Well sure, I mean look at what the crossbow and arquebus did for warfare: a peasant taught how to load and fire is nearly as lethal as a guy that trained his whole life with a longbow. Or the difference in skill needed to operate a table saw versus a hand saw.
A crossbow or hand saw was never designed to be operated by a fucking 3-year old.
An iPad is.
I hope you now understand just how much effort mankind has put into building a better idiot.
So what you're saying is your academic qualification system is flawed in that it caps out and grades top tier applicants equally so they can no longer be distinguished on academic merit, and that rather than your most academically excellent minded youngsters being put forward you've reduced it to a popularity contest.
Politicians have been kissing babies since the 19th century. That "flawed" system has existed for a long fucking time.
No matter how irrational it may seem, completely unrelated bullshit appeals to the masses.
"Open your wallet", he says, LOL. That won't work either. Everyone is going to LIE TO YOUR FACE about their so-called 'privacy policy', and even if they don't? Someone upstream of them will be doing the spying anyway. The best you can do is use Tor, cross your fingers that some criminals aren't compromising your exit node to either steal your identity or infect your computer with something, and make the hard choice between not being able to use all those websites that don't work because you're on Tor, or accessing them 'in the clear' and knowing that your very personally identifiable traffic is being logged by your ISP. Then if that wasn't bad enough, most people are still using Windows, so never mind ISPs spying on you, your own computer is already spying on you.
The only way we'll have any real privacy on the Internet ever will be when there is a combination of strict privacy laws with stiff penalties for violating them, and 100% encryption on all traffic, including DNS lookups. Don't hold your breath waiting for it, there's too much money on the table, every Internet-related company with skin in the game would fight tooth and nail to prevent it from ever happening. As-is if you want any modicum of privacy you may as well start formulating an exit strategy for the Internet, and learn to get along without it in the long run, in this game the only way to win is to not play.
I would assume you are one of the rare humans who is actually intelligent enough to come to the conclusion that the only way to "win" is not to play. You are correct in that statement. The only way to communicate securely is to not use the internet to do it, so communication now comes at a cost.
The statement regarding opening your wallet was addressing the generation of social media narcissists who demand everything for free. This is the same generation who no longer gives a flying fuck about security who will ultimately create the demise of it.
This egomaniac isn't responsible, password rules meeting or exceeding his claim go back at least two decades for Commercial companies, and longer for "Government" (especially DOD). I have a policy from 1995 that I wrote for the company I worked for at the time...
Like you, I've been doing this for a very long time now (decades).
The average person (user) is stupid and ignorant.
Intelligent people have known this for centuries. No one alive can take "credit" for that discovery, but it's not exactly a falsehood for the author of a NIST standard to come forth and apologize for making that assumption.
"Oh, and password policies are as important today as they were back then."
I've worked with the stupid and ignorant for a very long time. The ones that still refuse to back up their systems after the third hard drive failure. The ones that still refuse to change their password after identity theft because of shitty passwords.
I stand by my original statement.Fuck 'em if they refuse to learn.
Open my wallet? I have no problems paying for things. The issue is -- where can I find a service that I can trust, paid or not? I submit that I can't. Not to say they don't exist, but that it's impossible to tell who they are.
Yes, it's impossible. That much is true. But the larger problem is you represent the fraction of a percent who still cares. The other 99.999% of society doesn't give a shit about privacy, so you will never find a viable solution for security.
There is no longer any money in privacy. Therefore, there is no justified reason for anyone to provide it. No matter how you feel about that, it is true.
Tell that to the generation too lazy to type, or even learn how to.
That "too lazy to type" generation is the texting, tweeting, facebook update generation. They type more in highschool than most of us in older generations did in college.
The market calls bullshit on your claim. There are no keyboards attached to all of these personal assistants regardless of what you want to believe.
Your VPN provider has access to your traffic. If anyone aside from you or the party you're communicating with has access to your traffic, your communications are not secure -- even if that "anyone" uses the acronym "VPN".
You need to understand that there is no longer any money to be made in creating solutions for the 1% of internet users that still give a shit about security and anonymity.
That's not even taking into account governments who vehemently despise anonymous communications.
I keep TELLING you people this and you keep scoffing at me. Don't you see it? Too much tech being too 'helpful'. It's making people LAZY.
That would be called knowing your audience. Or targeted marketing.
Lazy is what the future brings. The real question is how the fuck will anyone survive being capable of doing literally nothing. We don't have an economic model that fits that goal.
"They are a swath of the world's less-educated, online for the first time thanks to low-end smartphones, cheap data plans and intuitive apps that let them navigate despite poor literacy..."
In a strange twist of irony, the 21st century will bring forth the world's most advanced technology, and will ensure that it is so idiot-proof, a fucking caveman could operate it.
Welcome to the future. Intelligence and skill, is optional.
Uhh, that's a 25% GROSS margin. The profit margin of TSLA is currently -12.06%. Negative. Tesla does not make a profit today, nor has it in the past.
Snapchat lost over $500 million in 2016, and was even arrogant enough to declare in their IPO that they haven't made a profit, and may never make a profit. Yet they're worth billions.
Your talk of "profits" and financial common sense has no place in 21st century business. Narcissism, fake news, and hype are the new currency.
Congratulations to John Dumoulin, for winning in the Excel category.:-)
I'd suggest that Microsoft add another prize - the chance to talk with the person in charge of MS Office, and tell them how to improve it.
It's good to get the perspective of a user. When we write code, we know how it works, so we're not as aware that labels or error messages are unclear. And if we figured out a clever way to solve a problem regarding feature X, it's easy to let pride convince us to include feature X. We might need to hear a user tell us that feature X should be removed, because it's not useful.
So Microsoft should ask a contest winner about the value of Office features?
What's next, Jeff Gordon looking for driving tips from the guy who kicks ass at GTA? Perhaps John Mayer would enjoy discussing technical riffs with a Guitar Hero champion.
Yes, I agree we should ask users for feedback. The kid holding a trophy with exactly zero real world experience, ain't it.
"Past winners have gone on to attend Ivy League colleges..."
You took on volunteer work. You enrolled in AP courses. You maintained a perfect 4.4 GPA, and never missed a day of school. All in hopes of having that Ivy League college accept you, only to find your bitch ass got passed up by the kid who won a fucking Excel contest.
Ahh, no one says you're doing it wrong quite like Microsoft.
While the browser firms work extensively to build top-notch security and privacy controls into the browsers themselves, the unfortunate fact is that these can be undermined by add-ons
Not false, but it's also true that ad-blocking (ublock) and script-blocking (flashblock, noscript) extension have done more for user privacy and security than most any other software, sometimes by working against the aims of the browser makers. I fear this story may be part of an anti-extension (and anti-user-control in general) narrative.
Imagine if an aftermarket vendor offered a vehicle modification that disabled the air bags without telling the driver, which ultimately resulted in killing people. You would tend to want to not only go after the aftermarket vendor, but you would probably also question the automobile manufacturer, and their security mechanism that was undermined.
Quite often with shitty extensions or shitty apps, consumers are unaware that safety and security has been compromised. The narrative is not anti-user-control, it's anti-user-manipulation.
And if you're worried about the automobile manufacturer making an unsafe product from the factory, then you find a different car to drive.
100% of all legally owed taxes. And not a penny more. Probably much like you do as well... Unless you willingly forgo legal deductions and tax shelters?
The average taxpayer doesn't abuse the shit out of offshore tax havens and maintain armies of lobbyists in order to reduce their tax liability from millions to pennies every year.
If they did, the government would have been broke long ago, so let's just drop the bullshit comparison now. The average taxpayer and a mega-corp aren't even close to the same when it comes to tax liability.
Maybe they don't find that analogous. For instance, consider the following:
(1) There is a system that, if you grant it access to your browser history and email, will look over it algorithmically and will produce a set of advertising recommendations. Humans can program the algorithm, but they can never see the browser history or email themselves. So long as the system functions as designed, this is the only way the data can be used.
(2) An actual human being will review your browser history and email.
It's quite possible for a sane person to find those two situations very different. And, assuming they believe that the system in (1) functions as designed, they may in fact place very different values on those two scenarios.
I'm not saying you have to treat them the same, but you can't actually say that people are crazy or ignorant just because they came to a different conclusion in this respect. Or you can, but it's not too convincing.
I'll pose an even simpler question to validate ignorance.
Should people trust corporations?
If history and common sense dictates people should not, then (1) and/or (2) are irrelevant. Besides it's the third option that is the largest concern, and usually creates data leaks and abuse.
(3) A corporation will sell your information to any bidder, who will do what they please with it.
Perhaps male contraception was a viable issue to address during the boomer generation.
Today, the divorce rate has never been higher. Infidelity(AshleyMadison/IllicitEncounters) and casual sex(Tinder/Grindr) have been turned from sins into products for the hook-up generation. All of this activity going on in the most dangerous STD landscape that has ever existed.
Pill contraception is a one-trick pony, and unwanted pregnancy is the least of our fucking concerns now.
The real problem is not discovering yet another corporation lying about how dangerous their product is. The real problem is nothing is being done about it. There's not a fucking thing that will come out of these latest "shocking" revelations. Never has. Never will.
You want to know how insane it is? If sanctions were actually taken against Monsanto for poisoning food crops and killing people, their lawyers would point to the tobacco industry and say, "Hey! No fair! How come they get to kill people and we can't?!?"
Greed N. Corruption runs capitalism today, and the lack of action taken against deadly corporations shows that it is sanctioned at the highest levels. The reason is quite simple; resource management is a responsibility held by every government, and population control is a key component of that responsibility.
Before you label that a conspiracy, take a good hard look at how many deadly products are legal today. Why would Greed ever want to cure cancer? There's trillions to be made treating it instead and it ensures deaths. Outlaw tobacco? Yeah right. That's another Win-Win industry.
Death is no longer merely a side-effect of life. It is now manufactured.
Yup. Amazon is well into making picker robots that will pick items off the shelf and put them into the box. When they do, most of the warehouse jobs go away.
I find it rather strange that Greed cannot see the business impact that automation will ultimately create. Rather hard to maintain revenue streams when you've automated the masses out of employment, and no one can afford to buy your robot-delivered products.
Of course, Greed is too fucking short-sighted to see this obvious problem...
Here is the thing about computers and automation. They do not make your lives easier, they make them more difficult. Computers and robots are taking away the easy jobs, leaving the hard jobs, that requires more complex thinking, creativity and problem solving skills, and a wider range of movement. Where every day your job will be different.
We cannot try to slow this down (AKA America First), we cannot really ignore the problem (AKA basic income). However there needs to be an effort to get people onto the fact that they need to change, because people can change faster then a computer can. This includes Training the employees, and changing businesses to allow people who do not have the experience to get in and build the experience.
Here's the thing about computers and automation taking away the easy jobs, leaving only the complex jobs that require training and education. There's a damn good chance an easy job was your first job because it was the only kind of job you were qualified to do. There's a damn good chance an easy job was what helped pay for training and education to enable you to obtain a skilled job.
Without easy jobs, there is no ladder of success to climb. There is no path to obtain the skills to qualify you for the only jobs left. Regarding change, Greed doesn't seem to care that it's exacerbating this inherent problem. Regarding people adapting, the problem with that is there are a lot of people who simply aren't intelligent enough to grasp a complex job. That's why they have an easy job. That's not meant to be demeaning, simply stating fact.
Slashdot Mirror
They'll have to learn the hard way, I guess.
TANSTAAFL
History dictates stupidity wouldn't have it any other way.
"The program, called a "reasoner," figures out the steps required to make a product..."
Can't believe it took us this long to determine a project manager could be replaced by AI rather easily...
Well sure, I mean look at what the crossbow and arquebus did for warfare: a peasant taught how to load and fire is nearly as lethal as a guy that trained his whole life with a longbow. Or the difference in skill needed to operate a table saw versus a hand saw.
A crossbow or hand saw was never designed to be operated by a fucking 3-year old.
An iPad is.
I hope you now understand just how much effort mankind has put into building a better idiot.
So what you're saying is your academic qualification system is flawed in that it caps out and grades top tier applicants equally so they can no longer be distinguished on academic merit, and that rather than your most academically excellent minded youngsters being put forward you've reduced it to a popularity contest.
Politicians have been kissing babies since the 19th century. That "flawed" system has existed for a long fucking time.
No matter how irrational it may seem, completely unrelated bullshit appeals to the masses.
And yeah, I hate bullshit as much as you do.
"Open your wallet", he says, LOL. That won't work either. Everyone is going to LIE TO YOUR FACE about their so-called 'privacy policy', and even if they don't? Someone upstream of them will be doing the spying anyway. The best you can do is use Tor, cross your fingers that some criminals aren't compromising your exit node to either steal your identity or infect your computer with something, and make the hard choice between not being able to use all those websites that don't work because you're on Tor, or accessing them 'in the clear' and knowing that your very personally identifiable traffic is being logged by your ISP. Then if that wasn't bad enough, most people are still using Windows, so never mind ISPs spying on you, your own computer is already spying on you. The only way we'll have any real privacy on the Internet ever will be when there is a combination of strict privacy laws with stiff penalties for violating them, and 100% encryption on all traffic, including DNS lookups. Don't hold your breath waiting for it, there's too much money on the table, every Internet-related company with skin in the game would fight tooth and nail to prevent it from ever happening. As-is if you want any modicum of privacy you may as well start formulating an exit strategy for the Internet, and learn to get along without it in the long run, in this game the only way to win is to not play.
I would assume you are one of the rare humans who is actually intelligent enough to come to the conclusion that the only way to "win" is not to play. You are correct in that statement. The only way to communicate securely is to not use the internet to do it, so communication now comes at a cost.
The statement regarding opening your wallet was addressing the generation of social media narcissists who demand everything for free. This is the same generation who no longer gives a flying fuck about security who will ultimately create the demise of it.
This egomaniac isn't responsible, password rules meeting or exceeding his claim go back at least two decades for Commercial companies, and longer for "Government" (especially DOD). I have a policy from 1995 that I wrote for the company I worked for at the time...
Like you, I've been doing this for a very long time now (decades).
The average person (user) is stupid and ignorant.
Intelligent people have known this for centuries. No one alive can take "credit" for that discovery, but it's not exactly a falsehood for the author of a NIST standard to come forth and apologize for making that assumption.
"Oh, and password policies are as important today as they were back then."
I've worked with the stupid and ignorant for a very long time. The ones that still refuse to back up their systems after the third hard drive failure. The ones that still refuse to change their password after identity theft because of shitty passwords.
I stand by my original statement. Fuck 'em if they refuse to learn.
""In the end, [the list of guidelines] was probably too complicated for a lot of folks to understand very well...
In other words, he did what a lot of us have done; assumed people were actually smart.
He should stop apologizing; intelligent people have been doing that for centuries.
We don't have an economic model that fits that goal.
Sure we do, pushing up lilies from six feet under :)
A cull is merely a side effect no one wants to recognize or acknowledge. It sounds too crazy for the masses, no matter how inevitable it is.
Open my wallet? I have no problems paying for things. The issue is -- where can I find a service that I can trust, paid or not? I submit that I can't. Not to say they don't exist, but that it's impossible to tell who they are.
Yes, it's impossible. That much is true. But the larger problem is you represent the fraction of a percent who still cares. The other 99.999% of society doesn't give a shit about privacy, so you will never find a viable solution for security.
There is no longer any money in privacy. Therefore, there is no justified reason for anyone to provide it. No matter how you feel about that, it is true.
Tell that to the generation too lazy to type, or even learn how to.
That "too lazy to type" generation is the texting, tweeting, facebook update generation. They type more in highschool than most of us in older generations did in college.
The market calls bullshit on your claim. There are no keyboards attached to all of these personal assistants regardless of what you want to believe.
selling t-shirts and coffee cups?
Yes. Seems to work for OpenBSD.
Your VPN provider has access to your traffic. If anyone aside from you or the party you're communicating with has access to your traffic, your communications are not secure -- even if that "anyone" uses the acronym "VPN".
You need to understand that there is no longer any money to be made in creating solutions for the 1% of internet users that still give a shit about security and anonymity.
That's not even taking into account governments who vehemently despise anonymous communications.
You want secure communications? Open your wallet.
Why do submissions like this get approved? Typing isn't going away because some poor guy in India is whispering to a cheap phone.
Tell that to the generation too lazy to type, or even learn how to.
There's a reason all of these "personal assistant" devices in the home are voice powered.
I keep TELLING you people this and you keep scoffing at me. Don't you see it? Too much tech being too 'helpful'. It's making people LAZY.
That would be called knowing your audience. Or targeted marketing.
Lazy is what the future brings. The real question is how the fuck will anyone survive being capable of doing literally nothing. We don't have an economic model that fits that goal.
"They are a swath of the world's less-educated, online for the first time thanks to low-end smartphones, cheap data plans and intuitive apps that let them navigate despite poor literacy..."
In a strange twist of irony, the 21st century will bring forth the world's most advanced technology, and will ensure that it is so idiot-proof, a fucking caveman could operate it.
Welcome to the future. Intelligence and skill, is optional.
Uhh, that's a 25% GROSS margin. The profit margin of TSLA is currently -12.06%. Negative. Tesla does not make a profit today, nor has it in the past.
Snapchat lost over $500 million in 2016, and was even arrogant enough to declare in their IPO that they haven't made a profit, and may never make a profit. Yet they're worth billions.
Your talk of "profits" and financial common sense has no place in 21st century business. Narcissism, fake news, and hype are the new currency.
Congratulations to John Dumoulin, for winning in the Excel category. :-)
I'd suggest that Microsoft add another prize - the chance to talk with the person in charge of MS Office, and tell them how to improve it.
It's good to get the perspective of a user. When we write code, we know how it works, so we're not as aware that labels or error messages are unclear. And if we figured out a clever way to solve a problem regarding feature X, it's easy to let pride convince us to include feature X. We might need to hear a user tell us that feature X should be removed, because it's not useful.
So Microsoft should ask a contest winner about the value of Office features?
What's next, Jeff Gordon looking for driving tips from the guy who kicks ass at GTA? Perhaps John Mayer would enjoy discussing technical riffs with a Guitar Hero champion.
Yes, I agree we should ask users for feedback. The kid holding a trophy with exactly zero real world experience, ain't it.
"Past winners have gone on to attend Ivy League colleges..."
You took on volunteer work. You enrolled in AP courses. You maintained a perfect 4.4 GPA, and never missed a day of school. All in hopes of having that Ivy League college accept you, only to find your bitch ass got passed up by the kid who won a fucking Excel contest.
Ahh, no one says you're doing it wrong quite like Microsoft.
While the browser firms work extensively to build top-notch security and privacy controls into the browsers themselves, the unfortunate fact is that these can be undermined by add-ons
Not false, but it's also true that ad-blocking (ublock) and script-blocking (flashblock, noscript) extension have done more for user privacy and security than most any other software, sometimes by working against the aims of the browser makers. I fear this story may be part of an anti-extension (and anti-user-control in general) narrative.
Imagine if an aftermarket vendor offered a vehicle modification that disabled the air bags without telling the driver, which ultimately resulted in killing people. You would tend to want to not only go after the aftermarket vendor, but you would probably also question the automobile manufacturer, and their security mechanism that was undermined.
Quite often with shitty extensions or shitty apps, consumers are unaware that safety and security has been compromised. The narrative is not anti-user-control, it's anti-user-manipulation.
And if you're worried about the automobile manufacturer making an unsafe product from the factory, then you find a different car to drive.
Yup. Oh - how much does Apple pay in taxes again?
100% of all legally owed taxes. And not a penny more. Probably much like you do as well... Unless you willingly forgo legal deductions and tax shelters?
The average taxpayer doesn't abuse the shit out of offshore tax havens and maintain armies of lobbyists in order to reduce their tax liability from millions to pennies every year.
If they did, the government would have been broke long ago, so let's just drop the bullshit comparison now. The average taxpayer and a mega-corp aren't even close to the same when it comes to tax liability.
Maybe they don't find that analogous. For instance, consider the following:
(1) There is a system that, if you grant it access to your browser history and email, will look over it algorithmically and will produce a set of advertising recommendations. Humans can program the algorithm, but they can never see the browser history or email themselves. So long as the system functions as designed, this is the only way the data can be used.
(2) An actual human being will review your browser history and email.
It's quite possible for a sane person to find those two situations very different. And, assuming they believe that the system in (1) functions as designed, they may in fact place very different values on those two scenarios.
I'm not saying you have to treat them the same, but you can't actually say that people are crazy or ignorant just because they came to a different conclusion in this respect. Or you can, but it's not too convincing.
I'll pose an even simpler question to validate ignorance.
Should people trust corporations?
If history and common sense dictates people should not, then (1) and/or (2) are irrelevant. Besides it's the third option that is the largest concern, and usually creates data leaks and abuse.
(3) A corporation will sell your information to any bidder, who will do what they please with it.
Perhaps male contraception was a viable issue to address during the boomer generation.
Today, the divorce rate has never been higher. Infidelity(AshleyMadison/IllicitEncounters) and casual sex(Tinder/Grindr) have been turned from sins into products for the hook-up generation. All of this activity going on in the most dangerous STD landscape that has ever existed.
Pill contraception is a one-trick pony, and unwanted pregnancy is the least of our fucking concerns now.
The real problem is not discovering yet another corporation lying about how dangerous their product is. The real problem is nothing is being done about it. There's not a fucking thing that will come out of these latest "shocking" revelations. Never has. Never will.
You want to know how insane it is? If sanctions were actually taken against Monsanto for poisoning food crops and killing people, their lawyers would point to the tobacco industry and say, "Hey! No fair! How come they get to kill people and we can't?!?"
Greed N. Corruption runs capitalism today, and the lack of action taken against deadly corporations shows that it is sanctioned at the highest levels. The reason is quite simple; resource management is a responsibility held by every government, and population control is a key component of that responsibility.
Before you label that a conspiracy, take a good hard look at how many deadly products are legal today. Why would Greed ever want to cure cancer? There's trillions to be made treating it instead and it ensures deaths. Outlaw tobacco? Yeah right. That's another Win-Win industry.
Death is no longer merely a side-effect of life. It is now manufactured.
Yup. Amazon is well into making picker robots that will pick items off the shelf and put them into the box. When they do, most of the warehouse jobs go away.
I find it rather strange that Greed cannot see the business impact that automation will ultimately create. Rather hard to maintain revenue streams when you've automated the masses out of employment, and no one can afford to buy your robot-delivered products.
Of course, Greed is too fucking short-sighted to see this obvious problem...
Here is the thing about computers and automation. They do not make your lives easier, they make them more difficult. Computers and robots are taking away the easy jobs, leaving the hard jobs, that requires more complex thinking, creativity and problem solving skills, and a wider range of movement. Where every day your job will be different.
We cannot try to slow this down (AKA America First), we cannot really ignore the problem (AKA basic income). However there needs to be an effort to get people onto the fact that they need to change, because people can change faster then a computer can. This includes Training the employees, and changing businesses to allow people who do not have the experience to get in and build the experience.
Here's the thing about computers and automation taking away the easy jobs, leaving only the complex jobs that require training and education. There's a damn good chance an easy job was your first job because it was the only kind of job you were qualified to do. There's a damn good chance an easy job was what helped pay for training and education to enable you to obtain a skilled job.
Without easy jobs, there is no ladder of success to climb. There is no path to obtain the skills to qualify you for the only jobs left. Regarding change, Greed doesn't seem to care that it's exacerbating this inherent problem. Regarding people adapting, the problem with that is there are a lot of people who simply aren't intelligent enough to grasp a complex job. That's why they have an easy job. That's not meant to be demeaning, simply stating fact.