I just read 2001 a Space Odyssey written in 1968. In it, Arthur C Clarke describes the ipad pretty accurately. And then goes on to describe how most people use it today.
He describes a device of about the size and shape of the ipad, but then the astronaut uses it to read all the news feeds, with summaries and icons. Then he touches the icon to expand the story and reads it and then clicks back to the summary of stories. And the summaries are updated all the time 24/7. And the amount of news is beyond what any one person could read. It was bang on and did not have any excessively far fetched ideas like most devices in sci-fi.
Is that the guy who stole money from me the last 4 times I bought a laptop? That guy said he would give me my money back but never did. I even got it in writing, but he said "sue me"... and I couldn't be bothered.
Yeah... I remember now. I hate that guy. He's very old and tired. Wish he would just die already.
Completely unsurprising since game bots have been able to outmaneuver human players for decades now. The only thing game bots were lacking was adequate sensor input to gain area awareness in the real world without oversimplified preprocessed maps and precisely placed path nodes.
Yes. Game bots have access to information that may not be available in a real world situation or may exploit or violate limitations (such as physics) imposed in a real world situation. Just because a bot can beat you in a video game, does not mean that a robot can out gun you on the battlefield.
I would like to see the computer control a robot that operates the controls of the simulator and see how it does.
I now no what my next product to market is. It's a new optical filter that will cover the iPhone's camera that has a sharp IR blocking filter so that the IR light emitted from the beams won't be detected by the phones camera but will let visible light pass through for recording. Just think of all of the money Apple spent on developing their "no record" patent and all it will take is a $1 filter to circumvent it. I guess it doesn't matter when you have all the money in the world.
Or just encourage people to stop buying products that are intended to malfunction at the will of others.
Sometimes its better to do the right thing instead of thinking about how to make money from the wrong.
What does "successfully challenged" mean? It seems to mean to me that it was challenged, but does not specify whether it was won or not. The linked article says that 160,000 were beaten, but that is not a quote from the creator of the DoNotPay bot. And the donotpay bot says nothing about it on their website, but I didn't signup. So can someone provide evidence (like a link) where the person who created this software actually said that 160k tickets were beaten?
I would guess that "successfully challenged" means that the software was able to dispute the ticket, but does not mean that the ticket was dropped or thrown out by a judge.
... stop calling artificial intelligence because, most of the time, it is not intelligent, it merely reproduces what it was taught to do.
Feeling threatened? Seems like computers can do everything better than humans in the scope of things we can both do.
But do you even know what you are worried about? Can you describe intelligence? We used to all agree that it could be measured by holding a conversation... but now it seems computers are getting close at that. We talked about complex games like chess and then moved on to others like go. But now intelligence isn't that. It beats us at trivia, and we say "so what", even though we still admire Jeopardy players as being more intelligent than average.
I think we should be a little scared. Especially as we use computers and technology in crime fighting with evidence collection and then disallow the their cross examination because it "would let the criminals know and avoid law enforcement". And then Google heads say that a computer monitoring you 24/7 is not an invasion of privacy or an illegal search.
I think we should stop worrying about whether computers are infringing on what we believe makes us special (intelligence) and start to be a little concerned about making sure we put a leash on what we allow it to do.
A car should be designed to protect itself and the occupants.
How can a computer know the future and be sure that its continued action would certainly kill pedestrians? How can a computer know that sending a car off the road would kill its occupants? Both outcomes are uncertain, but what would be certain is that the computer intentionally put the passengers within its control at risk.
If a car drives off the road on purpose and kills the driver, then that would be a much higher liability, since we know the actions of the computer were intended to put the occupants at risk.
Driving is risky. Death happens. I think automated cars will reduce death on the roads, but I would never get into a vehicle where the controlling computer is designed to crash on purpose in various situations.
I have never heard anyone go one about not watching TV. What always happens is that some TV nut goes on about this TV drama or that pop political point or some hopeful politician with bad hair. And then they talk about it like everyone should know what they mean. When someone says that they don't know because they don't watch TV, I see the TV watchers get upset, like there is some kind of duty to be watching and be informed about what other people think you should talk about.
To be clear. One person says "this show is great" or similar and another says "not watching TV is great." Both express what they know and enjoy, but you only seem be bothered by the one who doesn't enjoy what you enjoy.
Not only that, but I think people who watch TV get upset by those who do not, because they know deep down inside that TV is a total waste of time. And yet without TV they would have little to discuss with their acquaintances, because it consumes so much of their time and thoughts. Some people think it is a personal attack against them, because they know they should watch less and how dare others do what they do not have the strength or motivation to do for themselves.
Still you are right. Some people go on about what they choose to do in their lives, as if they are a better person for it. Like vegetarians, cyclists and recyclers. But why should that bother you? It says something about the person who is bothered by what other people enjoy in life. Maybe it indicates that they need change in your life and are avoiding it.
Well I think bitcoin should be singular. As in "...received 70 bitcoin."
Whenever I see "bitcoins", I think of the amount being a wallet of several individual bitcoin, like a dollar bill, an individual thing, which it is not.
You should tape over the camera on your laptop and on your phone. There is no reason why these peripherals should not be connected through a physical switch on your devices.
I do not know why such devices do not exist. You can imagine that people do not care enough for manufacturers to do this. But then you see and read about all the people who are doing this and wonder why manufacturer's do not target this section of the market. I for one, would consider a phone with this option to be more valuable than the typical one without this privacy option.
I suspect it is much easier to eavesdrop on devices that do not provide and audio/video on/off switch. So what market are these manufacturer's targeting?
At least the camera usually has an LED so you can see it is on, but there is no way of knowing if the microphone is active.
You should not trust the LED. It is software controlled. You may assume that if you MIC is hacked to listen to you, that the LED can be set to remain off while you are being recorded. A software light on your PC is meaningless once your computer is controlled by someone else.
That way the music industry can... make all the profits on it without paying the artist a penny.
Music distributors want to keep limits and control over your selection of music. They do this by limiting the number of artists that they market into 'super stars'. This way they do not have to divide their profits with too many people. They can pay these luck few lots of money, but it is far cheaper than paying many many more just a fair share. The artists who are signing this partition are the lucky few who get an unfair amount of the profits funnelled to them alone.
The cost of distribution has gone to zero... since you and I pay for the bandwidth to get it into your home. Music companies pay nothing except marketing. So if you are like me and wish for distribution companies to die, then stop listening to the marketing. And if something is marketed to you, then stop listening to it. Once the distributors die, there will be far more money to go around and be directed into the pockets of those who made the art.
Finally. Pop artists rarely make their own music. Especially the "super stars". You think they write all that junk they play?
As long as your behavior doesn't trigger an alert that forces a human operator to briefly look at your data, no harm has been done. And if a human op has to look, the only harm done is his or her wasted time, time that would be better put to use to investigate real targets instead of false positives. They don't care about your petty life, that's not what their mission is about.
I don't think you have ever been a system administrator or worked closely with them. It seems to be human nature to pry into the personal aspects of other peoples lives. If you give someone the option and enough time... they will do it. Even when it is outside their job title or even if it could result in their dismissal. If they know they won't get caught they will eventually do it. I seen this in many other people. It's a sickness. A human condition. I seen it in myself and I was disappointed in myself.
If you think that constant monitoring will not be abused, then I doubt you ever had access to that data.
Also, I completely disagree that having a computer monitor you is any different from a human watching you. Anything that monitors your behaviour 24/7 is still infringing on your privacy. And that observation will be looked at by a human if the computer profiles you. So in effect, you are trusting your privacy to an algorithm, which we did not consent to. A computer sees better, listens better, records and remembers better than any human and its reports are trusted 100% by the courts. So it's circumstantial evidence is far more damning than any human.
People that think a camera and microphone in the bedroom (which is where most phones go at night) is acceptable do not think like me and do not value personal one on one intimate and private moments.
To their credit, they have mechanisms to, through community consensus, block and reverse these thefts.
Reversing the "thefts" would be the quickest way to drive the value of Ethereum to zero.
It is my opinion that the primary value in Blockchain currencies the decentralization. Reversing these funds would prove it is centralized and requires trust from authority figures.
...they just need to change the way they do business.
I don't want these companies censoring me or anyone else. The sooner we have completely protected private speech, the sooner democracy will return
I know I can't always say what I want to people I know, because I can't imagine how my most private discussions will be perceived by some unknown 3rd parties.
I think it would work when the photos are sent to your family members with a note saying: "This is what we will make public, with more to come, including video, if you do not pay."
The debt would suddenly become an extended family matter. Those interested parties may be more likely to pay the debt of their nude relative to avoid the negative consequences or shame to them personally by association.
When someone cannot pay debt, they usually know someone who can pay if they only make themselves appear desperate enough. But I am only guessing.
You are right. It is not an idea to solve all the problems the poster mentions.
All communication can be blocked. I am suggesting that people use property that they own in the manner which they desire. I am not advocating a network using the property of other parties such as routers owned by the ISP or phones owned by telecommunication companies. Software that works on routers and phones owned by a company would probably be in violation of their policies even though their customers would probably enjoy such modifications.
I am referring to most local communication using property owned by the individual. Communications such as text and telephone calls and local web page requests to restaurants, theatres and services you use in your own community. I believe it is possible to use existing technology with altered software to route local traffic. Especially since most routers are not being fully utilized by their owners most of the time. The software would be something like DD-WRT where the user would install software to support local traffic protocols.
I am not advocating theft. I think if the additional services of this network were unavailable to users of routers and phones owned by companies, then the consumer would decide whether that limitation is sufficient for way in which they want to use the their networks. Let the market decide.
I think this sort of network would support the majority of my communication traffic. Local traffic. The kind of traffic I may want to be more decentralized and have features such as security and privacy.
I believe there are some tests of this sort of thing already, but I think it should be accelerated, because as a minimum the ISP's need more competition.
And finally, such an alternative network would provide ad-hock support in times of emergency. Centralized network systems could be useless in situations such as floods, earthquakes and similar.
Slashdot Mirror
I just read 2001 a Space Odyssey written in 1968. In it, Arthur C Clarke describes the ipad pretty accurately. And then goes on to describe how most people use it today.
He describes a device of about the size and shape of the ipad, but then the astronaut uses it to read all the news feeds, with summaries and icons. Then he touches the icon to expand the story and reads it and then clicks back to the summary of stories. And the summaries are updated all the time 24/7. And the amount of news is beyond what any one person could read. It was bang on and did not have any excessively far fetched ideas like most devices in sci-fi.
...and never forget... the torture.
Who is this Microsoft you are talking about?
Is that the guy who stole money from me the last 4 times I bought a laptop? That guy said he would give me my money back but never did. I even got it in writing, but he said "sue me"... and I couldn't be bothered.
Yeah... I remember now. I hate that guy. He's very old and tired. Wish he would just die already.
Completely unsurprising since game bots have been able to outmaneuver human players for decades now. The only thing game bots were lacking was adequate sensor input to gain area awareness in the real world without oversimplified preprocessed maps and precisely placed path nodes.
Yes. Game bots have access to information that may not be available in a real world situation or may exploit or violate limitations (such as physics) imposed in a real world situation. Just because a bot can beat you in a video game, does not mean that a robot can out gun you on the battlefield.
I would like to see the computer control a robot that operates the controls of the simulator and see how it does.
Early reports seem to indicate the direction points to Mecca.
I now no what my next product to market is. It's a new optical filter that will cover the iPhone's camera that has a sharp IR blocking filter so that the IR light emitted from the beams won't be detected by the phones camera but will let visible light pass through for recording. Just think of all of the money Apple spent on developing their "no record" patent and all it will take is a $1 filter to circumvent it. I guess it doesn't matter when you have all the money in the world.
Or just encourage people to stop buying products that are intended to malfunction at the will of others.
Sometimes its better to do the right thing instead of thinking about how to make money from the wrong.
What does "successfully challenged" mean? It seems to mean to me that it was challenged, but does not specify whether it was won or not. The linked article says that 160,000 were beaten, but that is not a quote from the creator of the DoNotPay bot. And the donotpay bot says nothing about it on their website, but I didn't signup. So can someone provide evidence (like a link) where the person who created this software actually said that 160k tickets were beaten?
I would guess that "successfully challenged" means that the software was able to dispute the ticket, but does not mean that the ticket was dropped or thrown out by a judge.
... stop calling artificial intelligence because, most of the time, it is not intelligent, it merely reproduces what it was taught to do.
Feeling threatened? Seems like computers can do everything better than humans in the scope of things we can both do.
But do you even know what you are worried about? Can you describe intelligence? We used to all agree that it could be measured by holding a conversation... but now it seems computers are getting close at that. We talked about complex games like chess and then moved on to others like go. But now intelligence isn't that. It beats us at trivia, and we say "so what", even though we still admire Jeopardy players as being more intelligent than average.
I think we should be a little scared. Especially as we use computers and technology in crime fighting with evidence collection and then disallow the their cross examination because it "would let the criminals know and avoid law enforcement". And then Google heads say that a computer monitoring you 24/7 is not an invasion of privacy or an illegal search.
I think we should stop worrying about whether computers are infringing on what we believe makes us special (intelligence) and start to be a little concerned about making sure we put a leash on what we allow it to do.
A car should be designed to protect itself and the occupants.
How can a computer know the future and be sure that its continued action would certainly kill pedestrians? How can a computer know that sending a car off the road would kill its occupants? Both outcomes are uncertain, but what would be certain is that the computer intentionally put the passengers within its control at risk.
If a car drives off the road on purpose and kills the driver, then that would be a much higher liability, since we know the actions of the computer were intended to put the occupants at risk.
Driving is risky. Death happens. I think automated cars will reduce death on the roads, but I would never get into a vehicle where the controlling computer is designed to crash on purpose in various situations.
I have never heard anyone go one about not watching TV. What always happens is that some TV nut goes on about this TV drama or that pop political point or some hopeful politician with bad hair. And then they talk about it like everyone should know what they mean. When someone says that they don't know because they don't watch TV, I see the TV watchers get upset, like there is some kind of duty to be watching and be informed about what other people think you should talk about.
To be clear. One person says "this show is great" or similar and another says "not watching TV is great." Both express what they know and enjoy, but you only seem be bothered by the one who doesn't enjoy what you enjoy.
Not only that, but I think people who watch TV get upset by those who do not, because they know deep down inside that TV is a total waste of time. And yet without TV they would have little to discuss with their acquaintances, because it consumes so much of their time and thoughts. Some people think it is a personal attack against them, because they know they should watch less and how dare others do what they do not have the strength or motivation to do for themselves.
Still you are right. Some people go on about what they choose to do in their lives, as if they are a better person for it. Like vegetarians, cyclists and recyclers. But why should that bother you? It says something about the person who is bothered by what other people enjoy in life. Maybe it indicates that they need change in your life and are avoiding it.
Well I think bitcoin should be singular. As in "...received 70 bitcoin."
Whenever I see "bitcoins", I think of the amount being a wallet of several individual bitcoin, like a dollar bill, an individual thing, which it is not.
You should tape over the camera on your laptop and on your phone. There is no reason why these peripherals should not be connected through a physical switch on your devices.
I do not know why such devices do not exist. You can imagine that people do not care enough for manufacturers to do this. But then you see and read about all the people who are doing this and wonder why manufacturer's do not target this section of the market. I for one, would consider a phone with this option to be more valuable than the typical one without this privacy option.
I suspect it is much easier to eavesdrop on devices that do not provide and audio/video on/off switch. So what market are these manufacturer's targeting?
At least the camera usually has an LED so you can see it is on, but there is no way of knowing if the microphone is active.
You should not trust the LED. It is software controlled. You may assume that if you MIC is hacked to listen to you, that the LED can be set to remain off while you are being recorded. A software light on your PC is meaningless once your computer is controlled by someone else.
That way the music industry can ... make all the profits on it without paying the artist a penny.
Music distributors want to keep limits and control over your selection of music. They do this by limiting the number of artists that they market into 'super stars'. This way they do not have to divide their profits with too many people. They can pay these luck few lots of money, but it is far cheaper than paying many many more just a fair share. The artists who are signing this partition are the lucky few who get an unfair amount of the profits funnelled to them alone.
The cost of distribution has gone to zero... since you and I pay for the bandwidth to get it into your home. Music companies pay nothing except marketing. So if you are like me and wish for distribution companies to die, then stop listening to the marketing. And if something is marketed to you, then stop listening to it. Once the distributors die, there will be far more money to go around and be directed into the pockets of those who made the art.
Finally. Pop artists rarely make their own music. Especially the "super stars". You think they write all that junk they play?
Seafile is an illegal file sharing site run out of China. They may call themselves a "cloud company", but that is really stretching the definition.
..and you know this without access to their data?
I dislike the general idea that if someone cannot look at someone else's private property than it must be criminal.
As long as your behavior doesn't trigger an alert that forces a human operator to briefly look at your data, no harm has been done. And if a human op has to look, the only harm done is his or her wasted time, time that would be better put to use to investigate real targets instead of false positives. They don't care about your petty life, that's not what their mission is about.
I don't think you have ever been a system administrator or worked closely with them. It seems to be human nature to pry into the personal aspects of other peoples lives. If you give someone the option and enough time... they will do it. Even when it is outside their job title or even if it could result in their dismissal. If they know they won't get caught they will eventually do it. I seen this in many other people. It's a sickness. A human condition. I seen it in myself and I was disappointed in myself.
If you think that constant monitoring will not be abused, then I doubt you ever had access to that data.
Also, I completely disagree that having a computer monitor you is any different from a human watching you. Anything that monitors your behaviour 24/7 is still infringing on your privacy. And that observation will be looked at by a human if the computer profiles you. So in effect, you are trusting your privacy to an algorithm, which we did not consent to. A computer sees better, listens better, records and remembers better than any human and its reports are trusted 100% by the courts. So it's circumstantial evidence is far more damning than any human.
People that think a camera and microphone in the bedroom (which is where most phones go at night) is acceptable do not think like me and do not value personal one on one intimate and private moments.
Perhaps people with high IQ simply do not get caught.
...plus Air Force cyber and defence cyber crime personnel
I suspect ransomware was at play... and then they just paid it.
why else bring in the cyber crime personnel... who will just say "pay the ransom"
Distributors see money (Indiegogo campaign raised $566,023). Distributors see a way to take money. Distributors do that thing.
Of course, assuming they win a lawsuit, none of this money will go to anyone involved in the making of anything.
Distributors are dying. Let them die.
To their credit, they have mechanisms to, through community consensus, block and reverse these thefts.
Reversing the "thefts" would be the quickest way to drive the value of Ethereum to zero.
It is my opinion that the primary value in Blockchain currencies the decentralization. Reversing these funds would prove it is centralized and requires trust from authority figures.
...they just need to change the way they do business.
I don't want these companies censoring me or anyone else. The sooner we have completely protected private speech, the sooner democracy will return
I know I can't always say what I want to people I know, because I can't imagine how my most private discussions will be perceived by some unknown 3rd parties.
So spotting this thing would be like trying to see a cold, dark grain of sand from a kilometre away, at night. Good luck with that.
That grain of sand would reflect the sun under certain angles (I assume). So maybe not totally dark all the time.
The above reply is perfect.
I think it would work when the photos are sent to your family members with a note saying: "This is what we will make public, with more to come, including video, if you do not pay."
The debt would suddenly become an extended family matter. Those interested parties may be more likely to pay the debt of their nude relative to avoid the negative consequences or shame to them personally by association.
When someone cannot pay debt, they usually know someone who can pay if they only make themselves appear desperate enough. But I am only guessing.
You are right. It is not an idea to solve all the problems the poster mentions.
All communication can be blocked. I am suggesting that people use property that they own in the manner which they desire. I am not advocating a network using the property of other parties such as routers owned by the ISP or phones owned by telecommunication companies. Software that works on routers and phones owned by a company would probably be in violation of their policies even though their customers would probably enjoy such modifications.
I am referring to most local communication using property owned by the individual. Communications such as text and telephone calls and local web page requests to restaurants, theatres and services you use in your own community. I believe it is possible to use existing technology with altered software to route local traffic. Especially since most routers are not being fully utilized by their owners most of the time. The software would be something like DD-WRT where the user would install software to support local traffic protocols.
I am not advocating theft. I think if the additional services of this network were unavailable to users of routers and phones owned by companies, then the consumer would decide whether that limitation is sufficient for way in which they want to use the their networks. Let the market decide.
I think this sort of network would support the majority of my communication traffic. Local traffic. The kind of traffic I may want to be more decentralized and have features such as security and privacy.
I believe there are some tests of this sort of thing already, but I think it should be accelerated, because as a minimum the ISP's need more competition.
And finally, such an alternative network would provide ad-hock support in times of emergency. Centralized network systems could be useless in situations such as floods, earthquakes and similar.