This is revolting. Yes, he was (allegedly) a terrible person who had done terrible things. But this? Even the worst criminals have a right to a fair trial. I'm pretty sure that he fully expected to be murdered by the police no matter what, and the police fulfilled that expectation.
I worry greatly that these events will lead to still more murders by the police (currently we're at ~3/day in the US).
I don't think it has anything to do with cost reduction. If anything, it's probably about space/weight savings. For mobile phones, each millimeter and milligram make a difference.
And not just any standardized tests, but the specific questions and format used for the IQ test.
IQ is mostly only useful for comparing people with the same demographics and background (e.g. same culture, same education). Even then it's not a great measure because it's only loosely-correlated with anything useful (e.g. how successful a person will be at doing a particular job).
Huge ethical problems arise when comparing different populations on IQ tests. In particular, IQ tests are a favorite go-to for racists to argue that certain races are "inferior", even though we now have very strong evidence that almost the entire difference between different groups of people on IQ tests comes down to how the IQ tests are structured.
Still seems to me that it could be a significant concern, if not an immediate concern.
I'd primarily be worried that if a serious vulnerability was discovered, that many systems could retain the vulnerability for many years due to the fact that motherboard BIOSes are frequently not updated for years at a time. Presumably the vulnerability could be mitigated at the OS level, but it still sounds like a potentially worrying source of attack, and I'd feel a lot better if it were made open-source.
There are some people with particular disabilities that make reading difficult (but have little to no impact on other thought processes). But either way, most people find reading both easier and faster than listening, and there are screen readers for those who have difficulty reading (incidentally, people who are used to listening to screen readers can set them to read at far, far faster rates than typical speech).
Wouldn't matter if the data had already been deleted. Also note that it says, "From inception to present." This provides no evidence that they can require future retention of data.
Do you think that it's possible that there was an NSL issued to Google at some point that requires them to retain such data for all users? Do you think that such an NSL would not be fought?
The minimal requirement for this bug to occur would be that there was a separate table storing the metadata about the calendar entries. The data for each entry would have been unavailable, as it had been deleted, but there would still be a record of the entry having been there.
Suffice it to say, it can be really difficult to completely delete data from a complex computer system. Hopefully they've fixed the bug and the calendar entries are completely deleted these days.
Google states that they do not store location history at all if you've turned it off, and do delete the location history if you request. See here. If they fail to comply with this, they could potentially open themselves up to lawsuits for failing to respect their privacy policy.
Certainly if we can manage a mechanism to get objects in orbit without them having to carry their own fuel, a lot of options will be opened.
But there are gigantic practical difficulties with all currently-proposed methods. With the space elevator, for example, any objects which move up or down the space elevator will generate large Coriolis forces which would cause the elevator to sway, making it very difficult to maintain the stability of the elevator. Making the extremely long carbon nanotubes required is a complete unsolved problem that has no solution in sight. The tensile strength of carbon nanotubes is also only barely high enough to maintain structural integrity, leaving little room for error.
One other idea is the Space Pier, but that requires large-scale manufacturing of synthetic diamond, which is also an unsolved problem with no solution in sight.
Both of these methods also require massive government investment which may not be forthcoming.
Yes, moving away from rockets will open up a lot of avenues into making use of extra-terrestrial resources. But moving away from rockets may not be feasible.
It's only extremely partisan court decisions that are likely to deadlock. I'm not so sure that there's reason to believe this would be a terribly partisan court decision.
I think a big part of it is ad revenue. You can't collect ad revenue for downloaded videos. They can manage this somewhat by offering downloads within their app which they control. It would make sense to me if this were also a part of the reason for the time limit.
But if you download with a third-party app or service, there's essentially no way for YouTube to determine whether or not an ad was viewed, even if the service were to somehow retain an ad in the download.
And for YouTube Red, even though there are no ads, YouTube needs to record how many times various videos are viewed in order to determine its royalty payouts. Downloading with a third-party ad prevents collecting the data needed for such payments.
Eh. It's not that hard to do. It'd be relatively easy to have some software which strips out just the public declarations from any piece of code, given a little bit of understanding of the underlying language.
I don't think it means that. Google didn't just use the Java API: they re-implemented it. That is, they copied the definitions of the classes/functions/constants/etc. and then wrote new code to perform the actions for those definitions. For example, java.lang.String.valueOf() is a function that converts a value (e.g. a number) into a string. They copied the signature of the function, and then wrote new code to do the actual conversion.
Creating new implementations of existing API's happens pretty frequently in software development, but it's not something that is ever done lightly. API's are typically pretty big and complicated, and it's tricky to make sure that every single piece of the API works as intended.
I would imagine that one fair use ruling would make it easier for others to argue fair use in their situations as well, provided they copy only the interfaces and not the implementations.
According to the summary, there's a coating to protect the adhesive material. So presumably the adhesive wouldn't normally be exposed, but would be removed by an impact, revealing the sticky material underneath, so it's not quite as absurd as you've written here.
I am curious just how well this coating would work in practice, however. The effectiveness of the coating is definitely a major potential point of weakness of this tech.
Oh. That's where the fair use defense comes in. Obviously in a lot of cases, you can redo your API differently, like C# standard library is different than Java's, but if you need to be exactly the same, there are plenty of reasons you can get away with under fair use.
Apparently that's the question of the trial in the OP: whether or not this use of the API is fair use. I really, really hope they rule for Google in this, because otherwise it could have some pretty far-reaching negative impacts on the software industry as a whole.
Presumably there would be sensors in the car to detect any physical impact, and not just rely on the light-based sensors.
The idea of people getting stuck to the hood of the car at speed is pretty hilarious (though disturbing), it shouldn't be difficult for good design to prevent this from happening.
Ideally, the car's software would be such that the car would immediately stop in the event of any collision, so that the risk of these kinds of additional complications would be minimal. But it would make the impact with the car itself less likely to cause injury, and prevent secondary collisions with other things (e.g. the ground).
There really needs to be good safety data, though. It seems like it could improve safety a noticeable amount, but the real world is very complicated.
Slashdot Mirror
This is revolting. Yes, he was (allegedly) a terrible person who had done terrible things. But this? Even the worst criminals have a right to a fair trial. I'm pretty sure that he fully expected to be murdered by the police no matter what, and the police fulfilled that expectation.
I worry greatly that these events will lead to still more murders by the police (currently we're at ~3/day in the US).
Back in 2012, Epstein's website got blocked by Google because it was hosting malware. He's hated Google ever since.
I don't think it has anything to do with cost reduction. If anything, it's probably about space/weight savings. For mobile phones, each millimeter and milligram make a difference.
And not just any standardized tests, but the specific questions and format used for the IQ test.
IQ is mostly only useful for comparing people with the same demographics and background (e.g. same culture, same education). Even then it's not a great measure because it's only loosely-correlated with anything useful (e.g. how successful a person will be at doing a particular job).
Huge ethical problems arise when comparing different populations on IQ tests. In particular, IQ tests are a favorite go-to for racists to argue that certain races are "inferior", even though we now have very strong evidence that almost the entire difference between different groups of people on IQ tests comes down to how the IQ tests are structured.
Still seems to me that it could be a significant concern, if not an immediate concern.
I'd primarily be worried that if a serious vulnerability was discovered, that many systems could retain the vulnerability for many years due to the fact that motherboard BIOSes are frequently not updated for years at a time. Presumably the vulnerability could be mitigated at the OS level, but it still sounds like a potentially worrying source of attack, and I'd feel a lot better if it were made open-source.
It's not about stupidity.
There are some people with particular disabilities that make reading difficult (but have little to no impact on other thought processes). But either way, most people find reading both easier and faster than listening, and there are screen readers for those who have difficulty reading (incidentally, people who are used to listening to screen readers can set them to read at far, far faster rates than typical speech).
...and generally straight from the musician's or publisher's official channel. "Stolen" this is not.
There's also the point that it's typically far faster to read than it is to listen to a video.
Wouldn't matter if the data had already been deleted. Also note that it says, "From inception to present." This provides no evidence that they can require future retention of data.
Do you think that it's possible that there was an NSL issued to Google at some point that requires them to retain such data for all users? Do you think that such an NSL would not be fought?
If the data is deleted, there's nothing to be retrieved and an NSL doesn't matter.
The minimal requirement for this bug to occur would be that there was a separate table storing the metadata about the calendar entries. The data for each entry would have been unavailable, as it had been deleted, but there would still be a record of the entry having been there.
Suffice it to say, it can be really difficult to completely delete data from a complex computer system. Hopefully they've fixed the bug and the calendar entries are completely deleted these days.
Google states that they do not store location history at all if you've turned it off, and do delete the location history if you request. See here. If they fail to comply with this, they could potentially open themselves up to lawsuits for failing to respect their privacy policy.
Certainly if we can manage a mechanism to get objects in orbit without them having to carry their own fuel, a lot of options will be opened.
But there are gigantic practical difficulties with all currently-proposed methods. With the space elevator, for example, any objects which move up or down the space elevator will generate large Coriolis forces which would cause the elevator to sway, making it very difficult to maintain the stability of the elevator. Making the extremely long carbon nanotubes required is a complete unsolved problem that has no solution in sight. The tensile strength of carbon nanotubes is also only barely high enough to maintain structural integrity, leaving little room for error.
One other idea is the Space Pier, but that requires large-scale manufacturing of synthetic diamond, which is also an unsolved problem with no solution in sight.
Both of these methods also require massive government investment which may not be forthcoming.
Yes, moving away from rockets will open up a lot of avenues into making use of extra-terrestrial resources. But moving away from rockets may not be feasible.
It's only extremely partisan court decisions that are likely to deadlock. I'm not so sure that there's reason to believe this would be a terribly partisan court decision.
I think a big part of it is ad revenue. You can't collect ad revenue for downloaded videos. They can manage this somewhat by offering downloads within their app which they control. It would make sense to me if this were also a part of the reason for the time limit.
But if you download with a third-party app or service, there's essentially no way for YouTube to determine whether or not an ad was viewed, even if the service were to somehow retain an ad in the download.
And for YouTube Red, even though there are no ads, YouTube needs to record how many times various videos are viewed in order to determine its royalty payouts. Downloading with a third-party ad prevents collecting the data needed for such payments.
More importantly, how can the video download tool record when a user views or responds to the ad?
Eh. It's not that hard to do. It'd be relatively easy to have some software which strips out just the public declarations from any piece of code, given a little bit of understanding of the underlying language.
I don't think it means that. Google didn't just use the Java API: they re-implemented it. That is, they copied the definitions of the classes/functions/constants/etc. and then wrote new code to perform the actions for those definitions. For example, java.lang.String.valueOf() is a function that converts a value (e.g. a number) into a string. They copied the signature of the function, and then wrote new code to do the actual conversion.
Creating new implementations of existing API's happens pretty frequently in software development, but it's not something that is ever done lightly. API's are typically pretty big and complicated, and it's tricky to make sure that every single piece of the API works as intended.
I would imagine that one fair use ruling would make it easier for others to argue fair use in their situations as well, provided they copy only the interfaces and not the implementations.
While in other states it's very common.
According to the summary, there's a coating to protect the adhesive material. So presumably the adhesive wouldn't normally be exposed, but would be removed by an impact, revealing the sticky material underneath, so it's not quite as absurd as you've written here.
I am curious just how well this coating would work in practice, however. The effectiveness of the coating is definitely a major potential point of weakness of this tech.
Oh. That's where the fair use defense comes in. Obviously in a lot of cases, you can redo your API differently, like C# standard library is different than Java's, but if you need to be exactly the same, there are plenty of reasons you can get away with under fair use.
Apparently that's the question of the trial in the OP: whether or not this use of the API is fair use. I really, really hope they rule for Google in this, because otherwise it could have some pretty far-reaching negative impacts on the software industry as a whole.
Presumably there would be sensors in the car to detect any physical impact, and not just rely on the light-based sensors.
The idea of people getting stuck to the hood of the car at speed is pretty hilarious (though disturbing), it shouldn't be difficult for good design to prevent this from happening.
Ideally, the car's software would be such that the car would immediately stop in the event of any collision, so that the risk of these kinds of additional complications would be minimal. But it would make the impact with the car itself less likely to cause injury, and prevent secondary collisions with other things (e.g. the ground).
There really needs to be good safety data, though. It seems like it could improve safety a noticeable amount, but the real world is very complicated.