If you're insinuating that respectable nations should copy the deplorable tactics of a terrorist organization to defeat them, then what separates the two? Should the US torture and behead its enemies too? I think we'd be better off researching ways to mitigate the actions of the terrorists rather than paving the way for them. For instance, there are probably dozens of ways to blind or otherwise incapacitate drones.
You sure make Tesla's Auto Steer sound like an immature technology but so many people seem to trust it with their lives so I'm wondering if your car is defective in some way. Maybe take it in to Tesla and ask them why they were willing to give you a feature that would certainly result in damage to your expensive vehicle and possible bodily harm.
Also, while I'm sure the delay in turning is an issue with processing time, the correct way to navigate a turn is to eclipse it, which is not a constant radius turn. You should start wide and get as close as possible to the inside of the corner halfway through and then ease back out to the outside while accelerating. That's only if you're looking for maximum traction and speed though.
Anyone could make your same argument against our police. Have you watched a sci-fi movie recently? There's plenty of them demonstrating how brutal the once good guys could become once they have incredible power and little at risk. Throw in unwavering loyalty and you've got the evil Empire from Star Wars.
Many people in America are on disability and want to work. Unfortunately, if they get a job, even part time, they'll lose all their benefits and have a heck of a time getting them back. What Finland is doing would solve this issue in a simplistic manner, by letting people keep the money get from taking up work after relying on a social safety net. It also saves substantial Bureaucratic overhead for administrating the currently complex patchwork of social safety nets these people rely on.
So where does the money come from? It comes from the existing programs and could very well result in saving tax dollars. But we won't know if it's a gain or loss without trying it out.
We have AIs that can beat us at chess, go, and Jeopardy. They figure out how to play by themselves. Some AIs are driving cars now. In a year you could get an Uber driven by one.
Sure, AIs can't do everything that we can do, but what they can do, they do better than us.
Strangely enough, Obama pardoned Chelsea Manning and didn't pardon Edward Snowden. Yet Edward went through all the proper channels and followed proper procedure for handling a leak of classified materials. I wonder what exactly was considered during the pardons; time served perhaps?
His response was entirely snark but you seem to be treating it seriously.
I'm not sure how much knowledge you have of engineering or aerospace science, but people need funding and time to come up with cost saving measures. If Congress had given NASA funding and a directive to shrink their weather satellites, that would have allowed them to still meet the launch date, then it would have happened. Cutting funding for the project entirely is not going to achieve the result you desire. I only briefly worked in aerospace but all of my engineering projects have involved balancing cost savings, resources and deadlines.
Did Space-X significantly lower launch costs for the U.S. Government? Yes. Did they have a ton of money and time with that singular purpose in mind? Yes. Was Russia already providing significantly cheaper launch services? Yes, through assembly line scaling, which means building the exact same thing over and over. I bring up that last bit because some/.s are complaining that the scrapped satellite was unoriginal, but that's how you save costs in manufacturing, by making the same exact thing several times.
Nope, even as a lowly QA contractor I've had production access at major tech companies. They didn't intentionally give me access but they also did a terrible job of protecting access.
Case in point, several major recent data breaches involved default database passwords in production.
Our build server has access to prod, but I don't. I can still trigger the build though, so technically I'm deploying to prod.
This is how it should be because there's a log of everything. Sure, I could write some script that exploits the build server permissions, but that script is in source control with my name on it and requires a code review.
Some teams just suck at security. My last company checked the production security credentials into source control so that the deployer could access them. So anyone with read access to our repo had admin access to production.
Yeah, all that happens in non-union shops too. Kiss up to management, get a promotion. Bad at your job? Blame someone else and get a promotion. What the union adds, are advocates for the workers, whereas management is looking out for the company. There is crossover of course, with great managers looking out for their people, and union reps caring more about keeping the company profitable than providing for their workers. The important part is the incentives are different between a union rep and a manager, and you're paying both of them to manage relationships.
I think you kind of glossed over my point to start and then realized that with your last sentence. Even then, you're being optimistic about the kind of politics that plays out in management. Management is responsible for putting up the red tape in most cases, not taking it down. I personally take care of it myself because I have experience knowing when to ignore it to get my and my team's work done. Managers even respect me for it despite it sometimes being their own red tape.
I've only ever considered unionizing one shop, and the people who talked about it were the top performers. The reason we were talking about unionizing is because management was making bad decisions, lying and giving themselves bonuses while refusing to give us raises. People who did the "smart thing" by getting outside bids for their talent ended up leaving the company. Maybe you have a different experience? One that reflects your perspective?
Maybe my experience isn't typical, and what your taking about is the norm. But I'm wondering if you're speaking from experience and insight into the game like myself... or something else.
I'm guessing you're in your twenties. I had a similar attitude a decade ago but after being in my chosen profession for a while I've noticed a tendency of the more politically astute employees getting paid better and receiving promotions more often than the higher skilled employees. During layoffs the skilled employees are better protected but the crafty and less competent ones have already repositioned themselves such that they won't get laid off. Business isn't as meritocratic as it seems.
Elon, like all successful entrepreneurs, is deeply involved in his businesses. Even if he weren't, don't you think he would have talked to the people he was giving money to? Surely he asked them about AI doomsday and how to avoid it. Also, Tesla was first to self driving cars available to consumers so let's not pretend he isn't is in the AI field.
Yes, I figured the advertiser was matching me based on IP. Once that's done they can associate me with their cookie or etag so that even when I'm on another network they still have those two things associated.
Simply updating browser versions or changing resolution isn't going to trick a browser fingerprint. They track many different aspects of your browser, allowing them to detect a single change, such as a version update, and update their record of your computer based on all of the other pieces of identifying information that remained the same. It's not foolproof of course, but advertisers don't need perfect accuracy. If they target the wrong person with an ad it's not a big deal. Assuming everyone at my house has the same interests is a good example of them not caring about accuracy.
Flat out blocking these companies from running their code in your browser is a great solution if you can live with some sites not working correctly and periodically updating your list of blocked/allowed domains. I eventually stopped using js blockers because both content providers and advertisers were frequently changing domain names which made it hard to surf the web smoothly using either a white or black list.
So... they can in fact track us in incognito mode? I also have a friend who wrote code that can track your machine by characteristics rather than cookies or etags. Yes, he sold it to ad agencies.
Also, I see ads based on my Netflix viewing habits from my PS3 while browsing in incognito mode on my laptop. The only connection between the two machines is that they're on the same network. I wouldn't be surprised if they can track us through TOR as well, perhaps using an algorithm like the one my friend made.
I watch Netflix exclusively on my PS3 and yet Pornhub shows me ads on my laptop based on what I watched on my PS3. I'm not logged into my Netflix account on my laptop. In fact, the only account that's shared between the two is Amazon. Netflix must be sharing my viewing habits by IP address to an advertiser who has a relationship with Pornhub. Does that strike anyone as unexpected and creepy?
This leaves only a couple options for privacy on the Internet: 1. Use TOR to do all your browsing. 2. Demand regulations that prohibit sharing with 3rd parties without opt-in consent that isn't a condition of accessing a service.
In theory, Site A and Site B don't know that you're the same person. Advertiser tracking cookies and ETags bridge that gap in a way people did not expect. I don't think that many people would expect Pornhub to know their Facebook profile.
The Muslim mob that didn't happen? There was the immigrant, mostly Muslim mob in Berlin last year that was widely reported but I doubt that's the one you're referring to.
I don't frequent Breitbart but I tried to find an example of them claiming Obama is a Muslim and didn't find one. They've got some quotes talking about it but it's pretty mild stuff. I did find this interesting though: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-...
I read through that list and researched five of the most egregious sounding claims supposedly made by Breitbart. Some of the claims against Breitbart's involvement, exaggerated that involvement. There was an example of Breitbart publishing a mistake and later retracting it; this is actually the closest they came to publishing fake news from all the examples I looked at but it could have very easily been mistake. I didn't actually find an example of a Breitbart article that was debunked, but there were definitely stories that they were involved in supporting that have been debunked.
Breitbart is not a high quality news media outlet in my opinion, but I've yet to find anything I can point at as conclusive proof that they have published fake news. There's definitely misleading/biased articles I can point at but that's not the same thing and anyone can find an example of that in a more respectable news outlet like the New York Times.
I'm no fan of Breitbart but I don't think your example is evidence of fake news. It's definitely an example of bias and cherry picking data, as mentioned in the WC response, but it's not fake news. Fake news invents "facts", mis-attributes quotes, makes statements that aren't backed by their own sources, flat out lies, etc. The Breitbart article in question didn't do any of that as far as I can tell. The Daily Mail article they referenced had similar conclusions as the Breitbart article and while they're both low quality journalism outlets, neither is a purveyor of fake news in my opinion.
I would love to have a clear cut example of Breitbart spreading fake news so that I could get some of my friends to stop reading that trash; So please let me know if you find one.
Slashdot Mirror
And of course, ISIS would never disobey the U.N.
If you're insinuating that respectable nations should copy the deplorable tactics of a terrorist organization to defeat them, then what separates the two? Should the US torture and behead its enemies too? I think we'd be better off researching ways to mitigate the actions of the terrorists rather than paving the way for them. For instance, there are probably dozens of ways to blind or otherwise incapacitate drones.
Haha, they tried but the U.S. Government said no.
You sure make Tesla's Auto Steer sound like an immature technology but so many people seem to trust it with their lives so I'm wondering if your car is defective in some way. Maybe take it in to Tesla and ask them why they were willing to give you a feature that would certainly result in damage to your expensive vehicle and possible bodily harm.
Also, while I'm sure the delay in turning is an issue with processing time, the correct way to navigate a turn is to eclipse it, which is not a constant radius turn. You should start wide and get as close as possible to the inside of the corner halfway through and then ease back out to the outside while accelerating. That's only if you're looking for maximum traction and speed though.
That's a great comparison but anti personnel mines are illegal: https://www.un.org/disarmament...
It's not really like video game to the drone operators: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/u...
You're quite correct that remote killing machines operated by humans are little better than fully autonomous ones.
Anyone could make your same argument against our police. Have you watched a sci-fi movie recently? There's plenty of them demonstrating how brutal the once good guys could become once they have incredible power and little at risk. Throw in unwavering loyalty and you've got the evil Empire from Star Wars.
Many people in America are on disability and want to work. Unfortunately, if they get a job, even part time, they'll lose all their benefits and have a heck of a time getting them back. What Finland is doing would solve this issue in a simplistic manner, by letting people keep the money get from taking up work after relying on a social safety net. It also saves substantial Bureaucratic overhead for administrating the currently complex patchwork of social safety nets these people rely on.
So where does the money come from? It comes from the existing programs and could very well result in saving tax dollars. But we won't know if it's a gain or loss without trying it out.
We have AIs that can beat us at chess, go, and Jeopardy. They figure out how to play by themselves. Some AIs are driving cars now. In a year you could get an Uber driven by one.
Sure, AIs can't do everything that we can do, but what they can do, they do better than us.
Strangely enough, Obama pardoned Chelsea Manning and didn't pardon Edward Snowden. Yet Edward went through all the proper channels and followed proper procedure for handling a leak of classified materials. I wonder what exactly was considered during the pardons; time served perhaps?
His response was entirely snark but you seem to be treating it seriously.
I'm not sure how much knowledge you have of engineering or aerospace science, but people need funding and time to come up with cost saving measures. If Congress had given NASA funding and a directive to shrink their weather satellites, that would have allowed them to still meet the launch date, then it would have happened. Cutting funding for the project entirely is not going to achieve the result you desire. I only briefly worked in aerospace but all of my engineering projects have involved balancing cost savings, resources and deadlines.
Did Space-X significantly lower launch costs for the U.S. Government? Yes. Did they have a ton of money and time with that singular purpose in mind? Yes. Was Russia already providing significantly cheaper launch services? Yes, through assembly line scaling, which means building the exact same thing over and over. I bring up that last bit because some /.s are complaining that the scrapped satellite was unoriginal, but that's how you save costs in manufacturing, by making the same exact thing several times.
Umm... No, no you do not. I'll do that if I'm trying to explain the acronym, but otherwise that's specifically not something people do.
This is brilliant. And not only does it lower infrastructure costs, commuter times, etc, but we'd also have all of our leisure time during daylight.
Down with our agrarian based work schedules!
Nope, even as a lowly QA contractor I've had production access at major tech companies. They didn't intentionally give me access but they also did a terrible job of protecting access.
Case in point, several major recent data breaches involved default database passwords in production.
Our build server has access to prod, but I don't. I can still trigger the build though, so technically I'm deploying to prod.
This is how it should be because there's a log of everything. Sure, I could write some script that exploits the build server permissions, but that script is in source control with my name on it and requires a code review.
Some teams just suck at security. My last company checked the production security credentials into source control so that the deployer could access them. So anyone with read access to our repo had admin access to production.
Yeah, all that happens in non-union shops too. Kiss up to management, get a promotion. Bad at your job? Blame someone else and get a promotion. What the union adds, are advocates for the workers, whereas management is looking out for the company. There is crossover of course, with great managers looking out for their people, and union reps caring more about keeping the company profitable than providing for their workers. The important part is the incentives are different between a union rep and a manager, and you're paying both of them to manage relationships.
I think you kind of glossed over my point to start and then realized that with your last sentence. Even then, you're being optimistic about the kind of politics that plays out in management. Management is responsible for putting up the red tape in most cases, not taking it down. I personally take care of it myself because I have experience knowing when to ignore it to get my and my team's work done. Managers even respect me for it despite it sometimes being their own red tape.
I've only ever considered unionizing one shop, and the people who talked about it were the top performers. The reason we were talking about unionizing is because management was making bad decisions, lying and giving themselves bonuses while refusing to give us raises. People who did the "smart thing" by getting outside bids for their talent ended up leaving the company. Maybe you have a different experience? One that reflects your perspective?
Maybe my experience isn't typical, and what your taking about is the norm. But I'm wondering if you're speaking from experience and insight into the game like myself... or something else.
I'm guessing you're in your twenties. I had a similar attitude a decade ago but after being in my chosen profession for a while I've noticed a tendency of the more politically astute employees getting paid better and receiving promotions more often than the higher skilled employees. During layoffs the skilled employees are better protected but the crafty and less competent ones have already repositioned themselves such that they won't get laid off. Business isn't as meritocratic as it seems.
Elon, like all successful entrepreneurs, is deeply involved in his businesses. Even if he weren't, don't you think he would have talked to the people he was giving money to? Surely he asked them about AI doomsday and how to avoid it. Also, Tesla was first to self driving cars available to consumers so let's not pretend he isn't is in the AI field.
Yes, I figured the advertiser was matching me based on IP. Once that's done they can associate me with their cookie or etag so that even when I'm on another network they still have those two things associated.
Simply updating browser versions or changing resolution isn't going to trick a browser fingerprint. They track many different aspects of your browser, allowing them to detect a single change, such as a version update, and update their record of your computer based on all of the other pieces of identifying information that remained the same. It's not foolproof of course, but advertisers don't need perfect accuracy. If they target the wrong person with an ad it's not a big deal. Assuming everyone at my house has the same interests is a good example of them not caring about accuracy.
Flat out blocking these companies from running their code in your browser is a great solution if you can live with some sites not working correctly and periodically updating your list of blocked/allowed domains. I eventually stopped using js blockers because both content providers and advertisers were frequently changing domain names which made it hard to surf the web smoothly using either a white or black list.
So... they can in fact track us in incognito mode? I also have a friend who wrote code that can track your machine by characteristics rather than cookies or etags. Yes, he sold it to ad agencies.
Also, I see ads based on my Netflix viewing habits from my PS3 while browsing in incognito mode on my laptop. The only connection between the two machines is that they're on the same network. I wouldn't be surprised if they can track us through TOR as well, perhaps using an algorithm like the one my friend made.
I watch Netflix exclusively on my PS3 and yet Pornhub shows me ads on my laptop based on what I watched on my PS3. I'm not logged into my Netflix account on my laptop. In fact, the only account that's shared between the two is Amazon. Netflix must be sharing my viewing habits by IP address to an advertiser who has a relationship with Pornhub. Does that strike anyone as unexpected and creepy?
This leaves only a couple options for privacy on the Internet:
1. Use TOR to do all your browsing.
2. Demand regulations that prohibit sharing with 3rd parties without opt-in consent that isn't a condition of accessing a service.
In theory, Site A and Site B don't know that you're the same person. Advertiser tracking cookies and ETags bridge that gap in a way people did not expect. I don't think that many people would expect Pornhub to know their Facebook profile.
The Muslim mob that didn't happen? There was the immigrant, mostly Muslim mob in Berlin last year that was widely reported but I doubt that's the one you're referring to.
I don't frequent Breitbart but I tried to find an example of them claiming Obama is a Muslim and didn't find one. They've got some quotes talking about it but it's pretty mild stuff. I did find this interesting though: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-...
I read through that list and researched five of the most egregious sounding claims supposedly made by Breitbart. Some of the claims against Breitbart's involvement, exaggerated that involvement. There was an example of Breitbart publishing a mistake and later retracting it; this is actually the closest they came to publishing fake news from all the examples I looked at but it could have very easily been mistake. I didn't actually find an example of a Breitbart article that was debunked, but there were definitely stories that they were involved in supporting that have been debunked.
Breitbart is not a high quality news media outlet in my opinion, but I've yet to find anything I can point at as conclusive proof that they have published fake news. There's definitely misleading/biased articles I can point at but that's not the same thing and anyone can find an example of that in a more respectable news outlet like the New York Times.
I'm no fan of Breitbart but I don't think your example is evidence of fake news. It's definitely an example of bias and cherry picking data, as mentioned in the WC response, but it's not fake news. Fake news invents "facts", mis-attributes quotes, makes statements that aren't backed by their own sources, flat out lies, etc. The Breitbart article in question didn't do any of that as far as I can tell. The Daily Mail article they referenced had similar conclusions as the Breitbart article and while they're both low quality journalism outlets, neither is a purveyor of fake news in my opinion.
I would love to have a clear cut example of Breitbart spreading fake news so that I could get some of my friends to stop reading that trash; So please let me know if you find one.