Additionally, what there were demanding is that Apple create a way of bypassing their security. Not that they use a tool already in existence to bypass the security.
I'm sure they are. There wouldn't be much purpose in attacking them if there weren't some way to use them...at least some of them. Some systems aren't patched and kept up to date, and those frequently have known vulnerabilities. But that's not what the article is about.
That only works because very few people with power have any animus against children. Even so, you can't show that it's always better.
And the Guantanamo Bay example is an example of what happens when the open trial is denied. It's clearly unconstitutional abuse of power, and it was engaged in by both the Repubs and the Dems. The weasel-worded justification of "but it's not happening in the US" ignores that it's being done by the US govt. on territory controlled by the US.
While your assertion is fair, it's worth noting that if he weren't a (presumably) wealthy executive it wouldn't be newsworthy, but would still be public.
Try to come up with a proposal for a better approach. Do you want to allow secret trials?
Part of what's going on is that everyone so hates his profession that they're immediately willing to believe the worst of him without seeing the evidence. My first thought of a comment was: "So he decided to make his profession more directly physical." and to deride the company claim that it had no relation to the acts he was accused of.
That said, I don't feel much obligation to suspend judgment in this case because my reactions won't have any effect on the result. And I'm not sympathetic to the damage to his career because I consider his career in itself immoral.
Well, someone, I believe it was Claus Oldfield, sculpted a thing that looked like an ashtray full of cigarette butts, and that was definitely art, but would it not have been art someone had substituted a real ashtray full of cigarette butts? Even though it looked just the same? (Of course, it probably wouldn't smell the same...I didn't hear that he perfumed his sculpture.)
The problem is what solution you converge to depends on how far ahead you look, and how you evaluate the look-ahead positions. Something that looks two moves further ahead may well converge on a very different answer in some positions, and one with a different evaluation function definitely will. And there's usually a trade-off between good evaluation and deep look ahead within a set of constraints, whether time or RAM.
So there's no real reason to presume that people and AIs would converge to the same solution. In fact it's obvious that different people converge to different solutions, so this should be stated more definitely, but I mean to imply that there's no reason to suppose that an AI wouldn't converge to patterns outside the human range.
It's only simple if you play the game out to the end. All that counts is the open territory that's left when the game is played out, but usually the game is decided long before that point, and both sides agree.
OTOH, I'm not a real go player, and I don't know championship rules. Perhaps they do play out to the end.
Much as I despise Trump, this is unfair criticism. The IRS has been arrogantly abusive and unresponsive to clear needs for well over a decade...and I'm not sure how much over. It doesn't seem to change when the administration changes.
They're low, but they're not *that* low. People living at higher altitudes do have higher rates of cancer than those that live at lower altitudes, unless there are other risk factors. People living on top of granite have higher rates. Etc.
I'll grant that the data are uncertain enough that there's a LOT of swing to the error bars, and there are enough confounding factors that if you have an agenda you can construct a reasonable sounding argument that it's a statistical artifact. But that not the way any neutral observer would evaluate things.
You are clearly correct that no particular cancer can be traced to radiation. That's true even in cases where there has be fairly strong acute exposure. But the statistical evidence is strong enough that nobody reasonable should doubt the correlation. And the causal reasoning is sound enough that nobody should doubt the connection. But it's also fairly clear that it's not a linear relationship, though the details of why are, AFAIK, obscure. I suspect it has to do with the immune system, but I'm not expert in the field.
I'm reasoning this out from first principles here, so if anyone has actual knowledge, I presume they'll correct me.
It's not that simple. Acute exposure isn't entirely different from chronic exposure, there are large areas of overlap at low levels of total dose. E.g., induced single mutations happen in both, and can lead to cancer from either.
There is some sense in which acute exposure is less damaging for a given (low) amount of total radiation. e.g. it's more likely to kill a cell by inducing multiple mutations. And, of course, multiple mutations in different cells are more likely to overwhelm the immune system in the case of acute exposure...but at low levels one would expect multiple mutations to be common even with acute exposure.
But it is a fair question to ask what is the increment in risk. It's clear that there is *some* increase, but it's not clear to me how much. Or whether the people being exposed know.
It's true that the linear model is easier to think about, but it's clearly incorrect. Reasonable data are available, however. E.g. people in Denver get more exposure to radiation than people at sea level (with exceptions for local minerals). And we can measure how much, and note that there's a higher cancer rate and how much higher it is (and what kinds of cancer). Etc.
The data are available. The models can be tested against it. But that's a lot of work, so few people do it. And the results aren't easy to understand. And, of course, there are confounding factors, e.g. "Do people in Denver smoke more than people in Los Alamos? How much more? or less?"
Still, it's pretty clear that even low levels of radiation increase risk. The argument is really over "How much risk is it reasonable to expose people to?". And that's one that can't be answered by a study, unless you put a validate-able definition on reasonably. No body wants to argue on those terms, so they argue over the models rather than improving them. Just about everyone accepts that even low levels of radiation are hazardous to some degree. And just about everyone accepts that you can't avoid some exposure. Just living around granite rocks exposes you to radiation that has been measured and found to be dangerous...just not very dangerous.
Give me a reason to believe that's what they're doing. They're protecting corporate secrets from an intrusive government.
OTOH, the US government seems to be demanding that Irish (EU) laws be violated on Irish soil in order to satisfy their demands. Which seems a definite overreach.
IIUC, the laws of Ireland prohibit exporting personal information to the US because of US laws on data protection. So for someone in Ireland to ship the data to the US would be in violation of Irish law.
This isn't just corporate maneuvering, it's also governments arguing about jurisdiction. The US is demanding that Irish laws be violated on Irish soil. And Irish law derives from EU law, so this is also the US vs. the EU.
The summary said that it was only the customers who ordered within one time period of less than a day that were leaked. If so it sounds as if only orders in transit were leaked.
OK, but "full or nearly so" implies that you don't use it.
OTOH, I wasn't thinking of a combustion explosion, but rather a pressure explosion (still implies not full or nearly full). Admittedly a "reasonably strong" tank can hold against that kind of explosion, but that's not true of most things you could hack together.
Gasoline is extremely short term. Without electricity you can't pump it from the underground storage. It's dangerous to keep a lot of it around. And it's volatile. A sealed container becomes explosive, an unsealed container loses contents.
There are, relatively, only a few gas stations, and they depend on continual replenishment. And even when well maintained they lose gas through vaporization every day. To get the gas out you need to dig down and breach the storage tanks, and then the vaporization rate increases markedly, plus you will get garbage into the gas, so it will foul your engine. It is also hygroscopic (tends to accumulate water) and bacteria grow in it once the water gets in. Which also fouls your engine.
You don't realize the technology that goes on behind the scenes to keep gas working. If you'd said diesel you might have had a point. Diesel is less volatile and diesel engines are less subject to fouling from other organics in the fuel. But I'm not sure that applies to the high tech diesel engines that cars use these days.
People don't seem to understand "dying of thirst", though I'm not sure two days would be enough unless it was a very hot desert.
When you're dying of thirst you're too weak to stand up, much less assault someone who isn't. And you don't recover immediately after drinking, either.
That said, it wouldn't be a bad thing if a few of the people you know and trust are proficient with guns that they own, and it would be an additional benefit if it included a fletcher and a boyer. Otherwise you're going to need to revert to the atlatl or some variant. And you're going to need a few people who learn to use the sling, in any case. You need to defend your crops against rabbits, etc. and small stones are cheap, and rabbits are food. So are birds that are too small to be worth an arrow.
Hunting won't be important for generations, but it *will* become important. Deer may largely disappear for awhile, but they won't go extinct, except locally. And pigs may become both numerous and threatening.
Slashdot Mirror
Additionally, what there were demanding is that Apple create a way of bypassing their security. Not that they use a tool already in existence to bypass the security.
That was a clear example of government overreach.
On how many of those devices did they have a warrant to even try to access them?
I'm sure they are. There wouldn't be much purpose in attacking them if there weren't some way to use them...at least some of them. Some systems aren't patched and kept up to date, and those frequently have known vulnerabilities. But that's not what the article is about.
The "and Linux servers" referred to devices being attacked, not to ones that were part of the bot-net.
I'm going to give you credit for good intentions, at the cost of considering that you lack reading comprehension.
That only works because very few people with power have any animus against children. Even so, you can't show that it's always better.
And the Guantanamo Bay example is an example of what happens when the open trial is denied. It's clearly unconstitutional abuse of power, and it was engaged in by both the Repubs and the Dems. The weasel-worded justification of "but it's not happening in the US" ignores that it's being done by the US govt. on territory controlled by the US.
While your assertion is fair, it's worth noting that if he weren't a (presumably) wealthy executive it wouldn't be newsworthy, but would still be public.
Try to come up with a proposal for a better approach. Do you want to allow secret trials?
Part of what's going on is that everyone so hates his profession that they're immediately willing to believe the worst of him without seeing the evidence. My first thought of a comment was:
"So he decided to make his profession more directly physical."
and to deride the company claim that it had no relation to the acts he was accused of.
That said, I don't feel much obligation to suspend judgment in this case because my reactions won't have any effect on the result. And I'm not sympathetic to the damage to his career because I consider his career in itself immoral.
Well, someone, I believe it was Claus Oldfield, sculpted a thing that looked like an ashtray full of cigarette butts, and that was definitely art, but would it not have been art someone had substituted a real ashtray full of cigarette butts? Even though it looked just the same? (Of course, it probably wouldn't smell the same...I didn't hear that he perfumed his sculpture.)
The problem is what solution you converge to depends on how far ahead you look, and how you evaluate the look-ahead positions. Something that looks two moves further ahead may well converge on a very different answer in some positions, and one with a different evaluation function definitely will. And there's usually a trade-off between good evaluation and deep look ahead within a set of constraints, whether time or RAM.
So there's no real reason to presume that people and AIs would converge to the same solution. In fact it's obvious that different people converge to different solutions, so this should be stated more definitely, but I mean to imply that there's no reason to suppose that an AI wouldn't converge to patterns outside the human range.
It's only simple if you play the game out to the end. All that counts is the open territory that's left when the game is played out, but usually the game is decided long before that point, and both sides agree.
OTOH, I'm not a real go player, and I don't know championship rules. Perhaps they do play out to the end.
Everything you say is true, and I'd still be tempted to vote to find the creditor guilty.
Much as I despise Trump, this is unfair criticism. The IRS has been arrogantly abusive and unresponsive to clear needs for well over a decade...and I'm not sure how much over. It doesn't seem to change when the administration changes.
So the answer is to get rid of the deductions.
Personally, I don't favor a flat tax, but rather a linear tax with an offset as well as a flat tax rate, but that *is* a bit more complex.
Wasn't that after the second (or was it third?) breach. The feds just ignored the first one (that was kept secret for months).
They're low, but they're not *that* low. People living at higher altitudes do have higher rates of cancer than those that live at lower altitudes, unless there are other risk factors. People living on top of granite have higher rates. Etc.
I'll grant that the data are uncertain enough that there's a LOT of swing to the error bars, and there are enough confounding factors that if you have an agenda you can construct a reasonable sounding argument that it's a statistical artifact. But that not the way any neutral observer would evaluate things.
You are clearly correct that no particular cancer can be traced to radiation. That's true even in cases where there has be fairly strong acute exposure. But the statistical evidence is strong enough that nobody reasonable should doubt the correlation. And the causal reasoning is sound enough that nobody should doubt the connection. But it's also fairly clear that it's not a linear relationship, though the details of why are, AFAIK, obscure. I suspect it has to do with the immune system, but I'm not expert in the field.
I'm reasoning this out from first principles here, so if anyone has actual knowledge, I presume they'll correct me.
It's not that simple. Acute exposure isn't entirely different from chronic exposure, there are large areas of overlap at low levels of total dose. E.g., induced single mutations happen in both, and can lead to cancer from either.
There is some sense in which acute exposure is less damaging for a given (low) amount of total radiation. e.g. it's more likely to kill a cell by inducing multiple mutations. And, of course, multiple mutations in different cells are more likely to overwhelm the immune system in the case of acute exposure...but at low levels one would expect multiple mutations to be common even with acute exposure.
That's my interpretation.
But it is a fair question to ask what is the increment in risk. It's clear that there is *some* increase, but it's not clear to me how much. Or whether the people being exposed know.
It's true that the linear model is easier to think about, but it's clearly incorrect. Reasonable data are available, however. E.g. people in Denver get more exposure to radiation than people at sea level (with exceptions for local minerals). And we can measure how much, and note that there's a higher cancer rate and how much higher it is (and what kinds of cancer). Etc.
The data are available. The models can be tested against it. But that's a lot of work, so few people do it. And the results aren't easy to understand. And, of course, there are confounding factors, e.g. "Do people in Denver smoke more than people in Los Alamos? How much more? or less?"
Still, it's pretty clear that even low levels of radiation increase risk. The argument is really over "How much risk is it reasonable to expose people to?". And that's one that can't be answered by a study, unless you put a validate-able definition on reasonably. No body wants to argue on those terms, so they argue over the models rather than improving them. Just about everyone accepts that even low levels of radiation are hazardous to some degree. And just about everyone accepts that you can't avoid some exposure. Just living around granite rocks exposes you to radiation that has been measured and found to be dangerous...just not very dangerous.
Give me a reason to believe that's what they're doing. They're protecting corporate secrets from an intrusive government.
OTOH, the US government seems to be demanding that Irish (EU) laws be violated on Irish soil in order to satisfy their demands. Which seems a definite overreach.
IIUC, the laws of Ireland prohibit exporting personal information to the US because of US laws on data protection. So for someone in Ireland to ship the data to the US would be in violation of Irish law.
This isn't just corporate maneuvering, it's also governments arguing about jurisdiction. The US is demanding that Irish laws be violated on Irish soil. And Irish law derives from EU law, so this is also the US vs. the EU.
Given the US data protection laws, there's no conflict of law.
The summary said that it was only the customers who ordered within one time period of less than a day that were leaked. If so it sounds as if only orders in transit were leaked.
OK, but "full or nearly so" implies that you don't use it.
OTOH, I wasn't thinking of a combustion explosion, but rather a pressure explosion (still implies not full or nearly full). Admittedly a "reasonably strong" tank can hold against that kind of explosion, but that's not true of most things you could hack together.
Gasoline is extremely short term. Without electricity you can't pump it from the underground storage. It's dangerous to keep a lot of it around. And it's volatile. A sealed container becomes explosive, an unsealed container loses contents.
There are, relatively, only a few gas stations, and they depend on continual replenishment. And even when well maintained they lose gas through vaporization every day. To get the gas out you need to dig down and breach the storage tanks, and then the vaporization rate increases markedly, plus you will get garbage into the gas, so it will foul your engine. It is also hygroscopic (tends to accumulate water) and bacteria grow in it once the water gets in. Which also fouls your engine.
You don't realize the technology that goes on behind the scenes to keep gas working. If you'd said diesel you might have had a point. Diesel is less volatile and diesel engines are less subject to fouling from other organics in the fuel. But I'm not sure that applies to the high tech diesel engines that cars use these days.
People don't seem to understand "dying of thirst", though I'm not sure two days would be enough unless it was a very hot desert.
When you're dying of thirst you're too weak to stand up, much less assault someone who isn't. And you don't recover immediately after drinking, either.
That said, it wouldn't be a bad thing if a few of the people you know and trust are proficient with guns that they own, and it would be an additional benefit if it included a fletcher and a boyer. Otherwise you're going to need to revert to the atlatl or some variant. And you're going to need a few people who learn to use the sling, in any case. You need to defend your crops against rabbits, etc. and small stones are cheap, and rabbits are food. So are birds that are too small to be worth an arrow.
Hunting won't be important for generations, but it *will* become important. Deer may largely disappear for awhile, but they won't go extinct, except locally. And pigs may become both numerous and threatening.