You're talking about Spyware-like behavior; I don't think the Facebook app does that.
It is spyware-like behavior. I think the FB app does exactly that. They base their business on being as close to spyware as they can get away with.
As an example, if you have location services enabled, FB will collect information about everywhere your phone has been and make guesses as to businesses you've visited. If they're doing that, I don't think they'd hesitate at all to peek at the phone numbers stored in your phone.
As an agency of the U.S. government, their job is to uphold the constitution, and specifically their job is to provide for the common defence (you know, that constitution stuff?).
And by maintaining their ability to break into adversaries' computers, they concluded that's what they were doing.
"Let's leave the U.S. vulnerable" was what they chose.
No. They decided, "let's leave the world vulnerable." That unfortunately includes their own country.
They believed that not patching vulnerabilities makes us safer.
...they should still inform microsoft so they can make a patch that can be sent out asap if one of those tools gets loose
Are you suggesting that they inform Microsoft as soon as they find a vulnerability and have them sit on a patch until the exploit "gets loose"? What would be the difference between that and just requesting that Microsoft include a back door that could be modified once it's discovered by someone else?
As I understand it, what the "mindless proles" are asking for is for the NSA, when they discover that there is a vulnerability in the software that allows it to be attached, to tell the companies that make the software about it to allow it to be patched instead of hiding the information.
It is not the NSA's responsibility to make sure software is secure. Their job is to find vulnerabilities that can be exploited to meet their ends. To suggest that they immediately throw away each new capability they develop by alerting the software makers is just stupid. If they were looking for vulnerabilities just so they could be patched, it would go against the entire purpose of their looking for those vulnerabilities - Why would they bother searching if not to find something to exploit?
If Wikileaks publishes even one Russian secret, the Russians will find another distributor when they want to release juicy bits on the US and other Western powers.
B.S. There's no loyalty between the two. Wikileaks is a tool used by whoever has stuff they want leaked. They seem to be pretty neutral, even though their sources are obviously not. Nobody's going to avoid it because they got their feelings hurt - Why would they?
At another place we had to ask the new parents to tone down the discussion of their children's potty training.
What in the world could be so graphic about a toilet training discussion that it would need to be "toned down"? I could see if they were making you smell a dirty diaper, but just talking about one? Did somebody mention naughty bits by name?
You seem like the kind of person who never really created anything unique. If you had, you would not be making the inane arguments that you are. You probably have never had any valuable skills that people were willing to you to teach them either. If you do, you would understand that your time is valuable.
If the most people are willing to pay me to teach them is zero, then that skill has no monetary value. I made money teaching math in a college Learning Assistance Center. That's not the same thing - The center was willing to pay me and the students we ok diverting part of their tuition for the purpose. Value of free time goes back to the value of a child's love - Not the value of goods in a grocery store.
There are different categories of worth. If the most the store could charge for food and get people to buy it is $0.00, then the food has no monetary worth. A child's love has no monetary worth, but that doesn't mean people don't value it. In fact, if you try to monetize that, there are some specific charges.
If the price tag says something other than $0.00 and the store is charging $0.00, of course something's wrong. I really don't get where you're going with this analogy.
If Google doesn't want to pay the price the RIAA is *not* obligated to lower it, but Google *is* obligated to not engage in for-profit copyright infringement because they think the RIAA is over valuing the product.
Google is still under no obligation to pay the RIAA's asking price. If it's too high (i.e. more than the expected ad revenue), Google has the option to stop offering the content. They just want to have their cake and eat it too by cutting the RIAA out - That's a no-no.
Black people commit offenses and get arrested; white people are sometimes arrested but are much more likely to be let off with a warning.
If that's true, then the algorithm would correctly use race to determine whether an offender will be re-arrested. That doesn't make it "right," but it'll give the right answer to the question, "Will this person be arrested again?"
Race should not be one of those parameters as it's not actually a determiner. Poor white neighbourhoods have the same crime problem as poor black ones.... there's just a greater volume of poor blacks (same for Asians and Hispanics).
If that's true, then the algorithm should assign race a weight of zero, assuming that the other relevant factors are used as parameters. Whether or not it should be included is a matter of political correctness, not racial bias.
...parameters should be selected based on science (criminology and psychology).
Why limit your parameter choice to what's suggested by criminology & psychology? Wouldn't science dictate that you use all useful data?
Meanwhile they attacked Trump for being a horn dog while ignoring that Hillary's husband was impeached for the exact same thing but when a Clinton does it it's ok.
Then I decree that you have many gigabytes of memory. You won't get to "many, many" until you've passed "a whole bunch," "a buttload," "way too much," and "super-duper bigly," in that order.
This whole contest is bait for the retired old bastards that wrote the thing in the first place. They think one of them might have a trick or two, still up his sleeve.
Are you suggesting that the original authors wrote the code up to 10,000 times slower than they were capable of?
"You know that job you did? Do it again, only better this time. You could win a shiny!"
Yeah right. This is the same guy that decided that tunneling under Los Angeles is the solution to their traffic problem. He cares not for the voices of reason. That seems to work for him.
I suspect you're right. If NASA wants FORTRAN programmers capable of this kind of work, their best bet is to hire FORTRAN programmers capable of this kind of work. People with those skills are just sitting around idle hoping for a project to work on that may or may not pay.
Cat juggling can be very beneficial. Picture somebody with a box full of kittens trying to give them away. He'll have a very tough time - Not many people want an extra kitten. BUT, if he starts juggling those kittens he vastly widens the audience of people willing to take those kittens from him. Much more effective. We could organize this approach into The Inhumane Society.
Running 32-bit versions of software prevents them from being able to suddenly consume many, many gigabytes of memory in the event of a memory leak or other behaviors.
I have a foolproof method of preventing processes from "suddenly consuming many, many gigabytes of memory." How many gigs of RAM do you have?
I RTFA. Yes, reading/. counts as consuming media. Any Internet surfing does for this study. Reading stuff on the Internet while listening to music counts double.
Suppose a man is born with micropenis syndrome. Could this technology be used to grow a new, larger penis for such an individual, which could replace his own small and perhaps useless micropenis?
You were born into a family that had the ability to give you a head start. Have some respect for those who weren't so lucky.
I don't feel like I disrespected anybody. We're all born into different circumstances. E.g., I was lucky enough to grow up in a household with a parent. Not everybody gets to - I could have been an orphan. I acknowledge that that's a head start that not everybody gets. Am I now spoiled? Do you have to start life abandoned and penniless to claim responsibility for personal progress?
Your parents' ability to partially pay for your schooling is something that most people don't have working in their favor...
Bullshit. Some parents may choose not to help their kids, but pretty much all of them have the ability to throw down money for a textbook once a year. They may not be able to foot your tuition, but everybody has the ability to help to some degree.
Should an employee be fired for sitting and watching Baseball for a few hours on the company dime? How about watching the Flintstones? Playing Internet Poker?
Slashdot Mirror
People took notice when the NSA & CIA decided to open source their tools.
You're talking about Spyware-like behavior; I don't think the Facebook app does that.
It is spyware-like behavior. I think the FB app does exactly that. They base their business on being as close to spyware as they can get away with.
As an example, if you have location services enabled, FB will collect information about everywhere your phone has been and make guesses as to businesses you've visited. If they're doing that, I don't think they'd hesitate at all to peek at the phone numbers stored in your phone.
As an agency of the U.S. government, their job is to uphold the constitution, and specifically their job is to provide for the common defence (you know, that constitution stuff?).
And by maintaining their ability to break into adversaries' computers, they concluded that's what they were doing.
"Let's leave the U.S. vulnerable" was what they chose.
No. They decided, "let's leave the world vulnerable." That unfortunately includes their own country.
They believed that not patching vulnerabilities makes us safer.
That part you got right.
...they should still inform microsoft so they can make a patch that can be sent out asap if one of those tools gets loose
Are you suggesting that they inform Microsoft as soon as they find a vulnerability and have them sit on a patch until the exploit "gets loose"? What would be the difference between that and just requesting that Microsoft include a back door that could be modified once it's discovered by someone else?
As I understand it, what the "mindless proles" are asking for is for the NSA, when they discover that there is a vulnerability in the software that allows it to be attached, to tell the companies that make the software about it to allow it to be patched instead of hiding the information.
It is not the NSA's responsibility to make sure software is secure. Their job is to find vulnerabilities that can be exploited to meet their ends. To suggest that they immediately throw away each new capability they develop by alerting the software makers is just stupid. If they were looking for vulnerabilities just so they could be patched, it would go against the entire purpose of their looking for those vulnerabilities - Why would they bother searching if not to find something to exploit?
If Wikileaks publishes even one Russian secret, the Russians will find another distributor when they want to release juicy bits on the US and other Western powers.
B.S. There's no loyalty between the two. Wikileaks is a tool used by whoever has stuff they want leaked. They seem to be pretty neutral, even though their sources are obviously not. Nobody's going to avoid it because they got their feelings hurt - Why would they?
At another place we had to ask the new parents to tone down the discussion of their children's potty training.
What in the world could be so graphic about a toilet training discussion that it would need to be "toned down"? I could see if they were making you smell a dirty diaper, but just talking about one? Did somebody mention naughty bits by name?
You seem like the kind of person who never really created anything unique. If you had, you would not be making the inane arguments that you are. You probably have never had any valuable skills that people were willing to you to teach them either. If you do, you would understand that your time is valuable.
If the most people are willing to pay me to teach them is zero, then that skill has no monetary value. I made money teaching math in a college Learning Assistance Center. That's not the same thing - The center was willing to pay me and the students we ok diverting part of their tuition for the purpose. Value of free time goes back to the value of a child's love - Not the value of goods in a grocery store.
There are different categories of worth. If the most the store could charge for food and get people to buy it is $0.00, then the food has no monetary worth. A child's love has no monetary worth, but that doesn't mean people don't value it. In fact, if you try to monetize that, there are some specific charges.
If the price tag says something other than $0.00 and the store is charging $0.00, of course something's wrong. I really don't get where you're going with this analogy.
If Google doesn't want to pay the price the RIAA is *not* obligated to lower it, but Google *is* obligated to not engage in for-profit copyright infringement because they think the RIAA is over valuing the product.
Google is still under no obligation to pay the RIAA's asking price. If it's too high (i.e. more than the expected ad revenue), Google has the option to stop offering the content. They just want to have their cake and eat it too by cutting the RIAA out - That's a no-no.
If the RIAA says the latest Top 40 track is worth X, it is worth X.
Slapping a price tag on something doesn't change its worth. It's worth what somebody will pay for it. All the RIAA can change is their asking price.
Black people commit offenses and get arrested; white people are sometimes arrested but are much more likely to be let off with a warning.
If that's true, then the algorithm would correctly use race to determine whether an offender will be re-arrested. That doesn't make it "right," but it'll give the right answer to the question, "Will this person be arrested again?"
Race should not be one of those parameters as it's not actually a determiner. Poor white neighbourhoods have the same crime problem as poor black ones.... there's just a greater volume of poor blacks (same for Asians and Hispanics).
If that's true, then the algorithm should assign race a weight of zero, assuming that the other relevant factors are used as parameters. Whether or not it should be included is a matter of political correctness, not racial bias.
...parameters should be selected based on science (criminology and psychology).
Why limit your parameter choice to what's suggested by criminology & psychology? Wouldn't science dictate that you use all useful data?
Meanwhile they attacked Trump for being a horn dog while ignoring that Hillary's husband was impeached for the exact same thing but when a Clinton does it it's ok.
Bill wasn't running.
Then I decree that you have many gigabytes of memory. You won't get to "many, many" until you've passed "a whole bunch," "a buttload," "way too much," and "super-duper bigly," in that order.
This whole contest is bait for the retired old bastards that wrote the thing in the first place. They think one of them might have a trick or two, still up his sleeve.
Are you suggesting that the original authors wrote the code up to 10,000 times slower than they were capable of?
"You know that job you did? Do it again, only better this time. You could win a shiny!"
Quick... tell Elon that his scheme won't work!
Yeah right. This is the same guy that decided that tunneling under Los Angeles is the solution to their traffic problem. He cares not for the voices of reason. That seems to work for him.
I suspect you're right. If NASA wants FORTRAN programmers capable of this kind of work, their best bet is to hire FORTRAN programmers capable of this kind of work. People with those skills are just sitting around idle hoping for a project to work on that may or may not pay.
The psychological damage will require them to hire 4500 new employees every few months.
This can be solved by careful psychological screening of applicants. Only hire the sociopaths.
Even cat juggling was deemed controversial.
Cat juggling can be very beneficial. Picture somebody with a box full of kittens trying to give them away. He'll have a very tough time - Not many people want an extra kitten. BUT, if he starts juggling those kittens he vastly widens the audience of people willing to take those kittens from him. Much more effective. We could organize this approach into The Inhumane Society.
Running 32-bit versions of software prevents them from being able to suddenly consume many, many gigabytes of memory in the event of a memory leak or other behaviors.
I have a foolproof method of preventing processes from "suddenly consuming many, many gigabytes of memory." How many gigs of RAM do you have?
I RTFA. Yes, reading /. counts as consuming media. Any Internet surfing does for this study. Reading stuff on the Internet while listening to music counts double.
Suppose a man is born with micropenis syndrome. Could this technology be used to grow a new, larger penis for such an individual, which could replace his own small and perhaps useless micropenis?
I'm, uh, asking for a friend.
You were born into a family that had the ability to give you a head start. Have some respect for those who weren't so lucky.
I don't feel like I disrespected anybody. We're all born into different circumstances. E.g., I was lucky enough to grow up in a household with a parent. Not everybody gets to - I could have been an orphan. I acknowledge that that's a head start that not everybody gets. Am I now spoiled? Do you have to start life abandoned and penniless to claim responsibility for personal progress?
Your parents' ability to partially pay for your schooling is something that most people don't have working in their favor...
Bullshit. Some parents may choose not to help their kids, but pretty much all of them have the ability to throw down money for a textbook once a year. They may not be able to foot your tuition, but everybody has the ability to help to some degree.
Should an employee be fired for sitting and watching Baseball for a few hours on the company dime? How about watching the Flintstones? Playing Internet Poker?
Posting to Slashdot?