I know of industries that use a portfolio of patents as deterrence but not in the sense that they think the patents are any good. Competitors can be happy with a standoff situation where they have (mutual or not) potential patent infringement situations but they prefer to do nothing about them. And this is in part because many patents are unlikely to hold up in court against a good lawyer but as long as the patents are not defeated in court they have deterrence/exchange value. So it's a bit of a bubble.
Note how whisthleblower used to mean someone who exposes internal problems as a last resort to get them fixed , for the greater benefit, and at huge personal cost. Now every official (anonymous) leaker becomes a whistleblower. The original whistleblower is just a traitor. These guys, Hala and Desbois, are ex employees who make a problem out of nothing. Why are they considered whistleblowers?
Twitter , Facebook, Youtube are still businesses and they're not on the forefront of the censorship drive. They will be compliant to being pressured though. This is all part of teh pressuring.
History has proven that every propaganda frenzy tries to use information with a relation to reality where beneficial, but doesn't really care much. In this case hacking is a good example: states hack other states all the time. It's the accepted 'normal' state of affairs. When you're building up a campaign part of your agenda will be taken by taking these 'base level nastiness' from your opponent and whipping up mock outrage about them. It's just part of the toolkit. Another part is innuendo and connecting the dots. This allows to build up the mindset where the slightest reference to Russians is enough to reinforce the mccarthian campaign. Most of what the press does autonomously is jumping on bandwagons and helping to build up momentum. In this case every hint of a connection to anything russian is enough for a story implying a nefarious Russian plan without actually stating it as a fact. After a while you get to the stage of 'everybody knows'. Maybe you've heard of The Mighty Wurlitzer. History has proven McCarthy was an extremely harmful person.
Obviously Google does not know and they know that they don't know. So they ask trusted propaganda providers like Propornot and the Alliance for Securing Democracy.
I doubt it's shilling for the nuclear industry, but I fully agree the idea of standing next to a reactor is completely irrelevant to the dangers of nuclear energy.
Did I overstate? You can only act on that distrust if you have an alternative. If cash is deprecated is becomes unavailable as an option, or at least very difficult. You can change to another credit card company , that is, if that makes any difference. Once you're using credit cards you're fully monitored and under control, I read that China has created an alternative to SWIFT because they felt imprisoned by it, and now other countries are following. That's because they want to get rid of that external control. At the same time they strongly push you to use credit cards, because that can be controlled.
That's a strange reasoning. The whole push is towards a system where you don't have the option to pay cash. Some players like it because it offers control: you can see all transaction, you can sanction approved/disapproved transactions. Other players like the idea that they can impose negative interests on your money.
In fact it's always hard to say because of all the idiots around and because of the effectiveness of the propaganda , but it's plausible that a lot of the 'fuck off ivan' posts are from shills from the so-called good side. The budget is a lot larger , it's cheap, and it adds to the general feeling.
That is their biggest threat, and it's serious. I still don't know whether you were thinking though. They also have a small economy and it is relevant. They're not some miracle power which is going to conquer Europe and take over the US.
Sometimes it does mean you slow down to a speed where the damage is less. Often it means that before that moment you do the opposite: show your commitment and maintain your speed as long as possible so the other driver won't get the idea he can cut in just in time. There's a lot going on if you're an active driver . You're checking if the other one is aware, if he is slowing down so the moment you see his speed is not matching the situation, you can react.
I see stupid things all the time and I make mistakes as well even if I consider myself a way above average driver. A lot of mistakes are simply increasing risk without anything necessarily going wrong. Often it's 'IF another car had done this you'd have been in trouble'.
Well then you have a more powerful mind than me. Most of what I believe is what everyone believes, or what I believe from a source I trust. I only scrutinize a tiny fraction of my beliefs for reevaluation. In this case everyone seems to put a lot of trust in hightech solutions and innovation to fix things quickly, and if things don't change fast enough it's because people are lazy or ignorant.
I wonder how much. It's not that you have to watch the videos. What you probably would do is preprocess the videos automatically. This can filter out part of the data and create a slideshow for each of the remaining videos. Using this slideshow a video can usually be dismissed in a few seconds. For those that remain a more thorough slideshow can be generated for a second check. After that a lot depends on how much false positives and false negatives you tolerate. A cheap approach would be to tolerate a lot of false positives, just bounce the video and require effort from the poster to justify it. Only then you have someone watch fragments of the thing.
It was surprising to me that such a transition would require two or more generations. That's because like more people I was thinking more in terms of availability of high level technology rather than a complete switch of more 'fundamental' technology on a world scale.
Slashdot Mirror
I know of industries that use a portfolio of patents as deterrence but not in the sense that they think the patents are any good. Competitors can be happy with a standoff situation where they have (mutual or not) potential patent infringement situations but they prefer to do nothing about them. And this is in part because many patents are unlikely to hold up in court against a good lawyer but as long as the patents are not defeated in court they have deterrence/exchange value. So it's a bit of a bubble.
Note how whisthleblower used to mean someone who exposes internal problems as a last resort to get them fixed , for the greater benefit, and at huge personal cost.
Now every official (anonymous) leaker becomes a whistleblower. The original whistleblower is just a traitor.
These guys, Hala and Desbois, are ex employees who make a problem out of nothing. Why are they considered whistleblowers?
Twitter , Facebook, Youtube are still businesses and they're not on the forefront of the censorship drive. They will be compliant to being pressured though. This is all part of teh pressuring.
History has proven that every propaganda frenzy tries to use information with a relation to reality where beneficial, but doesn't really care much.
In this case hacking is a good example: states hack other states all the time. It's the accepted 'normal' state of affairs. When you're building up a campaign part of your agenda will be taken by taking these 'base level nastiness' from your opponent and whipping up mock outrage about them.
It's just part of the toolkit. Another part is innuendo and connecting the dots. This allows to build up the mindset where the slightest reference to Russians is enough to reinforce the mccarthian campaign. Most of what the press does autonomously is jumping on bandwagons and helping to build up momentum. In this case every hint of a connection to anything russian is enough for a story implying a nefarious Russian plan without actually stating it as a fact. After a while you get to the stage of 'everybody knows'. Maybe you've heard of The Mighty Wurlitzer.
History has proven McCarthy was an extremely harmful person.
Obviously Google does not know and they know that they don't know. So they ask trusted propaganda providers like Propornot and the Alliance for Securing Democracy.
I doubt it's shilling for the nuclear industry, but I fully agree the idea of standing next to a reactor is completely irrelevant to the dangers of nuclear energy.
Did I overstate? You can only act on that distrust if you have an alternative. If cash is deprecated is becomes unavailable as an option, or at least very difficult. You can change to another credit card company , that is, if that makes any difference. Once you're using credit cards you're fully monitored and under control,
I read that China has created an alternative to SWIFT because they felt imprisoned by it, and now other countries are following. That's because they want to get rid of that external control. At the same time they strongly push you to use credit cards, because that can be controlled.
That's a strange reasoning. The whole push is towards a system where you don't have the option to pay cash. Some players like it because it offers control: you can see all transaction, you can sanction approved/disapproved transactions. Other players like the idea that they can impose negative interests on your money.
And there's the whole story behind the extraordinary claims. Just follow the money.
I would agree although I'd have said it in a much less diplomatic and understated way.
In fact it's always hard to say because of all the idiots around and because of the effectiveness of the propaganda , but it's plausible that a lot of the 'fuck off ivan' posts are from shills from the so-called good side. The budget is a lot larger , it's cheap, and it adds to the general feeling.
The handlers of the GCHQ bots complained that there were posts opposing their bots so they concluded it must have been russians.
The actual commandment is 'Don't Be Evil. We're Watching You'
What, another one of those miracles?
It is outrageous and so are most /. posts about it.
There still is some antidote being published though.
Today: https://consortiumnews.com/201...
That is their biggest threat, and it's serious. I still don't know whether you were thinking though. They also have a small economy and it is relevant. They're not some miracle power which is going to conquer Europe and take over the US.
Alien intervention.
Sometimes it does mean you slow down to a speed where the damage is less. Often it means that before that moment you do the opposite: show your commitment and maintain your speed as long as possible so the other driver won't get the idea he can cut in just in time. There's a lot going on if you're an active driver . You're checking if the other one is aware, if he is slowing down so the moment you see his speed is not matching the situation, you can react.
You can also say 50% of the drivers ARE about average and they constantly have to hear this argument as a form of denial.
Of course if you use a statistic where 60% of the drivers are average and only 20% above average, then 80% of the drivers have really stupid ideas.
I see stupid things all the time and I make mistakes as well even if I consider myself a way above average driver. A lot of mistakes are simply increasing risk without anything necessarily going wrong. Often it's 'IF another car had done this you'd have been in trouble'.
Well then you have a more powerful mind than me. Most of what I believe is what everyone believes, or what I believe from a source I trust. I only scrutinize a tiny fraction of my beliefs for reevaluation.
In this case everyone seems to put a lot of trust in hightech solutions and innovation to fix things quickly, and if things don't change fast enough it's because people are lazy or ignorant.
that's what the lecture is about.
I wonder how much. It's not that you have to watch the videos.
What you probably would do is preprocess the videos automatically. This can filter out part of the data and create a slideshow for each of the remaining videos. Using this slideshow a video can usually be dismissed in a few seconds. For those that remain a more thorough slideshow can be generated for a second check. After that a lot depends on how much false positives and false negatives you tolerate. A cheap approach would be to tolerate a lot of false positives, just bounce the video and require effort from the poster to justify it. Only then you have someone watch fragments of the thing.
Of course they will not be used for anything we'd ever consider censorship. Promise!
It was surprising to me that such a transition would require two or more generations. That's because like more people I was thinking more in terms of availability of high level technology rather than a complete switch of more 'fundamental' technology on a world scale.