Even though this is currently the newest article, the "Favorite Sci Fi Movie" is the first on the front page.
Editor's note: the story has been moved up on the front page due its popularity.
Stop it. I scan new articles from the top of the front page down until I hit one I've already seen (on the last visit). I don't want article I'm finished with popping up again at the top.
AIs are vulnerable to these attacks because they try to come to a conclusion using as little information as possible, while humans robustly "overthink" things by inefficiently considering too many otherwise irrelevant factors. These attacks sound like something AIs will quickly adapt to, surpassing human performance once again.
One computer academic says that unlike a spam-blocker, "if you're relying on the vision system in a self-driving car to know where to go and not crash into anything, then the stakes are much higher," adding ominously that "The only way to completely avoid this is to have a perfect model that is right all the time."
Fine, but you only need a great model that's right more often than humans.
I'll note that in Swift, integerValue no longer exists, having been folded into intValue, which gives the expected result of one (just like intValue in Objective-C).
Looks more like a 64-bit issue.
Note that if you use one fewer significant digit (e.g. @"1.111111111111111111" instead of @"1.1111111111111111111") the code works properly. That crosses the threshold where 64-bit integers overflow, which suggests a problem with the conversion used in integerValue. The 32-bit intValue always works properly, as does integerValue on 32-bit systems (where NSInteger is 32-bit, like a regular int).
The Fact Check label has been around since October, providing an at-a-glance way to determine whether or not a particular story has been approved by the Ministry of Truth.
The rule's only been around since October, so things have reverted to the same rule in effect for eight years under Obama. I agree this is a bad thing, but a lot of selectively outraged partisans are exposing themselves right now.
So what about the future of advertising on the Xbox One? “It’s going to be an exciting transition though because the 360 console wasn’t built with advertising in mind, it was more of an afterthought, so we’ve had to adapt to the technology and how we work to fit them in to the console,” said Technical Account Manager for Xbox LIVE Advertising, “whereas this new one is going to have advertising in mind. So a lot of the limitations that we have now, hopefully the release of the boundaries will widened so the opportunities will be a lot greater.”
The Xbox is developing native advertising, where ad content is displayed alongside relevant material, either embedded in search results, promoted on a network like Facebook, or a "Liked X? You'll Love Y!" style of marketing. Not to worry, though -- the company plans to use Kinect to make these advertisements even more engaging than their current counterparts. In the future, Kinect may offer you a "Choose Your Own Adventure" style narrative in which you speak commands or give orders to an ad as its playing to change the final outcome.
The other way the company wants to use Kinect is to monitor what's going on in the living room to serve you group-appropriate content, rather than resorting to the plain old method of bombarding you with non-interactive advertising for things you don't care about. Microsoft claims that the demographic data the ad team can access is very limited, but it's hard not to see shadows of the same patent for movie licensing that the company applied for last year.
Everyone say goodbye to dissenting opinions on YouTube.
Disagreement is now harrassment.
Mockery is now hate speech.
Offense is now trauma.
Criticism is now abuse.
Compelling criticism is now violence.
Anyone who talks about subjects the MSM wants to suppress is now a troll. Anyone at random is a racist/sexist/white supremacist/nazi/etc if they say so.
The use of this alarmist (and usually, simply wrong) language is ubiquitous and deliberate. It's all a pretense to justify a disproportionate censorial "response," especially when they know no response is warranted at all. It's also a brazenly transparent tactic, especially since Twitter/Reddit/etc rarely seem to use it against users that properly align with their politics.
A popular tranny just had two of her YT videos demonitized, one that criticized Islam, and another that criticized feminism: https://twitter.com/MsBlaireWh...
A business deciding they're not going to allow certain kinds of messages on their public bulletin board is no more censorship than me ordering my racist uncle to stop talking trash or get out of my house.
Which is only to say that "Yes, both situations are examples of censorship."
To make the metaphor more accurate to what Twitter is doing, let's say you had two uncles, each a different color and both racist toward the other. Now let's say you picked sides and only threw out the uncle whose racism you disagreed with.
Even if you are within your rights to do that, the banned uncle (and plenty of other, non-racist folks) are right to call you out for both your hypocrisy and your own racism.
Generally when censorship is brought up here, it's an attempt to conflate First Amendment protections with a private organization's lawful right to moderate content.
That's funny, because the way I usually see it go on/. is that the pro-censorship side (i.e. you) brings up 1AM/government censorship first, as a strawman so they can claim that, because it doesn't apply, we should care about private censorship either.
The concept of free speech (and censorship) still exists outside of the 1AM (the world is bigger than America and American laws, for starters). The ACLU has a blindspot a whole amendment [aclu.org] wide, but when it comes to free speech even they acknowledge the extent of the threat:
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.
And before you start harping on the First Amendment, no, the First Amendment does not require that private parties assist you in spreading your speech. It only disallows the government from making your speech illegal.
But as usual, it's the pro-censorship side (i.e. you) who's brought up the First Amendment first, as a strawman so you can dismiss it.
The concept of free speech (and censorship) still exists outside of the 1AM (the world is bigger than America and American laws, for starters). The ACLU has a blindspot a whole amendment [aclu.org] wide, but when it comes to free speech even they acknowledge the extent of the threat:
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.
At one moment, it feels like such a hip environment, bustling with easy communication and collaboration, innovation and headphones just behind every monitor.
How many employees have ever said this? Open spaces are cheaper per sq ft and allow easier monitoring of personnel, but that doesn't sound good in a pro/con discussion.
I'm disappointed that after all these years Tim speaks mainly in slogans and generalities, and still can't avoid contradicting himself. Let's show him how it's done by talking brass tacks.
This.
From the summary:
We must push back against misinformation by encouraging gatekeepers such as Google and Facebook to continue their efforts to combat the problem, while avoiding the creation of any central bodies to decide what is "true" or not.
Because they are all but bought by Google already. Why else do you think they would fire Eich, adopt DRM, ape Chrome, and plan to kill off the browser extenstion system that gave users unprecedented control over their own browsing experience (through adblocking and script-blocking and a million other essential features).
Mod parent up. Unless essential extensions like adblock (read: ublock origin) retains functionality, Firefox will have (even more of) a shitstorm on their hands.
the girl herslef said they are false, the accusations were made by a third-side feminist who thought she knew better than both of them
Just so folks can see a concrete, verifiable example of this kind of thing . . .
Two adult students have consensual sex; third parties decide otherwise, including the university. The male student is suspended before they even do him the courtesy of a show trial, ruining his education, athletic career, and (potential) medical career.
Saying "universal" in this context seems more like a trick of language, tacitly admitting that DRM has to be EVERYWHERE or sane users would never put up with it.
EME proponents Netflix, Microsoft, Apple, and Google
Hey look, all the major browser makers, except one. Users still have a choice in Firefox.
Except that Youtube-owner Google spent hundreds of millions to obtain considerable financial influence over the browser maker thought most likely to resist (Mozilla). And then (what a coincidence!) Mozilla gave in on DRM, and seems perpetually bent on making dozens of other perplexing decisions that users can't stand, and seem outright designed to cost it market share.
Be assured that the other big (if not the main) reason they want DRM is to thwart adblock for videos. If they can compromise your browser/vidplayer to the degree that they've prevented you from even reading the content stream, then they've necessarily also prevented you from altering it.
It's not a terrible idea in theory. But if it catches on, then almost immediately news sites will start using it to filter out thoughtcrime (i.e. wrong opinions instead of wrong facts).
Every article on immigration will require you to agree on the unqualified benefits of mass immigration (and a gauntlet of other talking points), or an article will require you to say you believe in the wage gap, for example.
First of all, it's a private company doing it, so it's not censorship
Let's put this myth to rest. Free speech is a bigger concept than the 1st Amendment (the world is bigger than America and American laws, for starters).
The ACLU has a blindspot a whole amendment wide, but when it comes to free speech even they acknowledge the extent of the threat:
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.
Disagreement is now harrassment.
Mockery is now hate speech.
Offense is now trauma.
Criticism is now abuse.
Compelling criticism is now violence.
Anyone who talks about subjects the MSM wants to suppress is now a troll. Anyone at random is a racist/sexist/white supremacist/nazi/etc if they say so.
The use of this alarmist (and usually, simply wrong) language is ubiquitous and deliberate. It's all a pretense to justify a disproportionate censorial "response," especially when they know no response is warranted at all. It's also a brazenly transparent tactic, especially since Twitter/Reddit/etc rarely seem to use it against users that properly align with their politics.
Slashdot Mirror
n/t
Editor's note: the story has been moved up on the front page due its popularity.
Stop it. I scan new articles from the top of the front page down until I hit one I've already seen (on the last visit). I don't want article I'm finished with popping up again at the top.
One computer academic says that unlike a spam-blocker, "if you're relying on the vision system in a self-driving car to know where to go and not crash into anything, then the stakes are much higher," adding ominously that "The only way to completely avoid this is to have a perfect model that is right all the time."
Fine, but you only need a great model that's right more often than humans.
The problem line is [oneish integerValue], which returns zero, and the rest of your code is just trying to obfuscate this.
Congratulations, you're the first (across three different comment threads) to point that out (though some of the trolls were entertaining).
This is unexpected, but not undocumented. See the Subclassing Notes at:
https://developer.apple.com/re...
I'll note that in Swift, integerValue no longer exists, having been folded into intValue, which gives the expected result of one (just like intValue in Objective-C).
Looks more like a 64-bit issue.
Note that if you use one fewer significant digit (e.g. @"1.111111111111111111" instead of @"1.1111111111111111111") the code works properly. That crosses the threshold where 64-bit integers overflow, which suggests a problem with the conversion used in integerValue. The 32-bit intValue always works properly, as does integerValue on 32-bit systems (where NSInteger is 32-bit, like a regular int).
It's one thing to introduce another new bit of consumer electronics kit. It's an entirely other thing to get a medical device past the FDA.
And yet another thing to get basic math right. Run this on OSX, then see if you trust Apple to make medical equipment:
The Fact Check label has been around since October, providing an at-a-glance way to determine whether or not a particular story has been approved by the Ministry of Truth.
The rule's only been around since October, so things have reverted to the same rule in effect for eight years under Obama. I agree this is a bad thing, but a lot of selectively outraged partisans are exposing themselves right now.
- $100 higher price to cover the cost of Kinect -- a device few wanted
What do you mean nobody wanted a microphone and HD camera focused 24/7 on their living room or bedroom (or kid's bedroom)?
It was also intended as a platform to force-feed ads, first and foremost:
http://www.sticktwiddlers.com/...
So what about the future of advertising on the Xbox One? “It’s going to be an exciting transition though because the 360 console wasn’t built with advertising in mind, it was more of an afterthought, so we’ve had to adapt to the technology and how we work to fit them in to the console,” said Technical Account Manager for Xbox LIVE Advertising, “whereas this new one is going to have advertising in mind. So a lot of the limitations that we have now, hopefully the release of the boundaries will widened so the opportunities will be a lot greater.”
http://hothardware.com/news/mi...
The Xbox is developing native advertising, where ad content is displayed alongside relevant material, either embedded in search results, promoted on a network like Facebook, or a "Liked X? You'll Love Y!" style of marketing. Not to worry, though -- the company plans to use Kinect to make these advertisements even more engaging than their current counterparts. In the future, Kinect may offer you a "Choose Your Own Adventure" style narrative in which you speak commands or give orders to an ad as its playing to change the final outcome.
The other way the company wants to use Kinect is to monitor what's going on in the living room to serve you group-appropriate content, rather than resorting to the plain old method of bombarding you with non-interactive advertising for things you don't care about. Microsoft claims that the demographic data the ad team can access is very limited, but it's hard not to see shadows of the same patent for movie licensing that the company applied for last year.
Everyone say goodbye to dissenting opinions on YouTube.
Disagreement is now harrassment.
Mockery is now hate speech.
Offense is now trauma.
Criticism is now abuse.
Compelling criticism is now violence.
Anyone who talks about subjects the MSM wants to suppress is now a troll.
Anyone at random is a racist/sexist/white supremacist/nazi/etc if they say so.
The use of this alarmist (and usually, simply wrong) language is ubiquitous and deliberate. It's all a pretense to justify a disproportionate censorial "response," especially when they know no response is warranted at all. It's also a brazenly transparent tactic, especially since Twitter/Reddit/etc rarely seem to use it against users that properly align with their politics.
A popular tranny just had two of her YT videos demonitized, one that criticized Islam, and another that criticized feminism:
https://twitter.com/MsBlaireWh...
A business deciding they're not going to allow certain kinds of messages on their public bulletin board is no more censorship than me ordering my racist uncle to stop talking trash or get out of my house.
Which is only to say that "Yes, both situations are examples of censorship."
To make the metaphor more accurate to what Twitter is doing, let's say you had two uncles, each a different color and both racist toward the other. Now let's say you picked sides and only threw out the uncle whose racism you disagreed with.
Even if you are within your rights to do that, the banned uncle (and plenty of other, non-racist folks) are right to call you out for both your hypocrisy and your own racism.
obviously that was supposed to say "we shouldn't care about private censorship either"
Generally when censorship is brought up here, it's an attempt to conflate First Amendment protections with a private organization's lawful right to moderate content.
That's funny, because the way I usually see it go on /. is that the pro-censorship side (i.e. you) brings up 1AM/government censorship first, as a strawman so they can claim that, because it doesn't apply, we should care about private censorship either.
The concept of free speech (and censorship) still exists outside of the 1AM (the world is bigger than America and American laws, for starters). The ACLU has a blindspot a whole amendment [aclu.org] wide, but when it comes to free speech even they acknowledge the extent of the threat:
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.
And before you start harping on the First Amendment, no, the First Amendment does not require that private parties assist you in spreading your speech. It only disallows the government from making your speech illegal.
But as usual, it's the pro-censorship side (i.e. you) who's brought up the First Amendment first, as a strawman so you can dismiss it.
The concept of free speech (and censorship) still exists outside of the 1AM (the world is bigger than America and American laws, for starters). The ACLU has a blindspot a whole amendment [aclu.org] wide, but when it comes to free speech even they acknowledge the extent of the threat:
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.
At one moment, it feels like such a hip environment, bustling with easy communication and collaboration, innovation and headphones just behind every monitor.
How many employees have ever said this? Open spaces are cheaper per sq ft and allow easier monitoring of personnel, but that doesn't sound good in a pro/con discussion.
I'm disappointed that after all these years Tim speaks mainly in slogans and generalities, and still can't avoid contradicting himself. Let's show him how it's done by talking brass tacks.
This.
From the summary:
We must push back against misinformation by encouraging gatekeepers such as Google and Facebook to continue their efforts to combat the problem, while avoiding the creation of any central bodies to decide what is "true" or not.
That is literally what "gatekeeper" means, Tim.
What about Moz://a? Why wasn't it included?
Because they are all but bought by Google already. Why else do you think they would fire Eich, adopt DRM, ape Chrome, and plan to kill off the browser extenstion system that gave users unprecedented control over their own browsing experience (through adblocking and script-blocking and a million other essential features).
Mod parent up. Unless essential extensions like adblock (read: ublock origin) retains functionality, Firefox will have (even more of) a shitstorm on their hands.
the girl herslef said they are false, the accusations were made by a third-side feminist who thought she knew better than both of them
Just so folks can see a concrete, verifiable example of this kind of thing . . .
Two adult students have consensual sex; third parties decide otherwise, including the university. The male student is suspended before they even do him the courtesy of a show trial, ruining his education, athletic career, and (potential) medical career.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This is how the "rape culture" myth does irreparable harm, with college students getting the worst of it through abuse of Title IX.
EME proponents Netflix, Microsoft, Apple, and Google
Hey look, all the major browser makers, except one. Users still have a choice in Firefox.
Except that Youtube-owner Google spent hundreds of millions to obtain considerable financial influence over the browser maker thought most likely to resist (Mozilla). And then (what a coincidence!) Mozilla gave in on DRM, and seems perpetually bent on making dozens of other perplexing decisions that users can't stand, and seem outright designed to cost it market share.
Be assured that the other big (if not the main) reason they want DRM is to thwart adblock for videos. If they can compromise your browser/vidplayer to the degree that they've prevented you from even reading the content stream, then they've necessarily also prevented you from altering it.
It's not a terrible idea in theory. But if it catches on, then almost immediately news sites will start using it to filter out thoughtcrime (i.e. wrong opinions instead of wrong facts).
Every article on immigration will require you to agree on the unqualified benefits of mass immigration (and a gauntlet of other talking points), or an article will require you to say you believe in the wage gap, for example.
First of all, it's a private company doing it, so it's not censorship
Let's put this myth to rest. Free speech is a bigger concept than the 1st Amendment (the world is bigger than America and American laws, for starters).
The ACLU has a blindspot a whole amendment wide, but when it comes to free speech even they acknowledge the extent of the threat:
https://www.aclu.org/other/wha...
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.
Was there a "Second of all"?
They use terms to mean whatever they want anyway.
Disagreement is now harrassment.
Mockery is now hate speech.
Offense is now trauma.
Criticism is now abuse.
Compelling criticism is now violence.
Anyone who talks about subjects the MSM wants to suppress is now a troll.
Anyone at random is a racist/sexist/white supremacist/nazi/etc if they say so.
The use of this alarmist (and usually, simply wrong) language is ubiquitous and deliberate. It's all a pretense to justify a disproportionate censorial "response," especially when they know no response is warranted at all. It's also a brazenly transparent tactic, especially since Twitter/Reddit/etc rarely seem to use it against users that properly align with their politics.
EVlog by Altair Technologies Ltd.