Oh, brother. Let me guess... you'd be happy if we went back to bartering so that no Eeeeevil Money was involved. Because you can't wrap your head around the fact that a society that uses money (instead of trade goods) is wildly more efficient for everybody and is a central part of the prosperity that has even very poor people in the US living better than 99.9% of the people centuries ago. (...) But even so, I'm sure you'd tell the person who's invested the time to breed, raise, feed and protect a really nice egg laying chicken that they're being greedy if they value that chicken more than the crappy chicken some other guy his trying to use to barter for the same farm implement. Greed works.
I assume that what he's ranting against is that your value = your economic value and the right choice = the profitable choice. Greed is a psychopath. Greed is an egomaniac. Greed doesn't care if it comes from sweatshops or child labor or dumping toxic waste or kills people unless it has a cost attached. Greed isn't willing to do anything for the poor, the hungry, the sick or otherwise downtrodden unless there's profit in it. It works exactly the way you say it works, employees are human livestock. That doesn't usually end well for livestock that's not in demand or past its useful years. If you were an old horse we'd send you to the glue factory, but I don't think there's a real market for Soylent Green. Best to just take you to the human vet and have you put down humanely and castrate the little runts if you have any. At least the weak and sickly ones. Nothing personal, just business.
Whatever AI is, it's the tool not the goal. A search-and-rescue bot and search-and-destroy bot will be 99% the same and once can probably be converted into the other with an AK-47 and duct tape. It's a glorified version of trying to make a version of MS Project that won't let you plan the Holocaust. The software doesn't know what it's doing, it only knows estimates and dependencies and lead times and resource constraints. Same with supply chain planning, production planning etc. The AlphaGo team is now working on Starcraft II, consider how general the challenges are in exploration, resource gathering, unit building, combat etc. and while the challenges are great consider how general the concepts are. If they can make it work I have no doubt it can work in more realistic scenarios too.
Same thing with for example facial recognition, what does a facial recognition algorithm know about why you're doing it? Nothing at all. Does a speech recognition engine know if you're talking to a digital assistant or listening in on secret communications? No. Does an encryption algorithm know if it's encrypting good secrets or bad secrets? No. Okay so you probably don't want to let your opponent know exactly how you "think" so they can poke holes in it. but I really struggle to see any algorithm that doesn't have massive dual use. The whole idea is to make it as general as possible and let the computer work out the best solution on its own.
And if your company is small enough that a single 30 TB SSD is enough to meet your entire storage needs, then you probably aren't big enough to be so desperate for speed that you would buy a 30 TB SSD. I'm expecting most of these will be used for the most frequently accessed data for companies that are Google-scale, not companies whose total data capacity needs are rivaled only by my home RAID array.:-)
I suppose it's what you do. To a video production company 30TB is nothing. For random document storage it's quite a bit. For a database/source code repository it's pretty huge. We have quite a bit of database data that we need to keep around for archive purposes that are almost never used again, but in the end the relative savings of HDD vs SSD in a relatively expensive storage unit that still needs backups etc. and the resources to partitioning and archive things it didn't add up so we're all SSD now. It's a bit like starting to go through your photo collection to see if you can delete 10MB jpgs when you can go down to the store, buy a 8TB archive disk and store 800000 more. If you're doing it simply to save space and not for house cleaning it's not worth it.
Players of the fake news game must amass virtual Twitter followers by distorting the truth, planting falsehoods, dividing the united, and deflecting attention when rumbled. All the while, they must maintain credibility in the eyes of their audience. The game distills the art of undermining the truth into six key strategies. Once a player has demonstrated a knack for each, they are rewarded with a badge.
This game is a shameless ripoff, I already got my badge a year ago.
In one round, players can opt to impersonate the president of the United States and fire off a tweet from a fake account. It declares war on North Korea complete with a #KimJongDone hashtag.
I just one-upped your game by hacking the real account and sending it from there, oddly enough the combination is the same as on my luggage.
At every step, players are asked if they are happy with their actions or feel, perhaps, the twinge of shame
That's strange, my game kept insisting that "the only way to win is not to play", that's a silly game. Game on!
By shedding light on the shady practices, they hope the game will "vaccinate" the public, and make people immune to the spread of untruths.
Mission accomplished, I see so many untruths written about my presidency and I don't believe any of it, it's all fake news.
(this review may not actually be written by Donald Trump... or is it? #fakenews #realnews #whocantellthesedays)
It's gotten so bad even people of like mind are starting to get wise and tune out. Whenever I see a "breaking news" headline now I look for at least five sources before I even consider it might be real.
Well the person who believes nothing will still believe something, no matter how raggedy the source. Maybe you're the exception but at least 9 out of 10 people I hear making blanket dismissals of MSM has found their own gospel on some sort of alt-news site which is like the real truth MSM isn't telling you. Yeah quality is down the drain with QA thrown out the window to be first with the breaking news and even the real news have turned into click bait headlines and cheap fluff. But with the Internet I'm not sure how you could avoid that, alternatives like subscriptions that encourage more serious in-depth journalism have had very low market success. And the fact that everyone will retell the essential parts of your exclusive story on a thousand other sites and blogs and comments, it's not like the old days when the other newspapers would be a day behind. But it's mostly that they got worse, not that the alt-media got better. Still plenty loons and crazy hoaxes.
They are lucky that the 386 and older are not patented, that the only reason 32 bit support is possible. The patents start at MMX.
I think they would be expired. "In the United States, for utility patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term of the patent is 20 years from the earliest filing date of the application on which the patent was granted" and from I can tell MMX was 1997. The x86-64 specification was published in August 2000 and makes use of SSE2 instructions. So there's at most 2.5 years left of any patents, it's approaching that time where Microsoft can secure the bulk of that IP from AMD, launch a product, probably get sued by Intel about some SSE patents but drag it out in courts a few years without suffering an injunction then settle for a one-time payout and continue shipping now patent free x86-64 processors. It's a bit of a dirty trick but big companies with deep pockets can afford to do that. Intel will play dirty too when they can, so very little sympathy from me.
But you pay to see it, not to read it. So if it's $0.02/page times the number of pages you visit in a day, are you still okay with it?
I would so *not* want it to be $0.02/page by default because that would be incentive to constantly spawn pages, potentially also with some kind of iframe/refresh/redirect tricks. But if I could whitelist sites and set limits I'd rather give them permission to mine than permission to show me ads. And it wouldn't necessarily have to be a fixed rate. Like say I allow/. to pre-mine up to $0.10, max $1/24 hours like a mini-balance. Every time I read a story they subtract $0.02, mining starts running again. Like a continually pre-paid mini-subscription with a hard limit on how much they could take if they're hacked or whatever. Of course if I for some reason want to read more than 50 stories a day, I could always change the limit.
The alternative would be pay as you go, either that they first show ads instead that disappear if you permit mining or that the actual content isn't loaded into the DOM before you've micro-paid up. I think I could pretty quickly say if this was a serious site and quickly put them into like a bronze/silver/gold/platinum tier (+ custom of course). Each site you've whitelisted should have some kind of easily accessible running tab. Any sites that's greedy/a scam will hit the wall quickly and be delisted again, those that provide good value for money get to mine. The overhead is probably huge but less than getting a global micro-payment solution going.
We might as well have a senior level job for "Chief Pizza Officer" for addressing serious concerns about whether people are eating enough quality food while they work. I'd love to see the college that gives *that* degree. I'd even get one--in spite of the inevitable intense rigor required to survive the class load.
You jest but if you're big enough I wouldn't be surprised to find Apple/Google/Microsoft has some nutritional experts on staff to promote a healthier lifestyle on the company campus. And yes multinationals have often struggled to make different work and business cultures function well together as a team. But on like a broad cultural basis? I don't care what naughty bits you have or who you're sleeping with, what god(s) you pray to, how you lean politically, what your idea of a good time is or whatever. Or well that's not really true I do of course look for socially interesting people but if I find out that we have nothing in common and should keep a strictly professional relationship that's cool. If you want to be a bigot, do it on your own time.
Unfortunately the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that now the deviants - for lack of a better word - are the ones playing the bigotry game. Like unless you agree that Adam and Steve is as valid as Adam and Eve I'll raise so much hell you'll be forced to step down. It doesn't matter if they are good social values or bad social values, I think it's fundamentally wrong to blackmail people into altering their social stance - or at least pay lip service to it - through their work relationship. I think the one who can't agree to disagree is the one who should be fired, even when I personally feel they're right.
That doesn't include the right to be a dick though, if Chris wants to be called Christine and addressed as female then call her that even if you on the inside think she's a man with a mental illness who's gone through surgery to cut off his manly bits. I think you're entitled to your opinion, you shouldn't be harmed for voicing it if it's explicitly requested but if you're the one bringing it up it's probably harassment. Everyone should be able to choose what parts of their personal life they bring to the discussion, but if you bring it up as a topic of debate you may get dissenting or negative reactions.
It's amazing how many don't understand that from a freedom of speech perspective a society where you can't have regressive opinions is equally oppressive as a society where you can't have progressive opinions. Not as in a first amendment issue, but as a freedom to form, hold and convey your own opinions. If the lynch mob will hang you from the nearest tree afterwards, there's not really any practical freedom of speech and for most people losing their job is close enough. It doesn't mean that everybody must be your friend and freedom from consequences, but there's being liked and being punished. And very many are eager to punish.
The licenses TFA calls a "charade" really aren't. (...) Likewise, bartenders mix substances which are consumed - do you really want someone merely pretending to be a bartender to mix something you'll end up drinking?
Not what it's about, I fully trust an unlicensed bartender to tap a beer or pour me a whiskey. Even most drinks are just trivial mixtures. It's mainly about underage drinking and cutting off people who've had enough. The problem with regulation is that it often tries to solve bigger problems than it can handle like curbing alcoholism. Which leads to restricting a lot of non-problematic behavior by people who have their consumption under control in order to protect a few that don't. And that often do their best to circumvent the unwanted restrictions.
For example here in Norway I can't buy a beer after 8 PM on a weekday and 6 PM on a Saturday, on some theory that it would cause impulse or excess purchases of alcohol by intoxicated people. You can go to a bar, but there a regulated professional will in theory refuse to serve you when you've had enough though IMHO you have to be pretty wasted. Except the practical result is that everyone who really want their beer stock up in advance, while making an annoyance for casual drinkers and tourists who want a beer ten past eight. That's a charade.
You're required to pass a test on how to recognize fake ids, determine if someone has had too much to drink and needs to be shut off, and what your legal responsibilities and liabilities are as a server. The permit cost is $8.99, and includes a video tutorial. That seems pretty reasonable to me. It's not like they're testing you on whether you can mix a Martini.
Sounds about right, I once had a professional license to offer financial advice, one night of quiz + essay. Didn't have anything to do with the actual quality of advice, but legal rules with regards to insider trading, disclosure of risks and so on. Even though I worked in IT some of it applied to me as well if I went poking into customer portfolios and transactions even though I didn't technically need the license. It's basically a short legal awareness class and if you flunk it then you'd probably break the law if you tried it in real life.
Well it's hard to see how AI as such can be a consumer product, at least the current incarnations take lots of training and parameter tweaking consumers wouldn't do. A lot of it would be internal business optimization that might indirectly lead to lower prices. At best you'd have AIs trained to deliver a service like Siri or do certain tasks like drive a car. But the fuzzy nature of these algorithms makes me believe most will come with frequent updates and close ties to the mothership or simply do the processing in the cloud which means the data have to go there too. Which makes it a whole lot easier to get to via either legal or illegal methods. Not that we strictly speaking need AI for that, more and more stuff likes to send telemetry...
Eventually you reach a point with any person where they're incapable of doing anything economically productive due any number of factors including age, mental capability, health, etc.
Only a few heavily handicapped people are actually completely incapable. The rest may not be employable on commercial terms, but if you're the government you don't care since they're on your "payroll" anyway. That's what happen to everyone under 30 on our "last resort" program here in Norway. You don't get to play PlayStation or work black labor, you'll do community service all day and in return you'll get a subsistence wage. Basically unpaid interns but only for a limited time per workplace and obviously if they find work they're gone. So if you need any sort of skill or experience it's better to employ them, it's only if you need a revolving door of totally unskilled - and in some cases, unreliable and unmotivated - labor that they actually replace an employee.
First, if people are being replaced by machines, it means overall labor capacity has either increased or remained the same at a lower cost so it isn't going to economically ruin the economy.
Only if the economy is a closed loop and robots are an international market. If I fire my local cleaning lady and replace her with a robot from China that could be very detrimental to the local and national economy.
The only other policy you'd need would be similar to China's one child policy so you don't have unproductive individuals spawning large numbers of children they're probably not well equip to care for
Actually Europe is far below a stable reproduction rate, Japan too. We actually need more people willing to pop out 3+ children to avoid de-population issues. The world is now very close to "peak child" as Hans Rosling called it. The remaining population growth is mainly the current population aging and "filling out" the age pyramid.
While your description is pretty much spot on you say it's a mess for both genders and I don't really see how. Women certainly can make romantic advances if they like someone, but if they just sit back they get plenty offers and can pick and choose. Sure they complain about not finding Mr. Right and all the guys looking for a one night stand, but if you look at the standards in the lower end of men where the choice is between a girlfriend or no girlfriend... eh. Anything with a pussy and a pulse can get a boyfriend. If they want, as more women than men seem happy with artificial substitutes.
I graduated high school here in Seattle in 1973, and none of my technical friends have ever had a girlfriend. Some of them have had boyfriends, but that's a different story entirely. Girls don't want independent males.
Uh, how many dependent males are there? Like, guys with little to no education who couldn't get by on their own because they've been stay-at-home dads and housewi... househusbands? Is that even a word? Is there a market for sugarmoms? My impression is that most men can't stand women that are richer and more successful than themselves, it hurts their pride. I'm afraid I may have to give you some shocking news: It may not be the economic independence that is the reason why your technical friends are single. They're probably just dorks or nerds. Not geeks, they can be kinda popular. P.S. None of them can be truly rich, if they were they could get trophy wives. It's basically long term prostitution, but if you have enough money it works.
I don't agree. Look at the way that they have organized their society. It's authoritarian, conformist, centrally controlled, a place where independent ideas and free thinking are discouraged and severely punished. Creativity requires safety and freedom to think and experiment without fear of reprisals. Does that sound like Communist China to you?
China hasn't been communist except in name for quite some time, it's much closer to fascist. No strategic industry makes it big in China without strong ties to the Chinese government, it's why Google and Facebook is big everywhere but China. It's not the inefficient and stagnant economy of Soviet Russia, they're much closer to Hitler's Germany. A regime that almost forced the capitulation of the whole of Europe, if it wasn't for the English channel, if they had pushed forward at Dunkirk, if Turing hadn't broken Enigma, if they didn't redirect the bombing of military targets to destroy London... there's a fair chance Britain would have capitulated and D-day would never have happened. In fact it took the combined might of two future superpowers and a whole bunch of others to bring him down.
Maybe it's not the best for creativity and innovation. But you should not underestimate the value it has for industrial production and unity. And particularly the latter is important in a state of war, with the advances in medicine most people now expect to die of old age. How many Americans, apart from the few volunteers, are really ready to lay down their lives for the greater good? If you got 1+ billion people ready to sacrifice everything for China well then everyone else has a problem.
I think it's easier. I'd kill for Google and YouTube to get answers and tutorials when I learned BASIC. All I had was my C64, the programming manual and curiosity. Complete games were just a wall of text, even those that were actually readable and not just lots of PEEKs and POKEs to memory addresses. The difference is that the software I looked up to was also made by one or few developers with rather crude graphics and sound. Particularly something like Lazy Jones with lots of mini-games, I could make something like that. Today I play Overwatch and it's like this would take me 1000 man years and a bunch of art and music talent I don't have. You can't have that kind of motivation today. And I think games was the only thing I cared about when I was like ten. I don't see that I'd be making any other kind of apps with interest.
This is pretty much dead-on correct. Sorry, folks, but we live in a capitalist society.
Funny you should say that since DRM is the jack-booted thug enforcing licenses which is a war on ownership and exactly the opposite of traditional capitalism. What we're heading for is more like modern serfdom where you own nothing and license all your software and media subject to the whims of global mega-corporations who decides when they're altering the terms and when your rented experience expires and whether you've violated some sort of rule in that 100-page EULA you didn't read. And with IoT and self-driving cars on the horizon that concept will probably soon be extended to hardware too. Sure you can always say no... in which case you get no security updates and/or everything stops working, it's not like you have a real choice. The "buying and selling" model is on the way out...
One of the most successful online communities I was ever part of had one single code of conduct: Don't be a dick. It wasn't perfect, but what it did was drive discussion on whether conduct someone was engaging in was dickish, or if the complainer was being a whiny dick. It forced discussion on where people's boundaries on "being a dick" were, and it helped people identify when their boundaries were way out of the norm compared to the rest of the community.
And that's how a good policy should work, are you out of line with community standards for acceptable behavior. But that would not make the most sensitive people happy so instead they make up vague but positively worded rules like "don't hurt other people's feelings" which seem reasonable at first glance and get the majority to go along with them. Then they weaponize that to say you hurt my feelings - no matter how trivial the offense or how irrational, convoluted or extreme those sensibilities are and with dead seriousness even though it was clearly done in jest or unaware that the recipient world find it offensive. And if that happens, that person clearly needs more "sensibility training" which is code word for walking on eggshells and never make any off the cuff remark that could possibly be interpreted as non-professional.
Yes, I understand that it sometimes it appropriate to let "the victims" decide what's offensive, like if 9 out of 10 developers are white males maybe they shouldn't decide what's offensive to women or minorities or anyone else that is the butt of their jokes or experience inappropriate sexual comments and advances or whatever. But I'm still very skeptical of activists that don't have any history in the community that come in and immediately accuse someone or try to goad others into offending them and be the victim, they seem more like the troublemakers down at the pub who are trying to pick a fight. Basically if you had to orchestrate the situation you're whining about, it probably wasn't a very real problem in the first place. Even though the activists will of course claim that everyone else is just putting up with it to get by.
Actually, the problem is that people engaging in some distraction leave extra space between themselves and the traffic ahead. And they do this by slowing down by sometimes as much as 10 or 15 MPH below traffic flow. And they end up becoming a log jam in the middle of the road. They don't care if someone cuts in front of them because that person will inevitably speed up and increase the gap. Leaving them free to fiddle with their phones. Meanwhile, everyone else piles up behind them until an opportunity to pass comes up.
But let's be honest here, if you're objectively counting minutes and seconds very few drivers are that slow that they cause you to miss more than a single light or a minute or two of highway driving. The problem is that many people are barely on time or running a bit late and it's extremely frustrating with this Sunday driver who doesn't care that you got places to be and schedules to keep. I've felt that road rage, I've seen my friends feel that road rage, even when we're not stressed it's like "Oh, come on. Really?" and various expletives and insults even though we goof away equal or more time regularly. If you had a self-driving car the actual delay in getting to your destination wouldn't be nearly so annoying.
I think it's overly optimistic that our opinion would matter. Either we're likely to discover some extinct or microbiological life that is no threat to us at all or a civilization so advanced that even if we were aggressive it'd be like those isolated Amazon tribes throwing spears after helicopters. Remember that 10000 years ago we were cavemen, in 10000 years we'll either be demigods or have destroyed ourselves. In the billions of years the universe has existed we're a very tiny blip and that we should happen to meet aliens on even remotely the same technological level seems unlikely.
I might be in a minority here, but I support this judgement. If you're linking to something you're pointing the user to someone else's content, if you're embedding content you're making it part of your content. If a a photographer put up his own photos on his blog, linking to that blog is how the Internet is supposed to work. If you're hot-linking the photos that's rude, but not illegal since the site is serving them up freely. Implement referrer checks if you don't like it. If somebody else is embedding them in their page with <img> tags I'd say that's copyright infringement. You never agreed to have them published in that context, even if the derivative work is built on-the-fly by the client.
Twitter should be shielded under the DMCA, they serve user-generated content. The newspapers should not be shielded, these tweets didn't appear on their newspaper by accident they made an editorial decision to embed it and that makes them liable. They failed to make sure a third party had the proper right to do that, tough. Otherwise all download/streaming cases would be trivially dismissed with "I just assumed that whoever was distributing it had the legal right to distribute it." or better yet by putting up a torrent where it automatically becomes re-distributed "Because that's how torrents work I assumed it was an implied license to re-distribute it myself".
Well shit, that's not how it works. If you take an illegally posted work and do something that violates copyright then you're liable too, you can't wash it clean. That's why they call it strict liability, that's why they have reduced liability for "innocent infringers". Maybe these newspapers could qualify for that, if it was reasonable to assume that it was properly licensed. But getting off harmless by pointing the finger to someone else as the guilty man? It's never worked for anyone else, I don't see why it should start now. That would be a major earthquake in copyright enforcement.
P.S. About how the content of a embed can change, there's also the "guilty mind" part of criminal liability. So if someone swaps out the embedded photo with something else the criminal intent would be lacking and you should be acquitted. At least in theory, it only works in practice if you can prove that it was swapped out from under you without your knowledge. Civil liability though... innocent infringer, you're liable for causing harm even if you didn't intend to harm the copyright holder. It's a risk you take when you embed something else you don't control into your work.
That's the price we pay for Windows being the dominant desktop OS. If their marketshare was 50% or less they wouldn't dare to do that
Microsoft was a dominant OS for a long time without doing any di.... without doing these dirty tricks. This is a direct consequence of Win10 becoming "free", though they still charge OEMs a few bucks for powerful machines. Since getting consumers to upgrade is no longer what brings in cash it's all about monetizing the users you have. It'll probably work too, Facebook is "free". Gmail is "free". Windows is "free". The vast majority seem to like it that way.
No Valve should refund their money because Steam is Valve's product and they are not doing due diligence to insure the products being sold on their store are quality products and not scams.
And if you buy something on Amazon or eBay or Craigslist and it turns out to be shit or faulty or fraudulent you want them to pay up too, right? I think you fundamentally don't understand - or want to understand - the difference between a store and a marketplace. They had a shady vendor that was caught and unceremoniously kicked to the curb, that's usually a harsh penalty. In fact, you have people on this very forum arguing that was an overreaction and they should have gotten a slap on the wrist. If you make it a three-way business relationship the scum will hit and run, the marketplace will be absorbing all the costs in lawyers and damages and they will be passed on to you as higher fees to be on that marketplace. It won't come free and it'll only encourage buying more shit because no matter how shady the deal looks someone else with deep pockets is on the hook. They do have a fairly generous refund policy already, far more than they're legally required to...
So they can't survive with two thirds of a presumably good paycheck? What's the title on about?
Pretty much. If you're making $30k and paying 1/3rd you got $20k left over for "other stuff", but if you're making $150k and paying 1/3rd you got $100k to go. Besides, how many single people buy a house in the subrubs all to themselves? I got an apartment even though I could very well afford a house, I just wouldn't want all the upkeep. In rural areas I suppose, but there prices aren't that ridiculous either.
I think that depends on ability to scale. Here in Norway I saw the stats for a big robot warehouse, they picked 5.1 million items in a year with 55 robots. That's ~93k per robot, here in Norway we usually budget around 1750 hours/year. So that's 53 items per human-equivalent hour, right now it's just tens of thousands of stacked boxes but for humans it'd have to be miles and miles of shelf space. And robots don't misplace or pick the wrong box, they don't steal stuff, they don't drop stuff, they don't goof around, they don't need staff meetings etc. so they've only been growing. I can't find a current figure of number of deliveries, but they've expanded to 75 robots and sell for almost a billion dollars a year and in total they have 800 employees. I'm thinking it'd take many thousands the old way.
If you're designing a robot to replace a human's job the way the human would do it then yes maybe it's 1-2. If you're designing the whole process to be done by robots it can be orders of magnitude faster. Like consider an industrial bakery, is this industrial robots? Or is it just Charlie Chaplin-age assembly line? It's certainly much faster than I'd bake at home or even an old fashioned baker making it in bulk.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, brother. Let me guess ... you'd be happy if we went back to bartering so that no Eeeeevil Money was involved. Because you can't wrap your head around the fact that a society that uses money (instead of trade goods) is wildly more efficient for everybody and is a central part of the prosperity that has even very poor people in the US living better than 99.9% of the people centuries ago.
(...)
But even so, I'm sure you'd tell the person who's invested the time to breed, raise, feed and protect a really nice egg laying chicken that they're being greedy if they value that chicken more than the crappy chicken some other guy his trying to use to barter for the same farm implement. Greed works.
I assume that what he's ranting against is that your value = your economic value and the right choice = the profitable choice. Greed is a psychopath. Greed is an egomaniac. Greed doesn't care if it comes from sweatshops or child labor or dumping toxic waste or kills people unless it has a cost attached. Greed isn't willing to do anything for the poor, the hungry, the sick or otherwise downtrodden unless there's profit in it. It works exactly the way you say it works, employees are human livestock. That doesn't usually end well for livestock that's not in demand or past its useful years. If you were an old horse we'd send you to the glue factory, but I don't think there's a real market for Soylent Green. Best to just take you to the human vet and have you put down humanely and castrate the little runts if you have any. At least the weak and sickly ones. Nothing personal, just business.
Whatever AI is, it's the tool not the goal. A search-and-rescue bot and search-and-destroy bot will be 99% the same and once can probably be converted into the other with an AK-47 and duct tape. It's a glorified version of trying to make a version of MS Project that won't let you plan the Holocaust. The software doesn't know what it's doing, it only knows estimates and dependencies and lead times and resource constraints. Same with supply chain planning, production planning etc. The AlphaGo team is now working on Starcraft II, consider how general the challenges are in exploration, resource gathering, unit building, combat etc. and while the challenges are great consider how general the concepts are. If they can make it work I have no doubt it can work in more realistic scenarios too.
Same thing with for example facial recognition, what does a facial recognition algorithm know about why you're doing it? Nothing at all. Does a speech recognition engine know if you're talking to a digital assistant or listening in on secret communications? No. Does an encryption algorithm know if it's encrypting good secrets or bad secrets? No. Okay so you probably don't want to let your opponent know exactly how you "think" so they can poke holes in it. but I really struggle to see any algorithm that doesn't have massive dual use. The whole idea is to make it as general as possible and let the computer work out the best solution on its own.
And if your company is small enough that a single 30 TB SSD is enough to meet your entire storage needs, then you probably aren't big enough to be so desperate for speed that you would buy a 30 TB SSD. I'm expecting most of these will be used for the most frequently accessed data for companies that are Google-scale, not companies whose total data capacity needs are rivaled only by my home RAID array. :-)
I suppose it's what you do. To a video production company 30TB is nothing. For random document storage it's quite a bit. For a database/source code repository it's pretty huge. We have quite a bit of database data that we need to keep around for archive purposes that are almost never used again, but in the end the relative savings of HDD vs SSD in a relatively expensive storage unit that still needs backups etc. and the resources to partitioning and archive things it didn't add up so we're all SSD now. It's a bit like starting to go through your photo collection to see if you can delete 10MB jpgs when you can go down to the store, buy a 8TB archive disk and store 800000 more. If you're doing it simply to save space and not for house cleaning it's not worth it.
Players of the fake news game must amass virtual Twitter followers by distorting the truth, planting falsehoods, dividing the united, and deflecting attention when rumbled. All the while, they must maintain credibility in the eyes of their audience. The game distills the art of undermining the truth into six key strategies. Once a player has demonstrated a knack for each, they are rewarded with a badge.
This game is a shameless ripoff, I already got my badge a year ago.
In one round, players can opt to impersonate the president of the United States and fire off a tweet from a fake account. It declares war on North Korea complete with a #KimJongDone hashtag.
I just one-upped your game by hacking the real account and sending it from there, oddly enough the combination is the same as on my luggage.
At every step, players are asked if they are happy with their actions or feel, perhaps, the twinge of shame
That's strange, my game kept insisting that "the only way to win is not to play", that's a silly game. Game on!
By shedding light on the shady practices, they hope the game will "vaccinate" the public, and make people immune to the spread of untruths.
Mission accomplished, I see so many untruths written about my presidency and I don't believe any of it, it's all fake news.
(this review may not actually be written by Donald Trump... or is it? #fakenews #realnews #whocantellthesedays)
It's gotten so bad even people of like mind are starting to get wise and tune out. Whenever I see a "breaking news" headline now I look for at least five sources before I even consider it might be real.
Well the person who believes nothing will still believe something, no matter how raggedy the source. Maybe you're the exception but at least 9 out of 10 people I hear making blanket dismissals of MSM has found their own gospel on some sort of alt-news site which is like the real truth MSM isn't telling you. Yeah quality is down the drain with QA thrown out the window to be first with the breaking news and even the real news have turned into click bait headlines and cheap fluff. But with the Internet I'm not sure how you could avoid that, alternatives like subscriptions that encourage more serious in-depth journalism have had very low market success. And the fact that everyone will retell the essential parts of your exclusive story on a thousand other sites and blogs and comments, it's not like the old days when the other newspapers would be a day behind. But it's mostly that they got worse, not that the alt-media got better. Still plenty loons and crazy hoaxes.
They are lucky that the 386 and older are not patented, that the only reason 32 bit support is possible. The patents start at MMX.
I think they would be expired. "In the United States, for utility patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term of the patent is 20 years from the earliest filing date of the application on which the patent was granted" and from I can tell MMX was 1997. The x86-64 specification was published in August 2000 and makes use of SSE2 instructions. So there's at most 2.5 years left of any patents, it's approaching that time where Microsoft can secure the bulk of that IP from AMD, launch a product, probably get sued by Intel about some SSE patents but drag it out in courts a few years without suffering an injunction then settle for a one-time payout and continue shipping now patent free x86-64 processors. It's a bit of a dirty trick but big companies with deep pockets can afford to do that. Intel will play dirty too when they can, so very little sympathy from me.
But you pay to see it, not to read it. So if it's $0.02/page times the number of pages you visit in a day, are you still okay with it?
I would so *not* want it to be $0.02/page by default because that would be incentive to constantly spawn pages, potentially also with some kind of iframe/refresh/redirect tricks. But if I could whitelist sites and set limits I'd rather give them permission to mine than permission to show me ads. And it wouldn't necessarily have to be a fixed rate. Like say I allow /. to pre-mine up to $0.10, max $1/24 hours like a mini-balance. Every time I read a story they subtract $0.02, mining starts running again. Like a continually pre-paid mini-subscription with a hard limit on how much they could take if they're hacked or whatever. Of course if I for some reason want to read more than 50 stories a day, I could always change the limit.
The alternative would be pay as you go, either that they first show ads instead that disappear if you permit mining or that the actual content isn't loaded into the DOM before you've micro-paid up. I think I could pretty quickly say if this was a serious site and quickly put them into like a bronze/silver/gold/platinum tier (+ custom of course). Each site you've whitelisted should have some kind of easily accessible running tab. Any sites that's greedy/a scam will hit the wall quickly and be delisted again, those that provide good value for money get to mine. The overhead is probably huge but less than getting a global micro-payment solution going.
We might as well have a senior level job for "Chief Pizza Officer" for addressing serious concerns about whether people are eating enough quality food while they work. I'd love to see the college that gives *that* degree. I'd even get one--in spite of the inevitable intense rigor required to survive the class load.
You jest but if you're big enough I wouldn't be surprised to find Apple/Google/Microsoft has some nutritional experts on staff to promote a healthier lifestyle on the company campus. And yes multinationals have often struggled to make different work and business cultures function well together as a team. But on like a broad cultural basis? I don't care what naughty bits you have or who you're sleeping with, what god(s) you pray to, how you lean politically, what your idea of a good time is or whatever. Or well that's not really true I do of course look for socially interesting people but if I find out that we have nothing in common and should keep a strictly professional relationship that's cool. If you want to be a bigot, do it on your own time.
Unfortunately the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that now the deviants - for lack of a better word - are the ones playing the bigotry game. Like unless you agree that Adam and Steve is as valid as Adam and Eve I'll raise so much hell you'll be forced to step down. It doesn't matter if they are good social values or bad social values, I think it's fundamentally wrong to blackmail people into altering their social stance - or at least pay lip service to it - through their work relationship. I think the one who can't agree to disagree is the one who should be fired, even when I personally feel they're right.
That doesn't include the right to be a dick though, if Chris wants to be called Christine and addressed as female then call her that even if you on the inside think she's a man with a mental illness who's gone through surgery to cut off his manly bits. I think you're entitled to your opinion, you shouldn't be harmed for voicing it if it's explicitly requested but if you're the one bringing it up it's probably harassment. Everyone should be able to choose what parts of their personal life they bring to the discussion, but if you bring it up as a topic of debate you may get dissenting or negative reactions.
It's amazing how many don't understand that from a freedom of speech perspective a society where you can't have regressive opinions is equally oppressive as a society where you can't have progressive opinions. Not as in a first amendment issue, but as a freedom to form, hold and convey your own opinions. If the lynch mob will hang you from the nearest tree afterwards, there's not really any practical freedom of speech and for most people losing their job is close enough. It doesn't mean that everybody must be your friend and freedom from consequences, but there's being liked and being punished. And very many are eager to punish.
The licenses TFA calls a "charade" really aren't. (...) Likewise, bartenders mix substances which are consumed - do you really want someone merely pretending to be a bartender to mix something you'll end up drinking?
Not what it's about, I fully trust an unlicensed bartender to tap a beer or pour me a whiskey. Even most drinks are just trivial mixtures. It's mainly about underage drinking and cutting off people who've had enough. The problem with regulation is that it often tries to solve bigger problems than it can handle like curbing alcoholism. Which leads to restricting a lot of non-problematic behavior by people who have their consumption under control in order to protect a few that don't. And that often do their best to circumvent the unwanted restrictions.
For example here in Norway I can't buy a beer after 8 PM on a weekday and 6 PM on a Saturday, on some theory that it would cause impulse or excess purchases of alcohol by intoxicated people. You can go to a bar, but there a regulated professional will in theory refuse to serve you when you've had enough though IMHO you have to be pretty wasted. Except the practical result is that everyone who really want their beer stock up in advance, while making an annoyance for casual drinkers and tourists who want a beer ten past eight. That's a charade.
You're required to pass a test on how to recognize fake ids, determine if someone has had too much to drink and needs to be shut off, and what your legal responsibilities and liabilities are as a server. The permit cost is $8.99, and includes a video tutorial. That seems pretty reasonable to me. It's not like they're testing you on whether you can mix a Martini.
Sounds about right, I once had a professional license to offer financial advice, one night of quiz + essay. Didn't have anything to do with the actual quality of advice, but legal rules with regards to insider trading, disclosure of risks and so on. Even though I worked in IT some of it applied to me as well if I went poking into customer portfolios and transactions even though I didn't technically need the license. It's basically a short legal awareness class and if you flunk it then you'd probably break the law if you tried it in real life.
Well it's hard to see how AI as such can be a consumer product, at least the current incarnations take lots of training and parameter tweaking consumers wouldn't do. A lot of it would be internal business optimization that might indirectly lead to lower prices. At best you'd have AIs trained to deliver a service like Siri or do certain tasks like drive a car. But the fuzzy nature of these algorithms makes me believe most will come with frequent updates and close ties to the mothership or simply do the processing in the cloud which means the data have to go there too. Which makes it a whole lot easier to get to via either legal or illegal methods. Not that we strictly speaking need AI for that, more and more stuff likes to send telemetry...
Eventually you reach a point with any person where they're incapable of doing anything economically productive due any number of factors including age, mental capability, health, etc.
Only a few heavily handicapped people are actually completely incapable. The rest may not be employable on commercial terms, but if you're the government you don't care since they're on your "payroll" anyway. That's what happen to everyone under 30 on our "last resort" program here in Norway. You don't get to play PlayStation or work black labor, you'll do community service all day and in return you'll get a subsistence wage. Basically unpaid interns but only for a limited time per workplace and obviously if they find work they're gone. So if you need any sort of skill or experience it's better to employ them, it's only if you need a revolving door of totally unskilled - and in some cases, unreliable and unmotivated - labor that they actually replace an employee.
First, if people are being replaced by machines, it means overall labor capacity has either increased or remained the same at a lower cost so it isn't going to economically ruin the economy.
Only if the economy is a closed loop and robots are an international market. If I fire my local cleaning lady and replace her with a robot from China that could be very detrimental to the local and national economy.
The only other policy you'd need would be similar to China's one child policy so you don't have unproductive individuals spawning large numbers of children they're probably not well equip to care for
Actually Europe is far below a stable reproduction rate, Japan too. We actually need more people willing to pop out 3+ children to avoid de-population issues. The world is now very close to "peak child" as Hans Rosling called it. The remaining population growth is mainly the current population aging and "filling out" the age pyramid.
While your description is pretty much spot on you say it's a mess for both genders and I don't really see how. Women certainly can make romantic advances if they like someone, but if they just sit back they get plenty offers and can pick and choose. Sure they complain about not finding Mr. Right and all the guys looking for a one night stand, but if you look at the standards in the lower end of men where the choice is between a girlfriend or no girlfriend... eh. Anything with a pussy and a pulse can get a boyfriend. If they want, as more women than men seem happy with artificial substitutes.
I graduated high school here in Seattle in 1973, and none of my technical friends have ever had a girlfriend. Some of them have had boyfriends, but that's a different story entirely. Girls don't want independent males.
Uh, how many dependent males are there? Like, guys with little to no education who couldn't get by on their own because they've been stay-at-home dads and housewi... househusbands? Is that even a word? Is there a market for sugarmoms? My impression is that most men can't stand women that are richer and more successful than themselves, it hurts their pride. I'm afraid I may have to give you some shocking news: It may not be the economic independence that is the reason why your technical friends are single. They're probably just dorks or nerds. Not geeks, they can be kinda popular. P.S. None of them can be truly rich, if they were they could get trophy wives. It's basically long term prostitution, but if you have enough money it works.
I don't agree. Look at the way that they have organized their society. It's authoritarian, conformist, centrally controlled, a place where independent ideas and free thinking are discouraged and severely punished. Creativity requires safety and freedom to think and experiment without fear of reprisals. Does that sound like Communist China to you?
China hasn't been communist except in name for quite some time, it's much closer to fascist. No strategic industry makes it big in China without strong ties to the Chinese government, it's why Google and Facebook is big everywhere but China. It's not the inefficient and stagnant economy of Soviet Russia, they're much closer to Hitler's Germany. A regime that almost forced the capitulation of the whole of Europe, if it wasn't for the English channel, if they had pushed forward at Dunkirk, if Turing hadn't broken Enigma, if they didn't redirect the bombing of military targets to destroy London... there's a fair chance Britain would have capitulated and D-day would never have happened. In fact it took the combined might of two future superpowers and a whole bunch of others to bring him down.
Maybe it's not the best for creativity and innovation. But you should not underestimate the value it has for industrial production and unity. And particularly the latter is important in a state of war, with the advances in medicine most people now expect to die of old age. How many Americans, apart from the few volunteers, are really ready to lay down their lives for the greater good? If you got 1+ billion people ready to sacrifice everything for China well then everyone else has a problem.
I think it's easier. I'd kill for Google and YouTube to get answers and tutorials when I learned BASIC. All I had was my C64, the programming manual and curiosity. Complete games were just a wall of text, even those that were actually readable and not just lots of PEEKs and POKEs to memory addresses. The difference is that the software I looked up to was also made by one or few developers with rather crude graphics and sound. Particularly something like Lazy Jones with lots of mini-games, I could make something like that. Today I play Overwatch and it's like this would take me 1000 man years and a bunch of art and music talent I don't have. You can't have that kind of motivation today. And I think games was the only thing I cared about when I was like ten. I don't see that I'd be making any other kind of apps with interest.
This is pretty much dead-on correct. Sorry, folks, but we live in a capitalist society.
Funny you should say that since DRM is the jack-booted thug enforcing licenses which is a war on ownership and exactly the opposite of traditional capitalism. What we're heading for is more like modern serfdom where you own nothing and license all your software and media subject to the whims of global mega-corporations who decides when they're altering the terms and when your rented experience expires and whether you've violated some sort of rule in that 100-page EULA you didn't read. And with IoT and self-driving cars on the horizon that concept will probably soon be extended to hardware too. Sure you can always say no... in which case you get no security updates and/or everything stops working, it's not like you have a real choice. The "buying and selling" model is on the way out...
One of the most successful online communities I was ever part of had one single code of conduct: Don't be a dick. It wasn't perfect, but what it did was drive discussion on whether conduct someone was engaging in was dickish, or if the complainer was being a whiny dick. It forced discussion on where people's boundaries on "being a dick" were, and it helped people identify when their boundaries were way out of the norm compared to the rest of the community.
And that's how a good policy should work, are you out of line with community standards for acceptable behavior. But that would not make the most sensitive people happy so instead they make up vague but positively worded rules like "don't hurt other people's feelings" which seem reasonable at first glance and get the majority to go along with them. Then they weaponize that to say you hurt my feelings - no matter how trivial the offense or how irrational, convoluted or extreme those sensibilities are and with dead seriousness even though it was clearly done in jest or unaware that the recipient world find it offensive. And if that happens, that person clearly needs more "sensibility training" which is code word for walking on eggshells and never make any off the cuff remark that could possibly be interpreted as non-professional.
Yes, I understand that it sometimes it appropriate to let "the victims" decide what's offensive, like if 9 out of 10 developers are white males maybe they shouldn't decide what's offensive to women or minorities or anyone else that is the butt of their jokes or experience inappropriate sexual comments and advances or whatever. But I'm still very skeptical of activists that don't have any history in the community that come in and immediately accuse someone or try to goad others into offending them and be the victim, they seem more like the troublemakers down at the pub who are trying to pick a fight. Basically if you had to orchestrate the situation you're whining about, it probably wasn't a very real problem in the first place. Even though the activists will of course claim that everyone else is just putting up with it to get by.
Actually, the problem is that people engaging in some distraction leave extra space between themselves and the traffic ahead. And they do this by slowing down by sometimes as much as 10 or 15 MPH below traffic flow. And they end up becoming a log jam in the middle of the road. They don't care if someone cuts in front of them because that person will inevitably speed up and increase the gap. Leaving them free to fiddle with their phones. Meanwhile, everyone else piles up behind them until an opportunity to pass comes up.
But let's be honest here, if you're objectively counting minutes and seconds very few drivers are that slow that they cause you to miss more than a single light or a minute or two of highway driving. The problem is that many people are barely on time or running a bit late and it's extremely frustrating with this Sunday driver who doesn't care that you got places to be and schedules to keep. I've felt that road rage, I've seen my friends feel that road rage, even when we're not stressed it's like "Oh, come on. Really?" and various expletives and insults even though we goof away equal or more time regularly. If you had a self-driving car the actual delay in getting to your destination wouldn't be nearly so annoying.
I think it's overly optimistic that our opinion would matter. Either we're likely to discover some extinct or microbiological life that is no threat to us at all or a civilization so advanced that even if we were aggressive it'd be like those isolated Amazon tribes throwing spears after helicopters. Remember that 10000 years ago we were cavemen, in 10000 years we'll either be demigods or have destroyed ourselves. In the billions of years the universe has existed we're a very tiny blip and that we should happen to meet aliens on even remotely the same technological level seems unlikely.
I might be in a minority here, but I support this judgement. If you're linking to something you're pointing the user to someone else's content, if you're embedding content you're making it part of your content. If a a photographer put up his own photos on his blog, linking to that blog is how the Internet is supposed to work. If you're hot-linking the photos that's rude, but not illegal since the site is serving them up freely. Implement referrer checks if you don't like it. If somebody else is embedding them in their page with <img> tags I'd say that's copyright infringement. You never agreed to have them published in that context, even if the derivative work is built on-the-fly by the client.
Twitter should be shielded under the DMCA, they serve user-generated content. The newspapers should not be shielded, these tweets didn't appear on their newspaper by accident they made an editorial decision to embed it and that makes them liable. They failed to make sure a third party had the proper right to do that, tough. Otherwise all download/streaming cases would be trivially dismissed with "I just assumed that whoever was distributing it had the legal right to distribute it." or better yet by putting up a torrent where it automatically becomes re-distributed "Because that's how torrents work I assumed it was an implied license to re-distribute it myself".
Well shit, that's not how it works. If you take an illegally posted work and do something that violates copyright then you're liable too, you can't wash it clean. That's why they call it strict liability, that's why they have reduced liability for "innocent infringers". Maybe these newspapers could qualify for that, if it was reasonable to assume that it was properly licensed. But getting off harmless by pointing the finger to someone else as the guilty man? It's never worked for anyone else, I don't see why it should start now. That would be a major earthquake in copyright enforcement.
P.S. About how the content of a embed can change, there's also the "guilty mind" part of criminal liability. So if someone swaps out the embedded photo with something else the criminal intent would be lacking and you should be acquitted. At least in theory, it only works in practice if you can prove that it was swapped out from under you without your knowledge. Civil liability though... innocent infringer, you're liable for causing harm even if you didn't intend to harm the copyright holder. It's a risk you take when you embed something else you don't control into your work.
That's the price we pay for Windows being the dominant desktop OS. If their marketshare was 50% or less they wouldn't dare to do that
Microsoft was a dominant OS for a long time without doing any di.... without doing these dirty tricks. This is a direct consequence of Win10 becoming "free", though they still charge OEMs a few bucks for powerful machines. Since getting consumers to upgrade is no longer what brings in cash it's all about monetizing the users you have. It'll probably work too, Facebook is "free". Gmail is "free". Windows is "free". The vast majority seem to like it that way.
No Valve should refund their money because Steam is Valve's product and they are not doing due diligence to insure the products being sold on their store are quality products and not scams.
And if you buy something on Amazon or eBay or Craigslist and it turns out to be shit or faulty or fraudulent you want them to pay up too, right? I think you fundamentally don't understand - or want to understand - the difference between a store and a marketplace. They had a shady vendor that was caught and unceremoniously kicked to the curb, that's usually a harsh penalty. In fact, you have people on this very forum arguing that was an overreaction and they should have gotten a slap on the wrist. If you make it a three-way business relationship the scum will hit and run, the marketplace will be absorbing all the costs in lawyers and damages and they will be passed on to you as higher fees to be on that marketplace. It won't come free and it'll only encourage buying more shit because no matter how shady the deal looks someone else with deep pockets is on the hook. They do have a fairly generous refund policy already, far more than they're legally required to...
So they can't survive with two thirds of a presumably good paycheck? What's the title on about?
Pretty much. If you're making $30k and paying 1/3rd you got $20k left over for "other stuff", but if you're making $150k and paying 1/3rd you got $100k to go. Besides, how many single people buy a house in the subrubs all to themselves? I got an apartment even though I could very well afford a house, I just wouldn't want all the upkeep. In rural areas I suppose, but there prices aren't that ridiculous either.
I think that depends on ability to scale. Here in Norway I saw the stats for a big robot warehouse, they picked 5.1 million items in a year with 55 robots. That's ~93k per robot, here in Norway we usually budget around 1750 hours/year. So that's 53 items per human-equivalent hour, right now it's just tens of thousands of stacked boxes but for humans it'd have to be miles and miles of shelf space. And robots don't misplace or pick the wrong box, they don't steal stuff, they don't drop stuff, they don't goof around, they don't need staff meetings etc. so they've only been growing. I can't find a current figure of number of deliveries, but they've expanded to 75 robots and sell for almost a billion dollars a year and in total they have 800 employees. I'm thinking it'd take many thousands the old way.
If you're designing a robot to replace a human's job the way the human would do it then yes maybe it's 1-2. If you're designing the whole process to be done by robots it can be orders of magnitude faster. Like consider an industrial bakery, is this industrial robots? Or is it just Charlie Chaplin-age assembly line? It's certainly much faster than I'd bake at home or even an old fashioned baker making it in bulk.