And it is, of course, highly unlikely that race is even an input into the system. It is, however, still possible that other criteria which might be used (income, education level, home address, etc.) could cause the system to end up predicting that members of one race are more likely to be repeat offenders than those of another.
I'm sure it comes as no surprise There have been suggestions of bias against Black people. The accuracy of that report has also been attacked, of course (although seemingly by people with an interest). Personally, I wonder how you can measure the accuracyof the test in the first place, if the score is simply a number from 1-10. Surely the only results to calibrate against are "did not re-offend" and "did re-offend".
At least with breathalysers and radar guns, the algorithm is known. (Parts alcohol per unit of blood, or a doppler formula calculation, or time to travel a certain distance). People have succesfully challenged these. This is worse. Even with access to all the same data, you can't query the result.
At the very least, they could reveal the algorithm used to determine the risk. If that's a trade secret, it calls into serious question how accurate it actually is.
I'm pretty zealous when it comes to the benefits of json over RSS, but the main point is that json is clearer, more compact, and simpler. Benefits that don't really apply here.
RSS is entirely computer generated and computer decoded. It is an established schema. It is widely supported, and every platform that could possibly play a podcast has XML libraries.
The size hardly makes a difference - I checked one of the feeds I like; it was 83Kb, and full of podcasts that were in the 8-25MB range. And most of the data was the text descriptions!
https encrypts the request. They know you're going to the IP address for example.com but not what the page is. Or even that you're doing a GET
If they already have some idea, they can probably confirm it to some degree of satisfaction though. They know the size of the download, and I think they know the size of the image downloads as well. they can deduce the page from that. (At least I believe this is the case - this is Slashdot so someone will tell me if I'm wrong).
We have no idea what he shared with Russia or why.
It's fucking idiotic that the security services can do something wrong, and people are so tied up in their "everything Trump does must be bad" thing that they turn it into an attack on Trump.
I don't like Trump. The fact that I'm defending him here means I am not being baised.
Unless you're going to claim to be a Trump supporter, then you are clearly the biased one here.
(*)Unless, of course, you think he's senile, in which case, the Vice President should be impeached for not noticing that incompetence.
That is the dumbest thing you've said in your comment. That is quite an impressive feat considering how idiotic the rest of the comment was.
However ill advised this is, it is ultimately at his discretion. He has that right, and there are very few, if any, restrictions.
The same can not be said of the security services leaking things to the press. Whether you disagree with both, or agree with both or agree with one and not the other, the situations are not the same.
There is a difference between the President revealing something that he has the legal right to do, privately, to another government we have shared goals with, and a low ranking employee with no clearance illegally leaking information to the media.
Normally I wouldn't post such a vague sentiment, but with everyone trashing it, I feel I should add a positive post. Granted, the whole "life and death" is overblown, and the decline of Blacktype is probably a little more complicated than that. I certainly saw it a lot when I visited Cologne; and it wasn't popular outside Germanic countries before the Second World War, or even the first.
Still, the stuff about the different styles of the Clinton and Trump campaigns was interesting. Blacktype does give an imperialistic Germanic feel, which makes it great for being scary, imperialistic, or German. And while designers put a lot of effort into kerning tables, fonts don't support joining between arabic letters. Perhaps they should.
No. What I mean is that the Independent went form being a quality newspaper to a stupid clickbait site. And it is an antigovernment rag with no credibility because it posts articles like this one. I mean come on - this is what they consider "breaking news"
Stop trying to pass as an objective, rational person. You're only kidding yourself. You're just an irrational, biased, tribal animal just like the rest of us
Well, obviously! But we're all capable of some rationality, so I ask you this;
Is creating a new, government controlled internet something that a political party would be bragging about in a document that is trying to get them elected?
The Conservative party is worthy of a lot of criticism. But I think it makes more sense to be critical of the things that they're doing, or plan to do than to take some random lines from their manifesto and try to imply that the government wants to create a new "government controlled internet".
In what way am I a fanatic? Because I think an article is clickbait?
It isn't a view. It isn't a trivial item in the manifesto. I never said it was fake news. I said it was bollocks! It is! It's an item that is literally not in the manifesto! The manifesto says one thing, the article says it says something completely different.
Read the Guardian. Read Another Angry Voice. Hell, even the sodding Mirror has better journalism than the Indpendent these days if it's publishing this sort of rubbish!
Well, you could read the manifesto. See if it actually agrees with what the article says without some pretty crazy interpretation. Specifically, where in the manifesto does it say "We will create a government controlled internet"?
I can't for the life of me work out why people are reading this article and agree that the interpretation of the statements are anything but batshit crazy.
I remember when the Independent was a politically neutral dull and worthy newspaper. Now it has become an anti-government clickbait site.
While it's true that the Tories have a lot of stupid ideas about regulating the internet,the idea that they'll create a "government controlled internet" is ridiculous, except insofar as it's already government controlled. I.e. do something illegal online, and you'll be arrested.
90% of the article is wild speculation, trying to make concrete conclusions from vague manifesto promises.
There's a lot to criticise in the manifesto. Please don't use the Independent as a source if you do so. It has no credibility and you lose credibility by referencing it.
I got fed up with the constant upgrade nags about a year ago. Occasionally video sites will refuse to work, but most of what I failed to load were ads, or annoying autoplay videos on articles I was trying to read. sadly these seem to be shifting away from Flash as well.
No. I'm sure it's well within the capability of most users to do so.
What's your point? Because my understanding of the AC's point is that it's rather rubbish of Slashdot and CBS to provide a link that doesn't actually work for a large percentage of visitors.
Finding the link independently does not make this any less of a failure on the part of Slashdot. Granted, the Slashdot editor had no way of knowing so perhaps AC's complaint was a little unfair in that respect.
No she didn't. Wikileaks did. She just dumped a whole load of files on them with no way of knowing if there was anything that exposed criminal actions, or how responsible wikileaks would be.
There was no deeply unethical behaviour 99% of what was given to wikileaks.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, you know, you could make an argument as to why they would use race as an input.
But for the record, Race is not an input.
I'm sure it comes as no surprise There have been suggestions of bias against Black people. The accuracy of that report has also been attacked, of course (although seemingly by people with an interest). Personally, I wonder how you can measure the accuracyof the test in the first place, if the score is simply a number from 1-10. Surely the only results to calibrate against are "did not re-offend" and "did re-offend".
At least with breathalysers and radar guns, the algorithm is known. (Parts alcohol per unit of blood, or a doppler formula calculation, or time to travel a certain distance). People have succesfully challenged these. This is worse. Even with access to all the same data, you can't query the result.
At the very least, they could reveal the algorithm used to determine the risk. If that's a trade secret, it calls into serious question how accurate it actually is.
Piracy existed before Peer to peer... and there are a few other means of getting content that they haven't mentioned.
That's their hard luck. But if it wasn't for accidents like this, they wouldn't have a business so they're not really in a position to complain.
I'm pretty zealous when it comes to the benefits of json over RSS, but the main point is that json is clearer, more compact, and simpler. Benefits that don't really apply here.
RSS is entirely computer generated and computer decoded. It is an established schema. It is widely supported, and every platform that could possibly play a podcast has XML libraries.
The size hardly makes a difference - I checked one of the feeds I like; it was 83Kb, and full of podcasts that were in the 8-25MB range. And most of the data was the text descriptions!
https encrypts the request. They know you're going to the IP address for example.com but not what the page is. Or even that you're doing a GET
If they already have some idea, they can probably confirm it to some degree of satisfaction though. They know the size of the download, and I think they know the size of the image downloads as well. they can deduce the page from that. (At least I believe this is the case - this is Slashdot so someone will tell me if I'm wrong).
We have no idea what he shared with Russia or why.
It's fucking idiotic that the security services can do something wrong, and people are so tied up in their "everything Trump does must be bad" thing that they turn it into an attack on Trump.
I don't like Trump. The fact that I'm defending him here means I am not being baised.
Unless you're going to claim to be a Trump supporter, then you are clearly the biased one here.
That is the dumbest thing you've said in your comment. That is quite an impressive feat considering how idiotic the rest of the comment was.
However ill advised this is, it is ultimately at his discretion. He has that right, and there are very few, if any, restrictions.
The same can not be said of the security services leaking things to the press. Whether you disagree with both, or agree with both or agree with one and not the other, the situations are not the same.
There is a difference between the President revealing something that he has the legal right to do, privately, to another government we have shared goals with, and a low ranking employee with no clearance illegally leaking information to the media.
Well, stop posting the photos that get blocked then.
Well, I hate to respond with a meme, but http://imgur.com/lLxCoWM
Well, it could. It's unlikely, but if there is an alien superstructure, then that is likely to be the cause.
Much more likely to be a more mundane explanation.
Normally I wouldn't post such a vague sentiment, but with everyone trashing it, I feel I should add a positive post. Granted, the whole "life and death" is overblown, and the decline of Blacktype is probably a little more complicated than that. I certainly saw it a lot when I visited Cologne; and it wasn't popular outside Germanic countries before the Second World War, or even the first.
Still, the stuff about the different styles of the Clinton and Trump campaigns was interesting. Blacktype does give an imperialistic Germanic feel, which makes it great for being scary, imperialistic, or German. And while designers put a lot of effort into kerning tables, fonts don't support joining between arabic letters. Perhaps they should.
Well, obviously! But we're all capable of some rationality, so I ask you this;
Is creating a new, government controlled internet something that a political party would be bragging about in a document that is trying to get them elected?
The Conservative party is worthy of a lot of criticism. But I think it makes more sense to be critical of the things that they're doing, or plan to do than to take some random lines from their manifesto and try to imply that the government wants to create a new "government controlled internet".
In what way am I a fanatic? Because I think an article is clickbait?
It isn't a view. It isn't a trivial item in the manifesto. I never said it was fake news. I said it was bollocks! It is! It's an item that is literally not in the manifesto! The manifesto says one thing, the article says it says something completely different.
Read the Guardian. Read Another Angry Voice. Hell, even the sodding Mirror has better journalism than the Indpendent these days if it's publishing this sort of rubbish!
Well, you could read the manifesto. See if it actually agrees with what the article says without some pretty crazy interpretation. Specifically, where in the manifesto does it say "We will create a government controlled internet"?
I can't for the life of me work out why people are reading this article and agree that the interpretation of the statements are anything but batshit crazy.
I remember when the Independent was a politically neutral dull and worthy newspaper. Now it has become an anti-government clickbait site.
While it's true that the Tories have a lot of stupid ideas about regulating the internet,the idea that they'll create a "government controlled internet" is ridiculous, except insofar as it's already government controlled. I.e. do something illegal online, and you'll be arrested.
90% of the article is wild speculation, trying to make concrete conclusions from vague manifesto promises.
There's a lot to criticise in the manifesto. Please don't use the Independent as a source if you do so. It has no credibility and you lose credibility by referencing it.
I think a few people might have already noticed that the US was doing this without the investigative skills of Wikileaks.
I got fed up with the constant upgrade nags about a year ago. Occasionally video sites will refuse to work, but most of what I failed to load were ads, or annoying autoplay videos on articles I was trying to read. sadly these seem to be shifting away from Flash as well.
That's fair enough.
No. I'm sure it's well within the capability of most users to do so.
What's your point? Because my understanding of the AC's point is that it's rather rubbish of Slashdot and CBS to provide a link that doesn't actually work for a large percentage of visitors.
Finding the link independently does not make this any less of a failure on the part of Slashdot. Granted, the Slashdot editor had no way of knowing so perhaps AC's complaint was a little unfair in that respect.
Does that lmgtfy link make the link in the story work?
No she didn't. Wikileaks did. She just dumped a whole load of files on them with no way of knowing if there was anything that exposed criminal actions, or how responsible wikileaks would be.
There was no deeply unethical behaviour 99% of what was given to wikileaks.