They merely have to do better than humans. 40,000 vehicular deaths per year just in the US tends to set the good enough bar pretty damn low.
Not really. Not low enough to avoid massive liability.
When a human kills another in an accident, that's one death. And if the at-fault party dies in the accident as well, who are you going to sue? If a companies build autonomous cars, each model could be liable for thousands of deaths. And the responsible parties are sitting, alive and well, in some fancy corporate office. On top of a large pile of stock. Autonomous cars are an injury lawyer's wet dream.
Rest assured liability will be buried under the "I Agree" button on the dashboard of the autonomous car. And consumers will happily agree to it to not be burdened with driving.
Autonomous cars don't have to be perfect. They merely have to do better than humans. 40,000 vehicular deaths per year just in the US tends to set the good enough bar pretty damn low. AI will do the same.
Actually, if you want people to accept autonomous cars, you will have to do *MUCH* better than humans. Think of the civil lawsuits and subsequent damages if a computer-driven car kills someone...
Oh you mean like the massive lawsuits and huge punishments when a smartphone-distracted human kills someone? Oh, wait...nevermind. We don't have any of that shit happening after countless distracted driving injuries and deaths.
Rest assured liability will be buried under the "I Agree" button on the dashboard of the autonomous car.
A sufficiently talented AI 'researcher' should be able to code a self-aware AI researching AI.
It's weird enough for AI specialists to deal with the fact that they're coding the demise of thousands of human jobs. Don't make it worse by enforcing the fact that they will likely eventually join their unemployable brethren...
I am sure "Element AI" wants to pretend there is such a thing as AI, but there isn't. Playing "Go" is not "AI" and neither is autonomous driving...
AI tends to drive a belief that modeling intelligence perfectly is a necessary requirement when it is in fact artificial. Reality dictates the bar is much lower for adoption.Good enough AI specialists will create good enough AI. Autonomous cars don't have to be perfect. They merely have to do better than humans. 40,000 vehicular deaths per year just in the US tends to set the good enough bar pretty damn low. AI will do the same.
Don't want to call it AI? OK, fine. Massive Disruption has a catchy marketing ring to it...
Vaping by itself is completely harmless with nicotine being on par with caffeine in terms of harm and effects.
This is nothing more than the anti cigarette brigade getting their panties in a wad over the fact that people flat out love nicotine and want to enjoy it without the bad effects of cigarettes (which are bad).
Better the young'ins be vaping rather than smoke cigarettes.
How in the FUCK have so many missed the main fucking point being driven here...
"Teens who vape e-cigarettes with higher nicotine levels are more likely to start smoking conventional cigarettes soon after...43 percent of the students who'd used high-nicotine e-cigarettes said they were "frequent smokers" of traditional cigarettes six months later..."
Better the "young'ins" not touch the products that create insatiable addiction and contribute to our #1 cause of preventable death.
"Teens who vape e-cigarettes with higher nicotine levels are more likely to start smoking conventional cigarettes soon after...43 percent of the students who'd used high-nicotine e-cigarettes said they were "frequent smokers" of traditional cigarettes six months later...
Seems you missed the main point being driven here.
Over 450,000 deaths per year in America and 7 million worldwide. Cigarettes are probably the most addictive product man has ever created. It continues to reign as the #1 cause of preventable death, and yet it is a legal product.
By comparison, anything else on the entire fucking planet is "not particularly harmful". And I think it's pretty clear that e-cigarettes aren't really doing a damn thing to prevent or deter the traditional product.
The problem with 14 year-olds is that while they're smart enough to know the words, they don't really know the music. We mistake their verbalization of intellectual concepts as understanding.
And how old do we wait to teach kids about concepts like the 1st Amendment? Should we reserve Pledge of Allegiance participation until they can pass the related lyric aptitude test?
A VPN isn't exactly something kids are blindly peer-pressuring each other into, so I'd be more inclined to believe someone asking for it understands the value of it more than we might assume.
Why do you assume privacy starts at an arbitrary number assigned by society?
If anything, I commend a 14-year old valuing privacy. Few these days do, since most are addicted to social media, and the associated narcissism that tends to make privacy obsolete.
Perhaps anti-virus wouldn't be even necessary if there were less users infected with anti-intelligence.
So tired of this bullshit argument.
I've been working in infosec for 20 years.
For about half of that time, I also said that "lusers" are the main problem.
Then one day I grew up and realized that they are just being humans and that's a bullshit excuse for not doing my job properly...
Not doing your job properly?
I expect an adult to burn their hand once on the stove.
I expect an idiot to do that over and over again.
And idiot-proofing UIs these days has enabled more and more ignorance to sit behind the keyboard. Computers have literally been re-designed For Dummies now, which is exactly why "lusers" do the same stupid shit over and over again, no matter how many times I've done my job to try and teach them.
And if you can't deal with people being people, you don't fucking belong into information security.
We continue to deal with idiots because we're paid well. No one works IT or InfoSec because it's a stress-free job where you're never on call, and can rest easy knowing you've learned all there is to know about your job after 4 years of school.
I'd like to hear more technical information about the issue and whether there are steps that can be taken to reduce the risk of installing *any* antivirus software...
The main reason you have to run anti-software sits between the keyboard and the chair, and runs a common sense blocker plug-in.
Perhaps anti-virus wouldn't be even necessary if there were less users infected with anti-intelligence.
...I don't think anybody really believes they can trust antivirus software or any other software for that matter.
What's that? The main reason couldn't hear you, they were busy installing a Beyonce flash player. Yeah, of course it's legit...
It's a matter of whom you trust. Check out the laws of the country of origin and the persons who run the company. If you can't trust any software, then you cannot use a computer. It's as simple as that.
It's about mitigating risk.
I would put the risk of state-level espionage well below the idiot behind the keyboard that forces IT/Security to install anti-virus/malware software to begin with.
2017, and the masses still haven't learned. I swear they'll click on anything. Yes, of course that Windows pop-up for a Kardashian baby-watch app was totally legit. I mean, why wouldn't Microsoft want you to know...
*facepalm*
The twisted irony of trusting that the largest threat to an organization is quite often their own users.
Millienials had the deck stacked against them and are more educated about these facts than any previous generation. It's no wonder they adopted the "IDGAF" attitude, I don't blame them for that
The proverbial stove is hot. I do tend to blame the "educated" one who burns themselves repeatedly. "IDGAF" isn't usually an acceptable answer for risk mitigation or avoidance.
What actually surprises me more is that we haven't hit a social revolution to change things. I suppose there isn't quite enough angst yet or angst isn't growing at a rate that will tip the bucket. If they're smart, they'll squeeze as much out as possible without causing a revolution. An optimization problem at a population scale.
For the IDGAF generation, the only thing that would actually build up angst is being forced to pay for online services. Of course, this feeds the perpetual cycle of exchanging their digital soul for a free price tag, risks be damned.
Alternatively you could let people do and say as they please and then perhaps you wouldn't come off a an ever bigger twit.
It would not be smart for the human race to try and silence Wisdom or Common Sense, no matter how unpopular both may be with the IDGAF YOLO generation.
Doing so would leave Experience as the only teacher, which would invariably cause an exponential increase in Darwin Award winners.
Haha! Tired cliche! Ancient repetitive humorless humor!
Huh, odd. For some reason I'm picturing you on a Shakespearean stage reciting this response, as the audience tries to ignore that coffee stain on your tights...
You will end up having to pay a lot more, or your insurance company will, or your government health care entity will just say "fuck it" and leave you to die because the meds are too expensive.
Looking for the answer in the Medical Industrial Complex fueled by relentless greed?
When validating basic research turns into a joke creating 30,000+ contaminated documents, other vetting processes tend to become rather irrelevant.
...New cancer treatments don't come directly out of some pottering professor's lab where the hung over grad students throw something together in the centrifuge after sacrificing a few mice.
After finding 30,000+ mistakes, they might as well have.
Did Orwell's 1984 stop being a basic high school literature requirement in the last 20 years?
Generation X saw the birth of the internet. They remember and understand the value of privacy. The inherent risks of dismissing privacy and security online were not well known, but as time went on, they became aware. In the early days, dismissing risk was demonstrating ignorance.
Millennials/Gen Z grew up in the internet era. They've seen the repeated hacks and attacks against privacy and security. They are fully aware of the risks and impact. The IDGAF generation simply doesn't care. The younger generation who dismisses risk today is demonstrating willful ignorance.
Not only is Privacy dead, but the demand for Privacy is as well.
I am continually baffled by the number of people mindlessly signing up for an active listening (and soon, viewing) device in their homes.
You can just see the incremental push for "new applications" which will ultimately require continuous listening, viewing and remote transcription.
I stopped trying to understand the inherent stupidity in willful ignorance. In the immortal words of Vizzini, it's inconceivable. It can be easily defined in two words today, and follows every EULA that is blindly accepted; I Agree.
What percentage of the population is affected by that seemingly small impact?
How many billions (or trillions) in costs are associated with that seemingly small impact?
Risk mitigation relies on asking the right questions. Unfortunately, TFA starts to answer my questions. Oncology is the field most contaminated by a large margin. I'd say it's pretty damn important to understand just how fucked our studies are related to one of mankinds most pervasive killers. Cancer affects a hell of a lot more than 0.8% of the population.
What the hell are you talking about? USB-C is an industry standard that all PC makers are moving to implement. For years (and still now) the complaint about Apple is that they use their own proprietary connectors like Lightning. This one isn't theirs and you can blame the USB Implementer's Forum for the design choices. While Apple is member of the forum so are HP, NEC, Microsoft, and Intel.
Does any of this dismiss the fact that the entire point of TFS was to point out that USB-C (whether intentional or not) has become rather proprietary due to lack of reliable functionality? Let's try and and dispel with the bullshit semantics already. You can claim an interface does a lot of things, but at the end of the day if all it can reliably do is be a damn power cord, then it's about as much of a pain in the ass as any proprietary design.
I wish this kind of fucking courage would spell the demise of such stupidity, but chances are Apple's particular flavor of ignorant Greed will force them to double-down on proprietary interface bullshit to maximize revenue streams. Soon, every model will be devoid of tried and true interfaces, and we'll be left with "you're plugging it in wrong."
Please explain what you mean as Apple actually has to pay the non-profit USB Implementer's forum to use the tech (like every one else). Also you do realize, you can't plug-in USB-C cables wrong as the connector is not directional.
I'm well aware of the bidirectional design of USB-C. The "plugging it in wrong" joke was in reference to the "holding it wrong" excuse infamously made by Apple. I assumed that was fairly clear. Apparently not.
But let's look at what USB-C replaced: Apple magsafe power (Apple proprietary), USB A , Thunderbolt 1 and 2 (proprietary to Intel), HDMI (also proprietary). Only the power connector was one that Apple owned. So please explain to me how Apple "doubles down" on interfaces which they don't own and get revenue.
In order to re-affirm my point, I'd prefer to look at what USB-C has reliably replaced: A power cord.
Apple doubled down on this fact by removing all other proven (proprietary or not) interfaces from the latest iterations of hardware, making I/O efforts essentially worse than dealing with any proprietary design. In reference to the textbook definition, I'd say they're rather "exclusive" with this mentality. Unfortunately, the rest of the design market often tends to blindly follow the leader...
Slashdot Mirror
They merely have to do better than humans. 40,000 vehicular deaths per year just in the US tends to set the good enough bar pretty damn low.
Not really. Not low enough to avoid massive liability.
When a human kills another in an accident, that's one death. And if the at-fault party dies in the accident as well, who are you going to sue? If a companies build autonomous cars, each model could be liable for thousands of deaths. And the responsible parties are sitting, alive and well, in some fancy corporate office. On top of a large pile of stock. Autonomous cars are an injury lawyer's wet dream.
Rest assured liability will be buried under the "I Agree" button on the dashboard of the autonomous car. And consumers will happily agree to it to not be burdened with driving.
Autonomous cars don't have to be perfect. They merely have to do better than humans. 40,000 vehicular deaths per year just in the US tends to set the good enough bar pretty damn low. AI will do the same.
Actually, if you want people to accept autonomous cars, you will have to do *MUCH* better than humans. Think of the civil lawsuits and subsequent damages if a computer-driven car kills someone...
Oh you mean like the massive lawsuits and huge punishments when a smartphone-distracted human kills someone? Oh, wait...nevermind. We don't have any of that shit happening after countless distracted driving injuries and deaths.
Rest assured liability will be buried under the "I Agree" button on the dashboard of the autonomous car.
A sufficiently talented AI 'researcher' should be able to code a self-aware AI researching AI.
It's weird enough for AI specialists to deal with the fact that they're coding the demise of thousands of human jobs. Don't make it worse by enforcing the fact that they will likely eventually join their unemployable brethren...
I am sure "Element AI" wants to pretend there is such a thing as AI, but there isn't. Playing "Go" is not "AI" and neither is autonomous driving...
AI tends to drive a belief that modeling intelligence perfectly is a necessary requirement when it is in fact artificial. Reality dictates the bar is much lower for adoption. Good enough AI specialists will create good enough AI. Autonomous cars don't have to be perfect. They merely have to do better than humans. 40,000 vehicular deaths per year just in the US tends to set the good enough bar pretty damn low. AI will do the same.
Don't want to call it AI? OK, fine. Massive Disruption has a catchy marketing ring to it...
Vaping by itself is completely harmless with nicotine being on par with caffeine in terms of harm and effects.
This is nothing more than the anti cigarette brigade getting their panties in a wad over the fact that people flat out love nicotine and want to enjoy it without the bad effects of cigarettes (which are bad).
Better the young'ins be vaping rather than smoke cigarettes.
How in the FUCK have so many missed the main fucking point being driven here...
"Teens who vape e-cigarettes with higher nicotine levels are more likely to start smoking conventional cigarettes soon after...43 percent of the students who'd used high-nicotine e-cigarettes said they were "frequent smokers" of traditional cigarettes six months later..."
Better the "young'ins" not touch the products that create insatiable addiction and contribute to our #1 cause of preventable death.
Nicotine is addictive.
... but not particulary harmful. Nicotine addicts are way better off vaping than smoking.
From TFS:
"Teens who vape e-cigarettes with higher nicotine levels are more likely to start smoking conventional cigarettes soon after...43 percent of the students who'd used high-nicotine e-cigarettes said they were "frequent smokers" of traditional cigarettes six months later...
Seems you missed the main point being driven here.
Over 450,000 deaths per year in America and 7 million worldwide. Cigarettes are probably the most addictive product man has ever created. It continues to reign as the #1 cause of preventable death, and yet it is a legal product.
By comparison, anything else on the entire fucking planet is "not particularly harmful". And I think it's pretty clear that e-cigarettes aren't really doing a damn thing to prevent or deter the traditional product.
...Missing a 3.5mm audio jack.
Defect? I thought the kids call that courage these days...
The problem with 14 year-olds is that while they're smart enough to know the words, they don't really know the music. We mistake their verbalization of intellectual concepts as understanding.
And how old do we wait to teach kids about concepts like the 1st Amendment? Should we reserve Pledge of Allegiance participation until they can pass the related lyric aptitude test?
A VPN isn't exactly something kids are blindly peer-pressuring each other into, so I'd be more inclined to believe someone asking for it understands the value of it more than we might assume.
I would actually prefer that the major players all try to keep each other honest.
Being honest is one thing, which I do appreciate.
That said, Microsoft doesn't have the right to bash a garage-band IoT maker about security flaws response.
Everyone, from the lone user to a mega-corporation, has the right to call out security flaws on anyone who exposes others to risk.
I was more intending to highlight the fucking irony of Microsoft doing so. As others have said, those in glass houses...
maybe wait until his 18th birthday?
Why do you assume privacy starts at an arbitrary number assigned by society?
If anything, I commend a 14-year old valuing privacy. Few these days do, since most are addicted to social media, and the associated narcissism that tends to make privacy obsolete.
Microsoft sucked at security before, they don't now...
Given Microsoft Telemetry, I really don't see products as any more secure, even when the masses exchange privacy for a free upgrade.
Perhaps anti-virus wouldn't be even necessary if there were less users infected with anti-intelligence.
So tired of this bullshit argument.
I've been working in infosec for 20 years.
For about half of that time, I also said that "lusers" are the main problem.
Then one day I grew up and realized that they are just being humans and that's a bullshit excuse for not doing my job properly...
Not doing your job properly?
I expect an adult to burn their hand once on the stove.
I expect an idiot to do that over and over again.
And idiot-proofing UIs these days has enabled more and more ignorance to sit behind the keyboard. Computers have literally been re-designed For Dummies now, which is exactly why "lusers" do the same stupid shit over and over again, no matter how many times I've done my job to try and teach them.
And if you can't deal with people being people, you don't fucking belong into information security.
We continue to deal with idiots because we're paid well. No one works IT or InfoSec because it's a stress-free job where you're never on call, and can rest easy knowing you've learned all there is to know about your job after 4 years of school.
I would actually prefer that the major players all try to keep each other honest.
Being honest is one thing, which I do appreciate.
That said, Microsoft doesn't have the right to bash a garage-band IoT maker about security flaws response.
I'd like to hear more technical information about the issue and whether there are steps that can be taken to reduce the risk of installing *any* antivirus software...
The main reason you have to run anti-software sits between the keyboard and the chair, and runs a common sense blocker plug-in.
Perhaps anti-virus wouldn't be even necessary if there were less users infected with anti-intelligence.
...I don't think anybody really believes they can trust antivirus software or any other software for that matter.
What's that? The main reason couldn't hear you, they were busy installing a Beyonce flash player. Yeah, of course it's legit...
It's a matter of whom you trust. Check out the laws of the country of origin and the persons who run the company. If you can't trust any software, then you cannot use a computer. It's as simple as that.
It's about mitigating risk.
I would put the risk of state-level espionage well below the idiot behind the keyboard that forces IT/Security to install anti-virus/malware software to begin with.
2017, and the masses still haven't learned. I swear they'll click on anything. Yes, of course that Windows pop-up for a Kardashian baby-watch app was totally legit. I mean, why wouldn't Microsoft want you to know...
*facepalm*
The twisted irony of trusting that the largest threat to an organization is quite often their own users.
Millienials had the deck stacked against them and are more educated about these facts than any previous generation. It's no wonder they adopted the "IDGAF" attitude, I don't blame them for that
The proverbial stove is hot. I do tend to blame the "educated" one who burns themselves repeatedly. "IDGAF" isn't usually an acceptable answer for risk mitigation or avoidance.
What actually surprises me more is that we haven't hit a social revolution to change things. I suppose there isn't quite enough angst yet or angst isn't growing at a rate that will tip the bucket. If they're smart, they'll squeeze as much out as possible without causing a revolution. An optimization problem at a population scale.
For the IDGAF generation, the only thing that would actually build up angst is being forced to pay for online services. Of course, this feeds the perpetual cycle of exchanging their digital soul for a free price tag, risks be damned.
...investors are on the verge of turning management into just another, "beat the quarterly earnings forecast" collection of MBAs and bean counters.
Sadly, this tends to highlight the value of private companies.
Greed tends to shit all over every other company mission, and doesn't care.
Alternatively you could let people do and say as they please and then perhaps you wouldn't come off a an ever bigger twit.
It would not be smart for the human race to try and silence Wisdom or Common Sense, no matter how unpopular both may be with the IDGAF YOLO generation.
Doing so would leave Experience as the only teacher, which would invariably cause an exponential increase in Darwin Award winners.
Haha! Tired cliche! Ancient repetitive humorless humor!
Huh, odd. For some reason I'm picturing you on a Shakespearean stage reciting this response, as the audience tries to ignore that coffee stain on your tights...
You will end up having to pay a lot more, or your insurance company will, or your government health care entity will just say "fuck it" and leave you to die because the meds are too expensive.
Looking for the answer in the Medical Industrial Complex fueled by relentless greed?
D) All the above
FDA GLP/GMP inspections are no joke...
When validating basic research turns into a joke creating 30,000+ contaminated documents, other vetting processes tend to become rather irrelevant.
...New cancer treatments don't come directly out of some pottering professor's lab where the hung over grad students throw something together in the centrifuge after sacrificing a few mice.
After finding 30,000+ mistakes, they might as well have.
Did Orwell's 1984 stop being a basic high school literature requirement in the last 20 years?
Generation X saw the birth of the internet. They remember and understand the value of privacy. The inherent risks of dismissing privacy and security online were not well known, but as time went on, they became aware. In the early days, dismissing risk was demonstrating ignorance.
Millennials/Gen Z grew up in the internet era. They've seen the repeated hacks and attacks against privacy and security. They are fully aware of the risks and impact. The IDGAF generation simply doesn't care. The younger generation who dismisses risk today is demonstrating willful ignorance.
Not only is Privacy dead, but the demand for Privacy is as well.
I am continually baffled by the number of people mindlessly signing up for an active listening (and soon, viewing) device in their homes.
You can just see the incremental push for "new applications" which will ultimately require continuous listening, viewing and remote transcription.
I stopped trying to understand the inherent stupidity in willful ignorance. In the immortal words of Vizzini, it's inconceivable. It can be easily defined in two words today, and follows every EULA that is blindly accepted; I Agree.
0,8% - the paper is open access if you want the details. http://journals.plos.org/ploso...
What percentage of the population is affected by that seemingly small impact?
How many billions (or trillions) in costs are associated with that seemingly small impact?
Risk mitigation relies on asking the right questions. Unfortunately, TFA starts to answer my questions. Oncology is the field most contaminated by a large margin. I'd say it's pretty damn important to understand just how fucked our studies are related to one of mankinds most pervasive killers. Cancer affects a hell of a lot more than 0.8% of the population.
What the hell are you talking about? USB-C is an industry standard that all PC makers are moving to implement. For years (and still now) the complaint about Apple is that they use their own proprietary connectors like Lightning. This one isn't theirs and you can blame the USB Implementer's Forum for the design choices. While Apple is member of the forum so are HP, NEC, Microsoft, and Intel.
Does any of this dismiss the fact that the entire point of TFS was to point out that USB-C (whether intentional or not) has become rather proprietary due to lack of reliable functionality? Let's try and and dispel with the bullshit semantics already. You can claim an interface does a lot of things, but at the end of the day if all it can reliably do is be a damn power cord, then it's about as much of a pain in the ass as any proprietary design.
I wish this kind of fucking courage would spell the demise of such stupidity, but chances are Apple's particular flavor of ignorant Greed will force them to double-down on proprietary interface bullshit to maximize revenue streams. Soon, every model will be devoid of tried and true interfaces, and we'll be left with "you're plugging it in wrong."
Please explain what you mean as Apple actually has to pay the non-profit USB Implementer's forum to use the tech (like every one else). Also you do realize, you can't plug-in USB-C cables wrong as the connector is not directional.
I'm well aware of the bidirectional design of USB-C. The "plugging it in wrong" joke was in reference to the "holding it wrong" excuse infamously made by Apple. I assumed that was fairly clear. Apparently not.
But let's look at what USB-C replaced: Apple magsafe power (Apple proprietary), USB A , Thunderbolt 1 and 2 (proprietary to Intel), HDMI (also proprietary). Only the power connector was one that Apple owned. So please explain to me how Apple "doubles down" on interfaces which they don't own and get revenue.
In order to re-affirm my point, I'd prefer to look at what USB-C has reliably replaced: A power cord.
Apple doubled down on this fact by removing all other proven (proprietary or not) interfaces from the latest iterations of hardware, making I/O efforts essentially worse than dealing with any proprietary design. In reference to the textbook definition, I'd say they're rather "exclusive" with this mentality. Unfortunately, the rest of the design market often tends to blindly follow the leader...
Which of these is heavily taxed? Now do you see the lack of concern.
The answer is cell phones heavily taxed? Now do you see the lack of ethics.
In a sane society, capitalism isn't a legal defense against manslaughter.