If you connect through your home VPN, Netflix sees your home IP. They can't know whether the connection from that IP was initiated from within your own home or just via your own home. Unless they block your home IP, which they are obviously not doing: "It’s believed that completely blocking the use of VPN/DNS services is impossible for Netflix, since service providers only need to switch to a new IP address or DNS range to bypass the lock."
While some people have mentioned the "US-resident traveling abroad" scenario, that's not really the scenario that is driving this backlash.
I understand that, but given this sentence from the GP "And I like to travel", I was assuming GP was US-based and providing a possible solution for that specific case.
You were probably going for Funny, but if you think the difference between you and those people is significant (and insurmountable) for developing AI, you are arrogantly mistaken.
Can't you just run a VPN server on your home network? They wont be able to block that. I installed an OpenVPN server on my cheapass OpenWRTd router and as long as the router is on (which it always is), I can connect to the internet via my home connection (which I do both on my laptop and phone when on a public WiFi network).
Granted, this may be problematic if your upstream is crappy, but otherwise it seems like a very simple solution for those based in the US.
"However, the GNU project sees that the fact that only companies and labs have access to this technology can represent a threat" That is not a fact at all. There are tons of open source neural network libraries and tools and even tons of open source neural network libraries that provide recurrent network and deep learning features. Just a 30 second search gives me this list: http://deeplearning.net/softwa...
"a very simple feedforward network which can learn very simple tasks such as curve fitting" This is NN101 stuff and I'm sure hundreds if not thousands of college students have made something similar.
Please explain how this is not an example of the broken window fallacy
Please explain how more sick people is better than or equivalent to fewer sick people, with regard to the economy, even taking into account the cost of the financial aid.
Additionally, I'd like to reiterate an oft forgotten point. Poor people are great at putting their money to work for the economy. Give a poor person money and you can guarantee that it will be spent almost instantly, locally and generally on something that we consider part of the real and essential economy (yes, some of them buy drugs, but on average it goes to food, clothes, transport and other necessities). They sure as hell aren't going to put the money in a bank in the Cayman islands or import Russian caviar.
LiHEAP for instance would parcel out assistance based not on degree-days or income, but on funding levels.
Anecdotes, my friend. Do you have any argumentation towards why a federal government cannot efficiently do this on a fundamental level?
the poor will move where they have a chance.
The only place poor people can easily move to is the street. And that is exactly what happens in places like the US. Americans coming to our 'socialist' country always (with great surprise) ask us where all our homeless people are. The number of homeless people, let alone the many people obviously on the brink of being so, I saw when I recently visited the US was disheartening and morally disgusting.
"But our country is different!' True, many Americans have a very Darwinistic view of how a society should work (which is ironic, given how few people 'believe' in biological evolution). They fail to see that even though it feels really unfair, it is objectively better to spend money to have 'moochers' sitting at home than to leave them to fuck up their lives and those of friends and strangers around them by roaming the streets, committing crime and seeking refuge in terrible drugs. And that doesn't even take into account the (economic!) benefits to society when poor people actually use the aid to grow and become tax-paying members of society.
I will readily admit that even in our 'socalist paradise' the exact same lack of insight is all too present, but as always: everything is bigger in America.
Nobody is perfect. Everyone has done something considered "wrong" in their past
There's a huge difference between 'not perfect' and 'a fucking asshole'. Also, "he acts like regular people act" in the way that he has no problem talking nonsense and covering that up with bullshitting, bullying and pretty much all the juvenile ways to not have to admit having ever been wrong.
Here's a thought: How about an honest rational decent courteous intelligent guy who always says what he believes and has done so for decades?
I had a glimmer of hope that new management of Slashdot would return it to the better old days, but it seems we're still stuck with bullshit summaries of terrible articles on uninteresting crap.
From TFA: "We think people are intuitively looking for a more natural way to interact with [their devices]" You and everybody promoting your shit can intuitively suck my balls.
(ironically, 'sucking on things' is actually one of the few activities that are done intuitively)
The headline could also read: "Men better at selling stuff than women on eBay." Because that is what selling stuff is all about: getting the highest revenue out of your products.
It's a headline you could easily be chastised for, but only by those who consider 'selling stuff' a skill of the light side. Personally, I believe trying to sell stuff to people can bring out the worst in people. Bluffing, exaggerating and positively misrepresenting in general are (alas) skills that aid sales. I would not at all be surprised if men on average tend to be more trained in these skills.
The whole concept of a 'TV' is antiquated anyway. At this point, I actually just want to buy a display.
Pretty much all the non-display related 'features' the TV manufacturers provide in their devices are painfully obsolete and dysfunctional compared to what (some) set-top boxes provide. Considering that most of the 'smart' features are going to be either ignored or hated (either from the start or within a year), the wise decision would be to focus on creating the best displays possible.
Using a satnav and not using a working cellphone seems very improbable to me. Does your grandma drive using satnav often? Does she pick up people from the train station without planning or regard for their situation?
That sounds like a much more reasonable explanation.
The official story makes no sense at all: "Sabine Moreau, 67, had intended to drive to Brussels from her home in Solre-sur-Sambre to pick up a friend from the train station - a journey of just 38 miles."
Forget about the road signs, refueling, sleeping, etc. What happened to the friend? Did they not communicate at all? Something like: "Hey, you were supposed to pick me up half an hour ago, where are you?" I take it she didn't think that keeping somebody waiting at a train station for two days is acceptable, let alone helpful.
OnTopic: The solution to this 'problem' is deathly simple (and it is not 'forget your GPS device'). If you plan a route in reasonable unknown terrain, switch to a 2D north-top map view, zoom out and inspect the route. Your geographical knowledge will actually grow and you can double-check whether the route makes sense and if the device fails, you have some memory of where you want to end up and how to get there.
I don't disagree with your sentiment, but the reality is the reasons these people don't want their information made public are their own problem. Especially when they show so little regard for us.
It might seem a bit harsh to blame the low-level guys and girls for the high-level decisions (which is who most of 'these people' are). OTOH, the lower-level people are pretty much all accomplices in crimes against the constitution (and humanity in general).
I'm definitely not saying it should be open season on each and everybody in those organisations, but it is hard to feel sorry for any 'collateral damage' done here.
There's even a case to be made to purposefully 'hurt' the larger part of an organisation. Considering Snowden exposing how terrible the high-level decisions have been did fuck-all to change them, trying to start some bottom-up change might prove more effective.
Also, note that on the pictures in TFA they widened the bicycle paths and thus effectively put the opposing lanes closer to each other. I imagine that would have an effect on average speed as well.
Although I personally don't mind Slashdot straying slightly into more 'stuff that matters' than 'news for nerds', I would not at all miss all the clickbait articles, the rile-em-up-articles, the terrible teaser non-summaries and all the other disgraces to this community we have been experiencing for months and months now.
So yes, seconded. Crossing my fingers and hoping Slashdot is indeed back to greatness!
The most robust definition of the political center is the center between the terms 'progressive' and 'conservative' (although cases can be made for distinctions based on stance on income redistribution and stance on tasking the government). Those terms are fairly well defined without being tied to a continent or country. Given that definition of center the distinction between an American and European center is nonsensical.
I agree that Rubio will go more to the left (or to the center, if you will) for the general election, but the phrasing 'will come back to the center' is still a misrepresentation of reality, imho. It imbues his future position with a feeling of moderation that is completely undeserved. Slightly to the left of batshit crazy is still crazy.
Please. Nobody in the GOP will ever be close to the center. They are all superconservative. Most of the Democratic party is the closest thing the US has to being 'center'. Bernie Sanders is the only real leftwinger running, which in the US apparently equates to PINKO COMMIE.
What higher scores do is show the most POPULAR comments, the ones that maximize groupthink. They do not necessarily enable the "best" comments in terms of quality, and certainly not the ones that will maximize discussion of a variety of views.
Read, man. Read: "The key point is the 'popularity contest' and 'best' part of it. If the moderation process is unable to provide accurate ratings, the final 'ranking' will be inaccurate and unusable."
But regardless, your proposal not only doesn't solve the problem
What is my proposal exactly? I'm pretty sure I didn't propose a specific implementation.
Your concerns are valid, but your approach is not very constructive. One could imagine factoring in the age of a post or the number of 'views' it has gotten in ascertaining its score. Or perhaps add an element of exploration in browsing by always showing several unrated posts (within their threads) to those with mod points. Both would mitigate 'burial' of good posts.
Another idea is to implement an influence factor, where your (moderation) karma is a multiplier for the moderations you make, thus giving more power to what the community deems its most valuable members. There are some abuse issues with this (improving your karma with an extra account) which are easily mitigated if taken into account, but otherwise it makes sense to improve the quality of the scores of posts.
Fission (which we've had for decades) is a perfectly workable and acceptable energy source for "serious interstellar travel".
I'd say that 'perfectly workable' is an overstatement. AFAIK, the fuel requirements are non-trivial issues at the scales we're talking about. Much less so for fusion.
It's completely crazy to claim "small aircraft" would be a suitable use-case for a fusion power plant.
That only depends on how small we can make them. The point with aircraft is that they need a high energy density power source and rake in lots of money. Leaf blowers don't, which is why your comparison is invalid.
We are going to need portable fusion if we ever want to do serious interstellar travel. Wind power sucks in space, natural gas (combustion) takes up a lot of space and PV produces only a very slight bit of energy once you get a fair bit away from the sun.
Small fusion reactors can be superuseful even without taking into account space travel. From battleships to trains to large aircraft to small aircraft: they have a use at many scales where high energy density (production) is required or preferred.
Slashdot Mirror
If you connect through your home VPN, Netflix sees your home IP. They can't know whether the connection from that IP was initiated from within your own home or just via your own home. Unless they block your home IP, which they are obviously not doing:
"It’s believed that completely blocking the use of VPN/DNS services is impossible for Netflix, since service providers only need to switch to a new IP address or DNS range to bypass the lock."
Take some time to read through this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
While some people have mentioned the "US-resident traveling abroad" scenario, that's not really the scenario that is driving this backlash.
I understand that, but given this sentence from the GP "And I like to travel", I was assuming GP was US-based and providing a possible solution for that specific case.
You were probably going for Funny, but if you think the difference between you and those people is significant (and insurmountable) for developing AI, you are arrogantly mistaken.
We're not as special as we think we are.
Can't you just run a VPN server on your home network? They wont be able to block that.
I installed an OpenVPN server on my cheapass OpenWRTd router and as long as the router is on (which it always is), I can connect to the internet via my home connection (which I do both on my laptop and phone when on a public WiFi network).
Granted, this may be problematic if your upstream is crappy, but otherwise it seems like a very simple solution for those based in the US.
It disappoints me that I had to scroll down this far. The headline and the summary are absolutely fucking useless.
"However, the GNU project sees that the fact that only companies and labs have access to this technology can represent a threat"
That is not a fact at all. There are tons of open source neural network libraries and tools and even tons of open source neural network libraries that provide recurrent network and deep learning features. Just a 30 second search gives me this list:
http://deeplearning.net/softwa...
"a very simple feedforward network which can learn very simple tasks such as curve fitting"
This is NN101 stuff and I'm sure hundreds if not thousands of college students have made something similar.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
If you radiate energy of any frequency you can be detected
Like human soldiers do, you mean? Or does infrared not count?
Please explain how this is not an example of the broken window fallacy
Please explain how more sick people is better than or equivalent to fewer sick people, with regard to the economy, even taking into account the cost of the financial aid.
Additionally, I'd like to reiterate an oft forgotten point. Poor people are great at putting their money to work for the economy. Give a poor person money and you can guarantee that it will be spent almost instantly, locally and generally on something that we consider part of the real and essential economy (yes, some of them buy drugs, but on average it goes to food, clothes, transport and other necessities). They sure as hell aren't going to put the money in a bank in the Cayman islands or import Russian caviar.
LiHEAP for instance would parcel out assistance based not on degree-days or income, but on funding levels.
Anecdotes, my friend. Do you have any argumentation towards why a federal government cannot efficiently do this on a fundamental level?
the poor will move where they have a chance.
The only place poor people can easily move to is the street. And that is exactly what happens in places like the US. Americans coming to our 'socialist' country always (with great surprise) ask us where all our homeless people are. The number of homeless people, let alone the many people obviously on the brink of being so, I saw when I recently visited the US was disheartening and morally disgusting.
"But our country is different!'
True, many Americans have a very Darwinistic view of how a society should work (which is ironic, given how few people 'believe' in biological evolution). They fail to see that even though it feels really unfair, it is objectively better to spend money to have 'moochers' sitting at home than to leave them to fuck up their lives and those of friends and strangers around them by roaming the streets, committing crime and seeking refuge in terrible drugs. And that doesn't even take into account the (economic!) benefits to society when poor people actually use the aid to grow and become tax-paying members of society.
I will readily admit that even in our 'socalist paradise' the exact same lack of insight is all too present, but as always: everything is bigger in America.
Obligatory (legendary) George Carlin bit:
George Carlin - Germs, Immune System
Cannabis was outlawed in many/most states from the mid-1930's until recently - and is still today outlawed in most states. That's 85 years.
US Supreme Court rules gay marriage is legal nationwide
Change can happen very quickly. If Americans decide to go for Sanders/Hillary, it very probably will (via the SC).
Nobody is perfect. Everyone has done something considered "wrong" in their past
There's a huge difference between 'not perfect' and 'a fucking asshole'.
Also, "he acts like regular people act" in the way that he has no problem talking nonsense and covering that up with bullshitting, bullying and pretty much all the juvenile ways to not have to admit having ever been wrong.
Here's a thought: How about an honest rational decent courteous intelligent guy who always says what he believes and has done so for decades?
I had a glimmer of hope that new management of Slashdot would return it to the better old days, but it seems we're still stuck with bullshit summaries of terrible articles on uninteresting crap.
From TFA: "We think people are intuitively looking for a more natural way to interact with [their devices]"
You and everybody promoting your shit can intuitively suck my balls.
(ironically, 'sucking on things' is actually one of the few activities that are done intuitively)
The headline could also read: "Men better at selling stuff than women on eBay."
Because that is what selling stuff is all about: getting the highest revenue out of your products.
It's a headline you could easily be chastised for, but only by those who consider 'selling stuff' a skill of the light side. Personally, I believe trying to sell stuff to people can bring out the worst in people. Bluffing, exaggerating and positively misrepresenting in general are (alas) skills that aid sales. I would not at all be surprised if men on average tend to be more trained in these skills.
The whole concept of a 'TV' is antiquated anyway. At this point, I actually just want to buy a display.
Pretty much all the non-display related 'features' the TV manufacturers provide in their devices are painfully obsolete and dysfunctional compared to what (some) set-top boxes provide. Considering that most of the 'smart' features are going to be either ignored or hated (either from the start or within a year), the wise decision would be to focus on creating the best displays possible.
67 is not that old.
Using a satnav and not using a working cellphone seems very improbable to me. Does your grandma drive using satnav often?
Does she pick up people from the train station without planning or regard for their situation?
That sounds like a much more reasonable explanation.
The official story makes no sense at all: "Sabine Moreau, 67, had intended to drive to Brussels from her home in Solre-sur-Sambre to pick up a friend from the train station - a journey of just 38 miles."
Forget about the road signs, refueling, sleeping, etc.
What happened to the friend? Did they not communicate at all? Something like: "Hey, you were supposed to pick me up half an hour ago, where are you?"
I take it she didn't think that keeping somebody waiting at a train station for two days is acceptable, let alone helpful.
OnTopic:
The solution to this 'problem' is deathly simple (and it is not 'forget your GPS device'). If you plan a route in reasonable unknown terrain, switch to a 2D north-top map view, zoom out and inspect the route. Your geographical knowledge will actually grow and you can double-check whether the route makes sense and if the device fails, you have some memory of where you want to end up and how to get there.
I don't disagree with your sentiment, but the reality is the reasons these people don't want their information made public are their own problem. Especially when they show so little regard for us.
It might seem a bit harsh to blame the low-level guys and girls for the high-level decisions (which is who most of 'these people' are). OTOH, the lower-level people are pretty much all accomplices in crimes against the constitution (and humanity in general).
I'm definitely not saying it should be open season on each and everybody in those organisations, but it is hard to feel sorry for any 'collateral damage' done here.
There's even a case to be made to purposefully 'hurt' the larger part of an organisation. Considering Snowden exposing how terrible the high-level decisions have been did fuck-all to change them, trying to start some bottom-up change might prove more effective.
Also, note that on the pictures in TFA they widened the bicycle paths and thus effectively put the opposing lanes closer to each other. I imagine that would have an effect on average speed as well.
Although I personally don't mind Slashdot straying slightly into more 'stuff that matters' than 'news for nerds', I would not at all miss all the clickbait articles, the rile-em-up-articles, the terrible teaser non-summaries and all the other disgraces to this community we have been experiencing for months and months now.
So yes, seconded. Crossing my fingers and hoping Slashdot is indeed back to greatness!
That made everything worse.
The most robust definition of the political center is the center between the terms 'progressive' and 'conservative' (although cases can be made for distinctions based on stance on income redistribution and stance on tasking the government). Those terms are fairly well defined without being tied to a continent or country.
Given that definition of center the distinction between an American and European center is nonsensical.
I agree that Rubio will go more to the left (or to the center, if you will) for the general election, but the phrasing 'will come back to the center' is still a misrepresentation of reality, imho. It imbues his future position with a feeling of moderation that is completely undeserved. Slightly to the left of batshit crazy is still crazy.
Please. Nobody in the GOP will ever be close to the center. They are all superconservative.
Most of the Democratic party is the closest thing the US has to being 'center'. Bernie Sanders is the only real leftwinger running, which in the US apparently equates to PINKO COMMIE.
What higher scores do is show the most POPULAR comments, the ones that maximize groupthink. They do not necessarily enable the "best" comments in terms of quality, and certainly not the ones that will maximize discussion of a variety of views.
Read, man. Read:
"The key point is the 'popularity contest' and 'best' part of it. If the moderation process is unable to provide accurate ratings, the final 'ranking' will be inaccurate and unusable."
But regardless, your proposal not only doesn't solve the problem
What is my proposal exactly? I'm pretty sure I didn't propose a specific implementation.
Your concerns are valid, but your approach is not very constructive. One could imagine factoring in the age of a post or the number of 'views' it has gotten in ascertaining its score. Or perhaps add an element of exploration in browsing by always showing several unrated posts (within their threads) to those with mod points. Both would mitigate 'burial' of good posts.
Another idea is to implement an influence factor, where your (moderation) karma is a multiplier for the moderations you make, thus giving more power to what the community deems its most valuable members. There are some abuse issues with this (improving your karma with an extra account) which are easily mitigated if taken into account, but otherwise it makes sense to improve the quality of the scores of posts.
Fission (which we've had for decades) is a perfectly workable and acceptable energy source for "serious interstellar travel".
I'd say that 'perfectly workable' is an overstatement. AFAIK, the fuel requirements are non-trivial issues at the scales we're talking about. Much less so for fusion.
It's completely crazy to claim "small aircraft" would be a suitable use-case for a fusion power plant.
That only depends on how small we can make them. The point with aircraft is that they need a high energy density power source and rake in lots of money. Leaf blowers don't, which is why your comparison is invalid.
We are going to need portable fusion if we ever want to do serious interstellar travel. Wind power sucks in space, natural gas (combustion) takes up a lot of space and PV produces only a very slight bit of energy once you get a fair bit away from the sun.
Small fusion reactors can be superuseful even without taking into account space travel. From battleships to trains to large aircraft to small aircraft: they have a use at many scales where high energy density (production) is required or preferred.