So, you used to be in favor of NN, then you weren't to get feature X. But, feature X cannot technically exist. And you're still against NN for that reason. To say nothing of NN "enabling" X, but it was never going to happen, just like legalizing murder could just be used to kill criminals who get off on technicalities, but it won't happen that way.
it means every administration can change the rules.
That's not true. Agencies cannot change regulations for ideological reasons alone - they need to provide some justification. That's why Scott Pruitt was so incompetent at the EPA... he overturned a bunch of rules but with no legal basis. That's why they're being fought over in court.
Randall Munroe seems fairly well educated in technical areas. Did I miss something? And, from my understanding,he's open and upfront that his comics aren't based just on his knowledge but that he has to do research fro them.
And I never heard anyone claim Ricky Gervais is particularly smart. Maybe you were confused by his accent into thinking people thought he was smart?/p:
0% might be correct. They talk about percentages it's a combination of "probability" and "area" (and maybe length?). So if there are few enough weather stations around you, and the rain is well localized enough, then the completely accurate probability might be 0.4%. Rounded down of course. Although I think they tend to round to the fives, so it could even be 2.4%
Really, the problem is they call it "probability" but it doesn't mean "the probability of any precipitation in the area", it means "the probability of precipitation in any square inch of the area. If that area happens to cover two sides of a mountain, 50% may be accurate even though one side is getting rain all day and the other is dry as a bone.
If there is an AI-approved "snippet" of code, why on earth would you want it to be a snippet? That begs to be abstracted to a library and/or language construct. It will be easier to read, debug and maintain.
No, no, no. They're informing you that they may record your call, and therefore pass the legal obligation in two-party-consent states.
Of course, that would mean you could also record the call. (I think, IANAL, you may also have to tell them that this call may be recorded from your side.)
How is this different from a person volunteering for a 1-week medical study
Every 1-week medical study has (a) Isolation of PII data from medical data with strict rules on who can access the PII data and for what purpose; (b) Written procedures that cover the same (including who can be in the room as data is collected); (c) Written explanations of any possible harm (including reputation damage and/or emotional distress) that could occur to their subjects and mitigation strategies; (d) Informed consent not just of the data collected but all purposes the data can be used for, prior to beginning that can be revoked at any time (with destruction of the data) (Note, It's unclear how informed the Google consent is); (e) a scientific research purpose (as opposed to Google's financial purpose); (f) Oversight by a third party validator (an institutional review board) to ensure that all those steps are documented, etc.
If a company tells you explicitly what it's going to do with you + your info, and you agree and affirmatively opt in, why should government step in?
For the same reason as we have sexual harassment laws that make it so secretaries cannot also have to blow the boss. Just because the boss was upfront when hiring her, doesn't make it okay.
Should govt lay down the ground rules for what these studies can record / collect like a medical study?
Yes. Hell yes. To start with, any company should have to delete all the data they hold on you upon request with huge fines/civil damages for failing to do so (per instance, not waivable in EULAs/TOS). Secondly, they should have to report on anyone they sell or lease your data to (which includes a followon responsibility for them to have those companies delete your data when you request the original company do so). Third, they should have third party oversight of their data collection and storage. Fourth, their PII should be separated out from other data.
And how is this different from a "capitalist" social credit system? because loans to individuals are a pretty capitalistic part of the Chinese experience.
I mean, China in general has a lot of captialistic tendencies, and where they deviate it's more "can be taken by high ranking government official cause they want it" than "communist". Although they seem good about letting you keep the cash as long as you remember to listen to the state on privacy/power/etc.
Gates is phenomenally smart, and I've never even heard of him saying anything dumb (although I'm sure he has, and he admits he has). He's been a bad salesman at times and done selfish things. But dumb?
BTW, that 640K line isn't well sourced and has been denied.
When this happens, they've just been making people work unpaid. It happened when the people who verify income weren't showing up (threatening new mortgages). It happened when the people processing tax returns weren't showing up. It happened when the people sending checks to agribusiness weren't showing up. It happened when the people approving offshore oil rigs for safety weren't showing up (and thus new rigs couldn't open)
Now, the people who enable small business (e.g. those who approve craft beers) or regulate big business (e.g. FDA inspections of food processing plants) are still sitting around.
Remember when Microsoft was the worst? They have not changed,
Yes, they have. Microsoft used to just want cash. Now, they want to spy on customers and serve ads.
I mean, MS was just a powerhungry corp before that, but they just wanted direct cash. Google was always more evil (keep in mind the same nice things people said about Google in 2005 were said about MS in 1992). But Microsoft, like Amazon, seem to have taken a turn. Seems like it's currently just Apple that wants to shut up and take my money.
People who are of interest to a different demographic than you. I mean, I don't want people making fun of people who like niche cultural products - because I also like niche cultural products. And you probably do to. I mean, if you wanna go back to the days of being mocked in HS for liking Star Trek instead of watching sports, I don't wanna join you.
Although the "Star Trek"/"sports" were used as examples. I think Star Trek has become pretty popular, and most people like some sports.
They're revenue stream is "subsidized by Microsoft so MS can build marketshare on the mobile browser". You're not going to mess with that for a few grand.
They refuse to accept money from the sites they rate. Which makes sense, because it hardly seems the couple of million dollars would be worth the loss of trust that would cause.
Okay, say I have a new P2P technology I want to deploy, or end-to-end encrypted chat app (that has some feature missing from the current offerings.) What can I do to make you trust me, vs. explaining who I am? Like, it's great in theory, but I'm not sure how it works in practice.
Sure is easy to do without cellphones/vaccines/etc. when everyone else around me is paying the cost in privacy and cash/very small chance of reaction/etc. I'm a genius and not a freeloader/freeloader/freeloader on society.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go help an old person on Medicare and SS write a post on their subsidized phone about how they are tired of all the welfare queens.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you used to be in favor of NN, then you weren't to get feature X. But, feature X cannot technically exist. And you're still against NN for that reason. To say nothing of NN "enabling" X, but it was never going to happen, just like legalizing murder could just be used to kill criminals who get off on technicalities, but it won't happen that way.
"Give", "free", "hero", "WiFi". That's like four mistakes in one sentence. Impressive.
That's not true. Agencies cannot change regulations for ideological reasons alone - they need to provide some justification. That's why Scott Pruitt was so incompetent at the EPA... he overturned a bunch of rules but with no legal basis. That's why they're being fought over in court.
Also, the FCC is always 3-2 politically (by law).
Aren't most stadiums within 3 nautical miles of major cities? Doesn't this turn into "no drones in cities on game days?"
A vaccine isn't a lifestyle
Randall Munroe seems fairly well educated in technical areas. Did I miss something? And, from my understanding,he's open and upfront that his comics aren't based just on his knowledge but that he has to do research fro them.
And I never heard anyone claim Ricky Gervais is particularly smart. Maybe you were confused by his accent into thinking people thought he was smart?/p:
0% might be correct. They talk about percentages it's a combination of "probability" and "area" (and maybe length?). So if there are few enough weather stations around you, and the rain is well localized enough, then the completely accurate probability might be 0.4%. Rounded down of course. Although I think they tend to round to the fives, so it could even be 2.4%
Really, the problem is they call it "probability" but it doesn't mean "the probability of any precipitation in the area", it means "the probability of precipitation in any square inch of the area. If that area happens to cover two sides of a mountain, 50% may be accurate even though one side is getting rain all day and the other is dry as a bone.
If there is an AI-approved "snippet" of code, why on earth would you want it to be a snippet? That begs to be abstracted to a library and/or language construct. It will be easier to read, debug and maintain.
No, no, no. They're informing you that they may record your call, and therefore pass the legal obligation in two-party-consent states.
Of course, that would mean you could also record the call. (I think, IANAL, you may also have to tell them that this call may be recorded from your side.)
Every 1-week medical study has (a) Isolation of PII data from medical data with strict rules on who can access the PII data and for what purpose; (b) Written procedures that cover the same (including who can be in the room as data is collected); (c) Written explanations of any possible harm (including reputation damage and/or emotional distress) that could occur to their subjects and mitigation strategies; (d) Informed consent not just of the data collected but all purposes the data can be used for, prior to beginning that can be revoked at any time (with destruction of the data) (Note, It's unclear how informed the Google consent is); (e) a scientific research purpose (as opposed to Google's financial purpose); (f) Oversight by a third party validator (an institutional review board) to ensure that all those steps are documented, etc.
For the same reason as we have sexual harassment laws that make it so secretaries cannot also have to blow the boss. Just because the boss was upfront when hiring her, doesn't make it okay.
Yes. Hell yes. To start with, any company should have to delete all the data they hold on you upon request with huge fines/civil damages for failing to do so (per instance, not waivable in EULAs/TOS). Secondly, they should have to report on anyone they sell or lease your data to (which includes a followon responsibility for them to have those companies delete your data when you request the original company do so). Third, they should have third party oversight of their data collection and storage. Fourth, their PII should be separated out from other data.
It defaults to Google (which is bad), but it lets you set ot Google, Bing, DDG, and I think a couple of others. It's available via there settings.
Just like you can opt out of a lot of other privacy invady things. It's annoying that you have to, but it is nice that you can.
Behind/defaulting. It's in the summary, no need to even go to the article.
And how is this different from a "capitalist" social credit system? because loans to individuals are a pretty capitalistic part of the Chinese experience.
I mean, China in general has a lot of captialistic tendencies, and where they deviate it's more "can be taken by high ranking government official cause they want it" than "communist". Although they seem good about letting you keep the cash as long as you remember to listen to the state on privacy/power/etc.
Gates is phenomenally smart, and I've never even heard of him saying anything dumb (although I'm sure he has, and he admits he has). He's been a bad salesman at times and done selfish things. But dumb?
BTW, that 640K line isn't well sourced and has been denied.
When this happens, they've just been making people work unpaid. It happened when the people who verify income weren't showing up (threatening new mortgages). It happened when the people processing tax returns weren't showing up. It happened when the people sending checks to agribusiness weren't showing up. It happened when the people approving offshore oil rigs for safety weren't showing up (and thus new rigs couldn't open)
Now, the people who enable small business (e.g. those who approve craft beers) or regulate big business (e.g. FDA inspections of food processing plants) are still sitting around.
Not really. There were a lot of explosions keeping people up throughout Europe, Asia and the Pacific. Most factories were working three shifts.
Good lord, why wouldn't you want people to be able to take sick time? Are you upset they're not working 80 hours a week?
Yes, they have. Microsoft used to just want cash. Now, they want to spy on customers and serve ads.
I mean, MS was just a powerhungry corp before that, but they just wanted direct cash. Google was always more evil (keep in mind the same nice things people said about Google in 2005 were said about MS in 1992). But Microsoft, like Amazon, seem to have taken a turn. Seems like it's currently just Apple that wants to shut up and take my money.
People who are of interest to a different demographic than you. I mean, I don't want people making fun of people who like niche cultural products - because I also like niche cultural products. And you probably do to. I mean, if you wanna go back to the days of being mocked in HS for liking Star Trek instead of watching sports, I don't wanna join you.
Although the "Star Trek"/"sports" were used as examples. I think Star Trek has become pretty popular, and most people like some sports.
They're revenue stream is "subsidized by Microsoft so MS can build marketshare on the mobile browser". You're not going to mess with that for a few grand.
AdBlock Plus had no other revenue stream.
They refuse to accept money from the sites they rate. Which makes sense, because it hardly seems the couple of million dollars would be worth the loss of trust that would cause.
Okay, say I have a new P2P technology I want to deploy, or end-to-end encrypted chat app (that has some feature missing from the current offerings.) What can I do to make you trust me, vs. explaining who I am? Like, it's great in theory, but I'm not sure how it works in practice.
Sure is easy to do without cellphones/vaccines/etc. when everyone else around me is paying the cost in privacy and cash/very small chance of reaction/etc. I'm a genius and not a freeloader/freeloader/freeloader on society.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go help an old person on Medicare and SS write a post on their subsidized phone about how they are tired of all the welfare queens.
Back to Privoxy/Promoiyton? Why do you think Google spent 5 years convincing everyone HTTPS was necessary, even for static, low-risk pages?
You know that hulu has an adfree tier, right? I think it's$4/mo more