And this is why we actually need effective government.
There is something seriously wrong when a report can be written with a straight face that blames somebody other than the perpetrators for the problems they cause.
"You didn't make me stop" isn't a valid excuse for dumping waste, nor for ignoring existing LAWS.
Corporations need to grow up and have some personal responsibility, in a similar manner that Libertarians and Free Market Captialists, Randians, et at have been beating everyone over the head with personal responsbility.
Well, I believe in both. Unless all these nuclear reactors are in Government hands, shouldn't those Companies be Responsible? Nah, better to just blame the government, that way you don't have to do anything.
At first, I thought this was a study of those biofeedback games. Those are pretty damn cool.
And, since you learn to vary your heartbeat patterns and galvanic skin response levels, I'd say that would be training your brain to control your body.
Anyway. Not too offtopic!
Regards.
Re:This won't prevent attacks
on
Life Recorder
·
· Score: 1
Side note: you having a gun doesn't make you safe, it just makes it easier for me to use it against you.
Perhaps that's because you only try to take guns away from people who don't know how to use them. Guns are no panacea but it is ridiculous to claim that My having one makes it easier for you in the general case.
Do enough people who own weapons take the time necessary to tip the odds in their favour? In my opinion, no.
However, if one is trained and keeps this up (target practice at *least* a few times a month, IDPA or the like) then the probability swings way around the other way.
While a perpertrator twenty feet away can stab me if I don't have a gun pointed at them, that same person is dead if I do. Knowing the limitations of your tools is as important as knowing what they can do.
The same scenario repeats in the home. If I have a gun and have it available then any intruder is much more in danger than I am, because I have already built up a mental model that allows reflexive response when necessary. My fire will be precise and accurate, whereas someone who hasn't done this may even shoot themselves.
It's the same with training in martial arts, or piano. Practice, practice, and practice. Does that mean that I am 100% going to win? No, of course not. But 90% is better than 10%.
Regards.
Re:So they get recorded - so what!!??
on
Life Recorder
·
· Score: 1
Facial recognition software?
The verbal descriptions in no way capture the details the way a picture does.
They already have a large pool of pictures of criminals. If they take your footage and try to match, isn't that a good thing? They may be able to fix identities to a certain percentage of otherwise anonymous crimes.
Actually rather easy, if you already hare an OCR component. And they appear readily available.
After converting what you can to text, you could even just write regexps (address blocks, ssn/cc patterns, etc) to pull out data into a normalized form. Perhaps you could even find those on the web.
Sure, the data will not be 100% accurate unless you spend a LOT of time, but even 50% good data seems worth a lot.
I sincerely doubt this is anything near a "crown jewel" for Google. From TFA:
Described publicly only once at a technical conference four years ago, the software is intended to enable users and employees to sign in with their password just once to operate a range of services.
So, you don't think that being able to find vulnerabilities in a piece of Internet or Intranet facing software that controls access to other systems is important?
There's more than just IP in a kingdoms crown jewels. Such as not having your authentication methods compromised.
This design framework is so well conceived that it can be built upon for years, even decades, without being stripped out and restarted. Compare that...
We shall see. The iPhone hasn't been out long enough to say that the framework can be built upon for years. Call me in ten years if they haven't gutted, dropped, or rewritten it.
Maybe they thought he'd have some damned personal responsibility?
Road test or field test doesn't mean drunken test.
I'm so glad that you have all the facts.
From what I understand, this was a field test phone. You know, the kind you take with you out and about, and use, perhaps day in and day out.
I imagine that you have never lost anything important?
To declare that 'personal responsibility' keeps you from accidentally losing something makes you look like an idiot. It's akin to saying - "Just be Perfect! That solves Everything!!"
We live in a complex world. Even the base physical layer is quite complicated. This could have slipped out of his pocket when he sat down, for example. The mental layer is even more complicated. Juggle too many things and something WILL drop. You probably won't even know which one till much later.
"Free" money (as in beer) which is not free (as in freedom), but which may make Sony capitulate on this, freeing the console once again.
Of course, as I said, what may capture the interest of the rest of the world is indeed - "How much money was that, again?" followed by a quick heuristic check to see if it's worth it to them to persue that "free money".
For one thing OS X is a *nix, with full shell/root access. Tricky to lock that down, not to mention all the people who use it because of that would quickly switch to Linux.
Apple has full control over the hardware. Can you say TPM? Having full shell/root access doesn't do you any good if the program you are trying to run gets zapped at a lower level.
With the kind of setup Apple has, I would believe that they could get it "locked down" quite well. No, not perfectly, but enough to make me want to switch to something else (i agree with that!).
However, eagerness in children can turn to anxiousness if they are not reasonably immediately satisfied.
The mechanism is continuing unfufilled expectations. Going TO Disneyland is not the same as AT Disneyland and if this state keeps up for long enough (say an 8 hour car trip) you may find that the little tykes have slid from "eagerness" to something that could be termed "anxiousness" somewhere along the way.
Thus, "The kids were anxious to get to Disneyland" could be perfectly correct.
Congratulations on your witty reply that required no critical thinking whatsoever.
I am under absolutely no obligation to divluge the critical thinking processes that lead to that statement. It has been obvious where your sentiments lie in the matter.
The fact that you immediately jump to the conclusion that I have not done any thinking on the matter is typical.
Apparently you have no problem with corporations buying elections or enjoying rights they shouldn't have.
Oh no, all that gets you as some large corporation or other suing your municipal government (since they have a RIGHT to those profits, you damn dirty commie bastard!) to stop it.
Then, after wasting tens or hundreds of thousands of your local tax dollars your local government won't actually have the money to provide the service or will give up.
You appear to miss the full potential of this work.
This isn't just about recognising GUI elements just to slow down but also to present a partiall or wholly alternate interface to the user to interact with.
Whatever markup they are using after element detection would have to map the original gui element to some new gui element(s) possibly elsewhere on the new interface, possibly with new text/mouse over behaviour/etc.
So, a simple app with two buttons, "Quit" and "Do Something" may have a Gui wrapper that makes these look like a list box with two entries, for (a horrible) example. However, the wrapper still has to know which list entry goes to what button.
Come out with a new version of the base app that has different text and/or button order causes the person who created the wrapper to re-identify what is what to hook the behaviour up correctly.
Inaccurate reporting on this issue is a public disservice. Frame it as a free speech issue and people's opinions change. Frame it inaccurately as "big business" writing checks directly to politicians bank accounts and people assume that politicians are being bought off.
Framing this as a free speech issue is a public disservice.
There are plenty of international treaties that are ignored, by one or multiple parties.
There are plenty of cases where nothing is, or even can be realistically done about it.
If the people of a country wish their government to withdraw from some treaty or other, I'm not sure that "There is nothing that can be done about it" is the proper answer.
I am saying you run into irreducible complexity when you have a system of modules that are designed to accomplish some types of complex tasks. Which is what I thought the parent was about.
Yes certainly decomposition, levelling, et al, great. We couldn't even begin to design such systems without doing this. But that's not a magick bullet.
You cannot always just decompose the problem and expect it to be easy to make all the pieces behave when working together. Emergent complexity is a real issue, even if all elements do their designed tasks perfectly.
To me, your examples seem to fall quite short of this level of complexity...
The weakest lifeline by far is to appeal to the wisdom of the crowd and ask the audience. This only works for the simplest question.
I don't think that your analysis is quite correct.
Widsom of the crowd is excellentif you need to know what the crowd does.
This does not necessarily mean the "simplest" quesions. In fact, more often it's questions of fact which are only simple if I spent that time to acquire the cultural referent.
Especially on pop cultural issues I think crowd is the best way to get an easy correct answer to questions which I would otherwise be unable to answer - even if there were only two answers left I't would be a 50/50 shot.
Ask about who won American Idol, or the Super Bowl and you'll end up with about a 100% confidence level on one choice (the correct one) - the scores will look something like 75%, 10%, 5%, 5%, 5% or someting.
Ask about quarks and you probably won't.
It's all about what you choose to ask the crowd about (and who that crowd consists of)...
A complex program can be broken down into less complex parts until it's reduced to a simple problem.
...and then, the interactions between all your solutions to all those simple problems will be the issue. That is, simply pushing the complexity into the interactions of the pieces is merely hides the complexity, not removes it.
No, for many classes of problems, even those that *can* be decomposed the way you suggest the end result is rarely "a simple problem" on all levels.
Seriously, Apple is worse than Microsoft in locking down things. The whole iPad is completely locked.
This is an appliance, not a full-blown computer (Apple does sell those too, you know).
The problem is that it is NOT an appliance. It is a computer that has been locked down, as the parent said, so that it has the functionality of an appliance.
There is a difference.
I can imagine the time when your watch will have the processing power and storage capabilities of today's fastest supercomputers and storage arrays. Yet, it will only display the time.
Slashdot Mirror
And this is why we actually need effective government.
There is something seriously wrong when a report can be written with a straight face that blames somebody other than the perpetrators for the problems they cause.
"You didn't make me stop" isn't a valid excuse for dumping waste, nor for ignoring existing LAWS.
Corporations need to grow up and have some personal responsibility, in a similar manner that Libertarians and Free Market Captialists, Randians, et at have been beating everyone over the head with personal responsbility.
Well, I believe in both. Unless all these nuclear reactors are in Government hands, shouldn't those Companies be Responsible? Nah, better to just blame the government, that way you don't have to do anything.
Regards.
At first, I thought this was a study of those biofeedback games. Those are pretty damn cool.
And, since you learn to vary your heartbeat patterns and galvanic skin response levels, I'd say that would be training your brain to control your body.
Anyway. Not too offtopic!
Regards.
Side note: you having a gun doesn't make you safe, it just makes it easier for me to use it against you.
Perhaps that's because you only try to take guns away from people who don't know how to use them. Guns are no panacea but it is ridiculous to claim that My having one makes it easier for you in the general case.
Do enough people who own weapons take the time necessary to tip the odds in their favour? In my opinion, no.
However, if one is trained and keeps this up (target practice at *least* a few times a month, IDPA or the like) then the probability swings way around the other way.
While a perpertrator twenty feet away can stab me if I don't have a gun pointed at them, that same person is dead if I do. Knowing the limitations of your tools is as important as knowing what they can do.
The same scenario repeats in the home. If I have a gun and have it available then any intruder is much more in danger than I am, because I have already built up a mental model that allows reflexive response when necessary. My fire will be precise and accurate, whereas someone who hasn't done this may even shoot themselves.
It's the same with training in martial arts, or piano. Practice, practice, and practice. Does that mean that I am 100% going to win? No, of course not. But 90% is better than 10%.
Regards.
Facial recognition software?
The verbal descriptions in no way capture the details the way a picture does.
They already have a large pool of pictures of criminals. If they take your footage and try to match, isn't that a good thing? They may be able to fix identities to a certain percentage of otherwise anonymous crimes.
Regards.
Actually rather easy, if you already hare an OCR component. And they appear readily available.
After converting what you can to text, you could even just write regexps (address blocks, ssn/cc patterns, etc) to pull out data into a normalized form. Perhaps you could even find those on the web.
Sure, the data will not be 100% accurate unless you spend a LOT of time, but even 50% good data seems worth a lot.
Regards.
I sincerely doubt this is anything near a "crown jewel" for Google. From TFA:
Described publicly only once at a technical conference four years ago, the software is intended to enable users and employees to sign in with their password just once to operate a range of services.
So, you don't think that being able to find vulnerabilities in a piece of Internet or Intranet facing software that controls access to other systems is important?
There's more than just IP in a kingdoms crown jewels. Such as not having your authentication methods compromised.
Regards.
This design framework is so well conceived that it can be built upon for years, even decades, without being stripped out and restarted. Compare that ...
We shall see. The iPhone hasn't been out long enough to say that the framework can be built upon for years. Call me in ten years if they haven't gutted, dropped, or rewritten it.
Regards.
Maybe they thought he'd have some damned personal responsibility?
Road test or field test doesn't mean drunken test.
I'm so glad that you have all the facts.
From what I understand, this was a field test phone. You know, the kind you take with you out and about, and use, perhaps day in and day out.
I imagine that you have never lost anything important?
To declare that 'personal responsibility' keeps you from accidentally losing something makes you look like an idiot. It's akin to saying - "Just be Perfect! That solves Everything!!"
We live in a complex world. Even the base physical layer is quite complicated. This could have slipped out of his pocket when he sat down, for example. The mental layer is even more complicated. Juggle too many things and something WILL drop. You probably won't even know which one till much later.
Regards.
Everyone else: "huh?"
I hope this is more like: "Really, how much...?"
"Free" money (as in beer) which is not free (as in freedom), but which may make Sony capitulate on this, freeing the console once again.
Of course, as I said, what may capture the interest of the rest of the world is indeed - "How much money was that, again?" followed by a quick heuristic check to see if it's worth it to them to persue that "free money".
But people in their 70s or older were the ones who fucking made computing happen. For example: Seymour Cray: born 1925. Alan Turing: born 1912.
And here, you crumble your own argument.
IF, people in their 70's 'made computing happen'
THEN, computing ITSELF was a very cutting edge technology, unlike, say cars.
IF, computing ITSELF is a very cutting edge technology
THEN, there are by definition very few people who are exposed to it
So, ON AVERAGE that 70 year old did not "grow up" with this tech, although the TECH may have grown up with that generation.
Regards.
For one thing OS X is a *nix, with full shell/root access. Tricky to lock that down, not to mention all the people who use it because of that would quickly switch to Linux.
Apple has full control over the hardware. Can you say TPM? Having full shell/root access doesn't do you any good if the program you are trying to run gets zapped at a lower level.
With the kind of setup Apple has, I would believe that they could get it "locked down" quite well. No, not perfectly, but enough to make me want to switch to something else (i agree with that!).
Regards.
However, eagerness in children can turn to anxiousness if they are not reasonably immediately satisfied.
The mechanism is continuing unfufilled expectations. Going TO Disneyland is not the same as AT Disneyland and if this state keeps up for long enough (say an 8 hour car trip) you may find that the little tykes have slid from "eagerness" to something that could be termed "anxiousness" somewhere along the way.
Thus, "The kids were anxious to get to Disneyland" could be perfectly correct.
We're done here.
Thanks for the ad hominem, it certainly lets me know when to write you off.
Regards.
Congratulations on your witty reply that required no critical thinking whatsoever.
I am under absolutely no obligation to divluge the critical thinking processes that lead to that statement. It has been obvious where your sentiments lie in the matter.
The fact that you immediately jump to the conclusion that I have not done any thinking on the matter is typical.
Apparently you have no problem with corporations buying elections or enjoying rights they shouldn't have.
Regards.
Oh no, all that gets you as some large corporation or other suing your municipal government (since they have a RIGHT to those profits, you damn dirty commie bastard!) to stop it.
Then, after wasting tens or hundreds of thousands of your local tax dollars your local government won't actually have the money to provide the service or will give up.
Regards.
You appear to miss the full potential of this work.
This isn't just about recognising GUI elements just to slow down but also to present a partiall or wholly alternate interface to the user to interact with.
Whatever markup they are using after element detection would have to map the original gui element to some new gui element(s) possibly elsewhere on the new interface, possibly with new text/mouse over behaviour/etc.
So, a simple app with two buttons, "Quit" and "Do Something" may have a Gui wrapper that makes these look like a list box with two entries, for (a horrible) example. However, the wrapper still has to know which list entry goes to what button.
Come out with a new version of the base app that has different text and/or button order causes the person who created the wrapper to re-identify what is what to hook the behaviour up correctly.
Regards.
Inaccurate reporting on this issue is a public disservice. Frame it as a free speech issue and people's opinions change. Frame it inaccurately as "big business" writing checks directly to politicians bank accounts and people assume that politicians are being bought off.
Framing this as a free speech issue is a public disservice.
Regards.
There are plenty of international treaties that are ignored, by one or multiple parties.
There are plenty of cases where nothing is, or even can be realistically done about it.
If the people of a country wish their government to withdraw from some treaty or other, I'm not sure that "There is nothing that can be done about it" is the proper answer.
Do you live in sovereign state or not?
Regards.
The basic premise of this whole thing is completely wrong. The US has NEVER EVER left the internet alone.
If they had it would be a lot better than it is now.
Yeah, that would be great. Just imagine - there wouldn't be one. Kudos.
regards.
So what? You were a sucker, but were lucky. Your anecdote is hardly proof.
Do you think that somehow they push those extended warranties because they lose money on each one? No!
Overall, they make money. They have statistical models to make sure of it.
The probability was that you would not come out ahead, that the company would.
It's like claiming roulette is a great game because this one time you bet on 23 and it hit...
Regards
I am saying you run into irreducible complexity when you have a system of modules that are designed to accomplish some types of complex tasks. Which is what I thought the parent was about.
Yes certainly decomposition, levelling, et al, great. We couldn't even begin to design such systems without doing this. But that's not a magick bullet.
You cannot always just decompose the problem and expect it to be easy to make all the pieces behave when working together. Emergent complexity is a real issue, even if all elements do their designed tasks perfectly.
To me, your examples seem to fall quite short of this level of complexity...
Regards.
The weakest lifeline by far is to appeal to the wisdom of the crowd and ask the audience. This only works for the simplest question.
I don't think that your analysis is quite correct.
Widsom of the crowd is excellent if you need to know what the crowd does.
This does not necessarily mean the "simplest" quesions. In fact, more often it's questions of fact which are only simple if I spent that time to acquire the cultural referent.
Especially on pop cultural issues I think crowd is the best way to get an easy correct answer to questions which I would otherwise be unable to answer - even if there were only two answers left I't would be a 50/50 shot.
Ask about who won American Idol, or the Super Bowl and you'll end up with about a 100% confidence level on one choice (the correct one) - the scores will look something like 75%, 10%, 5%, 5%, 5% or someting.
Ask about quarks and you probably won't.
It's all about what you choose to ask the crowd about (and who that crowd consists of) ...
Regards.
A complex program can be broken down into less complex parts until it's reduced to a simple problem.
...and then, the interactions between all your solutions to all those simple problems will be the issue. That is, simply pushing the complexity into the interactions of the pieces is merely hides the complexity, not removes it.
No, for many classes of problems, even those that *can* be decomposed the way you suggest the end result is rarely "a simple problem" on all levels.
We tend to call those that are "breakthroughs".
Seriously, Apple is worse than Microsoft in locking down things. The whole iPad is completely locked.
This is an appliance, not a full-blown computer (Apple does sell those too, you know).
The problem is that it is NOT an appliance. It is a computer that has been locked down, as the parent said, so that it has the functionality of an appliance.
There is a difference.
I can imagine the time when your watch will have the processing power and storage capabilities of today's fastest supercomputers and storage arrays. Yet, it will only display the time.
Regards.
Then you are leaving money on the table.
It's not so much that you are wrong is that you are too extreme.
Never acquire interest charges if you can help it. That's the only key to credit.
Regards.