliability.

https://www.wired.com/story/th...

Quote:

âoeThese sex differences in neuroticism are not very large, with biological sex perhaps accounting for only 10 percent of the variance.â The other 90 percent, in other words, are the result of individual variation, environment, and upbringing.

Other than takeoff, it has been ready for a long time.

https://www.wired.com/story/bo...

Planes regularly fly and land with autopilot now (even in rough conditions).

Planes are actually a simpler use case than automobiles.

So well researched and reasoned that the authors of the two papers he relies on the most have publicly stated that he didn't understand them, and that his conclusions are wrong.

Really? As far as I know they distanced themselves from Damore (nobody likes to be lynched in a witch hunt) and not from what he wrote. The article "The Google Memo: Four Scientists Respond" features the comments of four scientists (including scientists cited by Damore) about the Google Memo. Here are some excerpts:

"The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right. "
L. Jussim

"A Google employee recently shared a memo that referenced some of my scholarly research on psychological sex differences[...]. Alongside other evidence, the employee argued, in part, that this research indicates affirmative action policies based on biological sex are misguided. Maybe, maybe not. "
D. Schmitt

"[...]this memo unleashed a firestorm of negative commentary, most of which ignored the memo’s evidence-based arguments. Among commentators who claim the memo’s empirical facts are wrong, I haven’t read a single one who understand sexual selection theory, animal behavior, and sex differences research."
G. Milller

"As a woman who’s worked in academia and within STEM, I didn’t find the memo offensive or sexist in the least. I found it to be a well thought out document, asking for greater tolerance for differences in opinion, and treating people as individuals instead of based on group membership."
D. Soh

It is interesting to note that while Schmitt (who is extensively cited in Damore's memo) seems a bit critical of Damore, he basically confirms what Damore says: he keeps saying that treating sexes as dichotomous is wrong, which is exactly what Damore said. In fact Schmitt writes: "treating people as dichotomous sexes is exactly what many affirmative action policies do" (that is what Damore was rebutting).

Many tried to misrepresent the Google Memo, including Wired, where you can read things like:

“It is unclear to me that this sex difference would play a role in success within the Google workplace (in particular, not being able to handle stresses of leadership in the workplace. That’s a huge stretch to me),” writes Schmitt. So, yes, that’s the researcher Damore cites disagreeing with Damore.

That seems a rebuttal of Damore's claim, by the same author he cited. Except for the fact that Damore never said something like: "women can't handle the stresses of leadership in the workplace". Nor he implied that. When you resort to straw man arguments, you probably lack a strong point.