A person isn't a source, especially when that seems to be the best they can find...
"all the sub-sub-subcontracting that tends to happen with manufacturing, is it really that improbably that only particular subset of server were effected?"
Even so, there's still no evidence and Amazon and Apple say it didn't happen.
It does looks like Bloomberg's story isn't complete and relies on anonymous sources.
"Today’s bombshell Bloomberg story has the internet split: either the story is right, and reporters have uncovered one of the largest and jarring breaches of the U.S. tech industry by a foreign adversary or it’s not, and a lot of people screwed up." https://techcrunch.com/2018/10...
Links from the Techcrunch article:
"The October 8, 2018 issue of Bloomberg Businessweek incorrectly reports that Apple found “malicious chips” in servers on its network in 2015. As Apple has repeatedly explained to Bloomberg reporters and editors over the past 12 months, there is no truth to these claims." https://www.apple.com/newsroom...
"Steve Schmidt, Chief Information Security Officer at Amazon Web Services stated, "As we shared with Bloomberg BusinessWeek multiple times over the last couple months, at no time, past or present, have we ever found any issues relating to modified hardware or malicious chips in Supermicro motherboards in any Elemental or Amazon systems." https://www.prnewswire.com/new...
"If an Uber driver just wants to drive a few hours here and there and is fine with netting less than $10/hr after expenses, should the government stop him? These are some of the questions that must be answered."
Yeah their citizens can become captive to corporations who can simply leave any time for a poorer area and higher profits leaving everyone without a job and a local government no longer able to supply services.
"Danth’s Law (sometimes known as Parker’s Law) is an Internet axiom which asserts that if a person has to insist that he or she has won an Internet argument, it is likely the said person has lost."
"I'm less than wild about DudkDuckGo because its search results generate a link back to DuckDuckGo which then presumbly redirects to the material instead of generating a simple href to the material."
No link back for me, DudkDuckGo just gives me a simple href to material.
Fair enough. And well said. Science can't take philosophy out of the equation.
Even if one is thinking generally about biology sociology or psychology, which, for example, find that mental health issues are caused, to a greater proportion, by environmental factors over genetic ones, and even if science can help identify the factors that can effect positive change the most in particular contexts and one assumes that alleviating suffering is a given or that a scientific survey would confirm that to be the case -- that still wouldn't make a decision to act on that information a scientific decision.
“Reasonable safety regulations” are not what that post was calling for.
Not sure the senator's use of fear, bodily and economic, to promote the act is reasonable. It's also not clear what the act is about, or who's interests are being 'protected', and though setting up definitions, standards, manufacturer obligations, and various frameworks for the creation of future regulations is certainly useful, and I agree the parent you responded to first was a bit over the top, I'm still concerned about some of the language, like here for example:
"No State or political subdivision of a State may maintain, enforce, prescribe, or continue in effect any law or regulation regarding the design, construction, ***or performance of highly automated vehicles***, automated driving systems, or components of automated driving systems unless such law or regulation is identical to a standard prescribed under this chapter." (from the act)
Does that stop states from regulating 'highly automated vehicle' testing or permit them to refuse vehicles they consider dangerous or inappropriate from driving on certain public roads.
I'd also like to know what China's and Europe's standards and policies are that the senator says makes them a leap ahead of the 'falling behind' US:
"This delay is set against a growing fear in Washington, Silicon Valley and the auto industry that the U.S. will fall dangerously behind in autonomous vehicle standards and policies while China and Europe leap ahead."
And here are not only more unsubstantiated claims against Russia, but also more unsubstantiated claims within unsubstantiated claims :
"The former Facebook security head said "it [was] pretty clear the GRU's goal was to weaken a future Hillary presidency. Putin has a [you know, it's been well-documented] like a personal antipathy towards her and believes that she was behind the protests against him in the 2012 Russian election, and so, the GRU activity was specifically focused on weakening her."
I think the idea is more than if someone going only 15 mph rear-ended them, it was likely a situation beyond anyone's capabilities except for the person that rear-ended them. Would you also blame the self-driving car's corporation if it got rear-ended while stopped at a red light? Assuming a self-driving car must be partially to blame if struck by someone driving incorrectly is faulty logic. All that said, I have "rear-ended" a car before when I was stopped at a red light, and the car in front of me decided it wanted to back up to go another way without checking if another car was behind it. Unlikely to be what happened here, though.
"it was likely a situation beyond anyone's capabilities except for the person that rear-ended them. Would you also blame the self-driving car's corporation"
These companies have special permissions to be on the road, they have rules to follow above and beyond what your average driver has to. They have contractual obligations to not interfere in any way with the safety and operation of the public transport system, which includes the obligation to not test any system that would put anyone at a higher risk of injury.
That said, these companies, considering the state of the technology, should not under any circumstances let their cars merge or make left turns unless the safety driver has taken over the operation of the car, if not they should at minimum be fined, and if involved in an accident they should also as an extra deterrent be held at least partially responsible for damages, which would not preclude any other vehicle involved in the accident from being fined if they bore some or even all of the blame.
"So it's Apple's fault that the security driver didn't ram the Apple car into the other cars that wouldn't let it merge. Yeah, you make sense."
I don't know the specifics of what happened so yeah.
But at the level 'autonomous' cars are today I think it's fair to always at least partially blame corporations when they permit their cars to enter situations that are beyond their car's AI's capabilities.
First, I agree cars need to talk to each other and to fixed roadside beacons or stations if there is any chance of them becoming safe and reliable.
"You mean like when Alexa learns how to understand a new speaker?"
No, I mean that AIs can't competently merge onto highways or negotiate left turns. The complexity is currently way beyond their capabilities.
"AI is not clever programming to appear smart anymore, AI are shifting and self-programming networks that learn abstract patterns more or less the same way the brain works."
There is a very very big difference between how 'neural nets' and the brain process information, so AIs are not shifting from 'clever programming' to functioning 'more or less the same way the brain' does.
"Well it's not impossible that it's Apple car's fault...."
It's apple's fault because the safety driver did not take over when the AI was obviously not able to merge with the traffic in a competent fashion. This kind of problem happens with all companies, also during left turns, in both instances the complexity of what humans do when negotiating these situations is way beyond the scope of what these AI systems can now accomplish.
Slashdot Mirror
"Eventually, that person says, ..."
A person isn't a source, especially when that seems to be the best they can find ...
"all the sub-sub-subcontracting that tends to happen with manufacturing, is it really that improbably that only particular subset of server were effected?"
Even so, there's still no evidence and Amazon and Apple say it didn't happen.
It does looks like Bloomberg's story isn't complete and relies on anonymous sources.
"Today’s bombshell Bloomberg story has the internet split: either the story is right, and reporters have uncovered one of the largest and jarring breaches of the U.S. tech industry by a foreign adversary or it’s not, and a lot of people screwed up." https://techcrunch.com/2018/10...
Links from the Techcrunch article:
"The October 8, 2018 issue of Bloomberg Businessweek incorrectly reports that Apple found “malicious chips” in servers on its network in 2015. As Apple has repeatedly explained to Bloomberg reporters and editors over the past 12 months, there is no truth to these claims." https://www.apple.com/newsroom...
"Steve Schmidt, Chief Information Security Officer at Amazon Web Services stated, "As we shared with Bloomberg BusinessWeek multiple times over the last couple months, at no time, past or present, have we ever found any issues relating to modified hardware or malicious chips in Supermicro motherboards in any Elemental or Amazon systems." https://www.prnewswire.com/new...
"if they are considered employees rather than independent contract workers."
Do labor laws in the US consider uber drivers or coffee shop musicians the same no matter how many hours they work ?
"Provided you have the will power, no one needs to live a life of misery teetering on the edge of poverty."
So like if your tall you can reach higher ?
"This answer begs the question. How did they squeeze more out of the drivers while paying them less?"
No better job to go to?
"If an Uber driver just wants to drive a few hours here and there and is fine with netting less than $10/hr after expenses, should the government stop him? These are some of the questions that must be answered."
Why would the gov stop him?
"but they seem to lack self control. I'm not sure that can be taught."
It can. In other words I think responsibility becomes a matter of public policy when problems are perpetuated over many generations.
I agree with the rest of your comment.
Yeah their citizens can become captive to corporations who can simply leave any time for a poorer area and higher profits leaving everyone without a job and a local government no longer able to supply services.
" Danth's Law. "
Yeah.
I looked it up :
"Danth’s Law (sometimes known as Parker’s Law) is an Internet axiom which asserts that if a person has to insist that he or she has won an Internet argument, it is likely the said person has lost."
"As defined by >10,000 years of human law."
Do you mean it's abnormal behavior then?
"I'm less than wild about DudkDuckGo because its search results generate a link back to DuckDuckGo which then presumbly redirects to the material instead of generating a simple href to the material."
No link back for me, DudkDuckGo just gives me a simple href to material.
"It's only different when they want it to be..."
https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...
Fair enough. And well said. Science can't take philosophy out of the equation.
Even if one is thinking generally about biology sociology or psychology, which, for example, find that mental health issues are caused, to a greater proportion, by environmental factors over genetic ones, and even if science can help identify the factors that can effect positive change the most in particular contexts and one assumes that alleviating suffering is a given or that a scientific survey would confirm that to be the case -- that still wouldn't make a decision to act on that information a scientific decision.
" other than remaking it in another format, what original work was contributed? "
I wonder what would have happened if the project hadn't also used the likenesses and voices of the original actors.
"What the science actually shows is that both biology and environment play a role."
So are you saying science tells us we should do all we can to eliminate the environmental biases?
“Reasonable safety regulations” are not what that post was calling for.
Not sure the senator's use of fear, bodily and economic, to promote the act is reasonable. It's also not clear what the act is about, or who's interests are being 'protected', and though setting up definitions, standards, manufacturer obligations, and various frameworks for the creation of future regulations is certainly useful, and I agree the parent you responded to first was a bit over the top, I'm still concerned about some of the language, like here for example:
"No State or political subdivision of a State may maintain, enforce, prescribe, or continue in effect any law or regulation regarding the design, construction, ***or performance of highly automated vehicles***, automated driving systems, or components of automated driving systems unless such law or regulation is identical to a standard prescribed under this chapter." (from the act)
Does that stop states from regulating 'highly automated vehicle' testing or permit them to refuse vehicles they consider dangerous or inappropriate from driving on certain public roads.
I'd also like to know what China's and Europe's standards and policies are that the senator says makes them a leap ahead of the 'falling behind' US:
"This delay is set against a growing fear in Washington, Silicon Valley and the auto industry that the U.S. will fall dangerously behind in autonomous vehicle standards and policies while China and Europe leap ahead."
"Let me guess: you're one of those people who set fire to the hipster coffee shop that just opened in your inner-city neighborhood?"
Reasonable safety regulations in the auto industry aren't related to an extremist's unhinged justifications for arson.
"AI has now attained the sentience level of a bacteria."
Sentience?
Computer science involves AI, while biology involves bacteria.
Funny how after that op-ed a lot of major newscasters suddenly decided it was ok to imply the president's a child.
The hysteria is almost palpable.
And here are not only more unsubstantiated claims against Russia, but also more unsubstantiated claims within unsubstantiated claims :
"The former Facebook security head said "it [was] pretty clear the GRU's goal was to weaken a future Hillary presidency. Putin has a [you know, it's been well-documented] like a personal antipathy towards her and believes that she was behind the protests against him in the 2012 Russian election, and so, the GRU activity was specifically focused on weakening her."
I think the idea is more than if someone going only 15 mph rear-ended them, it was likely a situation beyond anyone's capabilities except for the person that rear-ended them. Would you also blame the self-driving car's corporation if it got rear-ended while stopped at a red light? Assuming a self-driving car must be partially to blame if struck by someone driving incorrectly is faulty logic. All that said, I have "rear-ended" a car before when I was stopped at a red light, and the car in front of me decided it wanted to back up to go another way without checking if another car was behind it. Unlikely to be what happened here, though.
"it was likely a situation beyond anyone's capabilities except for the person that rear-ended them. Would you also blame the self-driving car's corporation"
These companies have special permissions to be on the road, they have rules to follow above and beyond what your average driver has to. They have contractual obligations to not interfere in any way with the safety and operation of the public transport system, which includes the obligation to not test any system that would put anyone at a higher risk of injury.
That said, these companies, considering the state of the technology, should not under any circumstances let their cars merge or make left turns unless the safety driver has taken over the operation of the car, if not they should at minimum be fined, and if involved in an accident they should also as an extra deterrent be held at least partially responsible for damages, which would not preclude any other vehicle involved in the accident from being fined if they bore some or even all of the blame.
"after a commotion he was terminated" Not sure if dysphemism for "fired", or ... "
Just a shoddy translation is my guess.
"So it's Apple's fault that the security driver didn't ram the Apple car into the other cars that wouldn't let it merge. Yeah, you make sense."
I don't know the specifics of what happened so yeah.
But at the level 'autonomous' cars are today I think it's fair to always at least partially blame corporations when they permit their cars to enter situations that are beyond their car's AI's capabilities.
First, I agree cars need to talk to each other and to fixed roadside beacons or stations if there is any chance of them becoming safe and reliable.
"You mean like when Alexa learns how to understand a new speaker?"
No, I mean that AIs can't competently merge onto highways or negotiate left turns. The complexity is currently way beyond their capabilities.
"AI is not clever programming to appear smart anymore, AI are shifting and self-programming networks that learn abstract patterns more or less the same way the brain works."
There is a very very big difference between how 'neural nets' and the brain process information, so AIs are not shifting from 'clever programming' to functioning 'more or less the same way the brain' does.
"Well it's not impossible that it's Apple car's fault...."
It's apple's fault because the safety driver did not take over when the AI was obviously not able to merge with the traffic in a competent fashion. This kind of problem happens with all companies, also during left turns, in both instances the complexity of what humans do when negotiating these situations is way beyond the scope of what these AI systems can now accomplish.