The connection to the UN seems pretty tenuous, and putting it in the title is disingenuous. From the article they were : "asked to provide research that would feed into the drafting of the UN Global Sustainable Development Report". The attribution given in the summary appears earlier in the article and appears intended to make it seem as if these people and their report have some direct relation to the UN when they really don't seem to. So this is a step up from "some guy yelling on the sidewalk outside the UN building says capitalism is doomed." But closer to "I wrote a letter to the UN to complain about capitalism." None of this may make it into the report. This is like the IPCC, where the report came in two parts: the part with the science and conclusions and the part with a broad survey of peripherally relevant material whether it was junk or not. Then the report is attacked for citing junk in the second part, junk that was not used to support its conclusions in the first part.
So a new security feature isn't getting wider distribution (yet) because there weren't enough resources to get it ready. This just doesn't seem very controversial.
I'm not sure which side you're coming down on.... once the patch is out it is much easier to reverse engineer the vulnerability, so the ethical thing for google to do is disclose it shortly after that time so people know that they need to update. All the ethics problems here seem to be on Epic's side. Google's app store charges may be too high, but that doesn't really compare to Epic's willingness to have their customers get malware just so they make more money.
It doesn't help that if Epic's launcher had been distributed through the play store, I think having it update would be less of a problem. And this is one of the major security advantages of distributing through the play store. So you can view the entire decision of Epic to not distribute through the Google store as sacrificing user security for more money. I don't even want to know how many scam download sites there are. It is a lot harder to tell the difference on a phone than on a desktop. If this is any indication of how seriously Epic takes their customers' security, one better assume it's pretty much a field day of vulnerabilities.
I happen to agree that the Google play store is kindof onerous, but what Epic has done is a worse solution from the user standpoint and failed in a completely predictable way in this case. There are other possible solutions, but the handset vendors are too used to having Google do a lot of things for them to push the issue, or too hostile to each other to work together....or maybe it actually all comes back to DRM such that an actual open and fair platform is untenable from the start.
Google does this kind of profiling for its commercial customers (advertisers) all the time. The only difference is that they don't share the identity of the user with the advertiser, but they know who it is. The person gave up this privacy willingly. If Google wants to retain and monetize this data, they (and you) should not be surprised when law enforcement wants to use it too. A court order should take precedence over Google's privacy policy, otherwise Google is above the law. This is why privacy policies are pretty much fiction. They are essentially unenforceable. What is your recourse if it is broken? What are the damages? They can't refund your money or anything. They won't go to jail. They're too big for you to successfully sue them. Law enforcement must have a legal way to access the records for the legal system to function. That the modern internet economy is built upon this fiction doesn't make it less of a fiction.
It seems like the important implementation details are either not widely known or not known at all. I've had different applications with similar locomotion modes but one makes me sick instantly and the other doesn't. Flying is like this. Small differences in how the acceleration is treated can be the difference between sick and not. Walking too. For me using the thumb pad to "walk" on a vive always makes me woozy, but using a trigger pull with the direction determined by how the hand controller is held is fine, at least with the acceleration profile used in that application.
Currently locomotion is application-dependent. I think this would be like letting every desktop application determine their own mouse acceleration mechanics, which would be an obvious disaster. Not sure why we can't figure out that isn't a good idea in VR. I think the advantage to teleportation is that you mostly can't do it wrong, whereas flying and walking can easily be done wrong.
Lag is like this too. Lag prevention should be handled in a system-level way that never gets it wrong. If adding one more object will make it lag. That object doesn't get loaded. Again, currently this is application-dependent. You can run a CRT monitor at a refresh rate that will make you sick too, but we didn't let applications scale back the refresh rate because they couldn't render fast enough. Current systems will switch to the "grey room" if things lag too much, but the threshold for that is well into the range where most people are already starting to feel sick. And often the grey room has objects in it, like a "loading" screen, that "float" in a non-real way that just make it worse. The grey room should have nearby references that are designed specifically to help people orient in a way that reduces motion sickness and defined time and indicator for switching back to the application display.
There are other things that I think are like this too, like text display and such that can easily be done wrong in a way that makes you sick. I think this is really a question of what should be done by the application and what should be done by the system, and the line hasn't quite settled in the right place yet.
It looks like they've changed their whole projection logic at a variety of zoom levels, maybe all of them. If you look near the poles and move the map around, even zoomed in you can see shapes change and things rotate slightly if you move it east/west. The movement appears to be a constrained tip+spin like for a globe on a stand rather than "free axis" movement like a ball rolling across the floor. This makes sense because the latter wouldn't keep north in the upward direction at the center of the map. Previously I think it was just a slide in a mercator projection. There are disadvantages to this projection since near the edges of the view, the cardinal directions are not aligned with left/right/up/down. But nominally this effect is the real geometry of the sphere.
Didn't Jesus tell us to all get past that eye for an eye stuff? The problem is that "anti-abortion" in the US just means "no safe abortions for poor people". "Upstanding" rich white people will just continue to fly their daughters to Mexico to get abortions while voting for con-artist politicians that will destroy the nation with corruption but appoint judges willing to force poor women to risk their lives to not have a baby that they have no means or intention to support.
I think that's what the judge is saying -- it's not a simple issue of the image not being served from a particular place, what matters is things like the terms of service you quote. Note that even the summary says that the photographer posted it on snapchat, not twitter. The point is that if you are making money off of an image, it is not enough to just assume that the source of that image has the royalty-free rights to it. The assumption should go the other way, assuming that some monetary rights arrangement needs to be made with a verifiable rights-holder. And you can't evade that responsibility just by not hosting the photo yourself. This doesn't seem too unreasonable, since I think that knowingly linking to pirated content has been repeatedly found to amount to contributory infringement.
This seems, based on the quote, like the USPS figured a reasonable licensing fee could be worked out, which makes sense. So did the artist try to gouge them? Why would they need to pay royalties on stamps that were never sold? Can't they just destroy them and call it even? Also it sure seems like Getty should be on the hook for a lot of this, otherwise what is the point of paying them for photos at all if they don't actually hold the rights to sell usage of them. You could buy rights to a photo from Getty only to find out later that photo is of something specific that you thought was generic and be on the hook for millions. That breaks the whole model of them acting as a broker for stock-ish photos.
Note that this report directly contradicts your assertion that she was using it to evade FOIA laws. The FBI found that she wasn't, and this report supports that decision as not being biased. The classified info thing was a red herring from the beginning. The issue was FOIA all along.
My argument is that is the obstacle was too obvious. The safety operator had to also overcome their expectation that the car would do the right thing. The engineers doing post-crash analysis appear to only have a vague idea why the car didn't appropriately evaluate this blatantly obvious obstacle. But the safety operator was supposed to figure this all out in less than 3 car lengths.
What you appear to want is called "ghosting", where the driver drives and the autonomous software pretends to drive and the differences are evaluated. That is not the role of the safety operator. You appear to agree that a safety operator is a stupid concept because they have no way to know if the car is correctly evaluating any given obstacle until it is likely too late.
But that's the danger of machine learning, which seems to pass for AI today, you often don't really know why it does anything that it does. Makes it difficult to test for correct function to say the least. I guess this test failed. Maybe they shouldn't be testing this on public streets.
Nope, this just proves that the person sitting behind the wheel was correct in not reacting. By the time the operator knew the car had not detected the obstacle, it was too late. Previously when this was discussed, it was pointed out that this is actually a reason that the entire concept of a "safety operator" doesn't work.
To me that is one of the reasons this feels like a manufactured hit piece by Boeing. Presumably skipping the densification would decrease their maximum crewed mass to LEO enough to be useful as a negotiation point to Boeing. Otherwise this just seems like one point in what must be a huge matrix of risk assessment, since it also appears to be at least partially mitigated by the capsule escape system. But it isn't unusual to want two layers of safety, but this all just seems too simplistic.
The Amos 6 conflagration also took place during the test-fire. i.e. there would not have been crew in the capsule during that operation anyway. Heck SpaceX doesn't even usually have PAYLOAD on during that operation, but the customer opted to do that. And in any case, your point just indicates that the Amos 6 failure is not relevant to the discussion of late-loading of propellants, whereas many of those arguing here that SpaceX rockets are not safe are using it as an example of how late-loading of propellants is unsafe.
The discussion is about personal information, like pictures of your children or pictures of you during childhood, or your location minute to minute, your web and viewing history. Public records are a whole different thing and have much more well-defined controls and usage. The issue is that I can choose to not give my location history to dataminers, but as soon as my friend gets in the car with their phone they are basically spying on me. Only social pressure will fix this issue. If people start getting ostracised for using spyware on their phones rather than the opposite, that will make a difference. If people reacted like that, facebook would be banned from the app store like all the other spyware apps. (I would claim the fact that it isn't already is a double standard, as you are basically pointing out.)
There are people working toward systems that works properly, it just takes more effort and it doesn't make money for a centralized company. See Hubzilla. Another problem is that there is not a billion-dollar promotional campaign behind things that don't allow exploitation of the users. They have to be developed from the edges in basically by definition. The federated identity-aware web is slowly and steadily coming together, but it is happening in projects like hubzilla, ostatus, mastodon, owncloud, etc that the main stream media just ignores because they aren't being pushed by those trying to create get-rich-quick schemes by cheating people.
Yes scientific papers are not perfect, but are still very important. The summary seems to devolve into "bad papers are bad". Papers are only one source of scientific information. There are large databanks, software projects and repositories, etc, all with different struggles depending on the field.
So who is combing through the libraries in the UK burning old newspapers? There must be limits to this. What are they? It's one thing to enforce this specifically for a company doing criminal background searches, but entirely different for a general search engine like google.
I'm a little suspicious of the claim that this is being "interpreted in a new way", and it generally sounds like the reporter is more interested in manufacturing controversy for a catchy story than actually figuring out what is going on. The NOAA release says that SpaceX has a license already, so that's not "new". I'm wondering if, in a previous launch, they violated some "conditions" that nobody on either side wants to talk about specifically. Another option would be that there was something special about this launch that fell on the wrong side of the "conditions" of SpaceX's license. But the reporter apparently couldn't be bothered to actually report the story, they just made up something vague and inflammatory that isn't even consistent with their own primary sources.
Lone crusader? Um, there are open projects trying to do social networking and file sharing in a non-lock-in non-privacy-invasive way. I've been through trying to convince an Apple product that I don't want to use iCloud, it was a pain and I think finally stopped being possible. And last I checked that data is not user-side encrypted. There is a "right" way to do data services.
Slashdot Mirror
The connection to the UN seems pretty tenuous, and putting it in the title is disingenuous. From the article they were : "asked to provide research that would feed into the drafting of the UN Global Sustainable Development Report". The attribution given in the summary appears earlier in the article and appears intended to make it seem as if these people and their report have some direct relation to the UN when they really don't seem to. So this is a step up from "some guy yelling on the sidewalk outside the UN building says capitalism is doomed." But closer to "I wrote a letter to the UN to complain about capitalism." None of this may make it into the report. This is like the IPCC, where the report came in two parts: the part with the science and conclusions and the part with a broad survey of peripherally relevant material whether it was junk or not. Then the report is attacked for citing junk in the second part, junk that was not used to support its conclusions in the first part.
So a new security feature isn't getting wider distribution (yet) because there weren't enough resources to get it ready. This just doesn't seem very controversial.
I'm not sure which side you're coming down on.... once the patch is out it is much easier to reverse engineer the vulnerability, so the ethical thing for google to do is disclose it shortly after that time so people know that they need to update. All the ethics problems here seem to be on Epic's side. Google's app store charges may be too high, but that doesn't really compare to Epic's willingness to have their customers get malware just so they make more money.
It doesn't help that if Epic's launcher had been distributed through the play store, I think having it update would be less of a problem. And this is one of the major security advantages of distributing through the play store. So you can view the entire decision of Epic to not distribute through the Google store as sacrificing user security for more money. I don't even want to know how many scam download sites there are. It is a lot harder to tell the difference on a phone than on a desktop. If this is any indication of how seriously Epic takes their customers' security, one better assume it's pretty much a field day of vulnerabilities.
I happen to agree that the Google play store is kindof onerous, but what Epic has done is a worse solution from the user standpoint and failed in a completely predictable way in this case. There are other possible solutions, but the handset vendors are too used to having Google do a lot of things for them to push the issue, or too hostile to each other to work together. ...or maybe it actually all comes back to DRM such that an actual open and fair platform is untenable from the start.
Google does this kind of profiling for its commercial customers (advertisers) all the time. The only difference is that they don't share the identity of the user with the advertiser, but they know who it is. The person gave up this privacy willingly. If Google wants to retain and monetize this data, they (and you) should not be surprised when law enforcement wants to use it too. A court order should take precedence over Google's privacy policy, otherwise Google is above the law. This is why privacy policies are pretty much fiction. They are essentially unenforceable. What is your recourse if it is broken? What are the damages? They can't refund your money or anything. They won't go to jail. They're too big for you to successfully sue them. Law enforcement must have a legal way to access the records for the legal system to function. That the modern internet economy is built upon this fiction doesn't make it less of a fiction.
It seems like the important implementation details are either not widely known or not known at all. I've had different applications with similar locomotion modes but one makes me sick instantly and the other doesn't. Flying is like this. Small differences in how the acceleration is treated can be the difference between sick and not. Walking too. For me using the thumb pad to "walk" on a vive always makes me woozy, but using a trigger pull with the direction determined by how the hand controller is held is fine, at least with the acceleration profile used in that application.
Currently locomotion is application-dependent. I think this would be like letting every desktop application determine their own mouse acceleration mechanics, which would be an obvious disaster. Not sure why we can't figure out that isn't a good idea in VR. I think the advantage to teleportation is that you mostly can't do it wrong, whereas flying and walking can easily be done wrong.
Lag is like this too. Lag prevention should be handled in a system-level way that never gets it wrong. If adding one more object will make it lag. That object doesn't get loaded. Again, currently this is application-dependent. You can run a CRT monitor at a refresh rate that will make you sick too, but we didn't let applications scale back the refresh rate because they couldn't render fast enough. Current systems will switch to the "grey room" if things lag too much, but the threshold for that is well into the range where most people are already starting to feel sick. And often the grey room has objects in it, like a "loading" screen, that "float" in a non-real way that just make it worse. The grey room should have nearby references that are designed specifically to help people orient in a way that reduces motion sickness and defined time and indicator for switching back to the application display.
There are other things that I think are like this too, like text display and such that can easily be done wrong in a way that makes you sick. I think this is really a question of what should be done by the application and what should be done by the system, and the line hasn't quite settled in the right place yet.
It looks like they've changed their whole projection logic at a variety of zoom levels, maybe all of them. If you look near the poles and move the map around, even zoomed in you can see shapes change and things rotate slightly if you move it east/west. The movement appears to be a constrained tip+spin like for a globe on a stand rather than "free axis" movement like a ball rolling across the floor. This makes sense because the latter wouldn't keep north in the upward direction at the center of the map. Previously I think it was just a slide in a mercator projection. There are disadvantages to this projection since near the edges of the view, the cardinal directions are not aligned with left/right/up/down. But nominally this effect is the real geometry of the sphere.
Didn't Jesus tell us to all get past that eye for an eye stuff? The problem is that "anti-abortion" in the US just means "no safe abortions for poor people". "Upstanding" rich white people will just continue to fly their daughters to Mexico to get abortions while voting for con-artist politicians that will destroy the nation with corruption but appoint judges willing to force poor women to risk their lives to not have a baby that they have no means or intention to support.
I think that's what the judge is saying -- it's not a simple issue of the image not being served from a particular place, what matters is things like the terms of service you quote. Note that even the summary says that the photographer posted it on snapchat, not twitter. The point is that if you are making money off of an image, it is not enough to just assume that the source of that image has the royalty-free rights to it. The assumption should go the other way, assuming that some monetary rights arrangement needs to be made with a verifiable rights-holder. And you can't evade that responsibility just by not hosting the photo yourself. This doesn't seem too unreasonable, since I think that knowingly linking to pirated content has been repeatedly found to amount to contributory infringement.
This seems, based on the quote, like the USPS figured a reasonable licensing fee could be worked out, which makes sense. So did the artist try to gouge them? Why would they need to pay royalties on stamps that were never sold? Can't they just destroy them and call it even? Also it sure seems like Getty should be on the hook for a lot of this, otherwise what is the point of paying them for photos at all if they don't actually hold the rights to sell usage of them. You could buy rights to a photo from Getty only to find out later that photo is of something specific that you thought was generic and be on the hook for millions. That breaks the whole model of them acting as a broker for stock-ish photos.
Note that this report directly contradicts your assertion that she was using it to evade FOIA laws. The FBI found that she wasn't, and this report supports that decision as not being biased. The classified info thing was a red herring from the beginning. The issue was FOIA all along.
My argument is that is the obstacle was too obvious. The safety operator had to also overcome their expectation that the car would do the right thing. The engineers doing post-crash analysis appear to only have a vague idea why the car didn't appropriately evaluate this blatantly obvious obstacle. But the safety operator was supposed to figure this all out in less than 3 car lengths.
What you appear to want is called "ghosting", where the driver drives and the autonomous software pretends to drive and the differences are evaluated. That is not the role of the safety operator. You appear to agree that a safety operator is a stupid concept because they have no way to know if the car is correctly evaluating any given obstacle until it is likely too late.
But that's the danger of machine learning, which seems to pass for AI today, you often don't really know why it does anything that it does. Makes it difficult to test for correct function to say the least. I guess this test failed. Maybe they shouldn't be testing this on public streets.
Nope, this just proves that the person sitting behind the wheel was correct in not reacting. By the time the operator knew the car had not detected the obstacle, it was too late. Previously when this was discussed, it was pointed out that this is actually a reason that the entire concept of a "safety operator" doesn't work.
To me that is one of the reasons this feels like a manufactured hit piece by Boeing. Presumably skipping the densification would decrease their maximum crewed mass to LEO enough to be useful as a negotiation point to Boeing. Otherwise this just seems like one point in what must be a huge matrix of risk assessment, since it also appears to be at least partially mitigated by the capsule escape system. But it isn't unusual to want two layers of safety, but this all just seems too simplistic.
The Amos 6 conflagration also took place during the test-fire. i.e. there would not have been crew in the capsule during that operation anyway. Heck SpaceX doesn't even usually have PAYLOAD on during that operation, but the customer opted to do that. And in any case, your point just indicates that the Amos 6 failure is not relevant to the discussion of late-loading of propellants, whereas many of those arguing here that SpaceX rockets are not safe are using it as an example of how late-loading of propellants is unsafe.
The discussion is about personal information, like pictures of your children or pictures of you during childhood, or your location minute to minute, your web and viewing history. Public records are a whole different thing and have much more well-defined controls and usage. The issue is that I can choose to not give my location history to dataminers, but as soon as my friend gets in the car with their phone they are basically spying on me. Only social pressure will fix this issue. If people start getting ostracised for using spyware on their phones rather than the opposite, that will make a difference. If people reacted like that, facebook would be banned from the app store like all the other spyware apps. (I would claim the fact that it isn't already is a double standard, as you are basically pointing out.)
There are people working toward systems that works properly, it just takes more effort and it doesn't make money for a centralized company. See Hubzilla. Another problem is that there is not a billion-dollar promotional campaign behind things that don't allow exploitation of the users. They have to be developed from the edges in basically by definition. The federated identity-aware web is slowly and steadily coming together, but it is happening in projects like hubzilla, ostatus, mastodon, owncloud, etc that the main stream media just ignores because they aren't being pushed by those trying to create get-rich-quick schemes by cheating people.
Well hopefully this time Apple won't get credit for inventing it just because they added a few UI elements like they did for the smartphone.
Yes scientific papers are not perfect, but are still very important. The summary seems to devolve into "bad papers are bad". Papers are only one source of scientific information. There are large databanks, software projects and repositories, etc, all with different struggles depending on the field.
So who is combing through the libraries in the UK burning old newspapers? There must be limits to this. What are they? It's one thing to enforce this specifically for a company doing criminal background searches, but entirely different for a general search engine like google.
I'm a little suspicious of the claim that this is being "interpreted in a new way", and it generally sounds like the reporter is more interested in manufacturing controversy for a catchy story than actually figuring out what is going on. The NOAA release says that SpaceX has a license already, so that's not "new". I'm wondering if, in a previous launch, they violated some "conditions" that nobody on either side wants to talk about specifically. Another option would be that there was something special about this launch that fell on the wrong side of the "conditions" of SpaceX's license. But the reporter apparently couldn't be bothered to actually report the story, they just made up something vague and inflammatory that isn't even consistent with their own primary sources.
Lone crusader? Um, there are open projects trying to do social networking and file sharing in a non-lock-in non-privacy-invasive way. I've been through trying to convince an Apple product that I don't want to use iCloud, it was a pain and I think finally stopped being possible. And last I checked that data is not user-side encrypted. There is a "right" way to do data services.
SLS in not another Shuttle boondoggle -- it's the same one!! one of the main requirements is shuttle-derived hardware!