If you bother to read the summary they are not banning American brands, they are actually doing something like what H1B is supposed to do: preventing unfair competition.
It's more like heading off an antitrust problem. American companies are established and have huge capital behind them, and will crust the emerging online market in India. So just like H1B is supposed to stop foreign workers undercutting US ones on wages and flooding the market with cheap labour, India is making sure that American companies can't flood it with cheap products and massive discounts that the local talent can't match.
It's likely calculated to try to force the US market to open up a bit too, as India knows that it is an important area of growth for many US companies.
Trustzone is very, very different to Intel Management Engine.
IME is a complete system-on-chip running a hidden OS that is required to boot the machine. It provides services like VNC access to machines that are powered down or haven't booted the OS yet, and completely compromises the real CPU/OS.
Trustzone is just an extra processor execution mode that offers some security features under the control of the OS running on it. It's basically for secure storage and code validation (for signed binaries etc.)
In the US feminists sued the government to force them to conscript women too. Unfortunately they lost. I suggest seeing if whatever French feminist orgs exist would be interested if they ever try to bring it back for French men only.
If forced to choose then I'll take Chinese spying. The Chinese can't do much to me, where as the FIVEEYES lot can.
It's a false choice though. Even if we assume that each government backdoors all products originating from that country, you are probably at greater risk from random blackhats. On that front Cisco is one of the worst options.
I was thinking about Twitter rather than Slashdot, but people have been doxed here. It tends not to be in the comment text, but rather via links.
Also, check the research, they didn't simply judge comments on the number of offensive words in them. Their system is actually a lot more complex than that.
I can name a few Slashdotters who would be greatly offended by that kind of language... But I take your point.
I think the issue here is that while a lot of these comments are relatively low level trolling, just immature asshats, they create a toxic environment. Toxic because it stifles debate and toxic because it feeds the mob mentality that leads to doxing and threats of violence that cannot simply be ignored.
I don't know why your post was modded funny, it's standard practice for many retail businesses. Particularly with computer hardware, I guess because it is time consuming and costly to test (say a GPU only fails under load after an hour) and thus cheaper to just ship it to someone else and only consider it broken on the second or third return.
Plus there will be some percentage of people who just put up with the flaw or don't even realize it's broken, e.g. maybe they don't stress it or don't use a particular feature or just put the crash down to something else.
What I mean is that it's not considering gender as a factor in the type or volume of abuse. If they had included men in the study they would have had to consider gender as a data point and produce statistics around it.
What would the control group be in this case? Non-twitter users? I can tell you now they get 0 abusive tweets.
It certainly couldn't be men used as the control group, because the study is not about abuse by gender so that makes no sense. The study is not making any claims that would be validated by using a control group of male subjects.
Unfortunately animals tend not to respect international borders. The UK is just now discovering this with Brexit and fishing rights too. It really depends if the waters in Japanese territories are important to whales, e.g. they use them as spawning grounds.
You are you going to believe? The US government, which has every reason to lie to hurt Huawei and boost domestic sales, which is known to lie about security stuff all the time (thanks Snowden) and which we know likes to install its own malware in American products. Or Huawei, who are willing to share their source code with governments and big customers, who have a better track record on security than Cisco and who are immune to National Security Letters?
What items on the top 10 list do you disagree with? They are all top notch cameras. Also if they were paid reviews then you should be able to point to issues with their extensive reviews and raw data (you can download the original files).
If you bother to read TFA you will find that there is a text box where you can try out different text to see if the algo thinks it is problematic. Let's try your "I hate that rabbit in the field behind your house" example.
"This tweet seems not problematic or abusive." Rated 10% "light".
How about "Calm down! I know the Irish are famous for temper, but cool down a little!" That is rated not problematic, 14% "light".
So it seems your fears are unfounded and if you had RTFA you could have discovered that for yourself. It's almost as if they predicted your response and made sure to address it.
Also note that the study only includes the 1 every 30 seconds stat in the summary as a simple reference point for the volume of abusive tweets, it's not making any claims about that being particularly bad or worse than anything else. The study is more focused on the nature of the abuse, or the relative volumes directed at different sub-groups.
Because the study is about women. Look, if you write a book about how to improve aircraft safety, no-one is going to attack you for not addressing automotive safety as well. You are not part of some giant airline conspiracy to make cars more dangerous by denying them research, you are just studying something else today.
They explain their methodology and there is actually a textbox you can put your own test tweets into and it will give you an analysis and "problematic" score. It's right near the bottom of the page.
As for a the GP's question, they are not comparing to anything external. The study isn't making the claim that it's worse for women, merely that women get a now quantified amount of abuse and that it affects certain sub-groups more than others (women of colour, women with left leaning views/politics).
As a general point if men were getting as much or even more abuse, it wouldn't make any difference. Also studying how it affects women is helpful for men being abused too, as often the solutions are similar for both.
You seem to have misunderstood the study. It doesn't compare with men, it's not saying that women have it worse than men. It's just a study of women on Twitter getting abuse, and has some useful findings such as the fact that abuse is much more often targeted at those on the left and much more often at black women.
So now we can do follow up studies, for example to see why people on the left of politics get so much more abuse. It also busts some myths, such as claims that women of colour don't have it worse than anyone else, or that politicians on the right get more abuse.
Sure but how does that help the Republicans win the election? All it does is help Trump, and practically guarantees that their next candidate is fucked.
True, it worked there, but Trump doesn't seem to be proposing that style of wall. Certainly the budget is only to build it, and the wall in Israel is guarded which is an on-going cost. It's less than 150 miles long, where as the US one will need to be 2000 miles long.
It's hard to come up with a figure for guarding a 2000 mile long wall on difficult terrain.
Why can't anyone make useful IoT stuff? I don't need a camera in the oven, what I need is a microwave with NFC that I can tap my phone against to automatically transfer the timer to my phone's screen.
Yes I'm that lazy/impatient.
Even if someone made it they would ruin it by making the app proprietary and privacy-invading. Honestly what is the point of living in the first world if it can't fix your first world problems!??
Slashdot Mirror
If you bother to read the summary they are not banning American brands, they are actually doing something like what H1B is supposed to do: preventing unfair competition.
It's more like heading off an antitrust problem. American companies are established and have huge capital behind them, and will crust the emerging online market in India. So just like H1B is supposed to stop foreign workers undercutting US ones on wages and flooding the market with cheap labour, India is making sure that American companies can't flood it with cheap products and massive discounts that the local talent can't match.
It's likely calculated to try to force the US market to open up a bit too, as India knows that it is an important area of growth for many US companies.
Trustzone is very, very different to Intel Management Engine.
IME is a complete system-on-chip running a hidden OS that is required to boot the machine. It provides services like VNC access to machines that are powered down or haven't booted the OS yet, and completely compromises the real CPU/OS.
Trustzone is just an extra processor execution mode that offers some security features under the control of the OS running on it. It's basically for secure storage and code validation (for signed binaries etc.)
In the US feminists sued the government to force them to conscript women too. Unfortunately they lost. I suggest seeing if whatever French feminist orgs exist would be interested if they ever try to bring it back for French men only.
If forced to choose then I'll take Chinese spying. The Chinese can't do much to me, where as the FIVEEYES lot can.
It's a false choice though. Even if we assume that each government backdoors all products originating from that country, you are probably at greater risk from random blackhats. On that front Cisco is one of the worst options.
I was thinking about Twitter rather than Slashdot, but people have been doxed here. It tends not to be in the comment text, but rather via links.
Also, check the research, they didn't simply judge comments on the number of offensive words in them. Their system is actually a lot more complex than that.
I can name a few Slashdotters who would be greatly offended by that kind of language... But I take your point.
I think the issue here is that while a lot of these comments are relatively low level trolling, just immature asshats, they create a toxic environment. Toxic because it stifles debate and toxic because it feeds the mob mentality that leads to doxing and threats of violence that cannot simply be ignored.
I don't know why your post was modded funny, it's standard practice for many retail businesses. Particularly with computer hardware, I guess because it is time consuming and costly to test (say a GPU only fails under load after an hour) and thus cheaper to just ship it to someone else and only consider it broken on the second or third return.
Plus there will be some percentage of people who just put up with the flaw or don't even realize it's broken, e.g. maybe they don't stress it or don't use a particular feature or just put the crash down to something else.
Whoever modded this redundant is being a bit harsh. If I was able to moderate it I'd have done with +1 funny.
So why is that a primary focus of intersectional feminism?
Because you don't know what intersectional feminism is. In fact it's literally the opposite of what you seem to think it is.
E.g. there are no "men's shelters" where you can go live just by making a claim without evidence, get a free lawyer there, etc.
If you bothered to simply google "men's shelter" you would find hundreds of results contradicting that claim.
What I mean is that it's not considering gender as a factor in the type or volume of abuse. If they had included men in the study they would have had to consider gender as a data point and produce statistics around it.
So your argument is that it's a conspiracy... With what goal exactly?
This "you only care about X and must therefore hate Y" is wrong on both counts.
What would the control group be in this case? Non-twitter users? I can tell you now they get 0 abusive tweets.
It certainly couldn't be men used as the control group, because the study is not about abuse by gender so that makes no sense. The study is not making any claims that would be validated by using a control group of male subjects.
Unfortunately animals tend not to respect international borders. The UK is just now discovering this with Brexit and fishing rights too. It really depends if the waters in Japanese territories are important to whales, e.g. they use them as spawning grounds.
You are you going to believe? The US government, which has every reason to lie to hurt Huawei and boost domestic sales, which is known to lie about security stuff all the time (thanks Snowden) and which we know likes to install its own malware in American products. Or Huawei, who are willing to share their source code with governments and big customers, who have a better track record on security than Cisco and who are immune to National Security Letters?
What items on the top 10 list do you disagree with? They are all top notch cameras. Also if they were paid reviews then you should be able to point to issues with their extensive reviews and raw data (you can download the original files).
Given that it was an article written by Engadget staff wrapping up their year, I'd imagine "our" refers to them.
It's both strange and enlightening that you would assume it was referring to you... Possibly explains why so many people take everything personally.
If you bother to read TFA you will find that there is a text box where you can try out different text to see if the algo thinks it is problematic. Let's try your "I hate that rabbit in the field behind your house" example.
"This tweet seems not problematic or abusive." Rated 10% "light".
How about "Calm down! I know the Irish are famous for temper, but cool down a little!" That is rated not problematic, 14% "light".
So it seems your fears are unfounded and if you had RTFA you could have discovered that for yourself. It's almost as if they predicted your response and made sure to address it.
Also note that the study only includes the 1 every 30 seconds stat in the summary as a simple reference point for the volume of abusive tweets, it's not making any claims about that being particularly bad or worse than anything else. The study is more focused on the nature of the abuse, or the relative volumes directed at different sub-groups.
Why would that be, exactly?
Because the study is about women. Look, if you write a book about how to improve aircraft safety, no-one is going to attack you for not addressing automotive safety as well. You are not part of some giant airline conspiracy to make cars more dangerous by denying them research, you are just studying something else today.
They explain their methodology and there is actually a textbox you can put your own test tweets into and it will give you an analysis and "problematic" score. It's right near the bottom of the page.
As for a the GP's question, they are not comparing to anything external. The study isn't making the claim that it's worse for women, merely that women get a now quantified amount of abuse and that it affects certain sub-groups more than others (women of colour, women with left leaning views/politics).
As a general point if men were getting as much or even more abuse, it wouldn't make any difference. Also studying how it affects women is helpful for men being abused too, as often the solutions are similar for both.
You seem to have misunderstood the study. It doesn't compare with men, it's not saying that women have it worse than men. It's just a study of women on Twitter getting abuse, and has some useful findings such as the fact that abuse is much more often targeted at those on the left and much more often at black women.
So now we can do follow up studies, for example to see why people on the left of politics get so much more abuse. It also busts some myths, such as claims that women of colour don't have it worse than anyone else, or that politicians on the right get more abuse.
Sure but how does that help the Republicans win the election? All it does is help Trump, and practically guarantees that their next candidate is fucked.
True, it worked there, but Trump doesn't seem to be proposing that style of wall. Certainly the budget is only to build it, and the wall in Israel is guarded which is an on-going cost. It's less than 150 miles long, where as the US one will need to be 2000 miles long.
It's hard to come up with a figure for guarding a 2000 mile long wall on difficult terrain.
Why can't anyone make useful IoT stuff? I don't need a camera in the oven, what I need is a microwave with NFC that I can tap my phone against to automatically transfer the timer to my phone's screen.
Yes I'm that lazy/impatient.
Even if someone made it they would ruin it by making the app proprietary and privacy-invading. Honestly what is the point of living in the first world if it can't fix your first world problems!??
I was surprised by how decent Miniso was, although it's like a hybrid of Uniqlo and Daisou. In China it's actually kinda expensive, relatively.