Uber IS NOT a "TECH" company. They are a "TAXI DISPATCH" company. That is all.
The Uber Service may be a taxi dispatch service, but Uber themselves have only one product: software and infrastructure behind it. Software that underpins it's taxi service, it's food delivery service, and completely separately R&D in self driving vehicles.
Saying Uber is not a tech company is just daft. Now one could say that they aren't a "good" tech company since they seem to spend a lot of time sitting in the courtroom defending their tech.
There's no need to verify chain of custody if doctoring becomes apparent through simple statistical techniques. I think you're well over estimating the time and effort required. Often a simple JPEG error level analysis can determine what was doctored in an image, to say nothing of the fact that most outright lies (meaning composite images where someone has been doctored out or doctored in) are easy to identify.
For the common case we are well and truly in the realm of good enough. Now if you're prosecuting e.g. russian spies on evidence then you may wish to put more effort it, and I'm betting the prosecutor will be happy to do just that.
Having a partisan agenda does not affect the credibility of the media. There's a big difference between selective reporting and actively making shit up. And again, the media didn't flush anything. There has been political bias in the mainstream media since the days of kids selling newspapers for a nickel on the streetside.
But it is quite fascinating that you lump "mainstream media" and then point to supporting only one political party. I take it you have some bias of your own, where supporters of the "other" side are no longer mainstream?
The jury must decide what to trust sure, but shouldn't be deciding whether a scientific process is valid, and allowing in junk science is a major problem.
They aren't deciding on whether a scientific process is valid, they are deciding on the explanation offered by experts, trust in the people. I agree bad science shouldn't be put in front of the jury, but that's an idealistic view of a court system which has that amazing airtight defence that will force out the truth: putting you hand on a book and pinky swearing.
But I think we're fundamentally in agreement anyway. This isn't about deep fakes doctoring videos. It's about a process that has flaws and has had them for centuries.
However try and get your head around our control. We would like to think we are masters of our own universe but if we're oscillating backwards and forwards through time and setup in a way that we can only remember the past but not the future wouldn't it stand to reason that there is no such thing as free will?
Am I untyping this right now and just can't remember it? Were you destined to get this reply from me but you didn't know because you can't remember the future?
I'd rather have it run a bit slower at a lower voltage to use less power and create less heat and fan noise.
If your card isn't doing that already you have something fundamentally broken in your computer.
Have you monitored your graphics card at load and at idle? I mean my GPU core clock is currently at 120MHz and 0.62V and no I didn't miss a zero in the speed. If I actually run a game it spikes to 1860MHz and 1.03V. At idle if you're creating heat or fan noise then there's something broken in your GTX1080.
There is another bit of user interface stupidity to this story. From TFA: Before reversing the changes it made, users were able to reveal the full web address — including the www or m subdomains — by double-clicking on the address bar in Chrome 69.
Then from the original ZDnet article: and if you copy the simplified address and paste it elsewhere it will display the full address.
So in the name of "simplification" Google now has introduced a text bar whose text changes depending on HOW you click on it, and whose text is not representative of the actual text which would be copied to the clipboard.
This has got to be a WTF as big as the WTF about hiding the www in the first place. How could you screw up something as simple as a text entry field.
There is more community consensus that sites should not allow the 'www' subdomain to be user controlled.
Can we gather up this so called community where consensus exists that users should not allow the user / client to control which domain they access and fire these idiots into the centre of the sun.
Seriously technical people here, is there any legitimate reason that the www subdomain shouldn't be "user controlled"? I am all for letting web administrators control their side via re-directs or DNS entries, by why in the ever loving god should control of www be taken out of the user's hands anymore than it already is?
Do we still take what Musk says seriously? I mean, how many times has he said something will happen at some time, and how many times has he actually followed on?
Yes we do. He has a great track record on delivery and just a poor track record for timing.
Oh the flip side I 100% believe they have signed their first tourist to the moon.
For example, just last month he said he said he's taking Tesla private.
Something you can take very seriously given members of his C suite were pushing for it, and the withdrawal of the idea to go private resulted in the disgruntled resignation of the CAO. About the only thing you can conclude given the actions was that this privatisation was very real.
Well that's fundamentally the way ANY court process works about anything. The goal of the jury is to decide what information to trust. There's nothing deepfake about this, it's the way it's been done since the 1800s.
Our mainstream media didn't flush anything. As said people will believe absolutely anything. One of those things they are told to believe is that the mainstream media has no credibility, and they are told this by the highest authority of one of the world's most powerful nations.
He's a legislator. They are widely known around the world to not read what they are voting on, not pay attention, and in some governments not even be in the parliamentary chambers to discuss legislation.
Pick any legislation more than about 5 pages and you'll find a news article somewhere interviewing some senator or other legislator who doesn't understand the text even though they voted on it.
Thank you for once again showing the world what a pile of steaming bovine excrement legislators around the world really are.
FTFY. If you think that there is any legislative assembly in the entire world where everyone actually reads the things they vote on then I have a government to sell you.
This is potentially a reasonable application for bikeways and paths, but it's a non-starter for roads. Their claim that adding plastic increases durability is simply nonsense. Road surfaces already contain quite a bit of plastic. Various polymers are mixed into the bitumen in a very controlled way to achieve a wide variety of different grades suitable for different duties, with different road bases, and different environmental conditions.
On a footpath where this stuff doesn't matter as much you can make the surface out of pretty much anything. On a bike path the road base is far more important than the final surfacing. However on an actual road with an actual vehicle load making blanket statements about the mixture and makeup of the materials is simply showing you have no idea what goes into making a road.
A lot of the volume of blacktop is gravel and sand. Which, when worn down becomes sand.
A lot of the volume is polymers too. Plastic is already mixed in, the difference being is that the quality and grade is tightly controlled as it affects the properties of the road surface.
Slashdot Mirror
Whaa, your diesel's consume 8L/100km? I know people who had petrol cars more efficient than that who switched to diesel due to petrol's inefficiency.
Uber IS NOT a "TECH" company. They are a "TAXI DISPATCH" company. That is all.
The Uber Service may be a taxi dispatch service, but Uber themselves have only one product: software and infrastructure behind it. Software that underpins it's taxi service, it's food delivery service, and completely separately R&D in self driving vehicles.
Saying Uber is not a tech company is just daft. Now one could say that they aren't a "good" tech company since they seem to spend a lot of time sitting in the courtroom defending their tech.
Is this a "technical" hitch or simply a lack of money?
They still have over $7bn cash on hand unless their CFO did something naughty in the past 2 months.
There's no need to verify chain of custody if doctoring becomes apparent through simple statistical techniques. I think you're well over estimating the time and effort required. Often a simple JPEG error level analysis can determine what was doctored in an image, to say nothing of the fact that most outright lies (meaning composite images where someone has been doctored out or doctored in) are easy to identify.
For the common case we are well and truly in the realm of good enough. Now if you're prosecuting e.g. russian spies on evidence then you may wish to put more effort it, and I'm betting the prosecutor will be happy to do just that.
Is this going to be an annual announcement?
Why not? It's not like any other company in the world announces something once and then never talks about it again.
Having a partisan agenda does not affect the credibility of the media. There's a big difference between selective reporting and actively making shit up.
And again, the media didn't flush anything. There has been political bias in the mainstream media since the days of kids selling newspapers for a nickel on the streetside.
But it is quite fascinating that you lump "mainstream media" and then point to supporting only one political party. I take it you have some bias of your own, where supporters of the "other" side are no longer mainstream?
Physician heal thyself.
The jury must decide what to trust sure, but shouldn't be deciding whether a scientific process is valid, and allowing in junk science is a major problem.
They aren't deciding on whether a scientific process is valid, they are deciding on the explanation offered by experts, trust in the people. I agree bad science shouldn't be put in front of the jury, but that's an idealistic view of a court system which has that amazing airtight defence that will force out the truth: putting you hand on a book and pinky swearing.
But I think we're fundamentally in agreement anyway. This isn't about deep fakes doctoring videos. It's about a process that has flaws and has had them for centuries.
in a way that only 'You walked in front of the screen and a 10-year-old in Wyoming shot me dead so now I'm taking the house' truly can.
This isn't a description of a "cool" divorce. This is a description of an "inevitable" divorce.
Chainlink fence.
Mathematically I would fully agree.
However try and get your head around our control. We would like to think we are masters of our own universe but if we're oscillating backwards and forwards through time and setup in a way that we can only remember the past but not the future wouldn't it stand to reason that there is no such thing as free will?
Am I untyping this right now and just can't remember it? Were you destined to get this reply from me but you didn't know because you can't remember the future?
I'd rather have it run a bit slower at a lower voltage to use less power and create less heat and fan noise.
If your card isn't doing that already you have something fundamentally broken in your computer.
Have you monitored your graphics card at load and at idle? I mean my GPU core clock is currently at 120MHz and 0.62V and no I didn't miss a zero in the speed. If I actually run a game it spikes to 1860MHz and 1.03V. At idle if you're creating heat or fan noise then there's something broken in your GTX1080.
How much inefficiency is introduced by running them faster?
No worse than buying a better memory card in the first place.
Even after 20 minutes of passing, the card would be right at that threshold
How do you know already what this unreleased software does and does not do?
I most certainly would not pay a subscription to save games.
Agreed, that opinion I would completely stand behind.
There is another bit of user interface stupidity to this story. From TFA:
Before reversing the changes it made, users were able to reveal the full web address — including the www or m subdomains — by double-clicking on the address bar in Chrome 69.
Then from the original ZDnet article:
and if you copy the simplified address and paste it elsewhere it will display the full address.
So in the name of "simplification" Google now has introduced a text bar whose text changes depending on HOW you click on it, and whose text is not representative of the actual text which would be copied to the clipboard.
This has got to be a WTF as big as the WTF about hiding the www in the first place. How could you screw up something as simple as a text entry field.
What's a menu bar? Is it this thing described on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I don't think I've seen one in any of the programs I use. What's so awesome about it that made the entire world dump it?
But on a more serious note, Edge... Menu Bar... You're trolling off the deep end.
How is removing information like www. a simplification of the user interface?
In the same way as only offering one flavour of sandwich at the canteen simplifies buying lunch.
You will eat / watch what we want you to.
There is more community consensus that sites should not allow the 'www' subdomain to be user controlled.
Can we gather up this so called community where consensus exists that users should not allow the user / client to control which domain they access and fire these idiots into the centre of the sun.
Seriously technical people here, is there any legitimate reason that the www subdomain shouldn't be "user controlled"? I am all for letting web administrators control their side via re-directs or DNS entries, by why in the ever loving god should control of www be taken out of the user's hands anymore than it already is?
Do we still take what Musk says seriously? I mean, how many times has he said something will happen at some time, and how many times has he actually followed on?
Yes we do. He has a great track record on delivery and just a poor track record for timing.
Oh the flip side I 100% believe they have signed their first tourist to the moon.
For example, just last month he said he said he's taking Tesla private.
Something you can take very seriously given members of his C suite were pushing for it, and the withdrawal of the idea to go private resulted in the disgruntled resignation of the CAO. About the only thing you can conclude given the actions was that this privatisation was very real.
Well that's fundamentally the way ANY court process works about anything. The goal of the jury is to decide what information to trust. There's nothing deepfake about this, it's the way it's been done since the 1800s.
Our mainstream media didn't flush anything. As said people will believe absolutely anything. One of those things they are told to believe is that the mainstream media has no credibility, and they are told this by the highest authority of one of the world's most powerful nations.
Is he fucking serious?
He's a legislator. They are widely known around the world to not read what they are voting on, not pay attention, and in some governments not even be in the parliamentary chambers to discuss legislation.
Pick any legislation more than about 5 pages and you'll find a news article somewhere interviewing some senator or other legislator who doesn't understand the text even though they voted on it.
Thank you for once again showing the world what a pile of steaming bovine excrement legislators around the world really are.
FTFY. If you think that there is any legislative assembly in the entire world where everyone actually reads the things they vote on then I have a government to sell you.
This is potentially a reasonable application for bikeways and paths, but it's a non-starter for roads. Their claim that adding plastic increases durability is simply nonsense. Road surfaces already contain quite a bit of plastic. Various polymers are mixed into the bitumen in a very controlled way to achieve a wide variety of different grades suitable for different duties, with different road bases, and different environmental conditions.
On a footpath where this stuff doesn't matter as much you can make the surface out of pretty much anything. On a bike path the road base is far more important than the final surfacing. However on an actual road with an actual vehicle load making blanket statements about the mixture and makeup of the materials is simply showing you have no idea what goes into making a road.
A lot of the volume of blacktop is gravel and sand. Which, when worn down becomes sand.
A lot of the volume is polymers too. Plastic is already mixed in, the difference being is that the quality and grade is tightly controlled as it affects the properties of the road surface.