The upside to this agreement is that basically doubling the people they are "monitoring" will mean said monitoring will be much less effective. Americans and Europeans will have potentially less privacy, but in reality there will be no change.
Seriously, if Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were to spring from their graves and start imposing high license fees on the distribution of their creative works, does anyone seriously think their power and influence would become greater? So is that an argument for or against copyright and license fees?
No, the question is what should be done to stop people from doing something that is believed to be wrong. If you accept that most people would not want to share their internet access, even if they have a wireless router, you could go in one of two ways: you can penalize those that connect to unsecured networks against their owners' wishes (they are the ones who would make use of the law, in any case); or you could teach people to secure their networks, so that mostly people who don't mind sharing are left with open wireless connections.
It certainly seems easier and more cost effective to have ISPs provide customer support explaining how to secure networks than to prosecute or fine people who connect to open wireless networks. I mean, if a slashdotter connects to an unsecured wireless network, I'm sure they know what they are doing (ditto if they choose not to secure their own network). But for most people it's just a matter of a popup in the lower corner of their screens saying they are connected. Magic, basically. And it may be the wrong network, but they don't know.
That's true, but I think it should be stated more clearly. Just as credit card companies need to state their interest rates in really large print in their contracts (even if they still try to mislead you).
That's perfectly acceptable. But most sites do not advertise the fact that they are tracking you. They could post prices: you can access this page/site by agreeing to be tracked for the next 48 hours. But they don't.
Re:We keep talking about artificial intelligence..
on
Gmail CAPTCHA Cracked
·
· Score: 1
(...) we'll be up to the level of humans.
Wow, a philosopher bot... We may already be there!
Can't you feed the captcha image to one of those annoying popups... "Type the word in the image and win billions of dollars/a free Iphone/a free laptop" and the like? I mean, there must be an audience of suckers out there who click on these things, right?
It would be great if at this point we started thinking how to evaluate the laptops' impact. Surely there won't be enough for *all* children, so starting a data collection effort on the children, maybe assigning them randomly to schools or towns (otherwise, how to ration them?), and comparing results down the line could be an interesting project. Negroponte should think of funding a few data collection efforts, I think.
When I read there were two rooms, my first reaction was: one to work on the current security threat, a second to work on the security threats created by the first one...
Well, as in everything, there's the trade-off between showing how versatile it is to use, and losing potential content sales, and marketing it as something to be used with Amazon e-books only, and losing potential Kindle sales.
No-one claims that the amount of fat in what you eat gets translated to fat in your body. At least, no one that understands that the body needs to metabolize fats. Which includes most doctors.
Of course the change in mass (almost obviously) equals mass in - mass out. The question is how to get rid of the extra mass, or how to build it up. ie, how the body regulates what it keeps and what it gets rid of. The rest is accounting.
Yeah, sure. I just meant they're not "taking pictures" as in photographs or video (which they could, right?). Ultrasound is indeed an imaging technique, so they are creating images.
They don't take pictures: it's an ultrasound. So it's not limited to looking around it, it can see beyond the blood vessels, in places that are hard to ultrasound from outside the body. From TFA:
Ultrasound scanners are normally used to peer into the body from the outside, in order to examine unborn babies or look for tumours, for example.
Enabling these devices to penetrate deep inside the body, and to provide accurate images at this depth, is difficult because longer wavelengths are required, which dramatically reduce resolution.
So you get the ultrasound machine inside the body, right next to what you want to study. Since sonograms usually look at flows (you see heartbeats, bloddflows, etc), having input from different directions at the same time is much better than having a sequence of sonograms. So that's why it's an improvement.
If you had RTFA, you would have seen that hunting is popular in Finland, and out of five million total population there are two million guns in circulation. Legal guns, that is. They are educated.
Also, this was nothing like an AK-47.
You could be being sarcastic, but unfortunately I doubt it. So get your facts straight.
Clearly, it is not YouTube but the government, who should be actively patrolling the videos posted by angsty teenagers promising to take their revenge on the world. I mean, how many can their be? Right?
Well, there's the "If you see something, say something" campaign in New York City. There is the rhetoric of posting the "alert level" daily in Washington, DC. There is the fact that if you're a foreign student you should inform Homeland Security of your whereabouts once you've been admitted into the country, and that if you happen to be studying something like Physics you may be delayed every time you come into the country.
No-one's against checking the bags at the airport. There is a day-to-day feeling of mistrust that is obviously not Nazi Germany, but is palpably higher than before 9-11.
No-one in TFA is claiming that Microsoft should have paid more for the 1.6% share it bought. It's suggested that it could've sticked to the same overall valuation and paid $750 million for a 5% stake. It's still the same price, it's just that they bought too little. And that seems a fair question that does not deserve the scare quotes.
This will recognize the facial expression of "smiling". As long as a smile has a meaning within a culture, it will be of use (provided it works, of course). It operates based on things like (from TFA)
the hallmarks of a smile--such as narrowed eyes, an open mouth, creases around the mouth, and wrinkles turning downward around the eyes
So, it may be that in some places it detects discomfort and embarrassment, whereas in others it detects happiness. But to the extent that we all open our mouths and get wrinkles around our eyes when we smile, it should be pretty universal. I think.
Slashdot Mirror
You beat me to it! That quote is just asking for trouble. Apart from being absolutely, obviously false.
The upside to this agreement is that basically doubling the people they are "monitoring" will mean said monitoring will be much less effective. Americans and Europeans will have potentially less privacy, but in reality there will be no change.
How would Europeans getting their hands on American data make anything better?
Plus, I wonder how they decided that there would be no long-term side effects.
No, the question is what should be done to stop people from doing something that is believed to be wrong. If you accept that most people would not want to share their internet access, even if they have a wireless router, you could go in one of two ways: you can penalize those that connect to unsecured networks against their owners' wishes (they are the ones who would make use of the law, in any case); or you could teach people to secure their networks, so that mostly people who don't mind sharing are left with open wireless connections. It certainly seems easier and more cost effective to have ISPs provide customer support explaining how to secure networks than to prosecute or fine people who connect to open wireless networks. I mean, if a slashdotter connects to an unsecured wireless network, I'm sure they know what they are doing (ditto if they choose not to secure their own network). But for most people it's just a matter of a popup in the lower corner of their screens saying they are connected. Magic, basically. And it may be the wrong network, but they don't know.
That's true, but I think it should be stated more clearly. Just as credit card companies need to state their interest rates in really large print in their contracts (even if they still try to mislead you).
That's perfectly acceptable. But most sites do not advertise the fact that they are tracking you. They could post prices: you can access this page/site by agreeing to be tracked for the next 48 hours. But they don't.
Can't you feed the captcha image to one of those annoying popups... "Type the word in the image and win billions of dollars/a free Iphone/a free laptop" and the like? I mean, there must be an audience of suckers out there who click on these things, right?
Think of the possibilities... No more annoyign tpyos! And just how are they going to say "LOL"? It may be the downfall of teen cell users.
I would think it'll cost an arm and a leg to get it in the first place...
It would be great if at this point we started thinking how to evaluate the laptops' impact. Surely there won't be enough for *all* children, so starting a data collection effort on the children, maybe assigning them randomly to schools or towns (otherwise, how to ration them?), and comparing results down the line could be an interesting project. Negroponte should think of funding a few data collection efforts, I think.
When I read there were two rooms, my first reaction was: one to work on the current security threat, a second to work on the security threats created by the first one...
Well, as in everything, there's the trade-off between showing how versatile it is to use, and losing potential content sales, and marketing it as something to be used with Amazon e-books only, and losing potential Kindle sales.
That's not entirely true. You can rate movies you have not rented (maybe a friend has, or you saw them on TV or at the theater).
No-one claims that the amount of fat in what you eat gets translated to fat in your body. At least, no one that understands that the body needs to metabolize fats. Which includes most doctors. Of course the change in mass (almost obviously) equals mass in - mass out. The question is how to get rid of the extra mass, or how to build it up. ie, how the body regulates what it keeps and what it gets rid of. The rest is accounting.
Yeah, sure. I just meant they're not "taking pictures" as in photographs or video (which they could, right?). Ultrasound is indeed an imaging technique, so they are creating images.
What sort of rice is one millimeter across and one millimeter long? Something got lost when going from Imperial to Metric...
If you had RTFA, you would have seen that hunting is popular in Finland, and out of five million total population there are two million guns in circulation. Legal guns, that is. They are educated. Also, this was nothing like an AK-47. You could be being sarcastic, but unfortunately I doubt it. So get your facts straight.
Clearly, it is not YouTube but the government, who should be actively patrolling the videos posted by angsty teenagers promising to take their revenge on the world. I mean, how many can their be? Right?
No-one in TFA is claiming that Microsoft should have paid more for the 1.6% share it bought. It's suggested that it could've sticked to the same overall valuation and paid $750 million for a 5% stake. It's still the same price, it's just that they bought too little. And that seems a fair question that does not deserve the scare quotes.