Sounds like you need to get to work using Handbrake to re-encode your videos, then carry around the results on your own private storage.
Or, you know, just download a copy from someone else who already did that. If you're making a copy from the DVD to the hard drive (and several more copies in the process of conversion), then you're already violating copyright law. Why go the extra mile?
Artificially generated noise (fake noise) based on multiple real noise samples = good till they detect a pattern in the fake noise, and then pattern is ignored.
1. There may not be any pattern in the fake noise for you to detect. If I generate the noise not by using real noise samples but by using a cryptographic hash, then you cannot detect any patterns in it, because that's what a cryptographic does.
2. Pattern detection may take too long. If I hack 10 peoples computers and record what they're doing with their mouse, I'll have a continuous stream of mouse movement samples and new noise patterns.
3. All else fails, I can run a physical simulation of a robot, and capture noise down to the physical level.
Most importantly, using a real robot does not get around the fact that it has a particular set of imperfections that might have a detectable pattern, and because its a real robot, it would take much more effort to remove that pattern, versus a simulated robot.
You're right of course. But like the guy I first replied to, you responded to the literal interpretation of the argument rather than the more reasonable interpretation, and a small piece of it at that. I was specifically speaking in the context of astronomy, about the people who looked at the stars and tried to understand and interpret them.
You also did not make any arguments against the idea that there may be something else more worthy of research effort. Given the countless possibilities for research directions, I think it's arrogant to think we've picked the best ones.
Have you tried reading the second half of my paragraph or are you legally blind too?
If they had instead spent their time researching how to turn sand into glass, we probably would've gotten a much better understanding of astronomy much sooner.
I think you responded to the literal interpretation of GP's argument, without addressing the more reasonable interpretation, that is, are there better things to be researching?
Throughout history, many breakthroughs happened independently and simultaneously. I think given the right circumstances, the same discovery can be made by many people. In fact, many discoveries are trivial given the right infrastructure.
Hindsight is obviously 20/20, but I can say that just about everyone staring at the cosmos before the invention of the telescope was wasting their time. If they had instead spent their time researching how to turn sand into glass, we probably would've gotten a much better understanding of astronomy much sooner.
In the story for example, it could be that simply by waiting 5 years, we'd have much better diamond anvils, and it would be trivial to recreate those pressures. Or maybe camera technology would improve so much that you can use shaped charges instead and just capture its sub-millisecond existence. You never know.
Since when is offering someone a higher salary a bad thing? Non-compete clauses are anti-competitive, anti-free-market, and they should be illegal, especially when you're talking about an at-will state like CA, where Tesla has 0 responsibility to keep their employees employed.
Just goes to show how even the "good" companies think they own their workers.
Uber is being shitty to these people by upselling it so much, but I spoke to a dozen Uber drivers over the past couple of years. Some complain about rent, some complain about the traffic, some complain their kids are giving them a lot to worry about, but all of them like driving for Uber, because the alternative is just so much worse. And that's the real problem. There are no better alternative for some of these people.
A couple of positive things you get from driving for Uber: flexible hours, take any day off, work anytime you want, even after your regular 9-5 job, no asshole coworkers to deal with, and refuse any customer you don't like. It's a really good deal if you're in an area with high demand.
I suspect we'll eventually start to see this with the IoT devices - someone will hack the botnet code to brick (perhaps temporarily, perhaps permanently) devices that are infectable, so as to reduce the havoc those devices are causing.
Immoral or not, I'd love to see botnet operators installing security patches on the devices they control, just so they won't get reinfected by the bricking code.
They're working on self-driving cars because Skype already solved it years ago, and there's nothing else to be done*. But people still don't have the bandwidth to utilize it properly. VC quality is such a huge step down from face to face that it actually affects productivity. Now if only we could get high-speed internet rolled out to everyone**, we'd all be set.
* Except maybe VR, which they're working on
** Consistent 10 mb/s up and down minimum
Exactly. Everyone who's not into living with those people basically moved to the South Bay. It's a good place to raise kids, with lots of parks, many high quality public schools, low crime rates, and plenty of tech companies, like Apple, Google and Facebook that are headquartered there.
The fact that SF is bad for raising kids have nothing to do with the tech boom. It's always been a city where the dredges of society are tolerated, if not welcomed. If anything, gentrification by tech workers is making it better. Even so, there's no getting around the fact that SF embraces its culture, including pot smokers, meth heads, homeless, muggers, occasional riots and naked gay men running around on the streets. Obviously, parents are going to have second thoughts about raising kids there.
I find it bizarre that there are no companies out there seeing this exodus of people who are probably very talented and taking advantage of it elsewhere.
There's no exodus. If rent prices is any indication, there's a huge influx of tech workers. The kind of people that are leaving are the kind that tech companies don't hire. So yes, if you want to start an art gallery in Utah, then yes, you'll have ex-SF people to hire.
What is keeping all these companies in one place? Tax differences? Well then tax them more for crying out loud.
Actually SF has very high taxes already, so no, the companies are not there for tax reasons. If you compare labor costs in SF with the rest of the country, it's costs double to hire the same person. Half of that being taxes, and the other half being rent. The main problem these companies face is that they want to hire talented people, and want them all in the same place. Yeah, you might have one super talented guy in Nebraska, then another in Arizona, then another in Tennessee, but you're never going to get them to move to the same place and work in one office.
And by the way, you make it it sounds like the tech industry is leeching off of the rest of the US, but in reality, it's a huge tax source because even though the company has overseas tax heavens, the paychecks they give to their workers gets taxed like everyone else.
Every toilet that I've seen in Japan had the regular metal button or lever on the water bowl for the flush. The pictograms are for the advanced functions.
This. Just ignore every other button except the "flush", and do your shit like you would in any other country. Every Japanese bathroom I went to had toilet paper.
And if you can't figure out which one is flush, just leave it. It sucks for the next guy, but you're not being an asshole on purpose.
I think Google Maps already does that when it's navigating, but that actually sounds useful if you're just commuting to work for example.
We have a similar system in the US called Amber Alert, which broadcasts information on kidnapped children directly to your phone (amongst other things). It sounds great in theory, but then you realize that the alerts goes out to an entire state, and all 38 million people in California can be woken up in the middle of the night for something that happened 200 miles away. And since most people aren't on the road, it's pretty useless for them to receive it.
Just declare bancruptcy with the original company and refound that same company (same employees and CEO) under a different name immediately.
Easy to work around that: only do business with companies that's been in business for more than 5 years and has completed at least 1 government contract under the initial cost estimate.
Better yet, throw the guys in charge in jail for a few months. I assume founding a company is a bit harder to do when you're behind bars.
The ACA would be great if, instead of subsidies for the lower classes, it set pricing limits on insurance and, in order to make those realistic, the procedures covered by said insurance.
You're literally advocating for socialism. And you know what would have done the same without enforcing a price ceiling? The public option. An all-around better solution because it provides basic coverage to everyone, and still allow you to pay more for premium coverage. Guess who killed that provision of the ACA? And now you're hoping those same people will actually help you?
In every category, robots are cheaper than humans. There's no reason to think companion bots will somehow be different.
The robot will probably cost you $5,000-$10,000 in material, including a decent PC, batteries, motors, cameras, sensors and a soft exterior. The software will cost a lot to develop, maybe even $1 billion (this will pay for about 5000 engineer-years). But if they sell 1 million of units, then the marginal cost is only $1000. Let's say the sale price includes a 200% markup, then you're looking at somewhere around the price of a new compact sedan.
The real woman costs $15,000 a year from birth until she's 18, then $30,000-$40,000 a year until college graduation (if you actually want to talk to her about anything interesting). The total cost is over $400,000. The only reason anyone would think a real woman costs less is because you don't pay for her upbringing. Her parents do.
Even if you ignore that, a real woman will cost you directly as well. Just the wedding rings will set you back several thousand. The wedding itself can easily go over $20,000. The honeymoon is several thousand more. And God help you if she decides to leave. The court will happily give her half of everything you have.
Of course, you can find a woman who earns her own living or gives back in other ways. But until you meet her, why not skip the new car and get a robot?
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like you need to get to work using Handbrake to re-encode your videos, then carry around the results on your own private storage.
Or, you know, just download a copy from someone else who already did that. If you're making a copy from the DVD to the hard drive (and several more copies in the process of conversion), then you're already violating copyright law. Why go the extra mile?
Artificially generated noise (fake noise) based on multiple real noise samples = good till they detect a pattern in the fake noise, and then pattern is ignored.
1. There may not be any pattern in the fake noise for you to detect. If I generate the noise not by using real noise samples but by using a cryptographic hash, then you cannot detect any patterns in it, because that's what a cryptographic does.
2. Pattern detection may take too long. If I hack 10 peoples computers and record what they're doing with their mouse, I'll have a continuous stream of mouse movement samples and new noise patterns.
3. All else fails, I can run a physical simulation of a robot, and capture noise down to the physical level.
Most importantly, using a real robot does not get around the fact that it has a particular set of imperfections that might have a detectable pattern, and because its a real robot, it would take much more effort to remove that pattern, versus a simulated robot.
This. Rather than improving on the existing UI, every designer wants to recreate the entire site in their own style.
You're right of course. But like the guy I first replied to, you responded to the literal interpretation of the argument rather than the more reasonable interpretation, and a small piece of it at that. I was specifically speaking in the context of astronomy, about the people who looked at the stars and tried to understand and interpret them.
You also did not make any arguments against the idea that there may be something else more worthy of research effort. Given the countless possibilities for research directions, I think it's arrogant to think we've picked the best ones.
If they had instead spent their time researching how to turn sand into glass, we probably would've gotten a much better understanding of astronomy much sooner.
I think you responded to the literal interpretation of GP's argument, without addressing the more reasonable interpretation, that is, are there better things to be researching?
Throughout history, many breakthroughs happened independently and simultaneously. I think given the right circumstances, the same discovery can be made by many people. In fact, many discoveries are trivial given the right infrastructure.
Hindsight is obviously 20/20, but I can say that just about everyone staring at the cosmos before the invention of the telescope was wasting their time. If they had instead spent their time researching how to turn sand into glass, we probably would've gotten a much better understanding of astronomy much sooner.
In the story for example, it could be that simply by waiting 5 years, we'd have much better diamond anvils, and it would be trivial to recreate those pressures. Or maybe camera technology would improve so much that you can use shaped charges instead and just capture its sub-millisecond existence. You never know.
Since when is offering someone a higher salary a bad thing? Non-compete clauses are anti-competitive, anti-free-market, and they should be illegal, especially when you're talking about an at-will state like CA, where Tesla has 0 responsibility to keep their employees employed.
Just goes to show how even the "good" companies think they own their workers.
This is ridiculously cheap for a government project by US standards. How come we didn't do it here in California a few years ago?
Uber is being shitty to these people by upselling it so much, but I spoke to a dozen Uber drivers over the past couple of years. Some complain about rent, some complain about the traffic, some complain their kids are giving them a lot to worry about, but all of them like driving for Uber, because the alternative is just so much worse. And that's the real problem. There are no better alternative for some of these people.
A couple of positive things you get from driving for Uber: flexible hours, take any day off, work anytime you want, even after your regular 9-5 job, no asshole coworkers to deal with, and refuse any customer you don't like. It's a really good deal if you're in an area with high demand.
As a society, we have 3 options:
Now which one is it going to be?
I should be allowed to freely sell my software at whatever price I like in your country.
I think you missed the part where people in those countries simply pirate your software.
I don't think there are any drugs out there that a good chemist couldn't reverse-engineer in a day.
I suspect we'll eventually start to see this with the IoT devices - someone will hack the botnet code to brick (perhaps temporarily, perhaps permanently) devices that are infectable, so as to reduce the havoc those devices are causing.
Immoral or not, I'd love to see botnet operators installing security patches on the devices they control, just so they won't get reinfected by the bricking code.
They're working on self-driving cars because Skype already solved it years ago, and there's nothing else to be done*. But people still don't have the bandwidth to utilize it properly. VC quality is such a huge step down from face to face that it actually affects productivity. Now if only we could get high-speed internet rolled out to everyone**, we'd all be set.
* Except maybe VR, which they're working on
** Consistent 10 mb/s up and down minimum
Exactly. Everyone who's not into living with those people basically moved to the South Bay. It's a good place to raise kids, with lots of parks, many high quality public schools, low crime rates, and plenty of tech companies, like Apple, Google and Facebook that are headquartered there.
The fact that SF is bad for raising kids have nothing to do with the tech boom. It's always been a city where the dredges of society are tolerated, if not welcomed. If anything, gentrification by tech workers is making it better. Even so, there's no getting around the fact that SF embraces its culture, including pot smokers, meth heads, homeless, muggers, occasional riots and naked gay men running around on the streets. Obviously, parents are going to have second thoughts about raising kids there.
I find it bizarre that there are no companies out there seeing this exodus of people who are probably very talented and taking advantage of it elsewhere.
There's no exodus. If rent prices is any indication, there's a huge influx of tech workers. The kind of people that are leaving are the kind that tech companies don't hire. So yes, if you want to start an art gallery in Utah, then yes, you'll have ex-SF people to hire.
What is keeping all these companies in one place? Tax differences? Well then tax them more for crying out loud.
Actually SF has very high taxes already, so no, the companies are not there for tax reasons. If you compare labor costs in SF with the rest of the country, it's costs double to hire the same person. Half of that being taxes, and the other half being rent. The main problem these companies face is that they want to hire talented people, and want them all in the same place. Yeah, you might have one super talented guy in Nebraska, then another in Arizona, then another in Tennessee, but you're never going to get them to move to the same place and work in one office.
And by the way, you make it it sounds like the tech industry is leeching off of the rest of the US, but in reality, it's a huge tax source because even though the company has overseas tax heavens, the paychecks they give to their workers gets taxed like everyone else.
Every toilet that I've seen in Japan had the regular metal button or lever on the water bowl for the flush. The pictograms are for the advanced functions.
This. Just ignore every other button except the "flush", and do your shit like you would in any other country. Every Japanese bathroom I went to had toilet paper.
And if you can't figure out which one is flush, just leave it. It sucks for the next guy, but you're not being an asshole on purpose.
I think Google Maps already does that when it's navigating, but that actually sounds useful if you're just commuting to work for example.
We have a similar system in the US called Amber Alert, which broadcasts information on kidnapped children directly to your phone (amongst other things). It sounds great in theory, but then you realize that the alerts goes out to an entire state, and all 38 million people in California can be woken up in the middle of the night for something that happened 200 miles away. And since most people aren't on the road, it's pretty useless for them to receive it.
Just declare bancruptcy with the original company and refound that same company (same employees and CEO) under a different name immediately.
Easy to work around that: only do business with companies that's been in business for more than 5 years and has completed at least 1 government contract under the initial cost estimate.
Better yet, throw the guys in charge in jail for a few months. I assume founding a company is a bit harder to do when you're behind bars.
Did you even read my post?
If you want to pay $60k for a heroin addict, you can already do that in the current system. Heck, you can get one for $10k.
I'm convinced that it is partly because they had realistic expectations and took jobs that there was a demand for.
There's a lot of demand for physicians, engineers, lawyers and financial analysts. Too bad you need a college degree for those jobs.
I know very few people from my parents generation who had non-jobs, they did things like work in a trade like construction or in a factory.
You mean jobs that no longer exist because the factory is in China and Mexico now? Or jobs that a robot does twice as quickly as you do?
most of the young people I know have no expectation of doing a real job.
No they don't, because unlike you, they've actually looked at the job market and realized they can't find any of those "real" jobs.
The ACA would be great if, instead of subsidies for the lower classes, it set pricing limits on insurance and, in order to make those realistic, the procedures covered by said insurance.
You're literally advocating for socialism. And you know what would have done the same without enforcing a price ceiling? The public option. An all-around better solution because it provides basic coverage to everyone, and still allow you to pay more for premium coverage. Guess who killed that provision of the ACA? And now you're hoping those same people will actually help you?
On the other hand, I don't think anyone's come up with a better alternative.
In every category, robots are cheaper than humans. There's no reason to think companion bots will somehow be different.
The robot will probably cost you $5,000-$10,000 in material, including a decent PC, batteries, motors, cameras, sensors and a soft exterior. The software will cost a lot to develop, maybe even $1 billion (this will pay for about 5000 engineer-years). But if they sell 1 million of units, then the marginal cost is only $1000. Let's say the sale price includes a 200% markup, then you're looking at somewhere around the price of a new compact sedan.
The real woman costs $15,000 a year from birth until she's 18, then $30,000-$40,000 a year until college graduation (if you actually want to talk to her about anything interesting). The total cost is over $400,000. The only reason anyone would think a real woman costs less is because you don't pay for her upbringing. Her parents do.
Even if you ignore that, a real woman will cost you directly as well. Just the wedding rings will set you back several thousand. The wedding itself can easily go over $20,000. The honeymoon is several thousand more. And God help you if she decides to leave. The court will happily give her half of everything you have.
Of course, you can find a woman who earns her own living or gives back in other ways. But until you meet her, why not skip the new car and get a robot?