If I hadn't posted above, I'd give you a mod point. You're very much correct that animals express more through body language than through verbal expression. That's the main reason this technology will fail.
Every cat I've ever known could express disdain
Well of course! What other expression do they have?:-) Yes, I know there's more, I have a cat who kindly allows me to live with her. but I couldn't resist.
What are we expecting, a large vocabulary that's consistent around the world?
My dog speaks mostly the "language" I taught her: bark once for "I want to go outside." Over time, this single bark became "I want (something)." I can tell the difference mainly by how she acts after the one bark. If he heads to the door, or to the food bowl, or to the water dish. I'm pretty sure this "one bark" wasn't her native language, she does it because I taught her that's what to do.
Of course, there are some sounds that are natural, like growling when alarmed, barking wildly when afraid, yelping when hurt, whimpering when begging. But I'm guessing that as we learn more about dogs, we'll find that there is a very limited vocabulary that dogs are capable of using.
In the late 80's, there was a rush of students to the then-new Computer Science majors at universities around the nation. EVERYBODY wanted in. There was the promise of good, high-paying jobs for graduates. Sound familiar?
At my small college, 800 of the 1600 Freshmen at the school enrolled in Computer science. The next year, half of my classmates realized they were in over their heads, and transferred to other majors. This trend continued until graduation, when 25 of us actually completed the major.
Computer science is like art. You either have it or you don't. In both cases, the intrinsic talent must be developed and polished, but there has to be in-born talent to begin with. You can't force it, no matter how much you might like the salaries being promised.
Anonymity was never really possible offline either. Nor was it ever protected by the Constitution. What the Constitution does protect, is your right to criticize the government, even if you do not try to hide your identity. Taking advantage of this freedom does not guarantee the lack of consequences. It only guarantees that you can't be punished by the law for stating your mind.
There's no such thing as an anonymous account...even if you use a burner account. These days, sites like Google and Facebook can track you even if you never even log in to their services! Even disabling javascript doesn't help. Basically, all it takes is for you to go online, to be trackable.
What could be better at doubling as a listening device than a fidget spinner? It could even generate its own electricity, and nobody would be the wiser about that innocent looking toy the guy at the end of the conference room table is playing with!
Jenkins is an example of a Web application that pre-fills your saved password in a masked box. That "feature" annoys me every time I go to the login page. But no, Ctrl+C does not work on a masked password field, whether in a Web page or in a desktop application, at least not in Windows. The browser doesn't have to implement this, this is an OS-level feature.
At least on Windows, password masked text boxes also prevent copying of the contents of the box to the clipboard. This prevents someone from using a Back button to return to a logon screen to find out what password was typed there.
I have about 15 messages in my inbox at work. But when I type text in the search box, the search process goes on and on forever, never actually finding what I typed. For larger folders, just forget it.
First of all, when I type something in the Windows search box, I'm not looking for things on the Web, I'm looking for things on my computer. Yes, I know there is an option to turn off Web search.
Second, when I do look for something on my computer, Windows search can't find obvious search results. For example, I have a VPN client with the title "Global VPN Client." If I type "VPN" in the search box, Windows can't find it. If I just type "VP" it finds it just fine.
Then, if you want Windows search to actually find files that contain the text I'm looking for, you have to go deep into settings to turn this on for specific folders. But even then, the search results are temperamental, sometimes showing you what you want, and sometimes not.
Yes, the Windows focus issue is also especially bad when you're typing, and a confirmation dialog box pops up just as you press the spacebar in between words, and the spacebar presses the "Yes" button of whatever you were being asked.
It's not the OS that controls the focus, and this is the problem.. When writing a Windows application, any programmer can write code that says "I want to receive the focus now." This makes it necessary for every application to behave properly, which of course they don't.
I've been writing Windows software since you had to write your own message handler loop, I've written video driver interceptors to pull text being sent to the screen. I've written windows message hooks and printer drivers. Before that, I wrote DOS TSRs in assembly. I've rooted my Android phone, I've installed BSD before Linux was a thing. I think I know a thing or two about hacking.
Your rebuttal didn't actually say anything, except that you think I'm wrong. Why exactly, in a structural sense, do you feel iOS is more secure? I maintain that there is nothing structurally different, or more difficult, about hacking iOS. I think the only difference is market share. The money (hacking effort costs money) is going to follow the market king, every time.
I just ran the Windows classic desktop client and the MS App Store client side by side. They don't seem all that different to me. What exactly has brought about all this wrath? The summary just repeats how "terrible" it is, without giving any details except for adding a "highlights" feature. I've never used SnapChat, so I have no idea what features it might have borrowed from that app, or why they are so awful.
The Android client has never worked well, so no surprises there.
It makes sense that Zuckerberg would think this, since money basically falls out of the sky into his lap because of the popularity of his creation.
BUT when you start giving away money to EVERYONE, the math just doesn't work out. You can't manufacture money out of nothing. Well, technically, the Fed can, but even this has the consequence of devaluing currency. This is exactly what would happen with UBI...that money would become worth less.
We have forgotten a basic principle of trade. Money is nothing on its own, its just a medium of trade. Instead of bartering actual things, we barter or work for money, then use it to buy things. If you don't have to do anything or sell anything to get it, it loses its value.
It doesn't matter if you never, ever log in to facebook, they can still track you. Any time you visit any web site that has a "Like us on facebook" icon (or other completely hidden scripts), it sends information to facebook that you (some anonymous person with a unique identifier) visited their site. Now, you visit another such site, and that icon sends facebook your unique ID, along with information that you logged in to that site. Eventually, they can piece together enough information to connect your unique ID to your real identity.
The only way to stay private is to never connect to the Internet.
Physical security is relatively inexpensive because people are always watching. If somebody starts sneaking around my neighborhood kicking in doors, it won't be long before neighbors call the police.
Now, imagine that these hoodlums had an invisibility cloak. The story would be much different. Our "safe" neighborhoods would be under much greater threat, because the bad guys would know they have little chance of being caught.
The Internet is a lot like this scenario. Thieves and black-hat hackers can sneak around with very little chance of being detected, let alone getting caught or arrested. Until we find a way to make people's activities on the Internet more visible, good security is going to continue to be expensive.
If the EPA wants to delay enforcement then would not that be within their authority as an executive agency?
Not necessarily. There is a rule-making process which it must legally follow. The process is there to protect citizens from arbitrary enforcement of laws and rules. With all its flaws, the US is still a nation of laws, which even its regulatory agencies must follow. If you don't like the rules, you still have to follow the process to remove them. If you don't like the laws, you still have to follow the law-making process to undo them. Countries that don't follow law- or rule-making process have a name: they are called dictatorships.
I don't know whether delaying enforcement is within the legally required process or not, I'd guess that's why the court is stepping in.
Bank tellers were worried about ATMs taking their jobs since the 70s. Funny, there are bank branches everywhere, and they all still seem to have human tellers! It seems that for jobs other than the very routine cash withdrawals and deposits, you still need a person.
So yes, some teller jobs were lost. But I don't think we've suffered an ATM apocalypse. I don't think this wave of automation will end employment any more than all the other waves since the printing press eliminated most printing block carving jobs.
Let's say they release some source code. Who could prove that the executable that customers use, was compiled from that source code, without modification?
The real value of anti-virus software is not the source code, it's the data--the signatures it looks for to spot malware. I'm fine with them keeping their database proprietary. But why not make the source code freely available...unless they have something to hide!
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox lets you do this.
Go to about:config, then search for "autoplay" to find the relevant settings.
This was enough to get me to switch to Firefox, after years of using Chrome!
If I hadn't posted above, I'd give you a mod point. You're very much correct that animals express more through body language than through verbal expression. That's the main reason this technology will fail.
Every cat I've ever known could express disdain
Well of course! What other expression do they have? :-) Yes, I know there's more, I have a cat who kindly allows me to live with her. but I couldn't resist.
What are we expecting, a large vocabulary that's consistent around the world?
My dog speaks mostly the "language" I taught her: bark once for "I want to go outside." Over time, this single bark became "I want (something)." I can tell the difference mainly by how she acts after the one bark. If he heads to the door, or to the food bowl, or to the water dish. I'm pretty sure this "one bark" wasn't her native language, she does it because I taught her that's what to do.
Of course, there are some sounds that are natural, like growling when alarmed, barking wildly when afraid, yelping when hurt, whimpering when begging. But I'm guessing that as we learn more about dogs, we'll find that there is a very limited vocabulary that dogs are capable of using.
In the late 80's, there was a rush of students to the then-new Computer Science majors at universities around the nation. EVERYBODY wanted in. There was the promise of good, high-paying jobs for graduates. Sound familiar?
At my small college, 800 of the 1600 Freshmen at the school enrolled in Computer science. The next year, half of my classmates realized they were in over their heads, and transferred to other majors. This trend continued until graduation, when 25 of us actually completed the major.
Computer science is like art. You either have it or you don't. In both cases, the intrinsic talent must be developed and polished, but there has to be in-born talent to begin with. You can't force it, no matter how much you might like the salaries being promised.
Anonymity was never really possible offline either. Nor was it ever protected by the Constitution. What the Constitution does protect, is your right to criticize the government, even if you do not try to hide your identity. Taking advantage of this freedom does not guarantee the lack of consequences. It only guarantees that you can't be punished by the law for stating your mind.
There's no such thing as an anonymous account...even if you use a burner account. These days, sites like Google and Facebook can track you even if you never even log in to their services! Even disabling javascript doesn't help. Basically, all it takes is for you to go online, to be trackable.
What could be better at doubling as a listening device than a fidget spinner? It could even generate its own electricity, and nobody would be the wiser about that innocent looking toy the guy at the end of the conference room table is playing with!
Jenkins is an example of a Web application that pre-fills your saved password in a masked box. That "feature" annoys me every time I go to the login page. But no, Ctrl+C does not work on a masked password field, whether in a Web page or in a desktop application, at least not in Windows. The browser doesn't have to implement this, this is an OS-level feature.
At least on Windows, password masked text boxes also prevent copying of the contents of the box to the clipboard. This prevents someone from using a Back button to return to a logon screen to find out what password was typed there.
I have about 15 messages in my inbox at work. But when I type text in the search box, the search process goes on and on forever, never actually finding what I typed. For larger folders, just forget it.
First of all, when I type something in the Windows search box, I'm not looking for things on the Web, I'm looking for things on my computer. Yes, I know there is an option to turn off Web search.
Second, when I do look for something on my computer, Windows search can't find obvious search results. For example, I have a VPN client with the title "Global VPN Client." If I type "VPN" in the search box, Windows can't find it. If I just type "VP" it finds it just fine.
Then, if you want Windows search to actually find files that contain the text I'm looking for, you have to go deep into settings to turn this on for specific folders. But even then, the search results are temperamental, sometimes showing you what you want, and sometimes not.
Yes, the Windows focus issue is also especially bad when you're typing, and a confirmation dialog box pops up just as you press the spacebar in between words, and the spacebar presses the "Yes" button of whatever you were being asked.
It's not the OS that controls the focus, and this is the problem.. When writing a Windows application, any programmer can write code that says "I want to receive the focus now." This makes it necessary for every application to behave properly, which of course they don't.
they're going to tell us that the "one true brace style" has no impact on your income!
So can you enlighten me?
I've been writing Windows software since you had to write your own message handler loop, I've written video driver interceptors to pull text being sent to the screen. I've written windows message hooks and printer drivers. Before that, I wrote DOS TSRs in assembly. I've rooted my Android phone, I've installed BSD before Linux was a thing. I think I know a thing or two about hacking.
Your rebuttal didn't actually say anything, except that you think I'm wrong. Why exactly, in a structural sense, do you feel iOS is more secure? I maintain that there is nothing structurally different, or more difficult, about hacking iOS. I think the only difference is market share. The money (hacking effort costs money) is going to follow the market king, every time.
I just ran the Windows classic desktop client and the MS App Store client side by side. They don't seem all that different to me. What exactly has brought about all this wrath? The summary just repeats how "terrible" it is, without giving any details except for adding a "highlights" feature. I've never used SnapChat, so I have no idea what features it might have borrowed from that app, or why they are so awful.
The Android client has never worked well, so no surprises there.
The iPhone's security is so tight that it's hard to find any flaws at all
Really? This sounds like corporate PR to me.
I'd guess that it's more that there aren't as many skilled hackers trying to break iOS, than some intrinsic superiority of the OS.
It makes sense that Zuckerberg would think this, since money basically falls out of the sky into his lap because of the popularity of his creation.
BUT when you start giving away money to EVERYONE, the math just doesn't work out. You can't manufacture money out of nothing. Well, technically, the Fed can, but even this has the consequence of devaluing currency. This is exactly what would happen with UBI...that money would become worth less.
We have forgotten a basic principle of trade. Money is nothing on its own, its just a medium of trade. Instead of bartering actual things, we barter or work for money, then use it to buy things. If you don't have to do anything or sell anything to get it, it loses its value.
Bi-partisan my eye!
Actually, with Windows 10 you can remove these features, by downgrading to Windows 10 s.
So yes, if you take away all the functionality people want, you certainly do end up with a more secure system!
It doesn't matter if you never, ever log in to facebook, they can still track you. Any time you visit any web site that has a "Like us on facebook" icon (or other completely hidden scripts), it sends information to facebook that you (some anonymous person with a unique identifier) visited their site. Now, you visit another such site, and that icon sends facebook your unique ID, along with information that you logged in to that site. Eventually, they can piece together enough information to connect your unique ID to your real identity.
The only way to stay private is to never connect to the Internet.
Physical security is relatively inexpensive because people are always watching. If somebody starts sneaking around my neighborhood kicking in doors, it won't be long before neighbors call the police.
Now, imagine that these hoodlums had an invisibility cloak. The story would be much different. Our "safe" neighborhoods would be under much greater threat, because the bad guys would know they have little chance of being caught.
The Internet is a lot like this scenario. Thieves and black-hat hackers can sneak around with very little chance of being detected, let alone getting caught or arrested. Until we find a way to make people's activities on the Internet more visible, good security is going to continue to be expensive.
If the EPA wants to delay enforcement then would not that be within their authority as an executive agency?
Not necessarily. There is a rule-making process which it must legally follow. The process is there to protect citizens from arbitrary enforcement of laws and rules. With all its flaws, the US is still a nation of laws, which even its regulatory agencies must follow. If you don't like the rules, you still have to follow the process to remove them. If you don't like the laws, you still have to follow the law-making process to undo them. Countries that don't follow law- or rule-making process have a name: they are called dictatorships.
I don't know whether delaying enforcement is within the legally required process or not, I'd guess that's why the court is stepping in.
Bank tellers were worried about ATMs taking their jobs since the 70s. Funny, there are bank branches everywhere, and they all still seem to have human tellers! It seems that for jobs other than the very routine cash withdrawals and deposits, you still need a person.
So yes, some teller jobs were lost. But I don't think we've suffered an ATM apocalypse. I don't think this wave of automation will end employment any more than all the other waves since the printing press eliminated most printing block carving jobs.
Let's say they release some source code. Who could prove that the executable that customers use, was compiled from that source code, without modification?
The real value of anti-virus software is not the source code, it's the data--the signatures it looks for to spot malware. I'm fine with them keeping their database proprietary. But why not make the source code freely available...unless they have something to hide!