This is research that has a military application and as such should perhaps have been more restrictive to start with.
Arguably, most research can have military application. If we start asking all such projects to self sensor themselves, the scientific process gets cut off at the knees. The dividing line between civilian and military applications is vacuous at best (think Internet).
So denying that claim based on photos is harsh, but possibly tenable.
Using the photos as a basis for further investigation is tenable, relying on the photos as the only evidence is jumping to conclusions. I never said it was the wrong conclusion, but it is effectively making a choice with little and incomplete information. Much like we don't know what she told Manulife about her illness, Manulife also don't know the circumstances surrounding the reason she was at the beach. There are many beaches in Quebec, for all we know, this could have been in her back yard on one of her good days.
I think this phrase effectively summarizes the problem with this approach: are banks going to refuse to offer service to someone who doesn't have a Facebook account? If not, then cancel your account before applying to a loan or lie; thus rendering the practice useless. However, if the banks do refuse service to people without social media accounts (completely, not selected services as mentioned in TFA), we'll have effectively created a world where if you don't exist in Google, you don't exist.
and they won't jump to conclusion that fast.
From TFA:
in 2009 a woman in Quebec stopped receiving disability payments for major depression after Manulife decided, based on beach vacation photos on Facebook, that she seemed happy enough to work after all.
There's no mention of any further investigation, but this sounds like jumping to conclusions to me.
Perhaps the collapse of the society began before it became matriarchal. The patriarchs might have just fouled up the whole system and given up. The fact that societies collapsed shortly after becoming matriarchal does not mean the two are causally related. There is not sufficient evidence to do more than hypothesize about it.
Something tells me that Viacom has enough money to prolong any legal battle until such a time when FedFlix is no longer solvent and has to give up the fight regardless of whether they are right or wrong.
Your mileage may vary depending on whether your talking about choking an avian or that other euphemism thing. I'm pretty sure KFC is not squeamish when it comes to dead chickens.
They already host it, deliver it, take care of all billing.
It's not like there aren't app review sites all over the web already.
Charging $99 for this service might seem less problematic if it wasn't the only channel by which you could distribute apps. Not to say that it's not a valid model, but it surprises me that hard core capitalists aren't ripping on this as a circumvention of the mechanisms that make the free market work. Having to pay the $99 dollars to distribute the app is not the problem. Being required to do so is.
Of course using wood extensively as a construction material as a way of doing carbon sequestration has a big risk factor associated with it (See the Great Fire of Chicago). Seems to me it would be less risky to periodically cut down the fast growth lumber and send it into the sun. Then again, that sounds slightly James Bond supervillain insane (I say this while petting a white cat).
Physics was presented with evidence of the lack of causality almost 40 years ago, it's just that until now we haven't had any real evidence.
You realize that's a contradiction? If we haven't had any real evidence until now, then we weren't presented with any 40 years ago. If we were, then it's not true we haven't had any until now.
The evidence showed up 40 years ago as a result of this experiment. Because the neutrinos went faster than the speed of light, they traveled back in time and were observed in 1970. Incidentally, right around the time of the beginning of the Unix epoch.
I'd hate to say this, but company $A having an algorithm that might be tuned however they damn well please does not constitute cooking... unless, there is a master defined algorithm that every search provider must follow.
It might be considered cooking if the algorithm is found to process results relating to a particular party differently than those relating to every other party. A search algorithm should be mostly input agnostic, however, suppressing SPAM, for example, is a legitimate reason not to be. The line between tuning and willful introduction of bias, or flat out censorship, can be quite blurry. My head hurts just thinking about it.
Thanks, I feel better now: +1. I was getting a bit confused with all this talk about privacy and what not when I could find no indication in TFA that this was meant to be a service available on the internet (or in modern buzz-speak: the cloud), and I thought I was the only person not getting it. When I read the headline, I thought we were going back to the days of time-share computing. It seemed like a giant leap backward to me and it made me think that Microsoft Research must have either taken leave of their senses or found some other way to exploit developers or both. This is a much more interesting idea. However, the expression "give 'em enough rope..." comes to mind.
True, but he didn't say that the climate scientists were restricting that. Only that what they say is used to do so, typically by politicians and pressure groups.
Although the GGP did not claim that scientists were imposing restrictions, they do get attacked by the general public for it nonetheless (which was the premise of the article). The GP is correct in saying that public ire should be directed to the policy groups and politicians rather than the scientists (as it is now).
Nevertheless, I'm sure that there must be a science paper somewhere that speculates that in order to prevent severe environmental damage, we should reduce use of fossil fuels. The option to cause severe environmental damage can't really be considered a "choice". "Do this or something terrible will happen" does essentially translate as "you must do this"
Even if there is a science paper that makes a connection between human activity and some terrible calamity in the future, it's the researchers prerogative to make that connection. It doesn't automatically mean it has to become policy. If the research does influence policy, its no more causally related to the scientists work than the policy of eliminating government regulation on businesses is to Ayn Rand's writing.
My former employer was always trying to hire people with masters or phds, and those would not only suck at the technical interview (all they knew was Prolog), they would also want to design operating systems or create search algorithms while what we needed was testers or ajax web developers. So for a while I proposed to bring in dropouts, but it did not turned out much better; a lot of them were basement-know-it-all with a lot of personal issues.
In my experience, managers tend to discount candidates holding a PHD because they will likely get bored and leave in short order (because they are generally over qualified). Having to fill a position every six months is probably not good for the bottom line. On the other hand, I've also encountered situations where a manager purposely hired someone who was over qualified fully expecting them to leave after six months or so (which in this instance, happened to be the amount of time they were actually needed). I'm not sure why they would have done this instead of hiring someone on a six month contract. Perhaps there was no way to determine the duration of the project a priori and they were counting on the candidate's desired to finish the task before leaving.
I got the same error. I got around it by navigating to the main home page and clicking through to the article I was looking for (in this case his obituary). Now I want to check with my ISP to see if I'm being proxied (as was suggested in another reply).
With VMware’s Horizon Mobile, malicious software downloaded on the phone’s personal environment shouldn’t affect the virtual “work phone.” And IT shops can manage the virtual phones in much the same way as they manage virtual desktops, provisioning phones with standardized templates and pushing out application updates over-the-air, reviewing the health of the phone from a dashboard, setting policies restricting what the phone may be used for, and remotely locking or wiping the work portion of the phone.
This is probably more appealing to your employer's IT department than the phone user, but it does seem to have a practical use. However, this probably isn't fully implemented yet, so whether or not it actually achieves this functional requirement is purely speculation at the moment.
In terms of immiseration, the problem isn't exploitation but globalization (and cheap transport and communications). Back in the day, you competed for wages largely with people in your own country. Now, you're competing with workers from around the world.
Yet some of the most prosperous countries (based on the inequality-adjusted Human Development Index) are those with the highest cost of living (Norway, Sweden, Germany), and consequently higher wages. There must be more going on here than a competition over wages.
In fact, a previous poster mentioned that HMD systems gave them headaches in the past. This is likely caused, in part, by that very disconnect between what your eye's see, what your ears feel, and what your body is doing. Hopefully people don't try to walk with this thing on.
On the other hand, in spite of their recent troubles, I think Sony has enough money to hire a psychophysicist to help them address these issues.
Pinpointing specific, exclusive areas for language supports the nativist conclusion, dealing a blow to the structuralist theory. Evolution at work, perhaps?
Does it really deal a blow the the structuralist theory? Or does it simply mean that language does not share the same neural machinery as the other tasks in the experiment? Perhaps it just so happens that those particular structures in the brain are useful for language, but not those other tasks. It doesn't mean they are necessarily intended specifically for processing language. From TFA: "Future studies will test the newly identified language areas with even more non-language tasks to see if their functional specificity holds up". I take this to mean that this study is not conclusive (not to denigrate their work in any way, that's science after all). It could just as well mean that our idea of how we do math, compose music etc. are completely wrong.
Part of me is rooting (figuratively) for the structuralists since knowing the foundations of human language would likely be more useful to computational linguists than a black box neural machinery for language. Then again, there's nothing saying we can't open that black box some day, and I haven't worked in computational linguistics in years so this may be an uneducated opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
... in fact, never mind the Internet and blackjack!
This is research that has a military application and as such should perhaps have been more restrictive to start with.
Arguably, most research can have military application. If we start asking all such projects to self sensor themselves, the scientific process gets cut off at the knees. The dividing line between civilian and military applications is vacuous at best (think Internet).
Here here! Who needs silly things like the Internet anyway.
So denying that claim based on photos is harsh, but possibly tenable.
Using the photos as a basis for further investigation is tenable, relying on the photos as the only evidence is jumping to conclusions. I never said it was the wrong conclusion, but it is effectively making a choice with little and incomplete information. Much like we don't know what she told Manulife about her illness, Manulife also don't know the circumstances surrounding the reason she was at the beach. There are many beaches in Quebec, for all we know, this could have been in her back yard on one of her good days.
Everybody that uses social networks
I think this phrase effectively summarizes the problem with this approach: are banks going to refuse to offer service to someone who doesn't have a Facebook account? If not, then cancel your account before applying to a loan or lie; thus rendering the practice useless. However, if the banks do refuse service to people without social media accounts (completely, not selected services as mentioned in TFA), we'll have effectively created a world where if you don't exist in Google, you don't exist.
and they won't jump to conclusion that fast.
From TFA:
in 2009 a woman in Quebec stopped receiving disability payments for major depression after Manulife decided, based on beach vacation photos on Facebook, that she seemed happy enough to work after all.
There's no mention of any further investigation, but this sounds like jumping to conclusions to me.
Perhaps the collapse of the society began before it became matriarchal. The patriarchs might have just fouled up the whole system and given up. The fact that societies collapsed shortly after becoming matriarchal does not mean the two are causally related. There is not sufficient evidence to do more than hypothesize about it.
Something tells me that Viacom has enough money to prolong any legal battle until such a time when FedFlix is no longer solvent and has to give up the fight regardless of whether they are right or wrong.
Your mileage may vary depending on whether your talking about choking an avian or that other euphemism thing. I'm pretty sure KFC is not squeamish when it comes to dead chickens.
How long until we have a CellOS back-end for GCC?
They already host it, deliver it, take care of all billing. It's not like there aren't app review sites all over the web already.
Charging $99 for this service might seem less problematic if it wasn't the only channel by which you could distribute apps. Not to say that it's not a valid model, but it surprises me that hard core capitalists aren't ripping on this as a circumvention of the mechanisms that make the free market work. Having to pay the $99 dollars to distribute the app is not the problem. Being required to do so is.
Of course using wood extensively as a construction material as a way of doing carbon sequestration has a big risk factor associated with it (See the Great Fire of Chicago). Seems to me it would be less risky to periodically cut down the fast growth lumber and send it into the sun. Then again, that sounds slightly James Bond supervillain insane (I say this while petting a white cat).
Wouldn't that mean that when Apple acquires NASA, it will be changed to iAsteroid and iMoon?
Physics was presented with evidence of the lack of causality almost 40 years ago, it's just that until now we haven't had any real evidence.
You realize that's a contradiction? If we haven't had any real evidence until now, then we weren't presented with any 40 years ago. If we were, then it's not true we haven't had any until now.
The evidence showed up 40 years ago as a result of this experiment. Because the neutrinos went faster than the speed of light, they traveled back in time and were observed in 1970. Incidentally, right around the time of the beginning of the Unix epoch.
I'd hate to say this, but company $A having an algorithm that might be tuned however they damn well please does not constitute cooking... unless, there is a master defined algorithm that every search provider must follow.
It might be considered cooking if the algorithm is found to process results relating to a particular party differently than those relating to every other party. A search algorithm should be mostly input agnostic, however, suppressing SPAM, for example, is a legitimate reason not to be. The line between tuning and willful introduction of bias, or flat out censorship, can be quite blurry. My head hurts just thinking about it.
...and who says punctuation is not important?
Thanks, I feel better now: +1. I was getting a bit confused with all this talk about privacy and what not when I could find no indication in TFA that this was meant to be a service available on the internet (or in modern buzz-speak: the cloud), and I thought I was the only person not getting it. When I read the headline, I thought we were going back to the days of time-share computing. It seemed like a giant leap backward to me and it made me think that Microsoft Research must have either taken leave of their senses or found some other way to exploit developers or both. This is a much more interesting idea. However, the expression "give 'em enough rope..." comes to mind.
Also, I suspect Apple might have something to say about iCHELLs.
True, but he didn't say that the climate scientists were restricting that. Only that what they say is used to do so, typically by politicians and pressure groups.
Although the GGP did not claim that scientists were imposing restrictions, they do get attacked by the general public for it nonetheless (which was the premise of the article). The GP is correct in saying that public ire should be directed to the policy groups and politicians rather than the scientists (as it is now).
Nevertheless, I'm sure that there must be a science paper somewhere that speculates that in order to prevent severe environmental damage, we should reduce use of fossil fuels. The option to cause severe environmental damage can't really be considered a "choice". "Do this or something terrible will happen" does essentially translate as "you must do this"
Even if there is a science paper that makes a connection between human activity and some terrible calamity in the future, it's the researchers prerogative to make that connection. It doesn't automatically mean it has to become policy. If the research does influence policy, its no more causally related to the scientists work than the policy of eliminating government regulation on businesses is to Ayn Rand's writing.
My former employer was always trying to hire people with masters or phds, and those would not only suck at the technical interview (all they knew was Prolog), they would also want to design operating systems or create search algorithms while what we needed was testers or ajax web developers. So for a while I proposed to bring in dropouts, but it did not turned out much better; a lot of them were basement-know-it-all with a lot of personal issues.
In my experience, managers tend to discount candidates holding a PHD because they will likely get bored and leave in short order (because they are generally over qualified). Having to fill a position every six months is probably not good for the bottom line. On the other hand, I've also encountered situations where a manager purposely hired someone who was over qualified fully expecting them to leave after six months or so (which in this instance, happened to be the amount of time they were actually needed). I'm not sure why they would have done this instead of hiring someone on a six month contract. Perhaps there was no way to determine the duration of the project a priori and they were counting on the candidate's desired to finish the task before leaving.
I got the same error. I got around it by navigating to the main home page and clicking through to the article I was looking for (in this case his obituary). Now I want to check with my ISP to see if I'm being proxied (as was suggested in another reply).
With VMware’s Horizon Mobile, malicious software downloaded on the phone’s personal environment shouldn’t affect the virtual “work phone.” And IT shops can manage the virtual phones in much the same way as they manage virtual desktops, provisioning phones with standardized templates and pushing out application updates over-the-air, reviewing the health of the phone from a dashboard, setting policies restricting what the phone may be used for, and remotely locking or wiping the work portion of the phone.
This is probably more appealing to your employer's IT department than the phone user, but it does seem to have a practical use. However, this probably isn't fully implemented yet, so whether or not it actually achieves this functional requirement is purely speculation at the moment.
In terms of immiseration, the problem isn't exploitation but globalization (and cheap transport and communications). Back in the day, you competed for wages largely with people in your own country. Now, you're competing with workers from around the world.
Yet some of the most prosperous countries (based on the inequality-adjusted Human Development Index) are those with the highest cost of living (Norway, Sweden, Germany), and consequently higher wages. There must be more going on here than a competition over wages.
"Passive air condensers? Sir, my first job was programing binary load lifters very similar to your vaporators in most respects.”
In fact, a previous poster mentioned that HMD systems gave them headaches in the past. This is likely caused, in part, by that very disconnect between what your eye's see, what your ears feel, and what your body is doing. Hopefully people don't try to walk with this thing on.
On the other hand, in spite of their recent troubles, I think Sony has enough money to hire a psychophysicist to help them address these issues.
Pinpointing specific, exclusive areas for language supports the nativist conclusion, dealing a blow to the structuralist theory. Evolution at work, perhaps?
Does it really deal a blow the the structuralist theory? Or does it simply mean that language does not share the same neural machinery as the other tasks in the experiment? Perhaps it just so happens that those particular structures in the brain are useful for language, but not those other tasks. It doesn't mean they are necessarily intended specifically for processing language. From TFA: "Future studies will test the newly identified language areas with even more non-language tasks to see if their functional specificity holds up". I take this to mean that this study is not conclusive (not to denigrate their work in any way, that's science after all). It could just as well mean that our idea of how we do math, compose music etc. are completely wrong.
Part of me is rooting (figuratively) for the structuralists since knowing the foundations of human language would likely be more useful to computational linguists than a black box neural machinery for language. Then again, there's nothing saying we can't open that black box some day, and I haven't worked in computational linguistics in years so this may be an uneducated opinion.