activities in Iran that were in violation of US law.
Right there I have a problem with this. The U.S. has no jurisdiction over actions in Iran by a non American company and non American citizens.
Arguably the US does if the non-American company involves American companies by misrepresenting their intentions. Which is what Justice and Treasury allege that Huawei/Skycom did. The "stepped a foot" as it were, into the US, and thus exposed themselves to US jurisdiction.
Again, I'm not sure of the merits of the case against Huawei. I just think the US position is tenable, though it's to be determined whether it will endure the processes that will unfold from here.
Do we extradite gay people to Iran to face charges there because they interacted with someone on the internet in Iran that broke laws against homosexuality in Iran?
No, because: (a) the US and Iran do not have an extradition treaty; and (b) even if they did, there is no certainty that an extradition hearing would even happen, or if it did, that the person would be extradited. That's how extraditions work. They're not automatic. The country holding the prisoner has to decide.
I forgot to mention that I think extradition hearings often consider the question of whether the alleged offense would be considered an offense in the country holding the hearing, under similar circumstances. So for example, if Canada passed a similar law restricting trade with Iran, then the extradition hearing might consider that Meng Wanzhou likely would be charged in Canada and face trial. On the other hand, being gay is not (well, no longer?) a crime in the US, so I would assume an extradition request made on that basis would fail. (But IANAL.)
China's right on about this being a political maneuver regardless of whose responsible for said actions. China's relationship and companies thereof are outside the law of the US and Canada's jurisdiction. The US has no legitimate jurisdictional authority here and neither does Canada.
I don't have an opinion on who is in the right here, and who should prevail. This may very well be a political maneuver on the part of the US. However, I think that the US position is tenable. Let me explain why.
The US claims that Huawei, through its wholly-owned subsidiary Skycom, made misrepresentations to US-based financial firms about its activities in Iran that were in violation of US law. The US Justice and Treasury Departments announced they were investigating Huawei in April 2018.
In December 2018, Huawei's vice-chair and CFO Meng Wanzhou was arrested in Vancouver, Canada, at the request of the US. By entering a country that had an extradition treaty with the US, she imperiled herself. Canada then had to: (a) decide whether to hold an extradition hearing; (b) hold one if they decide to do so; and (c) extradite Meng Wanzhou if the hearing concludes with that decision. Canada just finished part (a).
If the argument is accepted that they do have jurisdictional authority then the US and Canada should be extraditing people to China to face charges who have never stepped foot in China for breaking a variety of laws that exist in China but that don't exist here despite people in the US breaking said Chinese laws having never even been to China.
I can accept that the US has jurisdictional authority over crimes committed within the US. And by engaging with US firms in an alleged fraudulent way, Skycom placed itself in that jurisdiction.
I suppose it could be the same if a US or Canadian person broke a Chinese law when engaging with a Chinese company. But that person would need to travel to China (or a country with an extradition treaty with China) to be subject to arrest and extradition. China has extradition treaties with about 40 countries. The US is not one of them.
Do we extradite gay people to Iran to face charges there because they interacted with someone on the internet in Iran that broke laws against homosexuality in Iran?
No, because: (a) the US and Iran do not have an extradition treaty; and (b) even if they did, there is no certainty that an extradition hearing would even happen, or if it did, that the person would be extradited. That's how extraditions work. They're not automatic. The country holding the prisoner has to decide.
On the other hand, if such a person were to travel to Iran, or to a country with an extradition treaty with Iran, I can imagine they could be arrested.
This is the kind of bullshit you get when you ignore jurisdictional boundaries and the rights of other nations and there companies to free trade. The US is being the bully here and Canada's actions are demonstrating it is an accomplice.
I don't think anyone is ignoring jurisdictional boundaries here. If Skycom had not done its banking with a US firm, I think the US would not have a tenable position.
I am reminded of an incident that happened a few years ago. A US citizen (I think) wrote something online that insulted the royalty of another country (Thailand IIRC). That US citizen subsequently went to Thailand as a tourist, and was arrested at the port of entry. I'm not sure how the case ended.
TL/DR: traveler beware. Unpleasant things can happen when your travels put you in reach of the authorities of another country who thinks you did something wrong.
Easy answer...It is HARD. OCR has been around for years but even today it is hit or miss except for the most sophisticated systems.
Yes, generalized OCR is hard. But the problem gets much easier if you limit the "alphabet" of characters you're trying to recognize. Ten digits plus comma, space and perhaps currency symbols is a much smaller alphabet than full unicode, or even just ASCII.
So you can convert an image of numbers into data in a spreadsheet? It's a trivial improvement on something we have been able to do for decades.
Wake me up when the software can discover the relationship between the columns in the table, and insert the appropriate cell-references and math operations.
Such a thing would kill Shanghai Bill, Kendall and yourself rather than attempt to educate you with facts that you ignore routinely. AI figures out who is educable quickly, Republican idiots are ignored. The system works.
Don't be too hard on ShanghaiBill. I seldom agree with him, but when I do, it's because he says something that this kind of AI would not flag.
You just made that that up she did not say that. She said "We're gonna put a lot of coal miners and coal companies outta business". I'll translate that for you "Fuck coal miners.". What a lying prick you are.
Instead of dividing people the way Donald Trump does, let’s reunite around politics that will bring jobs and opportunities to all these under-served poor communities. So, for example, I’m the only candidate who has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right, Tim [Ryan (D-OH)]?
And we’re going to make it clear that we don’t want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories. Now we’ve got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don’t want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce energy that we relied on.
Per the article, Clinton regretted the way she said the above. (From her book What Happened: “The point I had wanted to make was the exact opposite of how it came out.... [I] felt absolutely sick about the whole thing.” But the full context shows she was not trying to "fuck" coal miners. Quite the opposite.
And fuck coal miners. Leave that poison in the ground.
Let me remind you Hillary Clinton said the same thing and she was left in the dust. No pun intended.
No, she did not say "the same thing."
She said that the coal industry was dying (true) and that she wanted to offer opportunities for coal workers to train and transfer to other industries. That does not sound like "fucking" coal miners.
It would be nice if no matter who got elected, things basically stayed the same. But if we can't have that, don't complain when the guys you don't like do things you don't like when elected.
Don't complain? In a democracy, it's a citizen's right (perhaps even her/his duty) to complain.
Hostility to Israel is commonly used by Nazis and other anti-Semites to disguise their ugly bigotry.
I'm not sure they're that good at disguising their bigotry, but okay.
You may not be anti-Semitic. But you're OK with being on the same side as anti-Semites. No platform.
I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.
I daresay that racists didn't vote for Obama. But that doesn't mean that voting for Obama's opponent means you're "OK with being on the same side" as racists. You may have disagreed with Obama's policies in good faith, and voted for someone else. That's not why racists didn't vote for him.
And for the record, you are correct that I am not anti-Semitic. Quite the contrary. I grew up worshipping a jew. And I am in a long-term relationship with one.
According to the linked site, it's an archive of history and culture. Not technology. It'd be kinda like going (back) to the moon, and finding the dinosaurs had already been there and left a record of their culture and history.
PopeRatzo just demonstrated he's an anti-Semitic jackass.
He was not dissing jews. He was dissing Israel. But people like you respond to criticism of Israel with the charge of anti-semitism, because it sparks more outrage.
IMHO the government of Israel -- in fact any country's government -- is fair game for rational criticism of its policies and actions. Such criticism is not a hostility towards race, ethnicity, or religion, even if some try to imagine it to be so.
As long as we're talking about C++ primers, I would add the one by Stanley Lippman. I found it very helpful, particularly the explanations of how overloading, casting, multiple constructors, and inheritance work together.
"If I manage to get up there, can I claim Opportunity as a derelict, bring it back and part it out?"
No. When you're there you can give the robot a bum-wash and clean its solar cells. NASA will give you a dollar.
You just made me think of Martians wandering around with spray bottles and squeegees, offering to clean solar cells. And the rovers turning their windshield-wipers on to discourage them. (Hey -- why didn't we just put windshield-wipers on the rovers' solar cells?)
If I manage to get up there, can I claim Opportunity as a derelict, bring it back and part it out?
Good question indeed. In the movie The Martian (not that it's definitive of course) it was mentioned that Mars is under international maritime law. IANAL, but I'm going to guess that means you'd need to get salvage rights in order to claim the rover. Unless of course you need the hardware to survive, as Matt Damon's character did.
Those with knowledge of space law, please confirm.
First we were told cockroaches were the only things that were survive a nuclear war. Now we are to believe that insects are super fragile? I don't think so, they have a super short lifespan and prodigious replication rates so as to be able to out-evolve any threat and take over any exposed ecological niche.
1. Cockroaches can survive nuclear war. 2. Cockroaches are insects. 3. Therefore, stop worrying about the ecological fragility of insects.
To demonstrate who is actually the brainwashed idiot, consider this: Trump has, on at least 7 occasions, acknowledged that the climate is warming, and that humans likely play a role in that.
Citations please?
Oh never mind. Trump says lots of things and then says the opposite a short time later. His AGW stance has been a textbook example. He may have grudgingly accepted AGW on occasion, but his most emphatic pronouncements have been decidedly on the other side of the issue.
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive. -- Donald J. Trump, 2012
Except that is not what they did. Taking a ruler and drawing a tangent to a curve is drafting not science.
You're taking a second (or third, or worse) hand lay summary of what they did and using that to assume the original science was simply linear extrapolation. That seems pretty unlikely.
This indeed.
Climate models are constructed and back-tested carefully with data to determine their effectiveness. The idea that someone goes to all that effort and then just "gets out a ruler" to make a prediction is kind of silly.
Slashdot Mirror
activities in Iran that were in violation of US law.
Right there I have a problem with this. The U.S. has no jurisdiction over actions in Iran by a non American company and non American citizens.
Arguably the US does if the non-American company involves American companies by misrepresenting their intentions. Which is what Justice and Treasury allege that Huawei/Skycom did. The "stepped a foot" as it were, into the US, and thus exposed themselves to US jurisdiction.
Again, I'm not sure of the merits of the case against Huawei. I just think the US position is tenable, though it's to be determined whether it will endure the processes that will unfold from here.
Do we extradite gay people to Iran to face charges there because they interacted with someone on the internet in Iran that broke laws against homosexuality in Iran?
No, because: (a) the US and Iran do not have an extradition treaty; and (b) even if they did, there is no certainty that an extradition hearing would even happen, or if it did, that the person would be extradited. That's how extraditions work. They're not automatic. The country holding the prisoner has to decide.
I forgot to mention that I think extradition hearings often consider the question of whether the alleged offense would be considered an offense in the country holding the hearing, under similar circumstances. So for example, if Canada passed a similar law restricting trade with Iran, then the extradition hearing might consider that Meng Wanzhou likely would be charged in Canada and face trial. On the other hand, being gay is not (well, no longer?) a crime in the US, so I would assume an extradition request made on that basis would fail. (But IANAL.)
China's right on about this being a political maneuver regardless of whose responsible for said actions. China's relationship and companies thereof are outside the law of the US and Canada's jurisdiction. The US has no legitimate jurisdictional authority here and neither does Canada.
I don't have an opinion on who is in the right here, and who should prevail. This may very well be a political maneuver on the part of the US. However, I think that the US position is tenable. Let me explain why.
The US claims that Huawei, through its wholly-owned subsidiary Skycom, made misrepresentations to US-based financial firms about its activities in Iran that were in violation of US law. The US Justice and Treasury Departments announced they were investigating Huawei in April 2018.
In December 2018, Huawei's vice-chair and CFO Meng Wanzhou was arrested in Vancouver, Canada, at the request of the US. By entering a country that had an extradition treaty with the US, she imperiled herself. Canada then had to: (a) decide whether to hold an extradition hearing; (b) hold one if they decide to do so; and (c) extradite Meng Wanzhou if the hearing concludes with that decision. Canada just finished part (a).
If the argument is accepted that they do have jurisdictional authority then the US and Canada should be extraditing people to China to face charges who have never stepped foot in China for breaking a variety of laws that exist in China but that don't exist here despite people in the US breaking said Chinese laws having never even been to China.
I can accept that the US has jurisdictional authority over crimes committed within the US. And by engaging with US firms in an alleged fraudulent way, Skycom placed itself in that jurisdiction.
I suppose it could be the same if a US or Canadian person broke a Chinese law when engaging with a Chinese company. But that person would need to travel to China (or a country with an extradition treaty with China) to be subject to arrest and extradition. China has extradition treaties with about 40 countries. The US is not one of them.
Do we extradite gay people to Iran to face charges there because they interacted with someone on the internet in Iran that broke laws against homosexuality in Iran?
No, because: (a) the US and Iran do not have an extradition treaty; and (b) even if they did, there is no certainty that an extradition hearing would even happen, or if it did, that the person would be extradited. That's how extraditions work. They're not automatic. The country holding the prisoner has to decide.
On the other hand, if such a person were to travel to Iran, or to a country with an extradition treaty with Iran, I can imagine they could be arrested.
This is the kind of bullshit you get when you ignore jurisdictional boundaries and the rights of other nations and there companies to free trade. The US is being the bully here and Canada's actions are demonstrating it is an accomplice.
I don't think anyone is ignoring jurisdictional boundaries here. If Skycom had not done its banking with a US firm, I think the US would not have a tenable position.
I am reminded of an incident that happened a few years ago. A US citizen (I think) wrote something online that insulted the royalty of another country (Thailand IIRC). That US citizen subsequently went to Thailand as a tourist, and was arrested at the port of entry. I'm not sure how the case ended.
TL/DR: traveler beware. Unpleasant things can happen when your travels put you in reach of the authorities of another country who thinks you did something wrong.
Easy answer...It is HARD. OCR has been around for years but even today it is hit or miss except for the most sophisticated systems.
Yes, generalized OCR is hard. But the problem gets much easier if you limit the "alphabet" of characters you're trying to recognize. Ten digits plus comma, space and perhaps currency symbols is a much smaller alphabet than full unicode, or even just ASCII.
So you can convert an image of numbers into data in a spreadsheet? It's a trivial improvement on something we have been able to do for decades.
Wake me up when the software can discover the relationship between the columns in the table, and insert the appropriate cell-references and math operations.
Such a thing would kill Shanghai Bill, Kendall and yourself rather than attempt to educate you with facts that you ignore routinely. AI figures out who is educable quickly, Republican idiots are ignored. The system works.
Don't be too hard on ShanghaiBill. I seldom agree with him, but when I do, it's because he says something that this kind of AI would not flag.
You just made that that up she did not say that. She said "We're gonna put a lot of coal miners and coal companies outta business". I'll translate that for you "Fuck coal miners.". What a lying prick you are.
Here's the full context, from this article.
Instead of dividing people the way Donald Trump does, let’s reunite around politics that will bring jobs and opportunities to all these under-served poor communities. So, for example, I’m the only candidate who has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right, Tim [Ryan (D-OH)]?
And we’re going to make it clear that we don’t want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories. Now we’ve got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don’t want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce energy that we relied on.
Per the article, Clinton regretted the way she said the above. (From her book What Happened: “The point I had wanted to make was the exact opposite of how it came out. ... [I] felt absolutely sick about the whole thing.” But the full context shows she was not trying to "fuck" coal miners. Quite the opposite.
And fuck coal miners. Leave that poison in the ground.
Let me remind you Hillary Clinton said the same thing and she was left in the dust. No pun intended.
No, she did not say "the same thing."
She said that the coal industry was dying (true) and that she wanted to offer opportunities for coal workers to train and transfer to other industries. That does not sound like "fucking" coal miners.
It would be nice if no matter who got elected, things basically stayed the same. But if we can't have that, don't complain when the guys you don't like do things you don't like when elected.
Don't complain? In a democracy, it's a citizen's right (perhaps even her/his duty) to complain.
Fact of the matter that coal still exists and provides many jobs and lively hoods for thousands of Americans.
Oh the irony.
live-li-hoods n. 1. Jobs that pay a living wage.
live-ly hoods n. 1. Energetic, active criminals. 2. Transferred epithet for head and face covering bobbing up and down (e.g., at a KKK rally.)
... the stars will all start going out.
...why?
This is why.
Did you say Dilbert?
[See the first two strips on the linked page.]
Hostility to Israel is commonly used by Nazis and other anti-Semites to disguise their ugly bigotry.
I'm not sure they're that good at disguising their bigotry, but okay.
You may not be anti-Semitic. But you're OK with being on the same side as anti-Semites. No platform.
I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.
I daresay that racists didn't vote for Obama. But that doesn't mean that voting for Obama's opponent means you're "OK with being on the same side" as racists. You may have disagreed with Obama's policies in good faith, and voted for someone else. That's not why racists didn't vote for him.
And for the record, you are correct that I am not anti-Semitic. Quite the contrary. I grew up worshipping a jew. And I am in a long-term relationship with one.
According to the linked site, it's an archive of history and culture. Not technology. It'd be kinda like going (back) to the moon, and finding the dinosaurs had already been there and left a record of their culture and history.
This. It's a time capsule.
PopeRatzo just demonstrated he's an anti-Semitic jackass.
He was not dissing jews. He was dissing Israel. But people like you respond to criticism of Israel with the charge of anti-semitism, because it sparks more outrage.
IMHO the government of Israel -- in fact any country's government -- is fair game for rational criticism of its policies and actions. Such criticism is not a hostility towards race, ethnicity, or religion, even if some try to imagine it to be so.
Crikey, these young'uns. What's wrong with plugboards?
As long as we're talking about C++ primers, I would add the one by Stanley Lippman. I found it very helpful, particularly the explanations of how overloading, casting, multiple constructors, and inheritance work together.
This. It has some errors, but it is worth reading.
"If I manage to get up there, can I claim Opportunity as a derelict, bring it back and part it out?"
No. When you're there you can give the robot a bum-wash and clean its solar cells.
NASA will give you a dollar.
You just made me think of Martians wandering around with spray bottles and squeegees, offering to clean solar cells. And the rovers turning their windshield-wipers on to discourage them. (Hey -- why didn't we just put windshield-wipers on the rovers' solar cells?)
If I manage to get up there, can I claim Opportunity as a derelict, bring it back and part it out?
Good question indeed. In the movie The Martian (not that it's definitive of course) it was mentioned that Mars is under international maritime law. IANAL, but I'm going to guess that means you'd need to get salvage rights in order to claim the rover. Unless of course you need the hardware to survive, as Matt Damon's character did.
Those with knowledge of space law, please confirm.
First we were told cockroaches were the only things that were survive a nuclear war. Now we are to believe that insects are super fragile? I don't think so, they have a super short lifespan and prodigious replication rates so as to be able to out-evolve any threat and take over any exposed ecological niche.
1. Cockroaches can survive nuclear war.
2. Cockroaches are insects.
3. Therefore, stop worrying about the ecological fragility of insects.
That's logically compelling. Not.
I extrapolate that by 2035, all intelligent discourse will consist of threads of XKCD links.
We should be so lucky. I can imagine worse.
ShanghiBill is always "kind of silly".
No, not always. More than once I have agreed with something he posted, and I have said so. Not this time, though.
To demonstrate who is actually the brainwashed idiot, consider this: Trump has, on at least 7 occasions, acknowledged that the climate is warming, and that humans likely play a role in that.
Citations please?
Oh never mind. Trump says lots of things and then says the opposite a short time later. His AGW stance has been a textbook example. He may have grudgingly accepted AGW on occasion, but his most emphatic pronouncements have been decidedly on the other side of the issue.
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive. -- Donald J. Trump, 2012
Not enough? Okay:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world...
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1...
https://www.motherjones.com/en...
Except that is not what they did. Taking a ruler and drawing a tangent to a curve is drafting not science.
You're taking a second (or third, or worse) hand lay summary of what they did and using that to assume the original science was simply linear extrapolation. That seems pretty unlikely.
This indeed.
Climate models are constructed and back-tested carefully with data to determine their effectiveness. The idea that someone goes to all that effort and then just "gets out a ruler" to make a prediction is kind of silly.