Why would you be opposed to big data finding out when you take a dump in the morning, as long as its voluntary?
What does "voluntary" mean in this context? Seriously, the point of Big Data is to take things you want to reveal about yourself, and convert them into things you do not. So, are you saying it's okay as long as Big Data uses what you are offering up freely? Or are you saying it's okay as long as what Big Data reveals are things you were planning on offering for free anyway?
If you do all your internet activity through tor, and don't subscribe to cable TV, and find non-identifiable ways to obtain your video entertainment, the only thing big data can work with is your bank account, credit card, library card, and social security number. (And cash payments can limit what your credit card can say about you.)
Well, and if you don't live in your parent's basement, utilities, bank accounts, your job, what other people say about you/tag you at on Facebook, plane and hotel reservations, bars record IDs as you use them, mass transit cards, and a lot more.
It won't keep you safe from the NSA, but big business isn't holding a gun to your head (yet).
Big Business is far more aggressive than the NSA. Hell, the NSA just insisted that business shares what it collects with them
Surely any judge would issue a warrant in a millisecond after seeing that horrific video
Scary thing you said one: The video should no bearing on the issuance of a warrant. As a rule, warrants should be issued on how reasonable a search it is, and likely to turn up evidence. Not, how horrifying the crime is.
Scary thing you said two: You think a warrant would be necessary. The data is not the suspects, but the car company's. And the car company has no rights to privacy vis-a-vis that data to protect. So the government can just take it. See also, the metadata surveillance program.
I think this is a pretty shady practice, don't get me wrong, but it's not quite as "secretly" as the summary made it out to be.
It depends on whether it is, "Here is the GPS consent form, saying we will track you til you pay the care off" or "Here, sign this 82 pages of forms and you can drive off now" where people miss clause 18.f.ii
Now, people should read what they sign. But the way people react when I read waivers, etc, you'd think I'm the only one.
Rates go down when insurance companies can reduce risk.
Yes, cost savings in an oligopoly are always passed promptly along to the customers. That is a real thing that economic theory or practice says happens.
Some insurance companies may but there will always be at least one who will not. There will always be a customer base who prioritize privacy over rates and there will always be at least one company to serve that client base.
Insurance is an area where death spirals are common as the least risky leave the pool, driving up average risk. The issue is there is no way to distinguish "privacy guy" from "shitty driver guy". So all the people in that pool are given "shitty driver prices". But those shitty driver prices cover the average shitty driver. So, at timestep n+1, the least shitty drivers without the devices comply with monitoring to save money. At timestamp n+m, where m is likely to be a couple of years, the deathspiral is complete and there is no way to distinguish between privacy and people who intentionally crash into trees.
At that point, compliance, or opting out of the system, become mandatory.
But lest you still think that people prioritizing privacy are catered to in the market, I'd like to know what cell phone you use? what carrier? what ISP? (I invite the rest of Slashdot to ask more leading, and saddening, questions along these lines.)
Does ANYONE think that this would be happening if the gov agencies didn't think they could get something from it ?
You mean like make money (it will be profitable) and aiding their citizens (cheaper goods) and keep money in Australia (better Australian economy) and lowering the cost of trade with Australia (general trade = good arguments here)? Because, yeah, I mean, I do think the government does things for any one of those purposes.
Or do you mean nutter "if it weren't for this, how would customs officials have the right to open packages coming into the country on clearly marked USPS/UPS/FedEx shipments?"
On a personal note, this is great. Overseas shipping is such a complex beast my company was not planning on shipping to Australia (at least until we grew larger). Saying to Australians, "you can purchase our product through a ShipMate account" will help my company with more sales, and Australians who want to buy our product.
Just to be clear, you have asked people that you know not to tag you in photos that they post and they do so anyway?
Yeah. And I've given people pictures that I took and asked them not to put them on Facebook and they do it anyway. Or they take photos and put it up without really letting you know. It's creepy.
But even if they don't, they allow Facebook to scrape their phone of all the contact numbers, so Facebook knows who my friends are because, well, the same 10 people who are friends with one another all have my phone number.
Also, why would Disney want to limit who got to use their algorithm? Sorry, I would prevent people from finding pirated movies, but there's a patent on that...
a quick and easy solution for the colleges to continue business as usual, and the students who would've had a hard time finding a job before as graduates may have an even harder time finding one as dropouts.
Well, first, that's the feedback we deliver to tech schools all the time. Fail more students. Their degree is made more valuable if it means something.
Secondly, I'm 99% sure that dropout rates are easier to understand for the average potential student, so at least that's a positive.
The real question is: are you applying for a job or are you trying to license your technology? In all likelihood, a blended negotiation is probably not going to happen unless...If you're talking about trying to license your technology, then you need to talk to the right people. Probably their patent attorney or the person in charge of in-licensing technology. This is usually a protracted negotiation.
While I get that trying to go from job interview to IP licensing seems nigh impossible, I can see many situations where IP licensing is helped by offering to implement the solution.
and even in that other 0.01% of the time, it's likely that your compiler will optimize the pretty human-readable code into the cool-but-cryptic bitmasking trick at the assembly level anyway
That's almost universally untrue. The 99.9% is made up of the union of "code that executes infrequently enough" and "code that the compiler can auto-optimize."
Now, predicting what's in that 0.1% is tricky, which is why it is often better to optimize later after profiling reveals it. And may someone protect you from me if your cool-but-cryptic bitmasking doesn't comment what the "if X then Y else Z" logic is.
Now, often times, that 0.1% then can get incorporated into a language feature, or the compiler can automate. Over time, that content will drift smaller and smaller.
If you want to see what happens when Microsoft actually tries a fresh start, see Windows Vista. Where UAC introduced unprivileged by default operation (breaking so many apps that assumed users were admins and bombarding them with dozens of elevation dialogs).
Yeah, but obviously that would break things, look at how little warning they gave developers. They only released an API/standards that UAC played well with in 2001 with Windows XP. Surely that's not enough time to modify their code.
Seriously, I remember being forced to use that architecture in 2004 by what I thought was an overly anal programming lead. Low and behold, come Vista, that software is still chugging along painlessly, but our expensive tools all suddenly require admin access.
But MS will break their backs to maintain backwards compatibility.
What's needed is either to make those instructions INTERESTING (like the Southwest Airlines people often do)
Oh, good lord no. Right now, the announcements are fairly unobtrusive... except on Southwest. I already know the information, so the only value it would have is entertainment. Except most people aren't entertaining, especially when they do the same skit over and over. But my book is. So let me read in peace. As a consolation, if any of the flight attendants are any good, I'll go see their community theater play later.
Most c-sections happen on Friday. Why? They've got to get home for the weekend.
It also gives the parents a whole weekend to recover before the man has to go back to work.
What you need to reinforce your claim is a breakdown of c-sections planned for a Friday in advance, and those that get scheduled *that day* on a Friday.
That said, I agree with the need to question your doctor. But your example sucks.
I read "select" as meaning specific fields (as in, select types of data), not deliberately selected subsets of data... got a quote that helps clarify things?
In other words, they took everything they gathered and pulled a subset that matched criteria that would back the claim that they could detect future crimes.
While it's possible that they did in fact pull a biased sample, this methodology is what I was taught in academia as a legit way to test machine learning. If you have one sample set, first split it into two. Use one set, usually much smaller, to train the neural network. That data set, because it's tuned to find those specific correlations, obviously produced really good predictions. So you use the second data set to test whether the inputs correctly predict the outputs.
Especially considering that said "information sharing" leads to a mere 8% increase in accuracy.
Well, closer to 22%. While it's true that 8% of the predictions are more accurate, what is important is that ~22% of the predictions that used to be wrong are no longer. In much the same way as if it went to 100% accurate, you don't get to bitch about it being only a 38% increase in accuracy. You get to talk about whether it's worth the cost, and how we can get something only 62% as accurate without the cost.
This is one of the reasons why it's going to be such an uphill battle for Microsoft when it comes to tablets and phones. They were late to the game.
They really weren't. I remember using a Windows tablet/laptop convertable back in 199? And a Windows phone (with Office, etc. ) before the first iPhone dropped.
I'm actually not sure why neither one took off. My assumption would be that both were too large, and that probably had most to do with either non-low-power chips or battery technology.
The same formula is used by Hollywood when someone messes with the occult. The dire, yet vindicated, warning. The monster in the second act. Etc.
I guess what I'm saying is that Hollywood honestly doesn't know the difference between science and magic. Although computers even more so.
I'm far more concerned about the effect of "cops bend the rules because they sooo hate the evil killer and need to get him off the streets" shows. Cops actually do get influenced by that. I think there was a study about that, but it may have been not published because it was too groundbreaking....
The research bearing fruit. No one is suggesting removing protections from actual subjects. The article is about funders wanting to fund "successful" (that is, hypothesis affirming) and "publishable" (that is, less contraversial) experiments.
His goal is to somehow shift the funder's incentives so high sucessful completion risk/high reward (either in basic knowledge or specific benefit) stuff gets made.
And I agree. The shit that gets funded at any real level is often piecemeal and uninteresting. Hell, even "we want money to try a similar study with N>35 so we can test a lot of spin off research of this promising study" get shot down for being too out there.%lt;/rant>
there is no incentive to solve the misogynistic trolling "problem" (assuming it even exists
Well, that depends on who is solving the problem. Certainly, some games do in fact see a drop in subscriber base. These companies have incentive to stop the problem.
For instance, XBox saw a lot of women not re-upping their XBox Gold accounts.
Slashdot Mirror
What does "voluntary" mean in this context? Seriously, the point of Big Data is to take things you want to reveal about yourself, and convert them into things you do not. So, are you saying it's okay as long as Big Data uses what you are offering up freely? Or are you saying it's okay as long as what Big Data reveals are things you were planning on offering for free anyway?
Well, and if you don't live in your parent's basement, utilities, bank accounts, your job, what other people say about you/tag you at on Facebook, plane and hotel reservations, bars record IDs as you use them, mass transit cards, and a lot more.
Big Business is far more aggressive than the NSA. Hell, the NSA just insisted that business shares what it collects with them
Scary thing you said one: The video should no bearing on the issuance of a warrant. As a rule, warrants should be issued on how reasonable a search it is, and likely to turn up evidence. Not, how horrifying the crime is.
Scary thing you said two: You think a warrant would be necessary. The data is not the suspects, but the car company's. And the car company has no rights to privacy vis-a-vis that data to protect. So the government can just take it. See also, the metadata surveillance program.
It depends on whether it is, "Here is the GPS consent form, saying we will track you til you pay the care off" or "Here, sign this 82 pages of forms and you can drive off now" where people miss clause 18.f.ii
Now, people should read what they sign. But the way people react when I read waivers, etc, you'd think I'm the only one.
Yes, cost savings in an oligopoly are always passed promptly along to the customers. That is a real thing that economic theory or practice says happens.
Insurance is an area where death spirals are common as the least risky leave the pool, driving up average risk. The issue is there is no way to distinguish "privacy guy" from "shitty driver guy". So all the people in that pool are given "shitty driver prices". But those shitty driver prices cover the average shitty driver. So, at timestep n+1, the least shitty drivers without the devices comply with monitoring to save money. At timestamp n+m, where m is likely to be a couple of years, the deathspiral is complete and there is no way to distinguish between privacy and people who intentionally crash into trees.
At that point, compliance, or opting out of the system, become mandatory.
But lest you still think that people prioritizing privacy are catered to in the market, I'd like to know what cell phone you use? what carrier? what ISP? (I invite the rest of Slashdot to ask more leading, and saddening, questions along these lines.)
Which at least a known cost.
Yeah it's a lot, almost doubling the unit cost. But, if we ship a dozen together...
You mean like make money (it will be profitable) and aiding their citizens (cheaper goods) and keep money in Australia (better Australian economy) and lowering the cost of trade with Australia (general trade = good arguments here)? Because, yeah, I mean, I do think the government does things for any one of those purposes.
Or do you mean nutter "if it weren't for this, how would customs officials have the right to open packages coming into the country on clearly marked USPS/UPS/FedEx shipments?"
On a personal note, this is great. Overseas shipping is such a complex beast my company was not planning on shipping to Australia (at least until we grew larger). Saying to Australians, "you can purchase our product through a ShipMate account" will help my company with more sales, and Australians who want to buy our product.
Yeah. And I've given people pictures that I took and asked them not to put them on Facebook and they do it anyway. Or they take photos and put it up without really letting you know. It's creepy.
But even if they don't, they allow Facebook to scrape their phone of all the contact numbers, so Facebook knows who my friends are because, well, the same 10 people who are friends with one another all have my phone number.
Also, why would Disney want to limit who got to use their algorithm? Sorry, I would prevent people from finding pirated movies, but there's a patent on that...
Well, first, that's the feedback we deliver to tech schools all the time. Fail more students. Their degree is made more valuable if it means something.
Secondly, I'm 99% sure that dropout rates are easier to understand for the average potential student, so at least that's a positive.
The problem is, they're likely to. If not now, than at some point in the future. There is a great value to a single unified environment.
While I get that trying to go from job interview to IP licensing seems nigh impossible, I can see many situations where IP licensing is helped by offering to implement the solution.
You mean Bush Sr.
Of course, that was a good idea and universally recognized as such.
That's almost universally untrue. The 99.9% is made up of the union of "code that executes infrequently enough" and "code that the compiler can auto-optimize."
Now, predicting what's in that 0.1% is tricky, which is why it is often better to optimize later after profiling reveals it. And may someone protect you from me if your cool-but-cryptic bitmasking doesn't comment what the "if X then Y else Z" logic is.
Now, often times, that 0.1% then can get incorporated into a language feature, or the compiler can automate. Over time, that content will drift smaller and smaller.
Yeah, but obviously that would break things, look at how little warning they gave developers. They only released an API/standards that UAC played well with in 2001 with Windows XP. Surely that's not enough time to modify their code.
Seriously, I remember being forced to use that architecture in 2004 by what I thought was an overly anal programming lead. Low and behold, come Vista, that software is still chugging along painlessly, but our expensive tools all suddenly require admin access.
But MS will break their backs to maintain backwards compatibility.
Oh, good lord no. Right now, the announcements are fairly unobtrusive... except on Southwest. I already know the information, so the only value it would have is entertainment. Except most people aren't entertaining, especially when they do the same skit over and over. But my book is. So let me read in peace. As a consolation, if any of the flight attendants are any good, I'll go see their community theater play later.
Why should that be Google's top priority?
I'd contend that their top priority should be living up to their "don't be evil" mantra.
It also gives the parents a whole weekend to recover before the man has to go back to work.
What you need to reinforce your claim is a breakdown of c-sections planned for a Friday in advance, and those that get scheduled *that day* on a Friday.
That said, I agree with the need to question your doctor. But your example sucks.
I read "select" as meaning specific fields (as in, select types of data), not deliberately selected subsets of data... got a quote that helps clarify things?
While it's possible that they did in fact pull a biased sample, this methodology is what I was taught in academia as a legit way to test machine learning. If you have one sample set, first split it into two. Use one set, usually much smaller, to train the neural network. That data set, because it's tuned to find those specific correlations, obviously produced really good predictions. So you use the second data set to test whether the inputs correctly predict the outputs.
Well, closer to 22%. While it's true that 8% of the predictions are more accurate, what is important is that ~22% of the predictions that used to be wrong are no longer. In much the same way as if it went to 100% accurate, you don't get to bitch about it being only a 38% increase in accuracy. You get to talk about whether it's worth the cost, and how we can get something only 62% as accurate without the cost.
They really weren't. I remember using a Windows tablet/laptop convertable back in 199? And a Windows phone (with Office, etc. ) before the first iPhone dropped.
I'm actually not sure why neither one took off. My assumption would be that both were too large, and that probably had most to do with either non-low-power chips or battery technology.
Which is all green energy, so it's easy for Tesla to live up to their claims.
The same formula is used by Hollywood when someone messes with the occult. The dire, yet vindicated, warning. The monster in the second act. Etc.
I guess what I'm saying is that Hollywood honestly doesn't know the difference between science and magic. Although computers even more so.
I'm far more concerned about the effect of "cops bend the rules because they sooo hate the evil killer and need to get him off the streets" shows. Cops actually do get influenced by that. I think there was a study about that, but it may have been not published because it was too groundbreaking....
The research bearing fruit. No one is suggesting removing protections from actual subjects. The article is about funders wanting to fund "successful" (that is, hypothesis affirming) and "publishable" (that is, less contraversial) experiments.
His goal is to somehow shift the funder's incentives so high sucessful completion risk/high reward (either in basic knowledge or specific benefit) stuff gets made.
And I agree. The shit that gets funded at any real level is often piecemeal and uninteresting. Hell, even "we want money to try a similar study with N>35 so we can test a lot of spin off research of this promising study" get shot down for being too out there.%lt;/rant>
Well, that depends on who is solving the problem. Certainly, some games do in fact see a drop in subscriber base. These companies have incentive to stop the problem.
For instance, XBox saw a lot of women not re-upping their XBox Gold accounts.