There are plenty of ARM based systems available that don't contain these backdoors. Many use CPUs from non-US companies that are at least unlikely to have FIVE EYES backdoors in them, and some have extremely minimal ROMs that limit the scope for malware anyway. Plus those ROMs are real ROMs (not flash).
There are RISC V boards that can run Linux too. You still have to trust the fab didn't backdoor the design, but it's about as good as you can get short of making your own CPU out of twigs and string.
Based on the history of AI and the claims made early on when computers were able to pass math tests or predict elections, it's possible that people are vastly underestimating the difficulty of automating many jobs.
Current AI is not very strong. In particular, it lacks what you might call common sense or common knowledge. It's really obvious with translation software that can't understand the context around words and phrases.
A good example would be lawyers. Seems like an easy one to replace, the law is just a set of rules that are applied, right? Except that much of the work is actually dealing with people, understanding how things work in the real world with timing and banks and people behaving inconsistently or lying.
I guess it depends what timescale you are talking about too. The further ahead you look, the stronger AI will be.
Discovery is good. It's got a compelling story, interesting characters, some new direction to make Trek fresh but also still very much grounded in the established universe.
The problem with a lot of Tarantino stuff is that it's just an inferior knock-off of the thing he is paying homage to. Kill Bill was a low point for that, but all of his work suffers from it to some extent.
The last one was okay, but the first two were pretty terrible. The first one was like an interrogation with a light shined in your eyes the whole time, and the second one had to add in fake CGI tears.
They are web sites that are installable and can run like native apps.
They are an interesting idea because they bring mobile app style sandboxing and permissions to desktop apps. Since the app it basically HTML, CSS and Javascript there are very mature sandboxes available to run them in, and in fact you have a choice of sandbox from your favourite browser vendor, opening up the possibility of extreme levels of control and in-app ad-blocking.
There are limits to what these apps can do, so they are mostly suited to highly networked stuff like cloud services, advanced web site interfaces like the Twitter and Facebook apps on mobile, messenger clients etc.
Microsoft are in trouble because these compete with their failed Metro apps on Windows, and make Windows itself kind of irrelevant because now the browser is the OS and the cloud is the disk. Obviously/.ers are not going to be happy with that.
It wasn't the informant's fault, his masters had already decided they wanted a war and were just looking for someone to give them the intel they needed. They were not mislead, they mislead the UN and their citizens.
It's not just conservatives. Being gay or trans is pretty much guaranteed to get you demonetized. Being progressive or left leaning doesn't help either.
Musicians get hit pretty badly. Their original compositions often get flagged for copyright as well as demonetized.
It's not an anti-conservative conspiracy, it affects everyone.
If true the it seems like Ireland would have a very good case to take up with the European courts, which are there to resolve these kinds of issue. You know, the ones that told them Apple has to pay tax.
Is the US constitution really that narrow on speech? As in things like photographs can't be considered protected speech?
In any case, even pure mouth-noises are included. Speaking state secrets to unauthorized persons is a crime. If your server has such data on it and you are notified, you are obliged to remove it or face legal consequences, are you not?
As for snowflakes, you just prove my point. People whose feelz are hurt by views they don't like, trying to stop people upsetting them. To be fair to you, at least you post a counter argument and don't just try to censor.
Interestingly 2004 was also the year that several DRM-infected music "stores" went offline. I seem to recall that the Microsoft one, with it's presumably ironically named "Plays for Sure (but not on a Zune)" DRM, sent out an email advising people to burn their music to CD and re-rip it to MP3 to avoid losing access to all their "purchased" music.
It was a strange time. Music companies seemed to be scared shitless of computer files, apparently unaware that CDs could be copied just as easily.
They think their content is worth way, way more than it actually is, and then force themselves to pay high distribution costs, and pay for DRM on top of that. Just in case that didn't destroy their revenue stream completely, they make sure you need to buy extra hardware just for the privilege of subscribing to their service.
If they just offered TheLegitBay.org for 5 bucks a month, all distribution by low cost torrent in.mkv format, then piracy would drop as fast as it did with music streaming services. I guess their spreadsheets tell them that it's more profitable to stick with DRM and low quality streaming, while bitching about people not wanting to pay out the arse for it.
What is the point of comparing the relative badness of these various groups? They are still extremely bad, so what is this "perspective" adding to the discussion?
Not that I agree with the OP's desire to murder modern day Nazis, but the knowledge that other groups killed even more people doesn't really excuse or lessen any of the things they do.
Actually, I forgot the other big problem: triggered conservative snowflakes using the/. moderation system to mark arguments they have no response to as "flamebait".
What is your proposed solution? Seems like you will have to pick one of the following:
- Force advertisers to advertise on sites that might damage their brands.
- Set up a hosting service that isn't reliant on advertising for revenue. So far no-one has found a way to make that work, except for having it funded from taxation.
There doesn't require a balance, rather all that's required is the host to be "treated as a dumb pipe." See how easy that is?
What part of the world allows that? My understanding is that even in the US, once alerted to abuse a "common carrier" has to shut it down. So for example if someone reports to Cloudflare that a site they cache contains illegal images (as defined by US law) they have to take action or become liable.
Great example of how the Daily Mail misleads readers. It's kind of hard to be in charge of diversity when you apparently don't understand what the actual issue is.
It's got nothing to do with race or gender, it's because they were terrible at their one job.
It would be against EU rules on state aid and unfair targeted taxation. Would also go against harmonized tax levels for produce. Champagne is a protected name in the EU, which can only be used for wine from that region of France. Thus, there can be no domestic production in Ireland. Same with Cornish pasties and the like.
It's about freedom. It's impossible for everyone to do anything they like all the time, so there has to be a balance.
Someone wants to post content on the internet. Someone else doesn't want to host said content because they find it repugnant. There is no solution that doesn't involve disappointing someone.
You could argue that not forcing someone to do something, i.e. host the content, is the lesser of two evils. You could argue that by offering a service to the public you accept certain responsibilities, such as upholding the principals of free speech.
There is no simple, consistent solution. It depends on the nature of the content, and the context in which it exists (the Daily Stormer stuff was immediately after a literal Nazi used his car to murder and injure people in broad daylight, apparently convinced that the war had started).
Slashdot Mirror
Right, what kind of leftist hell hole must it be where people are happy and content at work...
Let's just agree that they were all fairly crap.
Indeed, they were only out by a couple of decades but the threat was real. Javascript was just the start of it.
There are plenty of ARM based systems available that don't contain these backdoors. Many use CPUs from non-US companies that are at least unlikely to have FIVE EYES backdoors in them, and some have extremely minimal ROMs that limit the scope for malware anyway. Plus those ROMs are real ROMs (not flash).
There are RISC V boards that can run Linux too. You still have to trust the fab didn't backdoor the design, but it's about as good as you can get short of making your own CPU out of twigs and string.
Have a look at the 64 open positions here: http://hr.tencent.com/position...
Tencent is a Chinese company, most of their AI research is in China.
Based on the history of AI and the claims made early on when computers were able to pass math tests or predict elections, it's possible that people are vastly underestimating the difficulty of automating many jobs.
Current AI is not very strong. In particular, it lacks what you might call common sense or common knowledge. It's really obvious with translation software that can't understand the context around words and phrases.
A good example would be lawyers. Seems like an easy one to replace, the law is just a set of rules that are applied, right? Except that much of the work is actually dealing with people, understanding how things work in the real world with timing and banks and people behaving inconsistently or lying.
I guess it depends what timescale you are talking about too. The further ahead you look, the stronger AI will be.
Discovery is good. It's got a compelling story, interesting characters, some new direction to make Trek fresh but also still very much grounded in the established universe.
The problem with a lot of Tarantino stuff is that it's just an inferior knock-off of the thing he is paying homage to. Kill Bill was a low point for that, but all of his work suffers from it to some extent.
The last one was okay, but the first two were pretty terrible. The first one was like an interrogation with a light shined in your eyes the whole time, and the second one had to add in fake CGI tears.
They are web sites that are installable and can run like native apps.
They are an interesting idea because they bring mobile app style sandboxing and permissions to desktop apps. Since the app it basically HTML, CSS and Javascript there are very mature sandboxes available to run them in, and in fact you have a choice of sandbox from your favourite browser vendor, opening up the possibility of extreme levels of control and in-app ad-blocking.
There are limits to what these apps can do, so they are mostly suited to highly networked stuff like cloud services, advanced web site interfaces like the Twitter and Facebook apps on mobile, messenger clients etc.
Microsoft are in trouble because these compete with their failed Metro apps on Windows, and make Windows itself kind of irrelevant because now the browser is the OS and the cloud is the disk. Obviously /.ers are not going to be happy with that.
It wasn't the informant's fault, his masters had already decided they wanted a war and were just looking for someone to give them the intel they needed. They were not mislead, they mislead the UN and their citizens.
It's not just conservatives. Being gay or trans is pretty much guaranteed to get you demonetized. Being progressive or left leaning doesn't help either.
Musicians get hit pretty badly. Their original compositions often get flagged for copyright as well as demonetized.
It's not an anti-conservative conspiracy, it affects everyone.
If true the it seems like Ireland would have a very good case to take up with the European courts, which are there to resolve these kinds of issue. You know, the ones that told them Apple has to pay tax.
Is the US constitution really that narrow on speech? As in things like photographs can't be considered protected speech?
In any case, even pure mouth-noises are included. Speaking state secrets to unauthorized persons is a crime. If your server has such data on it and you are notified, you are obliged to remove it or face legal consequences, are you not?
As for snowflakes, you just prove my point. People whose feelz are hurt by views they don't like, trying to stop people upsetting them. To be fair to you, at least you post a counter argument and don't just try to censor.
Right, so you agree with me. Being a "dumb pipe" doesn't absolve the pipe owner of all responsibility.
Incredible how this simple statement that we both actually agree on triggered one of your snowflake buddies to mod my comment as "troll".
Interestingly 2004 was also the year that several DRM-infected music "stores" went offline. I seem to recall that the Microsoft one, with it's presumably ironically named "Plays for Sure (but not on a Zune)" DRM, sent out an email advising people to burn their music to CD and re-rip it to MP3 to avoid losing access to all their "purchased" music.
It was a strange time. Music companies seemed to be scared shitless of computer files, apparently unaware that CDs could be copied just as easily.
They think their content is worth way, way more than it actually is, and then force themselves to pay high distribution costs, and pay for DRM on top of that. Just in case that didn't destroy their revenue stream completely, they make sure you need to buy extra hardware just for the privilege of subscribing to their service.
If they just offered TheLegitBay.org for 5 bucks a month, all distribution by low cost torrent in .mkv format, then piracy would drop as fast as it did with music streaming services. I guess their spreadsheets tell them that it's more profitable to stick with DRM and low quality streaming, while bitching about people not wanting to pay out the arse for it.
What is the point of comparing the relative badness of these various groups? They are still extremely bad, so what is this "perspective" adding to the discussion?
Not that I agree with the OP's desire to murder modern day Nazis, but the knowledge that other groups killed even more people doesn't really excuse or lessen any of the things they do.
Actually, I forgot the other big problem: triggered conservative snowflakes using the /. moderation system to mark arguments they have no response to as "flamebait".
The echo in here is getting worse by the day.
What is your proposed solution? Seems like you will have to pick one of the following:
- Force advertisers to advertise on sites that might damage their brands.
- Set up a hosting service that isn't reliant on advertising for revenue. So far no-one has found a way to make that work, except for having it funded from taxation.
Is there some solution I have missed?
There doesn't require a balance, rather all that's required is the host to be "treated as a dumb pipe." See how easy that is?
What part of the world allows that? My understanding is that even in the US, once alerted to abuse a "common carrier" has to shut it down. So for example if someone reports to Cloudflare that a site they cache contains illegal images (as defined by US law) they have to take action or become liable.
Great example of how the Daily Mail misleads readers. It's kind of hard to be in charge of diversity when you apparently don't understand what the actual issue is.
It's got nothing to do with race or gender, it's because they were terrible at their one job.
It's true, I've been on a diet of 90% Brain Force pills, which as we know contain soy.
Can't.
It would be against EU rules on state aid and unfair targeted taxation. Would also go against harmonized tax levels for produce. Champagne is a protected name in the EU, which can only be used for wine from that region of France. Thus, there can be no domestic production in Ireland. Same with Cornish pasties and the like.
It's about freedom. It's impossible for everyone to do anything they like all the time, so there has to be a balance.
Someone wants to post content on the internet. Someone else doesn't want to host said content because they find it repugnant. There is no solution that doesn't involve disappointing someone.
You could argue that not forcing someone to do something, i.e. host the content, is the lesser of two evils. You could argue that by offering a service to the public you accept certain responsibilities, such as upholding the principals of free speech.
There is no simple, consistent solution. It depends on the nature of the content, and the context in which it exists (the Daily Stormer stuff was immediately after a literal Nazi used his car to murder and injure people in broad daylight, apparently convinced that the war had started).