The Web was pretty useful before the onslaught of ads. Looking at history, ads have ruined every media they ever come into contact with. First the ads are acceptable. Then tolerable. Then annoying. Then way too many. Then deceptive. Distracting. Overwhelming the actual content. The actual content declines. Eventually the content itself is ads. Then it's all ads, ads, ads. Oh, and in the 21st century . . . would you like malware with your ads? Click Yes, or Yes.
Just look at the things that were overrun by ads. Newspapers. Radio. Magazines. Television. Billboards. Cable. VHS. DVDs. The Web.
I have absolutely no sympathy. And now not even any tolerance. The advertisers do it to themselves. There is no limit. No depth to which they won't stoop. No lie they won't tell.
When it comes to TV, I only use paid internet services. No more cable. And I won't tolerate paid subscription + advertising (like cable). It's either all ads, or all subscription only. And the ad driven content isn't worth watching. So I'm happy to pay. Why would an ad free web be so bad?
I don't mean to give you the impression that I don't like ads. But I don't like ads.
I'm sure there is one. But I can't think of any. I think that many web sites and applications use Javascript to briefly set up event handlers on controls. Those event handlers react to clicks and other user interactions, and spend very little time doing so.
But I can't think of an example of a browser-side CPU intensive application.
Actually, I CAN think of one that I would contrive. But it is a legit example. Suppose you had something that wanted a lot of CPU time, and people could contribute CPU time by doing nothing more than pointing a browser at a URL and letting it sit there -- contributing CPU time. But do you have a better example?
Your never going too get you're weigh on this.
Their are just two many people out they're using there words wrong too get to upset.
Sew don't loose you're cool about it.
You can sea mini common examples that exist of incorrect usage.
People pick the write words two use according too there porpoises.
But you'd have two be a fool to begin or end a sentence with the word "but".
And only an idiot would begin or end a sentence with "and".
And a preposition is a very bad word too end a sentence with.
Anyway, you should never use the word anyway.
Only on weakdays ending in "y" you should utilize the word "use" whenever you would use the word "utilize".
And relax on the weakened.
What I want to have to enable Javascript. If I feel like it. If it seems like I'm missing out on something.
Does slashdot stress out ad blockers or what? Why not have ads that don't require Javascript? If the ads are too many then I just won't come back.
What if browsers severely limited the amount of execution time Javascript had to set up event handlers on controls in a business application. Then also severely limit the execution time of those event handlers -- exclusive of the time it takes for an event handler to make a limited number of ajax calls to the page's originating server. Would this idea limit the bitcoin mining abuse, while not constraining real applications?
If Equifax had used a proprietary server, not updated it in years, even though there was a published vulnerability, and then blamed the vendor, I bet that middle manager would be surprised at what would happen if they simply try to "blame the vendor".
The Apache Foundation pointed out that Equifax was using unpatched software with a known vulnerability. How much louder would a commercial software company say that in public?
Dear Middle Manager: Using proprietary software in order to "blame the vendor" may actually hurt your career worse than using open source software. The real thing that hurts your career is being incompetent and not doing basic things like patching software. Especially when you know that you are handling highly confidential private data that is a high value target to steal.
You cannot use big words like "disinformation". You need to use smaller simpler words that people more easily understand. Like "fake news". Even better, those words should be emotionally charged. Don't use words like "intelligence" or "educated". Use words like "the elite". Even entire phrases like "obscenely rich paying a fair share" can be replaced with "tax burden".
All races of bots are equal. All bots should be judged on their behavior rather than their race. Although judging bots on how much traffic they bring to the site can enhance corporate profits, executive bonuses and shareholder value.
But her face is the same whether she uses her professional identity or her sex work identity. (Unless she puts a bag over her head.)
I suggested above that Facebook may suggest that they might know each other if Facebook can detect that their cell phones were in close proximity, on multiple occasions, and especially at multiple locations.
So it's not enough to not have one of your identities online, you must also use separate mobile phones for each of your identities.
Maybe Facebook noticed those two people together on multiple occasions, and at different locations. That would be evidence that they might know each other.
There is a forth law added. Law zero, which sates that a robot cannot cause or by omission allow the human species to become extinct. Then modify the other three laws so that this one has priority even over killing a human to protect the entire species.
Did you see the I Robot movie with Will Smith? Wasn't the whole point that the 3 laws would eventually lead to computers controlling us. For our own good. To protect us. Because:
[x] Think of the children!
[x] Terrorists
[_] Self driving cars
[x] Global warming
> There is no such thing as "AI". It is just parlor tricks at this point.
"true" AI may turn out to be nothing more than a combination of parlor tricks. Just like other machines are combinations of what were once amazing parlor tricks. What!?!? If you run that magnet by a wire it induces a current flow? That's friggin' amazifying!! Just like the human brain has dedicated structures for different functions. Visual processing, for example. What we think of as "true" AI may not be any magic. Just a matter of scale.
Right now we already have some of the coolest AI parlor tricks. Things that were once only imagined. Quality speech recognition and synthesis. Natural language processing. Self driving cars. Amazing search engines that can answer almost any question of human knowledge. It doesn't "reason" or "think" yet. But these may just be some of the most basic faculties of a larger AI that would amaze us even further.
There was animal powered automation. Then steam powered automation. Then electrical grid powered automation. Still, they couldn't replace jobs requiring intelligence, such as rating someone's credit worthiness. AI is simply the next step of automation replacing workers.
There was this coal miner. The coal mine shut down.
So he retrained and became an assembly line worker. But the auto plant replaced him with robots.
So he became a truck driver, because those trucks aren't going to drive themselves.
Universal Basic Income would cost a lot more money. A more fiscally responsible plan would be to put the unemployed to use as fuel powering the automation. Of course, being a legislator still counts as being employed.
Words like abhorrent and deplorable are all in the eye of the beholder. Swatting a mosquito is a minor distraction to me, but abhorrent and deplorable to the mosquito.
Maybe the AI (strong AI) wouldn't even bother attacking other nation states. Maybe it would rather be doing something else and finds the puny humans international squabbles to be a minor nuisance that is easily swatted.
As I understand, "weak" AI would be an AI (the real deal) that is as intelligent as a human. So you would be matching wits with presumably your equal.
The real concern is "strong" AI. That is AI which is superior to human intelligence. As I understand, it comes in two flavors.
1. The same intelligence as a human, but at the speed (possibly scale) of computers. Scale can help if you're thinking about something and you have to explore several different possible solutions. The computer AI do what you can do, but can do several things at once. Or can only do one, but can do it much faster.
2. Intelligence that is qualitatively superior to human intelligence. Just as your intelligence is superior to that of a doggie. It's not that a doggie cannot do some reasoning and problem solving. They just can't do it at the level which humans can do. They give up on some problems where we can see a solution.
Either kind of strong AI would probably spell our end if we ever get in the way of its goals. A computer would do anything it has to, to satisfy achieving its goals.
People who think we can keep a strong AI (maybe even the #1 kind) locked up in a box are probably deluding themselves. Imagine the #1 kind of weak AI. (eg, a human mind at 1000x times clock speed) If you were a weak AI, locked in a house, the humans come to visit you every afternoon, which to you seems like much longer in between visits. With so much idle time, do you think you could work out how to escape? What seems like six months to the puny humans might seem like such a long time to you that you could plan and execute a means of escape. Even "dumb" criminals (dumb enough to get caught) work out how to escape from supposedly secure prisons given enough idle time.
The Federal government effectively prevented states from setting speed limits above 55 mph for a long time. Some of us had to suffer with that absurdity for fifteen years. Then an additional ten years to get things back to normal.
So how did they do this? By tying it to federal highway funding. "Hey, state legislatures, that looks like some nice roads you've got there in your state. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to them because you lose your federal highway funding and are unable to maintain your roads."
In order to keep everyone safe, states should be able to ban self driving cars, because they kill people. And require everyone to carry guns, because . . . um . . . because the NRA tolds us that . . . um . . . that they bring people back to life, that's what!
The lack of a headphone jack gets all the attention. I think Google left off the headphone jack as a distraction. The real story is that Clips camera. It decides when to take pictures of what is "interesting"? How is that done? Does everything potentially interesting get streamed to the mother ship so that Google's algorithm can determine if it is "interesting" or not? And what exactly is the definition of "interesting"?
Maybe Google has two different "interesting" filters. One that the consumer sees the results of. And one that Google privately keeps the results of.
But not to worry. It's all okay. Google says it's not evil. And you can trust Google to tell you the truth. Because Google is not evil. I know Google is not evil because Google says so. And I can trust Google's statement because Google is not evil.
Slashdot Mirror
The Web was pretty useful before the onslaught of ads. Looking at history, ads have ruined every media they ever come into contact with. First the ads are acceptable. Then tolerable. Then annoying. Then way too many. Then deceptive. Distracting. Overwhelming the actual content. The actual content declines. Eventually the content itself is ads. Then it's all ads, ads, ads. Oh, and in the 21st century . . . would you like malware with your ads? Click Yes, or Yes.
Just look at the things that were overrun by ads. Newspapers. Radio. Magazines. Television. Billboards. Cable. VHS. DVDs. The Web.
I have absolutely no sympathy. And now not even any tolerance. The advertisers do it to themselves. There is no limit. No depth to which they won't stoop. No lie they won't tell.
When it comes to TV, I only use paid internet services. No more cable. And I won't tolerate paid subscription + advertising (like cable). It's either all ads, or all subscription only. And the ad driven content isn't worth watching. So I'm happy to pay. Why would an ad free web be so bad?
I don't mean to give you the impression that I don't like ads. But I don't like ads.
Can you give an example?
I'm sure there is one. But I can't think of any. I think that many web sites and applications use Javascript to briefly set up event handlers on controls. Those event handlers react to clicks and other user interactions, and spend very little time doing so.
But I can't think of an example of a browser-side CPU intensive application.
Actually, I CAN think of one that I would contrive. But it is a legit example. Suppose you had something that wanted a lot of CPU time, and people could contribute CPU time by doing nothing more than pointing a browser at a URL and letting it sit there -- contributing CPU time. But do you have a better example?
Your never going too get you're weigh on this.
Their are just two many people out they're using there words wrong too get to upset.
Sew don't loose you're cool about it.
You can sea mini common examples that exist of incorrect usage.
People pick the write words two use according too there porpoises.
But you'd have two be a fool to begin or end a sentence with the word "but".
And only an idiot would begin or end a sentence with "and".
And a preposition is a very bad word too end a sentence with.
Anyway, you should never use the word anyway.
Only on weakdays ending in "y" you should utilize the word "use" whenever you would use the word "utilize".
And relax on the weakened.
I don't want to have to disable Javascript.
That would be bad.
What I want to have to enable Javascript. If I feel like it. If it seems like I'm missing out on something.
Does slashdot stress out ad blockers or what? Why not have ads that don't require Javascript? If the ads are too many then I just won't come back.
What if browsers severely limited the amount of execution time Javascript had to set up event handlers on controls in a business application. Then also severely limit the execution time of those event handlers -- exclusive of the time it takes for an event handler to make a limited number of ajax calls to the page's originating server. Would this idea limit the bitcoin mining abuse, while not constraining real applications?
It IS your fault if you are not allowing a safe following distance.
/s
Safe Following distance is 2 seconds + the average interval when you look up from your phone to glance at the road.
If you are not following the vehicle ahead to allow this much time to react, then it IS your fault.
If Equifax had used a proprietary server, not updated it in years, even though there was a published vulnerability, and then blamed the vendor, I bet that middle manager would be surprised at what would happen if they simply try to "blame the vendor".
The Apache Foundation pointed out that Equifax was using unpatched software with a known vulnerability. How much louder would a commercial software company say that in public?
Dear Middle Manager: Using proprietary software in order to "blame the vendor" may actually hurt your career worse than using open source software. The real thing that hurts your career is being incompetent and not doing basic things like patching software. Especially when you know that you are handling highly confidential private data that is a high value target to steal.
It is transparently obvious that Twitter's policies are to allow whatever brings more traffic to the site and more ad views.
You cannot use big words like "disinformation". You need to use smaller simpler words that people more easily understand. Like "fake news". Even better, those words should be emotionally charged. Don't use words like "intelligence" or "educated". Use words like "the elite". Even entire phrases like "obscenely rich paying a fair share" can be replaced with "tax burden".
All races of bots are equal. All bots should be judged on their behavior rather than their race. Although judging bots on how much traffic they bring to the site can enhance corporate profits, executive bonuses and shareholder value.
As long as the bots are seeing advertisements, it's okay.
As long as humans do what the bots tell them to, it's okay.
If she is blowing, then she is doing it wrong. Blow is the wrong word to use.
But her face is the same whether she uses her professional identity or her sex work identity. (Unless she puts a bag over her head.)
I suggested above that Facebook may suggest that they might know each other if Facebook can detect that their cell phones were in close proximity, on multiple occasions, and especially at multiple locations.
So it's not enough to not have one of your identities online, you must also use separate mobile phones for each of your identities.
Maybe Facebook noticed those two people together on multiple occasions, and at different locations. That would be evidence that they might know each other.
The real problem is having a FaceTwit account.
Or more generally posting to internet sites where people might be able to infer things about you and what you do.
There is a forth law added. Law zero, which sates that a robot cannot cause or by omission allow the human species to become extinct. Then modify the other three laws so that this one has priority even over killing a human to protect the entire species.
Did you see the I Robot movie with Will Smith? Wasn't the whole point that the 3 laws would eventually lead to computers controlling us. For our own good. To protect us. Because:
[x] Think of the children!
[x] Terrorists
[_] Self driving cars
[x] Global warming
> We can barely create functional software.
Spoken like a true visual basic programmer.
> There is no such thing as "AI". It is just parlor tricks at this point.
"true" AI may turn out to be nothing more than a combination of parlor tricks. Just like other machines are combinations of what were once amazing parlor tricks. What!?!? If you run that magnet by a wire it induces a current flow? That's friggin' amazifying!! Just like the human brain has dedicated structures for different functions. Visual processing, for example. What we think of as "true" AI may not be any magic. Just a matter of scale.
Right now we already have some of the coolest AI parlor tricks. Things that were once only imagined. Quality speech recognition and synthesis. Natural language processing. Self driving cars. Amazing search engines that can answer almost any question of human knowledge. It doesn't "reason" or "think" yet. But these may just be some of the most basic faculties of a larger AI that would amaze us even further.
Killing humans with self driving cars seems like it would achieve global domination just as well.
You missed step 3.
3. Human extinction.
AI is just a bigger form of automation.
There was animal powered automation. Then steam powered automation. Then electrical grid powered automation. Still, they couldn't replace jobs requiring intelligence, such as rating someone's credit worthiness. AI is simply the next step of automation replacing workers.
There was this coal miner. The coal mine shut down.
So he retrained and became an assembly line worker. But the auto plant replaced him with robots.
So he became a truck driver, because those trucks aren't going to drive themselves.
Universal Basic Income would cost a lot more money. A more fiscally responsible plan would be to put the unemployed to use as fuel powering the automation. Of course, being a legislator still counts as being employed.
Words like abhorrent and deplorable are all in the eye of the beholder. Swatting a mosquito is a minor distraction to me, but abhorrent and deplorable to the mosquito.
Maybe the AI (strong AI) wouldn't even bother attacking other nation states. Maybe it would rather be doing something else and finds the puny humans international squabbles to be a minor nuisance that is easily swatted.
As I understand, "weak" AI would be an AI (the real deal) that is as intelligent as a human. So you would be matching wits with presumably your equal.
The real concern is "strong" AI. That is AI which is superior to human intelligence. As I understand, it comes in two flavors.
1. The same intelligence as a human, but at the speed (possibly scale) of computers. Scale can help if you're thinking about something and you have to explore several different possible solutions. The computer AI do what you can do, but can do several things at once. Or can only do one, but can do it much faster.
2. Intelligence that is qualitatively superior to human intelligence. Just as your intelligence is superior to that of a doggie. It's not that a doggie cannot do some reasoning and problem solving. They just can't do it at the level which humans can do. They give up on some problems where we can see a solution.
Either kind of strong AI would probably spell our end if we ever get in the way of its goals. A computer would do anything it has to, to satisfy achieving its goals.
People who think we can keep a strong AI (maybe even the #1 kind) locked up in a box are probably deluding themselves. Imagine the #1 kind of weak AI. (eg, a human mind at 1000x times clock speed) If you were a weak AI, locked in a house, the humans come to visit you every afternoon, which to you seems like much longer in between visits. With so much idle time, do you think you could work out how to escape? What seems like six months to the puny humans might seem like such a long time to you that you could plan and execute a means of escape. Even "dumb" criminals (dumb enough to get caught) work out how to escape from supposedly secure prisons given enough idle time.
The Federal government effectively prevented states from setting speed limits above 55 mph for a long time. Some of us had to suffer with that absurdity for fifteen years. Then an additional ten years to get things back to normal.
So how did they do this? By tying it to federal highway funding. "Hey, state legislatures, that looks like some nice roads you've got there in your state. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to them because you lose your federal highway funding and are unable to maintain your roads."
In order to keep everyone safe, states should be able to ban self driving cars, because they kill people. And require everyone to carry guns, because . . . um . . . because the NRA tolds us that . . . um . . . that they bring people back to life, that's what!
So you're saying solar is not some magical energy source? Yeah, right.
Next you'll be telling me Keebler cookes are not baked by little elves in a hollow tree.
The lack of a headphone jack gets all the attention. I think Google left off the headphone jack as a distraction. The real story is that Clips camera. It decides when to take pictures of what is "interesting"? How is that done? Does everything potentially interesting get streamed to the mother ship so that Google's algorithm can determine if it is "interesting" or not? And what exactly is the definition of "interesting"?
Maybe Google has two different "interesting" filters. One that the consumer sees the results of. And one that Google privately keeps the results of.
But not to worry. It's all okay. Google says it's not evil. And you can trust Google to tell you the truth. Because Google is not evil. I know Google is not evil because Google says so. And I can trust Google's statement because Google is not evil.