I think that proportional democracy would be a much better shift. From what I've heard, every democracy established (or re-established) after the USA was formed used a proportional voting system, and the founding fathers in the USA even realized the benefit in their time, noting that our current system always tends into a strict 2-party system. By being 2-party, it's far too centralized and the political parties remain entrenched and are much more difficult to boot and reform. Proportional systems break a lot of that stranglehold and seem to allow governments to shift on principle in a much better way.
The problem has nothing to do with voice. Even typing in free-form questions or even worse, trying to tell your computer to do something with just an English (or other natural language) command is still way off.
Ordinary people can vote based on principle, instead of party lines, and scare the politicians into shape by the one string they hold: The ability to get reelected.
I know, I know, what sort of fantasy world do I live in?
Forget the "bad guys" for a second. Your entire life and those of your family and friends is being monitored in detail regarding daily activities to attempt to incriminate you for being a child pornographer or terrorist. Any little off-color humor, flippant statements, random private discussions, outbursts, travel plans, purchasing decisions, etc, all can contribute to increasing that terrorist/child porn indicator for your personal life, regardless of your actual innocence, with no human judgment involved.
This is complete insanity, and it is the implicit condemnation of every single US citizen as being a terrorism suspect. You are complicit in subjecting yourself as a suspected terrorist, instead of demanding to live your life as a regular, upstanding citizen with no charges held against you.
I know Apple, Google, Facebook have the data anyway, so I see know harm on giving this up so that I feel safer.
Sure, you "feel" safer. But you are not safer. You are a suspect now, and are more at risk of having your life destroyed by the authorities, regardless of innocence, than before.
That's not all that surprising. The scope and size of data is simply too overwhelming even for the NSA, if they were to collect absolutely everything. These technical limitations are the only thing keeping some semblance of practical privacy... for now.
You're free not to buy their stuff if you don't like it.
That's kind of the rankle. Allegations are that the first thing they try to do when entering a new area is to buy up all the existing seed suppliers, so you're not free to not buy their stuff even in the supply side.
Every station should be manned by trained security personel empowered to flag you for greater scrutiny.
The TSA seems to love spending money on everything but actually training their personnel to be properly security-conscious and informed. Having some of the lowest entry requirements relative to pay scale of any job in the country doesn't help either.
I didn't say that it was strong typing. I was just countering the claim that Lisp is just atoms & lists.
Many decent Lisps do some form of compile-time type inference to give warnings about passing the wrong types as function parameters. This information propagates very well internally, especially with Lisp's super-rich declarative type system and run-time compiler.
Hiding fields in objects is typically done via package exports. If something isn't exported, you don't get the accessor by default. It's still there, and you can punch in package-private full names if you need from outside the package, but the effect of the public API having hidden those accessors is accomplished while not barring you from having good debugging access.
"Real" information hiding in Lisp can be accomplished through closures. If you use a form such as (let ((x 0) (y 0)) (defun....) (defun...)), then those functions can access x and y but there is no way from the outside, besides low level implementation-specific debugging tools, to gain access to them at all. There are OO systems in Lisp built on top of this "Let Over Lambda" style, but that's more a novelty that isn't very optimized.
So what's so standout about the feature set and/or implementation technology? TFS and a quick read of the linked feature list doesn't make anything jump out at me.
That's an assumption that hasn't been true since the 1950s. Common Lisp has full structures, OO classes & objects (and meta classes for defining the OO system itself and extending it), multimethod dispatch, complex & rational numbers, full Unicode strings, etc.
We've been able to do this locally for decades, and there's a very obvious reason it is never done: The AI can VERY easily trounce any human once you start training it against the player.
Game design, and AI design is a hand-tuned balance between challenge and fun.
He chooses what to post on to the internet. If somebody wearing Glass walks up to you, your property, or your workplace, you have no choice in the matter as to which of your activities gets uploaded to Google.
Nuclear power generation involves converting heat to electricity. That normally means boiling water to drive steam turbines or, in the case of satellites, using thermocouples. In either of these cases, there is a lot of waste heat generated. You don't want that right on your silicon in a densely packed environment.
The GTR did not have a "launch mode", and specifically warned users not to use it as such. It was a mode intended to allow you to accelerate out of low-traction conditions like getting stuck in snow or loose gravel. They specifically warned people not to use it on dry pavement as it could damage the transmission if used that way, and would explicitly void the warranty. Nobody listened.
Nowadays, they did add real launch control so people would stop using the VDC-off mode wrong, which is kind of the opposite solution as what TFS talks about.
If a US power facility does not have policy covering portable storage media, then yes they would be as vulnerable to attack as the Iranian nuclear refinement facilities.
None of the things being discussed with this security in particular involves cyber surveillance powers; they're all about ensuring that the workers' goings on within a facility itself are in line with security, and that quick workarounds to get things done are not allowed to breach security protocol.
Stuxnet spread via USB sticks, and successfully 'cyber' attacked nuclear refinement systems that were not on the net.
These regulations (at least from what I'm familiar with from the nuclear end of things) cover a lot of human & portable equipment policy, and destroy I/O ports in non-connected equipment to try to eliminate potential attack vectors or non-policy human activity that might compromise security. It does go beyond simply unplugging CAT5 cables.
This is a little disingenuous, because this response is exactly what the terrorists plan on. Their goal isn't to blow up a country and kill all the people themselves, but to turn the country in on itself.
Every single politician who goes along with this crap is perpetuating the goals of terrorism and is a traitor.
Building a bomb doesn't mean you're a terrorist. Plenty of redneck ideas for doing things like removing tree stumps or being bored out in the middle of nowhere involve explosives. That's not terrorism.
I would rather they not offer requisite undergraduate classes, and simply allow anybody to enroll. If you're already good enough to be post-BS in CS, you'll keep up. If you aren't prepared or can't keep up otherwise, you fail.
Enforced prerequisites are simply a cash draw; ostensibly they should only be recommendations to guide student decisions.
The problem is that it isn't a free market. There are too few competitors, and they all work to eliminate more newcomers to the field.
I agree that if laws were changed and startups who want to pursue becoming cable providers could do so, that competition would work. I don't think that's going to happen, so the 2nd option is to regulate what these few gatekeepers are allowed to do to try to keep from screwing everybody over.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that proportional democracy would be a much better shift. From what I've heard, every democracy established (or re-established) after the USA was formed used a proportional voting system, and the founding fathers in the USA even realized the benefit in their time, noting that our current system always tends into a strict 2-party system. By being 2-party, it's far too centralized and the political parties remain entrenched and are much more difficult to boot and reform. Proportional systems break a lot of that stranglehold and seem to allow governments to shift on principle in a much better way.
The problem has nothing to do with voice. Even typing in free-form questions or even worse, trying to tell your computer to do something with just an English (or other natural language) command is still way off.
Ordinary people can vote based on principle, instead of party lines, and scare the politicians into shape by the one string they hold: The ability to get reelected.
I know, I know, what sort of fantasy world do I live in?
Forget the "bad guys" for a second. Your entire life and those of your family and friends is being monitored in detail regarding daily activities to attempt to incriminate you for being a child pornographer or terrorist. Any little off-color humor, flippant statements, random private discussions, outbursts, travel plans, purchasing decisions, etc, all can contribute to increasing that terrorist/child porn indicator for your personal life, regardless of your actual innocence, with no human judgment involved.
This is complete insanity, and it is the implicit condemnation of every single US citizen as being a terrorism suspect. You are complicit in subjecting yourself as a suspected terrorist, instead of demanding to live your life as a regular, upstanding citizen with no charges held against you.
I know Apple, Google, Facebook have the data anyway, so I see know harm on giving this up so that I feel safer.
Sure, you "feel" safer. But you are not safer. You are a suspect now, and are more at risk of having your life destroyed by the authorities, regardless of innocence, than before.
That's not all that surprising. The scope and size of data is simply too overwhelming even for the NSA, if they were to collect absolutely everything. These technical limitations are the only thing keeping some semblance of practical privacy... for now.
You're free not to buy their stuff if you don't like it.
That's kind of the rankle. Allegations are that the first thing they try to do when entering a new area is to buy up all the existing seed suppliers, so you're not free to not buy their stuff even in the supply side.
Every station should be manned by trained security personel empowered to flag you for greater scrutiny.
The TSA seems to love spending money on everything but actually training their personnel to be properly security-conscious and informed. Having some of the lowest entry requirements relative to pay scale of any job in the country doesn't help either.
Given that it orbits a star that's 300 light years away, it's probably still pretty cold! That's one huge orbit.
I didn't say that it was strong typing. I was just countering the claim that Lisp is just atoms & lists.
Many decent Lisps do some form of compile-time type inference to give warnings about passing the wrong types as function parameters. This information propagates very well internally, especially with Lisp's super-rich declarative type system and run-time compiler.
Hiding fields in objects is typically done via package exports. If something isn't exported, you don't get the accessor by default. It's still there, and you can punch in package-private full names if you need from outside the package, but the effect of the public API having hidden those accessors is accomplished while not barring you from having good debugging access.
"Real" information hiding in Lisp can be accomplished through closures. If you use a form such as (let ((x 0) (y 0)) (defun ....) (defun ...)), then those functions can access x and y but there is no way from the outside, besides low level implementation-specific debugging tools, to gain access to them at all. There are OO systems in Lisp built on top of this "Let Over Lambda" style, but that's more a novelty that isn't very optimized.
So what's so standout about the feature set and/or implementation technology? TFS and a quick read of the linked feature list doesn't make anything jump out at me.
That's an assumption that hasn't been true since the 1950s. Common Lisp has full structures, OO classes & objects (and meta classes for defining the OO system itself and extending it), multimethod dispatch, complex & rational numbers, full Unicode strings, etc.
Hopefully all the swishy fadey stuff can all be disabled, so that the speed improvement actually manifests usably.
We've been able to do this locally for decades, and there's a very obvious reason it is never done: The AI can VERY easily trounce any human once you start training it against the player.
Game design, and AI design is a hand-tuned balance between challenge and fun.
He chooses what to post on to the internet. If somebody wearing Glass walks up to you, your property, or your workplace, you have no choice in the matter as to which of your activities gets uploaded to Google.
Nuclear power generation involves converting heat to electricity. That normally means boiling water to drive steam turbines or, in the case of satellites, using thermocouples. In either of these cases, there is a lot of waste heat generated. You don't want that right on your silicon in a densely packed environment.
50 costs more in silicon than a single x86.
Sure in the one-time silicon expense, but not in TCO with power & cooling accounted for, over thousands of racks over years.
x86 chips are priced as they are only because they're fastest you can buy!
I'ts not about speed. It's about operations per watt. (Usually FLOPS/W, but not necessarily.) The competition is quite close in this regard.
The GTR did not have a "launch mode", and specifically warned users not to use it as such. It was a mode intended to allow you to accelerate out of low-traction conditions like getting stuck in snow or loose gravel. They specifically warned people not to use it on dry pavement as it could damage the transmission if used that way, and would explicitly void the warranty. Nobody listened.
Nowadays, they did add real launch control so people would stop using the VDC-off mode wrong, which is kind of the opposite solution as what TFS talks about.
If a US power facility does not have policy covering portable storage media, then yes they would be as vulnerable to attack as the Iranian nuclear refinement facilities.
None of the things being discussed with this security in particular involves cyber surveillance powers; they're all about ensuring that the workers' goings on within a facility itself are in line with security, and that quick workarounds to get things done are not allowed to breach security protocol.
(6) Nobody wants to commit to responsibility to cybersecurity policy & procedure, in case it doesn't work.
Stuxnet spread via USB sticks, and successfully 'cyber' attacked nuclear refinement systems that were not on the net.
These regulations (at least from what I'm familiar with from the nuclear end of things) cover a lot of human & portable equipment policy, and destroy I/O ports in non-connected equipment to try to eliminate potential attack vectors or non-policy human activity that might compromise security. It does go beyond simply unplugging CAT5 cables.
This is a little disingenuous, because this response is exactly what the terrorists plan on. Their goal isn't to blow up a country and kill all the people themselves, but to turn the country in on itself.
Every single politician who goes along with this crap is perpetuating the goals of terrorism and is a traitor.
Building a bomb doesn't mean you're a terrorist. Plenty of redneck ideas for doing things like removing tree stumps or being bored out in the middle of nowhere involve explosives. That's not terrorism.
I use Chromium instead of Chrome to avoid all the Google phone-home tracking. I just want a browser, not corporate nuptials.
I would rather they not offer requisite undergraduate classes, and simply allow anybody to enroll. If you're already good enough to be post-BS in CS, you'll keep up. If you aren't prepared or can't keep up otherwise, you fail.
Enforced prerequisites are simply a cash draw; ostensibly they should only be recommendations to guide student decisions.
The problem is that it isn't a free market. There are too few competitors, and they all work to eliminate more newcomers to the field.
I agree that if laws were changed and startups who want to pursue becoming cable providers could do so, that competition would work. I don't think that's going to happen, so the 2nd option is to regulate what these few gatekeepers are allowed to do to try to keep from screwing everybody over.