Humans can adjust to changing situations, they can also ready body language. Most people slow down when they see someone on the side of tge road looking like they are going to step out. An AI cant read that sort of thing. They can only react tl basic things presented to them.
My impression is that they detect and react to the actual physical posture and motion. But they can't read the person and tell if he appears drunk, high, mentally challenged or in some other way odd and likely to do odd things. It's a bit like the difference between a dog on a leash and a street dog with no leash, to a human they pose very different risks. But without programming in a ton of "human" logic they'll look just the same to a computer.
So I could write a message encrypted with my private key, and everyone who had my public key could decrypt it.
That's just not how public-private key cryptography works. You can sign it with your private key and others can verify that signature, but it doesn't take any key to read the contents. In any case, it looks like this could be trivially solved by adding some kind of symmetric encryption key to the "public" feed that you may share only with friends or some closed group. Those who want can just post it publicly like here's my feed: keyId = 123 & accessKey = "abc", but it wouldn't be reasonable to ask you to track them down. It'd basically be like the police saying that hey with this private key it decrypts to illegal material. The other trivial solution is to make sure all content is divided, like your node decides if it's odd or even and only stores half the bytes of the message. Of course a malicious actor could then create messages where the halves are illegal, but as long as that is some form of hidden message I think you're once again okay.
Sure, a robot may not completely take a job in this case, but how much can you expect to make an hour when your job title is changed from "Heavy Equipment Operator" to "Robot Babysitter"?
How do you think it went when it changed from "Ditch Digger" to "Heavy Equipment Babysitter"? I don't see any reason to worry about how advanced the work would be or how well it will be paid for the person lucky enough to get the job. But usually automation means doing more with less people, how that will affect the job market depends on the elasticity of the market. If you're making say toothbrushes you have a rather fixed market, I need one plus a spare for travel and changing the price won't really affect that. But if you could make airplane tickets cost half as much I'd travel more. And if you can turn a luxury or research project into a commodity like say a microwave oven then you can create entirely new markets. That is, if anyone has money to pay you with...
Warren Buffett admitted his investment company can take on bigger risks, giving total average higher rewards, because it's big enough to spread the risk around, something smaller competitors don't have by definition. The "network effect" is taking over every industry.
This is something people with lots of money have tried to claim many times yet the average age of a S&P company is under 20 years down from 60 years in 1958. It's not so simple that mega-corporations throw their weight around and win industry after industry just by being big. There's plenty room for new companies even though many of them get bought out eventually.
The real deeper issue is, do these ultra-realistic games de-sensitize people to inhumane and immoral behavior?
In a good way or a bad way? I mean obviously seeing the goatse guy for the second time doesn't have nearly the same shock value. Spend a week on 4chan and you'll never be fazed by anything on the Internet ever again. Either that or you'll have ripped your eyeballs out of their sockets. But I don't think a paramedic is nonchalant about causing trauma, gore and death even though they've probably seen more than their fair share of it, in fact I think it's quite the opposite. I'm totally desensitized to shooting people in games, like if we're playing Payday 2 I don't even spend an ounce of thought that we're shooting cops. Or random civilians, except you're penalized for that. It's just a game, the "people" are just pixels and doesn't have anything to do with shooting real people with real guns in my head.
Back in my age we called it "argument from authority". And even then we knew that it's bullshit.
Sure, but I'd rather take medical advice from a doctor and legal advice from a lawyer than the other way around. It doesn't mean the most senior expert is always right but I'd say this "fallacy" is equally often used to dismiss people with actual education, experience and merits to take decisions that will eventually turn out to be stupid, wrong or unworkable but couldn't be shot down on the spot. Though I suppose the flip side are geezers frozen in time that insist you do things the way they've always been done. But if you strand me and Bear Grylls on a deserted island you can bet I'll follow his every word as gospel, even if he is wrong he's a helluva lot less likely to be wrong than I am.
Unfortunately if there are big players (eg countries) involved with their own agenda those methods become seriously insufficient. For example the recent poisoning in the UK: UK points at Russia and they point at someone else eg Ukraine. Both have some motive and potentially ways.
In this particular case I think the situation is exactly the same as it would be 50 or 100 or 500 years ago, obviously we've always had to judge the credibility of information. Heck, you need to do that if you're trying to determine who stole cookies from the cookie jar. But technology has given us a lot of mostly objective information in the form of photos, videos, logs and other electronic records, you don't need to rely on trust and reputation if you have a surveillance camera record who steals cookies. And I think technology has made it much harder to keep the lid on actual events, these days it's pretty much just North Korea that's unaware of the conditions in the "outside world". In fact, some go way too far in filming accidents and such.
Of course it only moves the conspiracy theories from what happened "Holocaust didn't happen" to why it happened "9/11 was a false flag operation" so you can't win those over. But I mean the people who scream "fake news" is very well aware of this whole trust/reputation thing - it's just that they've decided that mainstream media is a big hoax. The MSM have been bought/duped/are being controlled by the evil forces behind the conspiracy and thus the order of cause and effect is reversed, the conspiracy is true and thus the less mainstream media agree with the conspiracy the less trustworthy they are. They're already past the point where they'd consider the possibility that the conspiracy is the hoax.
I think it comes down to humans not being able to deal with access to billions of opinions, I mean in a village you could have a hundred people and one village idiot. What one person told you was a crackpot theory, what a hundred people told you was probably true. But with the Internet even the craziest of crazy theories can gather enough followers that you can get trapped in an endless trail of blogs and YouTube videos and crackpots referring to other crackpots until it's like hundreds of people have told you #pizzagate is true. And it kinda doesn't help that millions of people think it's false because you can't really relate to a million people. You just know that "lots" of people agree with you.
Nope -- courts should be tax-supported. Paying a penalty for daring to defend yourself isn't in the interests of justice, since it discourages people from defending themselves in court. Basically, it's a racket.
Well, the alternative is a world where the worst that could possibly happen after you've expended all your legal avenues is to pay the original amount disputed. That would encourage being an insufferable dick. Part of the goal of the civil system is also to encourage people to solve disputes themselves first or as early as possible and not roll those costs over on everyone else by taxes. While it might mean they presume a certain omniscience being found wrong means you were the problem here. You were the reason this had to end up in court, hence you have to pay the court costs. I like our "small value" court here in Norway, under $16200 you pay at most 20% of the disputed value in court costs, but minimum $325 and maximum $3250. So if you go crazy with lawyer costs, well it's just likely to become your own problem. Which you might say limit your access to legal council which is again against justice but... the judges here are fairly nice to people pleading their own case nicely without a lawyer.
I know 30 seconds ads have their place if you want to get people to eat a burger or drink a soda or to pick a particular brand of car or whatever. But it seems like an awfully short time to selling in a Linux distribution since what users really care about is applications and you'll just get one or two oddball use cases with no time to explain why. So I'd probably go with less is more here.
Here's roughly what I think you'd have time for in a 30s ad: "Linux is used by billions of devices from cellphones to supercomputers (swirly circle of cell phones, servers, supercomputers, set top boxes and embedded systems rushing by) and now laptops and desktops are next. (PC and Mac guy going like "huh?") Ubuntu is your free and class-leading Linux distribution full of applications, games and productivity tools for everyone (logo + infographic).
Then have people start walking into camera like "Hi I'm Bart and I use Ubuntu for $something." "Hi I'm Lisa and I use Ubuntu for $something_else". And just have them pop in faster and faster like a bigger and bigger group photo and make it briefer and briefer like "Paul, photo editing" and eventually just one-worders and then just crowd the screen and turn it into a buzz like there's thousands of stories you could tell but don't have time for. And you really need to save a few seconds at the end to say something like "Visit ubuntu.com. What's your thing?" (same in text on screen)
I think intro/setup would eat like 10 seconds of your ad. You need 2 seconds for the finish. If you let the first two finish in full that's roughly 2*3 seconds. That leaves 30-10-2-6 = 12 seconds to build the crescendo. I'd say 5-6 seconds more of increasingly rushed and short stories, then 3-4 starting to be like one-worders shouting over each other then the last 2-3 seconds going to more like a buzz and the camera zooming out.
Did anyone get to say why they're using Linux? Nah. But in 30 seconds I think it's more important to get across that Linux is for a wide range of people that could include you. Because you're going to want to know a bit more than that before you try it...
From the article, "We collect a photo, send it to CBP, who checks to make sure that person is booked on the manifest and matches the photo that they already have on file.". From that description they're solely measuring your photo now against your photo on file.
Yeah, this seems like a fairly innocent check that replaces the cursory glance the airport staff would have at your ID, if you look kinda like yourself you'll probably pass. My guess is that this is about getting the camel's nose in the tent though, once people have accepted a machine scanning them for identification it'll be upgraded to a Windows Hello/Apple iPhoneX facial scan, I mean this is already consumer technology and you don't have a "problem" with poor lighting or hats or sunglasses or whatever, if passengers can't/won't authenticate you send them to the perpetually understaffed manual processing line. Like if people don't want to be fingerprinted, let's do the same only differently.
I don't know if Apple's claimed one-in-a-million false positive rate is true, but if so you could have a reasonably short list of names if you have an unidentified suspect in custody as long as that person hasn't done anything to intentionally avoid being connected to his/her former self. But if you got an unknown person in custody who refuses to ID themselves you can do fingerprints, DNA swabs and so it doesn't seem that relevant unless someone tried to pass as somebody else and failed, yet was able to leave/flee the scene. It doesn't seem relevant for an airport, maybe if you started doing facial recognition at an ATM for example.
... is the fact that those search suggestions are likely the result of them being popular searches. It's a sick world, really.
Maybe, maybe not. I've noticed that Google likes to try chaining searches, like if you search for "redheads" and then "girls with glasses" it'll show you far more redheads with glasses even though that's not what you searched for right now. Which means that if you're mixing "serious" and "not so serious" searches, different people using the same family computer etc. you're going to end up with a lot of weird shit.
What can you do about it? Nothing at all, that's what. They will just go somewhere else even if you somehow managed to block them from whatever site they are on now.
You're assuming that the point of these smear campaigns is to make people stop taking and sharing creepshots. It's about trying to discredit and kill sites that allow user-supplied content, or if not that then to give corporations and special interest organizations free reign to install automated content scanners, issue take downs and block whatever it is they don't like. Or just spinning up rumors to smear competing services even though your photo sharing service has many creepshots of its own, because most people think where there's smoke there's fire. You'd be surprised how many people just mind blank and start raging against one particular company or service if you just pick the right trigger.
Send up parts, fuel, and appropriate boost assist to get the "tow-truck" out there and patch it up and then boost back to the "truck garage."
Unfortunately any real change of orbit is ridiculously expensive. It may be feasible to have a GEO repair satellite fix other GEO satellites by slightly speeding up or slowing down in the same circular plane, but if you're oribiting at different altitude or inclination it'll almost always be cheaper to send a resupply/repair mission directly to the destination orbit. If operating on the satellite is even feasible, I mean unless you actually have repair hatches and refill connectors you'd have to cut it open and weld it back together again. I mean if there was never any reason to suspect anyone would come repair it I'd probably just seal it up good to be sure.
Perhaps we should stop taking the rather ignorant approach that even admins should have access to *everything*. Fuck that. It's called need to know.
Except the computer has no mind of its own, it needs some kind of root trust. It can be software (root), hardware (signed boot), a remote computer (domain controller) or whatever but there must be something that starts with all the rights and can fundamentally alter the software and what everyone else's rights should be. The problem is not the scope of the power, it's that computers are made for solitary administration. Compare it to say an accounting system, there's usually tons of restrictions of what accounts you can use, what size individual and total expenses/transfers you can approve and it's usually never so that you can approve things you've initiated yourself. But there's always some process to lift those limits, there's always a way to add access to funds where all who had access has quit, all the money can be moved if you get enough sign-offs.
Administration systems should be a bit more like that. If I do DROP DATABASE on a production database... it's unceremoniously dropped. And we do have people that have goofed and thought they were on the test server, but erring is human. However we as in the admin team collectively need that permission and there's not anybody else more qualified to have it. To my knowledge though there's no easy way for us to implement a system where one sysadmin requests dropping the database and a different admin approves. It's like either you got it or you don't. And that means it only takes one admin to create havoc, grant himself rights, disable security systems, reconfigure the firewall, delete backups and all sorts of shit. It wouldn't stop every problem but if you need either a conspiracy or to trick your coworkers into assisting you it'd stop a lot.
Therefore, I can be a replica and not know it. I know I'm not because what I just described isn't possible.
None of us even know if we're in reality or hooked up to the Matrix. Everything you see, hear, smell, taste or touch is converted to electrical impulses, in theory a super advanced civilization could crack the skull open, rewire and we'd be none the wiser. For that matter even the integrity of the brain can't be guaranteed, when I try to remember something how do I know these memories are genuine? Are these feelings and decisions my own? We know hypnosis, drugs, brain damage etc. can cause vast changes, imagine what you could do if you could rewrite even a tiny fraction of it.
I don't think an individuality could hide in quantum mechanics, sure a clone would instantly begin to diverge once it has experiences of its own but if you could copy everything chemically stable of memories and thought patterns and such I think the difference between me and my replica would be like waking up with a 1 ms difference. Like, maybe it's not the exact same me but the difference is so marginal that nobody could tell who's the original and who's the replica in testing.
As a guy who has spent most of his time in Microsoft dev environments, I can tell you the momentum is going in exactly the opposite direction: "how can we dump Microsoft/Oracle/IBM and how fast can we do it" is the current direction of the smart enterprise.
Every enterprise customer thinks what they have is terrible but usually end up switching to a different enterprise vendor and discover that it's equally terrible. Then they try home brew and discover that people develop in ten different languages with a hundred different frameworks and technologies and that Ruby on Rails, Python, PHP, Node.JS and ASP.Net don't mix well and start running consolidation and standardization projects and if you're really unlucky they call in SAP or some other big ERP to gut the whole mess. We still have a solution written in VB6, whatever you pick now expect you'll be stuck with it 10-20 years from now long after the fad is over and it's legacy technology you want to kill with fire.
The problem with All the Digital Assistants is that it doesn't really get context.
Well, they're still short on a lot of human context.. but they've made strides on linguistic content. Like if you ask who's POTUS, that's simple enough. But you continue to ask questions like how old is he, what party does he belong to, when is he up for reelection it'll understand that it's still in the same context. If you're told Trump is a Republican and follow up with asking if they have a majority in Congress, it'll understand the context switch to asking about Republicans.
In general this technology, is just the command line interface all over again
Yeah... how many in the general population do you know who can not use a command line? That's your market, if you're annoyed because Siri doesn't understand the regex search you were trying to make you're not exactly in the target group. I think it's like trying to program a computer with boxing gloves but a lot of the population seem like they can't read, can't reason and can't remember anything when they use a computer. It's easier to ask Siri for what you want than find the right menu item.
Intel didn't try to create a 64 bit extension to x86.
Yeah, Intel was trying to pull an IBM and introduce the MCA architecture to get rid of the competition and over on their shiny new platform where they held all the essential patents.
Instead, Intel tried to use Itanium and IA-64 to replace x86 and all the cruft in it that had built up over the years.
That's one way of putting it. Somebody at Intel managed to do a huge sell-in of compiler optimization and profiling as the future and so they created "Explicitly parallel instruction computing (EPIC)" which gave extremely fine detailed control to the compiler. The problem is that there's a balance between run-time optimization based on the data and static compiler optimization so without a lot of iteration on realistic workloads performance was not that great and sometimes "let's just cross that bridge when we get there" was a superior strategy. And they discovered alternatives like hyper-threading where you let some low-intensity threads use those in between moments, better branch predictors etc. so the ideas of Itanium pretty much died and never came back.
The AMD64 instruction set was more the "let's keep the house but clear the cruft", particularly they added more general registers which was a really big deal. AMD had done real experiments with more addressable registers but found that it was better to only increase it from 8x32 to 16x64 bit and instead use additional registers for run-time register renaming. That offset most of the performance penalty of doubling pointer sizes by itself, so x64 mode was almost free (though with a big higher memory usage for pointer-intensive work) whereas EPIC required a full do-over and struggled massively to emulate x86. Itanium was already struggling when AMD kicked it in the nuts.
The really sad thing is that I don't think it's AI that's the worst enemy - it can only deduce what we give it data about - but our own tendency to rely more and more on electronic devices and services that excel at logging every little detail of our lives. There's not a whole lot of AI to Facebook, but to an AI it's a gold mine of information. Like here in Norway I recently got a smart meter, I think it's required by law that everyone get that within a year or two. No more reading off the meter myself, enables very granular peak/off-peak power pricing etc. - but it also records my power consumption in 15 minute intervals. You could probably tell from that data alone whenever I run my washing machine.
Electronic tickets for public transport has become the norm and the rest just super-expensive alternatives for tourists with no >24h tickets. Automated license plate readers for toll roads and toll circles means they know I'm out and about, even if I turn off my cell phone. Electronic payments have become the norm, even among friends via the cell phone. And with paywalls and click metrics newspapers now know exactly what articles you read. More and more want their "digital assistants" to rifle through their data. All the bits to become a new China is here, we just lack the strings on top tying it all together into a totalitarian state.
The creepy bit is that we're going to see AI that doesn't just classify us but manipulates us too. Link someone to fake news, watch if their opinions or influence changes. Radicalize them. Convert them. Ridicule them. Discredit them. It's the kind of power play that's been going on at the personal level forever. But computers and big data is turning this into a mass market thing where like say an election is about finding and bombarding swing voters with half-truths or FUD. Or promote some loons who happen to support you because they'll scare normal people away from you. The difference is that it used to take a small army of sycophants, now it only take a few developers to set it up and computer algorithms will do the rest.
No, kjella is NOT right about this. First off, if you read Fortune, you will see that musk is NOT calling this BFR or even Rocket, but SHIP.
The post I replied to claimed the FH was a bad investment because it'd soon be replaced by its successor. That would be the BFR, as in rocket. Neither of us was talking about the ship in the article.
Once this part is working, then the BFR, or the first stage of the BFR will be developed to send the ship into space.
You think there's a line and SpaceX only works on one project at the time? They're working on it right now, heck the engine development started in 2012.
You are entirely safe to disbelieve anything Elon says about when something will be done. (...) For all that it's really cool, Falcon 9 Heavy might have been a mistake. (...) It cost them a great deal to get working, and is destined to be supersceded by their next rocket. We might not see that many of them ever fly.
Well he can fail at one or the other but not both. If the BFR is on schedule too bad for the FH but great for SpaceX. If the BFR ends up way behind schedule then the FH can still launch anything up to and beyond what other current heavy launchers can and make good money in the process, also good for SpaceX. And it's not certain that the BFR would replace all FH launches if they don't have big enough payloads to justify it or they want a launcher with a longer track record, particularly if you give it some credit for its F9 lineage, shared engines and other components. After all the BFR is an all new design with a thousand new ways to end in a big f*cking boom and simulations are not perfect.
Musk did not build the first electric car. He was not the first person to launch satellites to LEO either.
Tip: 110010001000 is the local jester/troll. He's just posing as one of the over-the-top Musk groupies that worship him more than teen girls love Justin Bieber.
You're just using time zones but specifying times in a reference zone.
No, I'm suggesting all clocks are set to UTC thus no time zone conversion ever and UTC becomes redundant while "noon/midnight" becomes a variable concept that occur at different times for different people instead of 12AM/12PM.
But if you're driving from San Francisco to New York you clearly still want to know when stores start to open at 01:00 UTC, 02:00 UTC, 03:00 UTC or 04:00 UTC aka 9AM PST, MST, CST, EST and for all sort of practical purposes like quiet hours, extra pay for night work etc. you need a formalized transition, which would naturally require "night" in SF to have a different definition than "night" in NY. It would be extremely unpractical to make this a continuous change where every location has to look up their latitude/longitude and start paying extra night shift pay from 23:34 in one store and 23:37 in another or the bar has to close at 01:13. And not having it change at all would be even less practical.
So yes, I'd keep the hourly zones but I'd re-purpose them to be like an "solar cycle zone" or something like that. So when you cross a zone it's still the same time but practically you can expect opening hours to be an hour earlier/later when you cross and all sort of statutory rules shift by an hour. To me that'd make much more sense today when we use precise mechanical/electronic timekeeping devices while sundials and high noon is rarely used as reference points in any but the most informal sense. Time is best left travelling at one second per second everywhere you go (at non-relativistic speeds anyway), not jumping by an hour. Or even a whole day if you cross the dateline, which wouldn't exist anymore.
If you have to call someone on the other side of the globe (and trust me, a LOT of businesses have to do that), now you can't even do simple math to say, "Oh hey, California is nine hours ahead of me, and now it's noon for me. Maybe I shouldn't call right now." Instead you are going to HAVE to have a program or similar that'll show you what kind of sunlight people have
Uh, what? Nine hours ahead is nine hours ahead, all you'd have to consider is where you'd be in nine hours. If that would be after business hours for you it's after business hours for them. It's not like they'd magically cease to actually be 9 hours ahead just because we change the notation unless we made everyone work at the same time. Right now you translate the meaning with math, use UTC and you'd translate the meaning without math.
Like say everybody works 9-17 in current terms, well 9-5 but you'd have to lose the AM/PM business. In California (PST = -8 UTC) that'd be 1-9. In New York you'd work 4-12, UK 9-17, Moscow 12-20, Tokyo 18-2. If you want to schedule a meeting it's the time that actually overlaps. If you have an event like say a SpaceX launch it's at 13:00 (UTC). If you're traveling things would happen at "odd" times but on the other hand there's no chance of confusing times. You lift off from London at 8:15, land in California 17:15, eat some breakfast at 00:15 and report to work at 01:00 because that's when the Californian workday begins.
I think the shock of the body's rhythm changing is much bigger than the mental translation that noon here is 04:00 and midnight at 16:00. If you're travelling a lot maybe your watch would have a small static "noon/midnight" arrow you could set to remind yourself. That way you could easily "anchor" yourself and effortlessly schedule a meeting after lunch to be at 05:00 when you're in California, 08:00 when you're in New York and 13:00 when you're in London. The workday would always be noon-3 to noon+5. It's just the understanding of where noon is on your watch that'd change.
Slashdot Mirror
Humans can adjust to changing situations, they can also ready body language. Most people slow down when they see someone on the side of tge road looking like they are going to step out. An AI cant read that sort of thing. They can only react tl basic things presented to them.
My impression is that they detect and react to the actual physical posture and motion. But they can't read the person and tell if he appears drunk, high, mentally challenged or in some other way odd and likely to do odd things. It's a bit like the difference between a dog on a leash and a street dog with no leash, to a human they pose very different risks. But without programming in a ton of "human" logic they'll look just the same to a computer.
So I could write a message encrypted with my private key, and everyone who had my public key could decrypt it.
That's just not how public-private key cryptography works. You can sign it with your private key and others can verify that signature, but it doesn't take any key to read the contents. In any case, it looks like this could be trivially solved by adding some kind of symmetric encryption key to the "public" feed that you may share only with friends or some closed group. Those who want can just post it publicly like here's my feed: keyId = 123 & accessKey = "abc", but it wouldn't be reasonable to ask you to track them down. It'd basically be like the police saying that hey with this private key it decrypts to illegal material. The other trivial solution is to make sure all content is divided, like your node decides if it's odd or even and only stores half the bytes of the message. Of course a malicious actor could then create messages where the halves are illegal, but as long as that is some form of hidden message I think you're once again okay.
Sure, a robot may not completely take a job in this case, but how much can you expect to make an hour when your job title is changed from "Heavy Equipment Operator" to "Robot Babysitter"?
How do you think it went when it changed from "Ditch Digger" to "Heavy Equipment Babysitter"? I don't see any reason to worry about how advanced the work would be or how well it will be paid for the person lucky enough to get the job. But usually automation means doing more with less people, how that will affect the job market depends on the elasticity of the market. If you're making say toothbrushes you have a rather fixed market, I need one plus a spare for travel and changing the price won't really affect that. But if you could make airplane tickets cost half as much I'd travel more. And if you can turn a luxury or research project into a commodity like say a microwave oven then you can create entirely new markets. That is, if anyone has money to pay you with...
Warren Buffett admitted his investment company can take on bigger risks, giving total average higher rewards, because it's big enough to spread the risk around, something smaller competitors don't have by definition. The "network effect" is taking over every industry.
This is something people with lots of money have tried to claim many times yet the average age of a S&P company is under 20 years down from 60 years in 1958. It's not so simple that mega-corporations throw their weight around and win industry after industry just by being big. There's plenty room for new companies even though many of them get bought out eventually.
The real deeper issue is, do these ultra-realistic games de-sensitize people to inhumane and immoral behavior?
In a good way or a bad way? I mean obviously seeing the goatse guy for the second time doesn't have nearly the same shock value. Spend a week on 4chan and you'll never be fazed by anything on the Internet ever again. Either that or you'll have ripped your eyeballs out of their sockets. But I don't think a paramedic is nonchalant about causing trauma, gore and death even though they've probably seen more than their fair share of it, in fact I think it's quite the opposite. I'm totally desensitized to shooting people in games, like if we're playing Payday 2 I don't even spend an ounce of thought that we're shooting cops. Or random civilians, except you're penalized for that. It's just a game, the "people" are just pixels and doesn't have anything to do with shooting real people with real guns in my head.
Back in my age we called it "argument from authority". And even then we knew that it's bullshit.
Sure, but I'd rather take medical advice from a doctor and legal advice from a lawyer than the other way around. It doesn't mean the most senior expert is always right but I'd say this "fallacy" is equally often used to dismiss people with actual education, experience and merits to take decisions that will eventually turn out to be stupid, wrong or unworkable but couldn't be shot down on the spot. Though I suppose the flip side are geezers frozen in time that insist you do things the way they've always been done. But if you strand me and Bear Grylls on a deserted island you can bet I'll follow his every word as gospel, even if he is wrong he's a helluva lot less likely to be wrong than I am.
Unfortunately if there are big players (eg countries) involved with their own agenda those methods become seriously insufficient. For example the recent poisoning in the UK: UK points at Russia and they point at someone else eg Ukraine. Both have some motive and potentially ways.
In this particular case I think the situation is exactly the same as it would be 50 or 100 or 500 years ago, obviously we've always had to judge the credibility of information. Heck, you need to do that if you're trying to determine who stole cookies from the cookie jar. But technology has given us a lot of mostly objective information in the form of photos, videos, logs and other electronic records, you don't need to rely on trust and reputation if you have a surveillance camera record who steals cookies. And I think technology has made it much harder to keep the lid on actual events, these days it's pretty much just North Korea that's unaware of the conditions in the "outside world". In fact, some go way too far in filming accidents and such.
Of course it only moves the conspiracy theories from what happened "Holocaust didn't happen" to why it happened "9/11 was a false flag operation" so you can't win those over. But I mean the people who scream "fake news" is very well aware of this whole trust/reputation thing - it's just that they've decided that mainstream media is a big hoax. The MSM have been bought/duped/are being controlled by the evil forces behind the conspiracy and thus the order of cause and effect is reversed, the conspiracy is true and thus the less mainstream media agree with the conspiracy the less trustworthy they are. They're already past the point where they'd consider the possibility that the conspiracy is the hoax.
I think it comes down to humans not being able to deal with access to billions of opinions, I mean in a village you could have a hundred people and one village idiot. What one person told you was a crackpot theory, what a hundred people told you was probably true. But with the Internet even the craziest of crazy theories can gather enough followers that you can get trapped in an endless trail of blogs and YouTube videos and crackpots referring to other crackpots until it's like hundreds of people have told you #pizzagate is true. And it kinda doesn't help that millions of people think it's false because you can't really relate to a million people. You just know that "lots" of people agree with you.
Nope -- courts should be tax-supported. Paying a penalty for daring to defend yourself isn't in the interests of justice, since it discourages people from defending themselves in court. Basically, it's a racket.
Well, the alternative is a world where the worst that could possibly happen after you've expended all your legal avenues is to pay the original amount disputed. That would encourage being an insufferable dick. Part of the goal of the civil system is also to encourage people to solve disputes themselves first or as early as possible and not roll those costs over on everyone else by taxes. While it might mean they presume a certain omniscience being found wrong means you were the problem here. You were the reason this had to end up in court, hence you have to pay the court costs. I like our "small value" court here in Norway, under $16200 you pay at most 20% of the disputed value in court costs, but minimum $325 and maximum $3250. So if you go crazy with lawyer costs, well it's just likely to become your own problem. Which you might say limit your access to legal council which is again against justice but... the judges here are fairly nice to people pleading their own case nicely without a lawyer.
I know 30 seconds ads have their place if you want to get people to eat a burger or drink a soda or to pick a particular brand of car or whatever. But it seems like an awfully short time to selling in a Linux distribution since what users really care about is applications and you'll just get one or two oddball use cases with no time to explain why. So I'd probably go with less is more here.
Here's roughly what I think you'd have time for in a 30s ad:
"Linux is used by billions of devices from cellphones to supercomputers (swirly circle of cell phones, servers, supercomputers, set top boxes and embedded systems rushing by) and now laptops and desktops are next. (PC and Mac guy going like "huh?") Ubuntu is your free and class-leading Linux distribution full of applications, games and productivity tools for everyone (logo + infographic).
Then have people start walking into camera like "Hi I'm Bart and I use Ubuntu for $something." "Hi I'm Lisa and I use Ubuntu for $something_else". And just have them pop in faster and faster like a bigger and bigger group photo and make it briefer and briefer like "Paul, photo editing" and eventually just one-worders and then just crowd the screen and turn it into a buzz like there's thousands of stories you could tell but don't have time for. And you really need to save a few seconds at the end to say something like "Visit ubuntu.com. What's your thing?" (same in text on screen)
I think intro/setup would eat like 10 seconds of your ad. You need 2 seconds for the finish. If you let the first two finish in full that's roughly 2*3 seconds. That leaves 30-10-2-6 = 12 seconds to build the crescendo. I'd say 5-6 seconds more of increasingly rushed and short stories, then 3-4 starting to be like one-worders shouting over each other then the last 2-3 seconds going to more like a buzz and the camera zooming out.
Did anyone get to say why they're using Linux? Nah. But in 30 seconds I think it's more important to get across that Linux is for a wide range of people that could include you. Because you're going to want to know a bit more than that before you try it...
From the article, "We collect a photo, send it to CBP, who checks to make sure that person is booked on the manifest and matches the photo that they already have on file.". From that description they're solely measuring your photo now against your photo on file.
Yeah, this seems like a fairly innocent check that replaces the cursory glance the airport staff would have at your ID, if you look kinda like yourself you'll probably pass. My guess is that this is about getting the camel's nose in the tent though, once people have accepted a machine scanning them for identification it'll be upgraded to a Windows Hello/Apple iPhoneX facial scan, I mean this is already consumer technology and you don't have a "problem" with poor lighting or hats or sunglasses or whatever, if passengers can't/won't authenticate you send them to the perpetually understaffed manual processing line. Like if people don't want to be fingerprinted, let's do the same only differently.
I don't know if Apple's claimed one-in-a-million false positive rate is true, but if so you could have a reasonably short list of names if you have an unidentified suspect in custody as long as that person hasn't done anything to intentionally avoid being connected to his/her former self. But if you got an unknown person in custody who refuses to ID themselves you can do fingerprints, DNA swabs and so it doesn't seem that relevant unless someone tried to pass as somebody else and failed, yet was able to leave/flee the scene. It doesn't seem relevant for an airport, maybe if you started doing facial recognition at an ATM for example.
... is the fact that those search suggestions are likely the result of them being popular searches. It's a sick world, really.
Maybe, maybe not. I've noticed that Google likes to try chaining searches, like if you search for "redheads" and then "girls with glasses" it'll show you far more redheads with glasses even though that's not what you searched for right now. Which means that if you're mixing "serious" and "not so serious" searches, different people using the same family computer etc. you're going to end up with a lot of weird shit.
What can you do about it? Nothing at all, that's what. They will just go somewhere else even if you somehow managed to block them from whatever site they are on now.
You're assuming that the point of these smear campaigns is to make people stop taking and sharing creepshots. It's about trying to discredit and kill sites that allow user-supplied content, or if not that then to give corporations and special interest organizations free reign to install automated content scanners, issue take downs and block whatever it is they don't like. Or just spinning up rumors to smear competing services even though your photo sharing service has many creepshots of its own, because most people think where there's smoke there's fire. You'd be surprised how many people just mind blank and start raging against one particular company or service if you just pick the right trigger.
Send up parts, fuel, and appropriate boost assist to get the "tow-truck" out there and patch it up and then boost back to the "truck garage."
Unfortunately any real change of orbit is ridiculously expensive. It may be feasible to have a GEO repair satellite fix other GEO satellites by slightly speeding up or slowing down in the same circular plane, but if you're oribiting at different altitude or inclination it'll almost always be cheaper to send a resupply/repair mission directly to the destination orbit. If operating on the satellite is even feasible, I mean unless you actually have repair hatches and refill connectors you'd have to cut it open and weld it back together again. I mean if there was never any reason to suspect anyone would come repair it I'd probably just seal it up good to be sure.
Perhaps we should stop taking the rather ignorant approach that even admins should have access to *everything*. Fuck that. It's called need to know.
Except the computer has no mind of its own, it needs some kind of root trust. It can be software (root), hardware (signed boot), a remote computer (domain controller) or whatever but there must be something that starts with all the rights and can fundamentally alter the software and what everyone else's rights should be. The problem is not the scope of the power, it's that computers are made for solitary administration. Compare it to say an accounting system, there's usually tons of restrictions of what accounts you can use, what size individual and total expenses/transfers you can approve and it's usually never so that you can approve things you've initiated yourself. But there's always some process to lift those limits, there's always a way to add access to funds where all who had access has quit, all the money can be moved if you get enough sign-offs.
Administration systems should be a bit more like that. If I do DROP DATABASE on a production database... it's unceremoniously dropped. And we do have people that have goofed and thought they were on the test server, but erring is human. However we as in the admin team collectively need that permission and there's not anybody else more qualified to have it. To my knowledge though there's no easy way for us to implement a system where one sysadmin requests dropping the database and a different admin approves. It's like either you got it or you don't. And that means it only takes one admin to create havoc, grant himself rights, disable security systems, reconfigure the firewall, delete backups and all sorts of shit. It wouldn't stop every problem but if you need either a conspiracy or to trick your coworkers into assisting you it'd stop a lot.
Geez, talk about using the wrong irrational number on fucking Pi Day.
Sorry, but /. doesn't like π I could rant about Unicode support, but... "Quitters never win, winners never quit, but those who never win and never quit are idiots".
Therefore, I can be a replica and not know it. I know I'm not because what I just described isn't possible.
None of us even know if we're in reality or hooked up to the Matrix. Everything you see, hear, smell, taste or touch is converted to electrical impulses, in theory a super advanced civilization could crack the skull open, rewire and we'd be none the wiser. For that matter even the integrity of the brain can't be guaranteed, when I try to remember something how do I know these memories are genuine? Are these feelings and decisions my own? We know hypnosis, drugs, brain damage etc. can cause vast changes, imagine what you could do if you could rewrite even a tiny fraction of it.
I don't think an individuality could hide in quantum mechanics, sure a clone would instantly begin to diverge once it has experiences of its own but if you could copy everything chemically stable of memories and thought patterns and such I think the difference between me and my replica would be like waking up with a 1 ms difference. Like, maybe it's not the exact same me but the difference is so marginal that nobody could tell who's the original and who's the replica in testing.
As a guy who has spent most of his time in Microsoft dev environments, I can tell you the momentum is going in exactly the opposite direction: "how can we dump Microsoft/Oracle/IBM and how fast can we do it" is the current direction of the smart enterprise.
Every enterprise customer thinks what they have is terrible but usually end up switching to a different enterprise vendor and discover that it's equally terrible. Then they try home brew and discover that people develop in ten different languages with a hundred different frameworks and technologies and that Ruby on Rails, Python, PHP, Node.JS and ASP.Net don't mix well and start running consolidation and standardization projects and if you're really unlucky they call in SAP or some other big ERP to gut the whole mess. We still have a solution written in VB6, whatever you pick now expect you'll be stuck with it 10-20 years from now long after the fad is over and it's legacy technology you want to kill with fire.
The problem with All the Digital Assistants is that it doesn't really get context.
Well, they're still short on a lot of human context.. but they've made strides on linguistic content. Like if you ask who's POTUS, that's simple enough. But you continue to ask questions like how old is he, what party does he belong to, when is he up for reelection it'll understand that it's still in the same context. If you're told Trump is a Republican and follow up with asking if they have a majority in Congress, it'll understand the context switch to asking about Republicans.
In general this technology, is just the command line interface all over again
Yeah... how many in the general population do you know who can not use a command line? That's your market, if you're annoyed because Siri doesn't understand the regex search you were trying to make you're not exactly in the target group. I think it's like trying to program a computer with boxing gloves but a lot of the population seem like they can't read, can't reason and can't remember anything when they use a computer. It's easier to ask Siri for what you want than find the right menu item.
Intel didn't try to create a 64 bit extension to x86.
Yeah, Intel was trying to pull an IBM and introduce the MCA architecture to get rid of the competition and over on their shiny new platform where they held all the essential patents.
Instead, Intel tried to use Itanium and IA-64 to replace x86 and all the cruft in it that had built up over the years.
That's one way of putting it. Somebody at Intel managed to do a huge sell-in of compiler optimization and profiling as the future and so they created "Explicitly parallel instruction computing (EPIC)" which gave extremely fine detailed control to the compiler. The problem is that there's a balance between run-time optimization based on the data and static compiler optimization so without a lot of iteration on realistic workloads performance was not that great and sometimes "let's just cross that bridge when we get there" was a superior strategy. And they discovered alternatives like hyper-threading where you let some low-intensity threads use those in between moments, better branch predictors etc. so the ideas of Itanium pretty much died and never came back.
The AMD64 instruction set was more the "let's keep the house but clear the cruft", particularly they added more general registers which was a really big deal. AMD had done real experiments with more addressable registers but found that it was better to only increase it from 8x32 to 16x64 bit and instead use additional registers for run-time register renaming. That offset most of the performance penalty of doubling pointer sizes by itself, so x64 mode was almost free (though with a big higher memory usage for pointer-intensive work) whereas EPIC required a full do-over and struggled massively to emulate x86. Itanium was already struggling when AMD kicked it in the nuts.
The really sad thing is that I don't think it's AI that's the worst enemy - it can only deduce what we give it data about - but our own tendency to rely more and more on electronic devices and services that excel at logging every little detail of our lives. There's not a whole lot of AI to Facebook, but to an AI it's a gold mine of information. Like here in Norway I recently got a smart meter, I think it's required by law that everyone get that within a year or two. No more reading off the meter myself, enables very granular peak/off-peak power pricing etc. - but it also records my power consumption in 15 minute intervals. You could probably tell from that data alone whenever I run my washing machine.
Electronic tickets for public transport has become the norm and the rest just super-expensive alternatives for tourists with no >24h tickets. Automated license plate readers for toll roads and toll circles means they know I'm out and about, even if I turn off my cell phone. Electronic payments have become the norm, even among friends via the cell phone. And with paywalls and click metrics newspapers now know exactly what articles you read. More and more want their "digital assistants" to rifle through their data. All the bits to become a new China is here, we just lack the strings on top tying it all together into a totalitarian state.
The creepy bit is that we're going to see AI that doesn't just classify us but manipulates us too. Link someone to fake news, watch if their opinions or influence changes. Radicalize them. Convert them. Ridicule them. Discredit them. It's the kind of power play that's been going on at the personal level forever. But computers and big data is turning this into a mass market thing where like say an election is about finding and bombarding swing voters with half-truths or FUD. Or promote some loons who happen to support you because they'll scare normal people away from you. The difference is that it used to take a small army of sycophants, now it only take a few developers to set it up and computer algorithms will do the rest.
No, kjella is NOT right about this. First off, if you read Fortune, you will see that musk is NOT calling this BFR or even Rocket, but SHIP.
The post I replied to claimed the FH was a bad investment because it'd soon be replaced by its successor. That would be the BFR, as in rocket. Neither of us was talking about the ship in the article.
Once this part is working, then the BFR, or the first stage of the BFR will be developed to send the ship into space.
You think there's a line and SpaceX only works on one project at the time? They're working on it right now, heck the engine development started in 2012.
Windbourne (moderating).
Magic 8-ball says: Outlook not so good.
You are entirely safe to disbelieve anything Elon says about when something will be done. (...) For all that it's really cool, Falcon 9 Heavy might have been a mistake. (...) It cost them a great deal to get working, and is destined to be supersceded by their next rocket. We might not see that many of them ever fly.
Well he can fail at one or the other but not both. If the BFR is on schedule too bad for the FH but great for SpaceX. If the BFR ends up way behind schedule then the FH can still launch anything up to and beyond what other current heavy launchers can and make good money in the process, also good for SpaceX. And it's not certain that the BFR would replace all FH launches if they don't have big enough payloads to justify it or they want a launcher with a longer track record, particularly if you give it some credit for its F9 lineage, shared engines and other components. After all the BFR is an all new design with
a thousand new ways to end in a big f*cking boom and simulations are not perfect.
Musk did not build the first electric car. He was not the first person to launch satellites to LEO either.
Tip: 110010001000 is the local jester/troll. He's just posing as one of the over-the-top Musk groupies that worship him more than teen girls love Justin Bieber.
You're just using time zones but specifying times in a reference zone.
No, I'm suggesting all clocks are set to UTC thus no time zone conversion ever and UTC becomes redundant while "noon/midnight" becomes a variable concept that occur at different times for different people instead of 12AM/12PM.
But if you're driving from San Francisco to New York you clearly still want to know when stores start to open at 01:00 UTC, 02:00 UTC, 03:00 UTC or 04:00 UTC aka 9AM PST, MST, CST, EST and for all sort of practical purposes like quiet hours, extra pay for night work etc. you need a formalized transition, which would naturally require "night" in SF to have a different definition than "night" in NY. It would be extremely unpractical to make this a continuous change where every location has to look up their latitude/longitude and start paying extra night shift pay from 23:34 in one store and 23:37 in another or the bar has to close at 01:13. And not having it change at all would be even less practical.
So yes, I'd keep the hourly zones but I'd re-purpose them to be like an "solar cycle zone" or something like that. So when you cross a zone it's still the same time but practically you can expect opening hours to be an hour earlier/later when you cross and all sort of statutory rules shift by an hour. To me that'd make much more sense today when we use precise mechanical/electronic timekeeping devices while sundials and high noon is rarely used as reference points in any but the most informal sense. Time is best left travelling at one second per second everywhere you go (at non-relativistic speeds anyway), not jumping by an hour. Or even a whole day if you cross the dateline, which wouldn't exist anymore.
If you have to call someone on the other side of the globe (and trust me, a LOT of businesses have to do that), now you can't even do simple math to say, "Oh hey, California is nine hours ahead of me, and now it's noon for me. Maybe I shouldn't call right now." Instead you are going to HAVE to have a program or similar that'll show you what kind of sunlight people have
Uh, what? Nine hours ahead is nine hours ahead, all you'd have to consider is where you'd be in nine hours. If that would be after business hours for you it's after business hours for them. It's not like they'd magically cease to actually be 9 hours ahead just because we change the notation unless we made everyone work at the same time. Right now you translate the meaning with math, use UTC and you'd translate the meaning without math.
Like say everybody works 9-17 in current terms, well 9-5 but you'd have to lose the AM/PM business. In California (PST = -8 UTC) that'd be 1-9. In New York you'd work 4-12, UK 9-17, Moscow 12-20, Tokyo 18-2. If you want to schedule a meeting it's the time that actually overlaps. If you have an event like say a SpaceX launch it's at 13:00 (UTC). If you're traveling things would happen at "odd" times but on the other hand there's no chance of confusing times. You lift off from London at 8:15, land in California 17:15, eat some breakfast at 00:15 and report to work at 01:00 because that's when the Californian workday begins.
I think the shock of the body's rhythm changing is much bigger than the mental translation that noon here is 04:00 and midnight at 16:00. If you're travelling a lot maybe your watch would have a small static "noon/midnight" arrow you could set to remind yourself. That way you could easily "anchor" yourself and effortlessly schedule a meeting after lunch to be at 05:00 when you're in California, 08:00 when you're in New York and 13:00 when you're in London. The workday would always be noon-3 to noon+5. It's just the understanding of where noon is on your watch that'd change.