Wow, straight up gaslighting. Interesting but not an argument, just a lie.
I explained, why there is no difference. Multiple times. To call me a liar, as a minimum, you need to rebut those explanations.
I would have been very concerned if that were actually true but it's not.
Of course, it was true. There was never privacy — nor expectation of privacy — outside, in public. A policeman could follow you everywhere — no warrant needed. That they didn't follow everyone was simply because it was too expensive. Now computers can — and do.
You think slavery is okay
Talk about whataboutism.
because it was okay in the past?
What I'm talking about is still Ok today. Police — and anyone else — can follow anyone else anywhere in public (with the possible exception of explicit restraining orders). It is also Ok — with very few exceptions — to record anything you can see and/or hear. And, of course, to hold on to that recording for as long as you wish.
Oh, so you are going with the "if you have nothing to hide..."
Strawman, darling... I asked you, why is it Ok — legal and ethical — for police to focus their attentions on some people (without warrants), but not on all people. You've accused me of lying, questioned my deeply-flawed character, subpar education and frail mental faculties — but are yet to provide a coherent answer...
Cameras are just the eyes for a central computer system. This central computer system can have thousands of eyes, never sleeps, it never blinks, it never forgets
Those are all very good things, yes.
It can track where every single person goes as it moves between the locations it can see, making a record of pace, stride and facial expressions used.
Police could — and did — do these things to anyone they chose (for whatever reason). Now the computers let them do that to everyone.
But, if it was Ok before, it must be Ok today.
To compare such a system to officers of the law is naive in the highest regard or more likely extremely disingenuous.
It is obvious, there are neither legal nor even ethical differences. You are just uncomfortable, that suddenly it may apply even to the lowly, mediocre, and insignificant you... Why?
How many police officers stand 24x7 in one spot, remember EVERYONE that EVER passes, remember them for DECADES, and simultaneously is in constant communication with all other officers doing the same, *AND* a collection of other officers back at the police station -- combining, correlating, and ensuring that every citizen that they see, is logged and tracked between every officer
Humans don't do this because of biological rather than legal or ethical limitations. From the legal/ethical point of view, there is no difference.
And, because computers don't have the "biological" issues, they will neither deliberately harass anyone, nor let anyone "slip". An automatic speed-trap, for example, can not be suspected of racism, can it? Nor will it let a pretty girl go because she smiled at the cop, while fining a goth "to the full extent"...
criticized Amazon's marketing of its facial-recognition software to law enforcement
ACLU's stance is, law-enforcement endangers our civil liberties. Though it certainly might sometimes do that, criminals always do.
Cameras — and the face-recognition software behind them — are no different from a policeman on the corner. The technology just greatly improves on the humans here, and is much cheaper. If it is Ok for a cop to stand there and observe the crowd — memorizing faces and pulling out those, who look like the pictures of the suspects on the "Wanted" list — it is Ok for a computer to do the same.
Indeed, the computer is less likely to engage in any deliberate harassment...
Are we to assume, BuzzFeed have moved on from the "Find out what kind of pizza you are" and unsourced anti-Trump hit-pieces to actual credible journalism? Skeptical as I am of Google, BuzzFeed has an even longer way to go to credibility...
Right here — the site makes a point that the process Hillary Clinton has employed "does not use chemicals" — counting the accusation of "acid-washing" as inaccurate on that basis.
So, FB are trying to be the Ministry of (Current) Truth. I would fully support the ban on lying — if only a way to reliably distinguish truth from lies (outside Mathematics) could be devised even in theory.
The sample are people who cared enough about net neutrality to submit comments to the FCC.
There were 22 million comments submitted. Of those the researcher cited by TFA accepted only 800K — 3.6% — as valid. Of these 800K, he found 99.7% to oppose the abolition.
We know neither the criteria he used to pick the 800K, nor how exactly he discerned the commenters' point from those he did pick... It is impossible for him to have read them all — so he must've used software to parse the comments. The actual blog-post mentions using "data science", without much detail — and without the code we could use/audit ourselves. It is even harder to understand, how he concluded, that the commenters "understand the issue".
He is a White calling a Colored a liar. As we've learned during Obama's Presidency, this — or any other criticism — makes the White a racist. Case closed...
Why? By your numbers, you can have a 50TB filesystem needing 250GB of RAM for deduplication. That's only two of the 128GB DIMMs being discussed — your server can still use the rest of the RAM-slots for other things (like caching)...
We already knew the public wanted to keep net neutrality
Actually, no, we didn't. There never was a referendum. There were informal polls, but that's it.
The FCC comments aren't binding — and for a good reason: they are open exactly to the kind of abuse you are complaining about. Non-citizen participation (and foreignersopenly campaigning), multiple participation, simple ballot-stuffing...
According to TFA, only 3.6% of the comments were "genuine", in the cited researcher's opinion... This would confirm both the insanity of treating the comments as binding in any way, and the truth of the statements made by the FCC, headed Ajit Pai, who is of Indian descent, regarding being under attack. The claim, you — a privileged American White — are calling "a lie" despite evidence and without any evidence of your own, making unprecedented allegations, that can only be motivated by racism.
Of course, having been exposed as a racist liar yourself, you'll simply shrug your narrow shoulders and yell: "BUT TRUMP!!!" — because lying is all you have.
on no issue, including net neutrality, is it believable that 99% were in favor...sounds wrong.
Elections in North Korea — and in Saddam Hussein's Iraq — were "won" with the winners getting not the measly 99%, but the nice and round 100% of the vote.
Simply put, as Stalin once said it, "those who vote do not matter — those who count the votes matter". If it is the Vice (or a "researcher" Vice found acceptable) counting, 99.7% may be too low. Indeed, according to TFA, he accepted only 800K out 22 million (merely 3.6%!) of the comments — dismissing the other 96% as "noise".
What exactly was his methodology and could it, possibly, have been biased against those supporting the abolition?..
is there anything out there that could use 128GB of RAM and even get close to that number.
I'm dealing with 100GB-1TB databases at work on a regular basis — I'm sure, others have encountered even bigger ones. Fitting all — or most — of the dataset into RAM is greatly speeding things up. Indeed, there are database-software packages already (such as, ugh, "memcache"), that must load it all into RAM, offering dramatically-improved speeds in exchange for this requirement.
On the OS level, swap — and the associated complexity of the kernels — is becoming unnecessary in more and more cases. On some of my FreeBSD machines, for example, I'm already compiling the kernel with options NO_SWAPPING.
On the filesystem-level, ZFS — the revolutionary filesystem — can offer much better speed with more RAM. The abundance of RAM is also making its advanced features (like deduplication) practical.
And for a layman's personal computer, editing a 4K video becomes much snappier too, if the the entire (uncompressed) clip fits into RAM.
And then come things like "machine learning" — I'm waiting for a Thunderbird add-on, for example, to automatically sort my incoming e-mail. Not just "spam/not-spam", but all of it, based on the ongoing analysis of how I've been sorting it through the years... For those things to be effective, they need both CPU and memory — continuously...
Other examples — legitimate and otherwise (like Chrome) — abound...
I mean, is that even possible that people on the right or far-right believe in climate change?
Though I've never encountered such a person, it is possible, they exist.
would you say that climate-change-belief (and thus, believing that something has to be done about it)
Believing in it and believing something has to be done about it are two very different things. I believe in gravity, for example...
fundamentally left / far-left, and the former makes you the latter
The urge to control other people — to compel them to do, what you view as worthwhile — and to ban, what you believe is wrong — makes you an Authoritarian. Though the Right aren't immune to that sentiment, in the past few decades it's been the Left's exclusive.
Nope. There's plenty of people that understand climate change is happening are not "far-Left". Or even "left".
Remarkably, you aren't citing even one name for the crowd you claim to be plentiful. Nope, all of them are, what I call "watermelons": green on the outside, red inside. Scratch one such person — yourself included, little doubt — and you'll find a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath. Sheesh...
One has just manifested himself by anonymously posting a homophobic personal attack against my person for example.
Yep. Same kind of people, cheered by the same kind of journalists, making the same kind of apocalyptic predictions. More likely to be bullshit than not.
And, just as back then, nothing needs to be done to avert this crisis even if it really is looming — if population growth increases the demand for meat, the prices will rise and consumption will drop. And/or we'll change to some tastier alternative — the way we switched from horses to mechanized transport.
Problem is, the population changed what they were doing, in part to avoid the problem.
a) That's not a problem; b) people switched to cars because they are better.
The point is, we do not need to use the force of government to compel ourselves to change. And this opportunity to force others into doing, what they believe is good, is the real motivation behind the noises being made by "global warming" crowd, 99% of them far-Left partisans.
The "Horse-manure panic" was caused, at the end of the 19th century, by the "predictions" that "By the late 1800s, large cities all around the world were “drowning in horse manure”.
The times have changed, but the term "horse manure" (equivalent in this context to the more common "bullshit") remains strangely apropos...
Whenever it is pointed out, that Twitter, Facebook, et al. are biased against Conservatives, the responses are a) Reality has Liberal bias; b) It is an algorithm — and can not be biased.
Well, by that logic reality has a pro-male bias — and a blameless algorithm showed that. Would any of those, who's bought the Twitter's line before, care to contradict that?
distinction between a private company and a gov't-influenced/controlled organization there is fuzzy and difficult to ascertain
Actually, it is very easy to ascertain: there no distinction. Every Chinese abroad, who still has relatives in China, is subject to blackmail. And many — though not all, of course — are willing to help their governmentvoluntarily.
In America, those jackals of the Business Roundtable, National Association of Manufacturers, Cato Institute [emphasis mine -mi], American Enterprise Institute [...] assured us that if all the jobs, technology and investment were offshored to China they would have long since morphed into a democracy by now
Would you mind giving a link, where Cato Institute was suggesting this? Please?
The Chinese tech is a few generations away from the artificial intelligence capable of controlling weapon-systems. So, while some arms of their government are busy trying to steal as much know-how as possible to replicate it, other arms — through paying "thinktanks", "community outreach", and infiltrating government — are planting the idea, that "AI is unethical" — both, in general and particularly in military applications.
Slashdot Mirror
I explained, why there is no difference. Multiple times. To call me a liar, as a minimum, you need to rebut those explanations.
Of course, it was true. There was never privacy — nor expectation of privacy — outside, in public. A policeman could follow you everywhere — no warrant needed. That they didn't follow everyone was simply because it was too expensive. Now computers can — and do.
Talk about whataboutism.
What I'm talking about is still Ok today. Police — and anyone else — can follow anyone else anywhere in public (with the possible exception of explicit restraining orders). It is also Ok — with very few exceptions — to record anything you can see and/or hear. And, of course, to hold on to that recording for as long as you wish.
Strawman, darling... I asked you, why is it Ok — legal and ethical — for police to focus their attentions on some people (without warrants), but not on all people. You've accused me of lying, questioned my deeply-flawed character, subpar education and frail mental faculties — but are yet to provide a coherent answer...
Those are all very good things, yes.
Police could — and did — do these things to anyone they chose (for whatever reason). Now the computers let them do that to everyone.
But, if it was Ok before, it must be Ok today.
It is obvious, there are neither legal nor even ethical differences. You are just uncomfortable, that suddenly it may apply even to the lowly, mediocre, and insignificant you... Why?
Humans don't do this because of biological rather than legal or ethical limitations. From the legal/ethical point of view, there is no difference.
And, because computers don't have the "biological" issues, they will neither deliberately harass anyone, nor let anyone "slip". An automatic speed-trap, for example, can not be suspected of racism, can it? Nor will it let a pretty girl go because she smiled at the cop, while fining a goth "to the full extent"...
ACLU's stance is, law-enforcement endangers our civil liberties. Though it certainly might sometimes do that, criminals always do.
Cameras — and the face-recognition software behind them — are no different from a policeman on the corner. The technology just greatly improves on the humans here, and is much cheaper. If it is Ok for a cop to stand there and observe the crowd — memorizing faces and pulling out those, who look like the pictures of the suspects on the "Wanted" list — it is Ok for a computer to do the same.
Indeed, the computer is less likely to engage in any deliberate harassment...
Are we to assume, BuzzFeed have moved on from the "Find out what kind of pizza you are" and unsourced anti-Trump hit-pieces to actual credible journalism? Skeptical as I am of Google, BuzzFeed has an even longer way to go to credibility...
The fates of the two characters in title should caution anyone at the head of anything to not give up control if they still care...
Right here — the site makes a point that the process Hillary Clinton has employed "does not use chemicals" — counting the accusation of "acid-washing" as inaccurate on that basis.
In denial?
So, FB are trying to be the Ministry of (Current) Truth. I would fully support the ban on lying — if only a way to reliably distinguish truth from lies (outside Mathematics) could be devised even in theory.
This joke is over 2 years old, but remains funny:
There were 22 million comments submitted. Of those the researcher cited by TFA accepted only 800K — 3.6% — as valid. Of these 800K, he found 99.7% to oppose the abolition.
We know neither the criteria he used to pick the 800K, nor how exactly he discerned the commenters' point from those he did pick... It is impossible for him to have read them all — so he must've used software to parse the comments. The actual blog-post mentions using "data science", without much detail — and without the code we could use/audit ourselves. It is even harder to understand, how he concluded, that the commenters "understand the issue".
You sure aren't, coward...
He is a White calling a Colored a liar. As we've learned during Obama's Presidency, this — or any other criticism — makes the White a racist. Case closed...
Why? By your numbers, you can have a 50TB filesystem needing 250GB of RAM for deduplication. That's only two of the 128GB DIMMs being discussed — your server can still use the rest of the RAM-slots for other things (like caching)...
Actually, no, we didn't. There never was a referendum. There were informal polls, but that's it.
The FCC comments aren't binding — and for a good reason: they are open exactly to the kind of abuse you are complaining about. Non-citizen participation (and foreigners openly campaigning), multiple participation, simple ballot-stuffing...
According to TFA, only 3.6% of the comments were "genuine", in the cited researcher's opinion... This would confirm both the insanity of treating the comments as binding in any way, and the truth of the statements made by the FCC, headed Ajit Pai, who is of Indian descent, regarding being under attack. The claim, you — a privileged American White — are calling "a lie" despite evidence and without any evidence of your own, making unprecedented allegations, that can only be motivated by racism.
Of course, having been exposed as a racist liar yourself, you'll simply shrug your narrow shoulders and yell: "BUT TRUMP!!!" — because lying is all you have.
Elections in North Korea — and in Saddam Hussein's Iraq — were "won" with the winners getting not the measly 99%, but the nice and round 100% of the vote.
But that's nothing compared to a feat Putin has once accomplished — winning 146% of the vote...
Simply put, as Stalin once said it, "those who vote do not matter — those who count the votes matter". If it is the Vice (or a "researcher" Vice found acceptable) counting, 99.7% may be too low. Indeed, according to TFA, he accepted only 800K out 22 million (merely 3.6%!) of the comments — dismissing the other 96% as "noise".
What exactly was his methodology and could it, possibly, have been biased against those supporting the abolition?..
I'm dealing with 100GB-1TB databases at work on a regular basis — I'm sure, others have encountered even bigger ones. Fitting all — or most — of the dataset into RAM is greatly speeding things up. Indeed, there are database-software packages already (such as, ugh, "memcache"), that must load it all into RAM, offering dramatically-improved speeds in exchange for this requirement.
On the OS level, swap — and the associated complexity of the kernels — is becoming unnecessary in more and more cases. On some of my FreeBSD machines, for example, I'm already compiling the kernel with options NO_SWAPPING.
On the filesystem-level, ZFS — the revolutionary filesystem — can offer much better speed with more RAM. The abundance of RAM is also making its advanced features (like deduplication) practical.
And for a layman's personal computer, editing a 4K video becomes much snappier too, if the the entire (uncompressed) clip fits into RAM.
And then come things like "machine learning" — I'm waiting for a Thunderbird add-on, for example, to automatically sort my incoming e-mail. Not just "spam/not-spam", but all of it, based on the ongoing analysis of how I've been sorting it through the years... For those things to be effective, they need both CPU and memory — continuously...
Other examples — legitimate and otherwise (like Chrome) — abound...
Though I've never encountered such a person, it is possible, they exist.
Believing in it and believing something has to be done about it are two very different things. I believe in gravity, for example...
The urge to control other people — to compel them to do, what you view as worthwhile — and to ban, what you believe is wrong — makes you an Authoritarian. Though the Right aren't immune to that sentiment, in the past few decades it's been the Left's exclusive.
Remarkably, you aren't citing even one name for the crowd you claim to be plentiful. Nope, all of them are, what I call "watermelons": green on the outside, red inside. Scratch one such person — yourself included, little doubt — and you'll find a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath. Sheesh...
One has just manifested himself by anonymously posting a homophobic personal attack against my person for example.
Yep. Same kind of people, cheered by the same kind of journalists, making the same kind of apocalyptic predictions. More likely to be bullshit than not.
And, just as back then, nothing needs to be done to avert this crisis even if it really is looming — if population growth increases the demand for meat, the prices will rise and consumption will drop. And/or we'll change to some tastier alternative — the way we switched from horses to mechanized transport.
a) That's not a problem; b) people switched to cars because they are better.
The point is, we do not need to use the force of government to compel ourselves to change. And this opportunity to force others into doing, what they believe is good, is the real motivation behind the noises being made by "global warming" crowd, 99% of them far-Left partisans.
The "Horse-manure panic" was caused, at the end of the 19th century, by the "predictions" that "By the late 1800s, large cities all around the world were “drowning in horse manure”.
The times have changed, but the term "horse manure" (equivalent in this context to the more common "bullshit") remains strangely apropos...
The teacher's, of course. And that of the teachers of teachers.
Rule #1: it is unethical to vote for RethugliKKKunt$...
Whenever it is pointed out, that Twitter, Facebook, et al. are biased against Conservatives, the responses are a) Reality has Liberal bias; b) It is an algorithm — and can not be biased.
Well, by that logic reality has a pro-male bias — and a blameless algorithm showed that. Would any of those, who's bought the Twitter's line before, care to contradict that?
Actually, it is very easy to ascertain: there no distinction. Every Chinese abroad, who still has relatives in China, is subject to blackmail. And many — though not all, of course — are willing to help their government voluntarily.
Would you mind giving a link, where Cato Institute was suggesting this? Please?
The Chinese tech is a few generations away from the artificial intelligence capable of controlling weapon-systems. So, while some arms of their government are busy trying to steal as much know-how as possible to replicate it, other arms — through paying "thinktanks", "community outreach", and infiltrating government — are planting the idea, that "AI is unethical" — both, in general and particularly in military applications.
And Silicon Valley's "best" are falling for it...