Not only that but something does not sound right in TFA:
Craig Williams, a senior manager at Talos, said the amount of snowshoe spam has more than doubled in the past two years and now accounts for more than 15 percent of all junk messages distributed globally.
and
Unsolicited junk mail accounts for 86 percent of the world's e-mail traffic, with about 400 billion spam messages sent a day, according to Talos, a digital threat research division of Cisco Systems.
So 15% of 400 billion is... 60 billion messages a day.
And from the two examples in TFA, one is 5,000 messages and the other is 169 messages... let's just go with 5,000 being average for the moment.
That means 12 million "artisanal" SPAM runs every day. Each of 5,000 messages (on average).
Or is my math off? Because it sounds like it should be pretty easy to spot the ISP's that are funnelling that much SPAM onto the Internet every day.
Why can't we be more like China and Russia and Iran? Who wouldn't want to live under a government that could track everything about you?
Or, without the sarcasm, why the fuck does Erik Barnett have a job in our government? Wouldn't opposing the First Amendment be seen as a negative during the interview process?
Watch some of our political rallies. And the calls for war. No matter what the cost. We even have politicians talking about nuclear attacks against "them".
It's not an "ISIS" thing. It's a human thing. ISIS is just getting the media attention right now.
And that is the core problem with this "Anti-Terrorism Hypothetical". There will always be a new "terrorist" out there. Or some other "enemy".
It is more about spying on people with less power so that the people with more power can keep that power.
Would the government as with a foreign enemy, we should be discussing capabilities, not intentions.
To be clear on this... while you may trust President A not to abuse this, that means that you must also trust Presidents B, C, D, etc. Eventually there will be someone elected that you really do not agree with.
And that person will have all the authority you supported for the people you did agree with.
And none of the inhibitions on abusing that authority.
Or let's try this a different way. A mental experiment. Think of both sides as two humans. Autonomous Alice and Bob.
Alice drives less than Bob. And Alice only drives under perfect conditions in a limited area. Bob drives everywhere in all conditions.
Bob does not report every accident he has to his insurance company. But Alice does. The insurance company sees that, on average, Alice reports more accidents than Bob. And the insurance company tries to adjust for Bob's under-reporting.
But every single accident Alice is in involves Bob hitting Alice and being found to be at fault for hitting Alice.
None of the accidents involve Alice being at fault.
So, to whom does the insurance company give the best rate to?
Yeah. I'm guessing "fuck free speech if I can get some money".
Also:
The complaint alleges, "Without Twitter, the explosive growth of ISIS over the last few years into the most-feared terrorist group in the world would not have been possible."
1. "most-feared" is more about the news agencies reporting. Statistically you are in more danger from your own family/friends.
2. Al-Qaeda used to be "the most-feared" and they managed it without Twitter.
3. Finally, what evidence does she have that those specific terrorists actually used Twitter to recruit/plan/whatever? As opposed to, say, text messages.
You claimed that the autonomous cars were WORSE drivers because they had MORE accidents. I said that that 100% of the accidents had to be reported for autonomous cars but not for human accidents. So there is a question whether the comparison is accurate.
You claimed that the paper said that they had adjusted for that.
I quoted the summary saying that those researchers admitted that they were NOT sure that the adjustment was correct.
And then I pointed out what seems to me to be an obvious error in claiming that cars with ZERO "at fault" accidents were worse drivers than humans who had almost all "at fault" accidents.
Now you can disagree and argue that 0 > 1. But that is on you. I'll stick with 0 1.
Second, the corresponding 95% confidence intervals overlap. Therefore, we currently cannot rule out, with a reasonable level of confidence, the possibility that the actual rates for self - driving vehicles are lower than for conventional vehicles.
So they are admitting that their "higher" rate may not be correct. Which is what I said.
Secondly, yes, it is "apples to apples". Because the human drivers involved in the accidents with the autonomous cars were all driving under the exact same conditions. And NONE of those accidents were the fault of the autonomous cars.
Otherwise you are stating that the autonomous cars (which have never been at fault) are WORSE drivers under-ideal-conditions than humans (who are almost always at fault) are under all conditions.
The best you can argue is that the autonomous cars are only as-good-or-better-than-humans under limited conditions. And that they have only been tested under those limited conditions.
I will be surprised if Google's insurance company ever has to pay a claim. The cars will have so much data on the accident that it should be trivial to show that the car was obeying all the laws and that any accident was either impossible to avoid or the fault of someone else.
Google itself might pay in the case of an accident that was not their fault BUT has a PR issue attached to it.
But, overall, I think that the insurance companies will love the autonomous cars that they're insuring. It's free money for them.
The problem with that report is that it only covers reported accidents.
ANY accident that involves an autonomous car gets reported.
A similar accident between two humans may not be reported.
And, finally, the report even states that NONE of the accidents were the fault of the autonomous cars. They were ALL the fault of the human drivers. So, yes, the autonomous cars are better drivers than the humans in those instances.
And anyone who knows anything about SPAM will have those addresses flagged as very likely spammers.
Yes, it would be nice if Verizon would take responsibility for their network. But in the meantime (because that is never going to happen) just flag those addresses yourself.
And not just for SPAM. Also look at restricting them at your firewall so they cannot spread malware to your machines.
Not just the AI but also the environment that the AI is supposed to operate in.
The AI can have sensors far beyond human sensory limitations. And the ability to store and recall EXACT measurements (and access them via "the cloud").
A few quick pulses of IR or UV light and the car should know exactly which buildings are around it and how far. Which gives it exact information on where it is in the city.
But how will it track the road when it is under inches of snow?
Come to Seattle and watch what happens when the HUMANS have to drive on 2 inches of snow.
An autonomous car does not have to be perfect.
It just has to be better than the average human.
And a computer can easily triangulate its position via cell towers. Something that a human cannot do. So expect more improvements in non-human navigation aids in the future.
Yea, you are still going to have to repeal that pesky 2nd amendment if you try this on a large scale.
As you've noted, that probably isn't going to happen.
And even if it did, the authority would revert to the states.
Face it, guns are here to stay, we need to come up with solutions that recognize that and deal with the reality.
The guns are here for the moment.
Like I said, they worry about a "backdoor". Even if it takes a generation or more. Simply convict anyone who owns a gun of a crime that makes it illegal for them to own guns. No "door to door search" needed.
Here is the scenario: If I want to buy a gun, I have to go through the background check. That flags me. I buy the gun but then I'm "investigated" for a "crime" and prosecuted. I'm found guilty and any guns are confiscated and I cannot buy any more.
That is the reason why certain groups oppose mandatory-background-checks-on-all-transfers.
Of course, if you think that that will happen then you're probably delusional and/or paranoid. Which is another reason to remove your gun rights. And it will never violate the 4th Amendment.
Before you can go round up all those guns, you are going to have to repeal the 2nd amendment (Not to mention the 4th).
Unless you make it a law that no one convicted of a crime can own a gun.
Then you focus on getting convictions. If someone owns a gun, s/he can be found "guilty" of various crimes. Then they lose their guns and cannot, legally, own any more.
People in California are already complaining about this.
I disagree. I don't think it is the attention span. I skip reading things if the author has not clearly stated his/her point within the first 3 paragraphs.
Why is "continuously" used in the same sentence with "perpetual"?
How is "cultural history" associated with "protean"?
The problem isn't the attention span. The problem is trying to figure out what someone is really saying. Electrons are cheaper than ink. That does not mean it is acceptable to pack in the adjectives and adverbs just because you don't have to pay a printer.
Part of the proposed legislation would require tech firms to store usersâ(TM) data for up to twelve months, including a record of every internet site visited, and allow government agencies unfettered access to the data.
I have problems with that.
While the bill is being put forward as a deterrent against terrorism, online monitoring at this level has been banned in the US, Canada, and every other European nation.
And that is the problem. This will do NOTHING to DETER a terrorist.
If you want that, then you look for specific sites that they are going to right now. Not a year ago.
Looking at records from a year ago will only result in more "why didn't you connect the dots" crap from the idiots demanding more of this.
The bill could also allow the UK government to demand that companies weaken the encryption on messaging services such as WhatsApp and iMessage to enable agencies to evesdrop on conversations, a proposal that Apple is strongly against.
If the UK government can crack it then so can the Chinese government and the Russian government.
Does the UK government really want the Chinese and Russians spying on the communications of British citizens?
Slashdot Mirror
Hydras are supposed to have lots of heads on one body. Not one head on one body with lots of arms.
Stupid secret Hydra organization. That's why you keep getting beaten.
Not only that but something does not sound right in TFA:
and
So 15% of 400 billion is ... 60 billion messages a day.
And from the two examples in TFA, one is 5,000 messages and the other is 169 messages ... let's just go with 5,000 being average for the moment.
That means 12 million "artisanal" SPAM runs every day. Each of 5,000 messages (on average).
Or is my math off? Because it sounds like it should be pretty easy to spot the ISP's that are funnelling that much SPAM onto the Internet every day.
Stupid First Amendment.
Why can't we be more like China and Russia and Iran? Who wouldn't want to live under a government that could track everything about you?
Or, without the sarcasm, why the fuck does Erik Barnett have a job in our government? Wouldn't opposing the First Amendment be seen as a negative during the interview process?
Watch some of our political rallies. And the calls for war. No matter what the cost. We even have politicians talking about nuclear attacks against "them".
It's not an "ISIS" thing. It's a human thing. ISIS is just getting the media attention right now.
And that is the core problem with this "Anti-Terrorism Hypothetical". There will always be a new "terrorist" out there. Or some other "enemy".
It is more about spying on people with less power so that the people with more power can keep that power.
To be clear on this ... while you may trust President A not to abuse this, that means that you must also trust Presidents B, C, D, etc. Eventually there will be someone elected that you really do not agree with.
And that person will have all the authority you supported for the people you did agree with.
And none of the inhibitions on abusing that authority.
How about searching the account of the one person they've identified to find out which other accounts he had mailed that to?
Then the government can get warrants to search those accounts as well.
As long as they are not in another country or otherwise protected or delete all records after a certain time.
Or let's try this a different way. A mental experiment. Think of both sides as two humans. Autonomous Alice and Bob.
Alice drives less than Bob. And Alice only drives under perfect conditions in a limited area. Bob drives everywhere in all conditions.
Bob does not report every accident he has to his insurance company. But Alice does. The insurance company sees that, on average, Alice reports more accidents than Bob. And the insurance company tries to adjust for Bob's under-reporting.
But every single accident Alice is in involves Bob hitting Alice and being found to be at fault for hitting Alice.
None of the accidents involve Alice being at fault.
So, to whom does the insurance company give the best rate to?
Yeah. I'm guessing "fuck free speech if I can get some money".
Also:
1. "most-feared" is more about the news agencies reporting. Statistically you are in more danger from your own family/friends.
2. Al-Qaeda used to be "the most-feared" and they managed it without Twitter.
3. Finally, what evidence does she have that those specific terrorists actually used Twitter to recruit/plan/whatever? As opposed to, say, text messages.
Don't use terms you do not understand.
You claimed that the autonomous cars were WORSE drivers because they had MORE accidents. I said that that 100% of the accidents had to be reported for autonomous cars but not for human accidents. So there is a question whether the comparison is accurate.
You claimed that the paper said that they had adjusted for that.
I quoted the summary saying that those researchers admitted that they were NOT sure that the adjustment was correct.
And then I pointed out what seems to me to be an obvious error in claiming that cars with ZERO "at fault" accidents were worse drivers than humans who had almost all "at fault" accidents.
Now you can disagree and argue that 0 > 1. But that is on you. I'll stick with 0 1.
From the abstract:
So they are admitting that their "higher" rate may not be correct. Which is what I said.
Secondly, yes, it is "apples to apples". Because the human drivers involved in the accidents with the autonomous cars were all driving under the exact same conditions. And NONE of those accidents were the fault of the autonomous cars.
Otherwise you are stating that the autonomous cars (which have never been at fault) are WORSE drivers under-ideal-conditions than humans (who are almost always at fault) are under all conditions.
The best you can argue is that the autonomous cars are only as-good-or-better-than-humans under limited conditions. And that they have only been tested under those limited conditions.
I will be surprised if Google's insurance company ever has to pay a claim. The cars will have so much data on the accident that it should be trivial to show that the car was obeying all the laws and that any accident was either impossible to avoid or the fault of someone else.
Google itself might pay in the case of an accident that was not their fault BUT has a PR issue attached to it.
But, overall, I think that the insurance companies will love the autonomous cars that they're insuring. It's free money for them.
The problem with that report is that it only covers reported accidents.
ANY accident that involves an autonomous car gets reported.
A similar accident between two humans may not be reported.
And, finally, the report even states that NONE of the accidents were the fault of the autonomous cars. They were ALL the fault of the human drivers. So, yes, the autonomous cars are better drivers than the humans in those instances.
And anyone who knows anything about SPAM will have those addresses flagged as very likely spammers.
Yes, it would be nice if Verizon would take responsibility for their network. But in the meantime (because that is never going to happen) just flag those addresses yourself.
And not just for SPAM. Also look at restricting them at your firewall so they cannot spread malware to your machines.
Not a dumbass. Everyone had to learn everything they know at some point in their life.
Today is your day for kernel compilation! Yay!
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/BuildYourOwnKernel
Not just the AI but also the environment that the AI is supposed to operate in.
The AI can have sensors far beyond human sensory limitations. And the ability to store and recall EXACT measurements (and access them via "the cloud").
A few quick pulses of IR or UV light and the car should know exactly which buildings are around it and how far. Which gives it exact information on where it is in the city.
Come to Seattle and watch what happens when the HUMANS have to drive on 2 inches of snow.
An autonomous car does not have to be perfect.
It just has to be better than the average human.
And a computer can easily triangulate its position via cell towers. Something that a human cannot do. So expect more improvements in non-human navigation aids in the future.
That's why I prefer to use "preventable death" instead of "gun death". The method of suicide should not matter.
Anyway, here's the stats for the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rateAs you can see, Australia has very few guns but almost the same suicide rate as the USofA (12.1 v 11.5).
Suicide is an important issue. But people should not be trying to use it to bolster anti-gun statistics. It is a separate issue.
As you've noted, that probably isn't going to happen.
And even if it did, the authority would revert to the states.
The guns are here for the moment.
Like I said, they worry about a "backdoor". Even if it takes a generation or more. Simply convict anyone who owns a gun of a crime that makes it illegal for them to own guns. No "door to door search" needed.
Here is the scenario: If I want to buy a gun, I have to go through the background check. That flags me. I buy the gun but then I'm "investigated" for a "crime" and prosecuted. I'm found guilty and any guns are confiscated and I cannot buy any more.
That is the reason why certain groups oppose mandatory-background-checks-on-all-transfers.
Of course, if you think that that will happen then you're probably delusional and/or paranoid. Which is another reason to remove your gun rights. And it will never violate the 4th Amendment.
That's what they worry about.
Unless you make it a law that no one convicted of a crime can own a gun.
Then you focus on getting convictions. If someone owns a gun, s/he can be found "guilty" of various crimes. Then they lose their guns and cannot, legally, own any more.
People in California are already complaining about this.
This is a complicated subject.
Worse still will be when companies run checks on prospective employees using that database.
And yes, it will happen.
Ever sought medical help for depression? You're flagged. Good luck getting a decent job after that.
You mean like telling upper management that putting the control systems ON THE INTERNET is a really stupid idea?
Good luck with that.
How about restricting access to one system (and a backup) that requires real two-factor-authentication AND IS NOT ON THE INTERNET?
That is what I suspected. The problem is that "history" should not be "Protean".
Instead of
I would suggest "our Protean culture". Or even "... our changing culture".
I am reminded of The Eye or Argon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eye_of_Argon
I disagree. I don't think it is the attention span. I skip reading things if the author has not clearly stated his/her point within the first 3 paragraphs.
From the summary:
What does the phrase "incestuous words" mean?
Why is "continuously" used in the same sentence with "perpetual"?
How is "cultural history" associated with "protean"?
The problem isn't the attention span. The problem is trying to figure out what someone is really saying. Electrons are cheaper than ink. That does not mean it is acceptable to pack in the adjectives and adverbs just because you don't have to pay a printer.
And being told to "flex" your hours which means work overtime today (unpaid because you are salaried) and just work fewer hours tomorrow.
Oops. Not tomorrow. Here's another important thing that requires overtime. You can take 2x time off the day after.
Rinse and repeat.
I've had too many managers who think that making everything a "crisis" is an effective means of management.
I have problems with that.
And that is the problem. This will do NOTHING to DETER a terrorist.
If you want that, then you look for specific sites that they are going to right now. Not a year ago.
Looking at records from a year ago will only result in more "why didn't you connect the dots" crap from the idiots demanding more of this.
If the UK government can crack it then so can the Chinese government and the Russian government.
Does the UK government really want the Chinese and Russians spying on the communications of British citizens?