How about if our hypothetical app listened for the signals from everyone else's devices and just randomly repeated them? If enough people used the "Echo" app the data set would become useless.
They must be having a difficult time hiring if they are "companies wanting to hire up-and-coming talent" (from TFA) instead of simply hiring proven talent.
On a personal level this is easy. I do the same myself. But it's not very easy for a business that gets calls from customers. Someone like a plumber for example.
I speculate there is a natural cap on automation since we are proven incapable of making them secure. All the recent IoT bots show what will happen: if you put in too much automation criminals will wreck it.
Have to correct myself. There is some precedent for either can or can not compel, but right now tends to lean towards not. I misunderstood my lawyer's advice, he clarified that you MIGHT be compelled by the court depending on jurisdiction and the judge, at least until the supremes rule on it.
The difference is, knowledge of the body's location is in itself incriminating. (If they can prove you did it by other means there is no need to find the body). Knowing the combination/passcode is not incriminating in itself, usually. You can be compelled to provide the key or combination if prosecution can establish to the court that there is reasonable evidence that relevant material is in the safe. You cannot be compelled without that evidence, however.
You can be compelled to give up a safe combination if there is good reason to believe there is something relevant to the case in the safe. The same principle applies to the case in the article. You can't be compelled to provide a combination without that reason. It is the difference between "We heard the defendant say the blackmail photos were in the safe." (i.e. can be compelled) and "The blackmail photos are hidden somewhere and they might be in the safe." (cannot be compelled). At least, that is how my lawyer explained it to me.
I stand corrected on the use of invasive, which I didn't realize requires harmful. That's certainly debatable, another time perhaps. Saying no one cares about the camels is still wrong, however, since at least one person culls thousands of them.
I always think of Douglas Adams calling the mosquito "Nature's Viet Cong" for making it much more expensive to cut down all the rain forests. I hope the laudable goal of saving people doesn't have the negative side effect of accelerated jungle destruction.
Showing his total lack of understanding for how technology, logging and legal investigations work, the employee admitted via email to a fellow employee that he installed malware on the servers and hacked other employees.
The company must think they can monetize the data on users collected by the device. Or else they plan to integrate with "smart" watches to auto-order the right juices for you, all through the handy dandy "health machine"
To my mind this implies they are trying to monetize the data they get from the internet-connected juicer which scans the QR on the bag and phones home.
At one point people have used the same tone about other "obvious" conclusions. Confirming it through objective testing is still necessary, lest we be blinded by our own preconceptions. Sure, I doubt anyone was surprised by the results. But they might have been. And those unexpected discoveries are half the glory of science.
I used to take extra salt when working outdoors in the summer, a tip I picked up from the first aid kit which had salt pills for heat exhaustion. I also recall once seeing a documentary about the Bedouin where they slung big bags of rock salt on the camels when crossing the deep desert. So I'm not sure why this study was done, it seems already known that extra salt helps retain water.
he just looked through the ODRC system for a young inmate with a long sentence, then used his information to get the cards.
If the bank is giving a credit card to a prison inmate with a long sentence, I feel like there's a moral imperative for someone to take advantage of them, for their own good.
Exactly, it isn't advertising. It's making suggestions on things you can do with the app. For example, my sister messaged me "meet Friday at 8 PM" and Messenger added a chat bubble underneath offering to set a reminder. I didn't know the thing could set reminders. It's a means to get people using more of the features, and more usage presumably in the end equals more advertising revenue.
At my workplace, we rarely hire actual qualified people. These are hard to find. More often we hire someone based on their intelligence and interest in the job, then train them up. It's easier to train the job tasks with someone who has "it" than keep looking for someone with the exact skills and experience we need.
Slashdot Mirror
How about if our hypothetical app listened for the signals from everyone else's devices and just randomly repeated them? If enough people used the "Echo" app the data set would become useless.
Pandora does this even without a microphone in the vicinity, in my experience. I suppose it is possible, but why would they bother?
They must be having a difficult time hiring if they are "companies wanting to hire up-and-coming talent" (from TFA) instead of simply hiring proven talent.
On a personal level this is easy. I do the same myself. But it's not very easy for a business that gets calls from customers. Someone like a plumber for example.
I speculate there is a natural cap on automation since we are proven incapable of making them secure. All the recent IoT bots show what will happen: if you put in too much automation criminals will wreck it.
Have to correct myself. There is some precedent for either can or can not compel, but right now tends to lean towards not. I misunderstood my lawyer's advice, he clarified that you MIGHT be compelled by the court depending on jurisdiction and the judge, at least until the supremes rule on it.
The difference is, knowledge of the body's location is in itself incriminating. (If they can prove you did it by other means there is no need to find the body). Knowing the combination/passcode is not incriminating in itself, usually. You can be compelled to provide the key or combination if prosecution can establish to the court that there is reasonable evidence that relevant material is in the safe. You cannot be compelled without that evidence, however.
You can be compelled to give up a safe combination if there is good reason to believe there is something relevant to the case in the safe. The same principle applies to the case in the article. You can't be compelled to provide a combination without that reason. It is the difference between "We heard the defendant say the blackmail photos were in the safe." (i.e. can be compelled) and "The blackmail photos are hidden somewhere and they might be in the safe." (cannot be compelled). At least, that is how my lawyer explained it to me.
Thirteen AMAZING reasons Facebook can't kill clickbait articles. Number seven will BLOW YOUR MIND!!!!
If we were capable of making things at this level of complexity work properly in the first place the world would be a very different place.
Vigilantes are criminals. Of course they are criminals. They have to be criminals.
Why? All of this is already being done by other processes, such as manual review and other forms of automation.
I stand corrected on the use of invasive, which I didn't realize requires harmful. That's certainly debatable, another time perhaps. Saying no one cares about the camels is still wrong, however, since at least one person culls thousands of them.
They are indeed invasive since they aren't native to the continent. And someone cares enough about them to shoot thousands of them from helicopters.
I always think of Douglas Adams calling the mosquito "Nature's Viet Cong" for making it much more expensive to cut down all the rain forests. I hope the laudable goal of saving people doesn't have the negative side effect of accelerated jungle destruction.
Showing his total lack of understanding for how technology, logging and legal investigations work, the employee admitted via email to a fellow employee that he installed malware on the servers and hacked other employees.
This doesn't gibe with the previous paragraph.
The company must think they can monetize the data on users collected by the device. Or else they plan to integrate with "smart" watches to auto-order the right juices for you, all through the handy dandy "health machine"
Doubtless there is some sort of tax incentive for taking the occasional loss
To my mind this implies they are trying to monetize the data they get from the internet-connected juicer which scans the QR on the bag and phones home.
At one point people have used the same tone about other "obvious" conclusions. Confirming it through objective testing is still necessary, lest we be blinded by our own preconceptions. Sure, I doubt anyone was surprised by the results. But they might have been. And those unexpected discoveries are half the glory of science.
I used to take extra salt when working outdoors in the summer, a tip I picked up from the first aid kit which had salt pills for heat exhaustion. I also recall once seeing a documentary about the Bedouin where they slung big bags of rock salt on the camels when crossing the deep desert. So I'm not sure why this study was done, it seems already known that extra salt helps retain water.
he just looked through the ODRC system for a young inmate with a long sentence, then used his information to get the cards.
If the bank is giving a credit card to a prison inmate with a long sentence, I feel like there's a moral imperative for someone to take advantage of them, for their own good.
Since humans can't agree on what "fair" means, how are we supposed to describe it to an AI?
Exactly, it isn't advertising. It's making suggestions on things you can do with the app. For example, my sister messaged me "meet Friday at 8 PM" and Messenger added a chat bubble underneath offering to set a reminder. I didn't know the thing could set reminders. It's a means to get people using more of the features, and more usage presumably in the end equals more advertising revenue.
At my workplace, we rarely hire actual qualified people. These are hard to find. More often we hire someone based on their intelligence and interest in the job, then train them up. It's easier to train the job tasks with someone who has "it" than keep looking for someone with the exact skills and experience we need.