Google doesn't need anymore money, thank you very much. It's fine that they 'waste' it on research. Much like ol Elon.
Nonetheless, I think they need to think about doing something with less potential for serious problems. I found the phrase
We never told it during training, ‘This is a cat,’” Dean told the New York Times. “It basically invented the concept of a cat.”
To be the scariest thing I've read all day. It did that by parsing YouTube. That was the first attempt to parse YouTube with 'Deep Learning".
I do not want to be around when it finally figures out about 4Chan.
My OMG moment came when I read
Nobody is saying that this system has exceeded the human ability to classify photos; indeed, if a human hired to write captions performed at the level of this neural net, the newbie wouldn’t last until lunchtime. But it did shockingly, shockingly well for a machine. Some of the dead-on hits included “a group of young people playing a game of frisbee,” “a person riding a motorcycle on a dirt road,” and “a herd of elephants walking across a dry grass field.”
because looking at those images made me realize the machine basically trained itself to do couple two domains of knowledge that even experts in language acquisition and image recognition only partially understand.
That's just flat out amazing.
The other part that got me going "Wow" reads
The neural-net system was left to its own deep learning devices to learn game rules—the system simply tried its hand at millions of sessions of Pong, Space Invaders, Beam Rider and other classics, and taught itself to do equal or surpass an accomplished adolescent. (Take notice, Twitch!) Even more intriguing, some of its more successful strategies were ones that no humans had ever envisioned.
As an old-timer (older than Dean which makes me feel like I missed the boat by spending so much time earning a doctorate in the humanities), I wanted to know precisely what successful alternative strategies DeepMind had devised in which games.
I mean, besides being completely fucking cool, that shit is like gothic scary.
The end of the article where Hassabis notes that humans should never spend any time wondering what book they should read next made me think of Richard Powers’ Galatea 2.2 which is an incredible read about the attempt to build an AI capable of passing a Master's exam in English Literature. Not as nerdy as the/. might like but it raises many of the important questions that we face as machines increasingly become able to make autonomous decisions based on (as the article calls it) "unstructured data".
I'm really glad to hear DeepMind has formed an external board to monitor the progress of its development and while the composition of that board is secret, I do think the product of its deliberations should be made public. In any case, it won't be too long before the US government (or the government of whatever country DeepMind cares to be in) will consider it an issue of national security and categorize AI and neural net technology as a munition or whatever it takes to get greater insight into what DeepMind and companies like it are actually building.
Unix doesn't help much. I mean if apache can't read/home/me/www/path/to/index.html the OS isn't going to tell you its because of the permissions on/home. Meanwhile you have given up and gone chmod -R 777/
Actually, both the browser and the Apache log will tell you it's a permissions issue. Go to the root of/home and either add the Apache user to the group that has access to "/home/me/www/path/to/index.html" or change the group access to Apache's user.
Once the group is correct, change the permissions to g+r if necessary.
Taking the 15 seconds to properly set permissions when you know the issue is a permissions issue (otherwise why would chmod 777 fix the issue) really is just too easy not to do.
Whenever I see devs take the stupid shortcut of "chmod 777" I wonder what is the brain drain for these "professionals" that they can't figure out how to enable make use of "chown root:admin" and then "chmod g+x", or whatever's the appropriate level of permissions for the task at hand.
How can developers be so lazy and so security naive? It's like using signal lights when driving. Just do it because it makes for good habits.
Parent heads off the practically inevitable trivializations of how universal surveillance produces a chilling effect, squelching dissent and suppressing critiques that would uncover, for example, corporate malfeasance and government corruption.
Additionally, the surveillance regime of early the early 21st-century United States is one of the greatest ideological errors and phenomenological atrocities of human history. I'm not sure there exist (nor can exist) a human institution more worrisome or troubling without its being coupled to an enforcement regime which—as we all too plainly know—the system of US surveillance is.
Uber is an ethically-challenged company. They are repeatedly in the news for their unscrupulous behavior (e.g. DDoSing their competitors by requesting and canceling rides) and dragged into court by multiple jurisdictions for their negligence in matters of insurance, background checks for their drivers, and predatory business practices.
Uber's CEO's tone deaf call to harass journalists was the last straw for me and I stopped using Uber and began using their competitor Lyft.
If Lyft is as good in your city as it is in mine, you may be pleasantly surprised should you also choose to switch.
I'm personally sick of hearing about Uber acting like assholes in the news and, for my money, they can't go under quickly enough.
Since SMTP allows forwarding by other servers this would require deep packet inspection.
If you mean the SMTP protocol supports chained delivery routes, then I do not think this is true (at least not used in practice). However, business customers of Gmail (at least) can request that a different SMTP server than Google's be used for outgoing mail, and (of course) anyone using an external mail client can send using any SMTP server they like.
I run a personal mail server and know I know just enough to know that I have vast chasms of ignorance about mail and network rules/firewalls.
Wouldn't it be easier to filter outbound packets destined for Gmail's SMTP servers and prevent Chinese email users from sending email to Gmail users? (This is an honest question.)
I will admit that I am pretty quick to shout heads up and escalate the verbal stakes (e.g. cursing) when motorists honk if I (for example) legally and quickly take the full lane, but I only do so in the interest of encouraging safer driving and cycling. I have zero interest in provoking a fight.
"Quickly?" In other words, you're riding along the right hand side of your lane, and as a car approaches intending to pass you, you quickly move into the middle or left of the lane to force them to quickly slow down to prevent passing. Doing anything "quickly" that obstructs others is a dick move and you know it. You're an asshole who makes the rest of us cyclists look bad. Only in very rare situations would that "quickly" move promote safety. It's unsafe to anger another driver, both to you and the next cyclist they come upon. You're not doing it to promote safety, you're doing it to express dominance, like a gorilla beating its chest.
Next time you try that, think about this - are you doing it to promote safety, or are you doing it to try to express dominance by proving that you can legally be a dick? Believe me, the other driver doesn't care how big your penis is, so be the better person and don't be a dick or a dumbass to cars when you're on your bike, you're making the rest of us look bad, and it hurts us when we actually want to promote safety or policy changes (who wants their tax dollars to pay for bike lanes for a bunch of assholes like you?)
What's with your attitude? As far as anyone can tell, you're the asshole for all your presumption.
In any case, I do signal before moving from the edge of a lane to the middle, and I do assess if it's OK to do so.
Also, where I live (California), drivers may only pass when there is three or more feet between a cyclist and a driver.
Why don't you take your sanctimoniousness someplace where it's warranted?
"legally and quickly take the full lane"
as long as you are not impeding the flow of traffic, i have no problems.
Where I live, as in many municipalities, motorists must yield to cyclists who may be avoiding hazards that motorists cannot see such as roadside debris, potholes, opening doors, etc.
Additionally, in major metropolitan areas, it's safer to yield to bicyclists who will pass through traffic once they've done taking the full lane as they need.
With regard to cycling safety: when I drive, I think like a bicyclist and when I bike, I think like a motorist.
Not all motorists are calmed when they see my camera, but it seems many are (for example, they'll ease off tailgating me and shadowing my blind spots).
You are on a bicycle. You have no blind spots.
That's ridiculous.
Just as when driving your blind spots are at 7 o'clock and 5 o'clock. And just as when driving, one compensates by turning one's head or using a mirror.
I cycle in a major metro area and started wearing a highly visible helmet camera for liability reasons.
I also noticed (anecdata!) that the camera tended to have a calming effect on motorists near me as I would (for example) turn to look over my shoulder and the camera profile was visible.
Not all motorists are calmed when they see my camera, but it seems many are (for example, they'll ease off tailgating me and shadowing my blind spots).
I will admit that I am pretty quick to shout heads up and escalate the verbal stakes (e.g. cursing) when motorists honk if I (for example) legally and quickly take the full lane, but I only do so in the interest of encouraging safer driving and cycling. I have zero interest in provoking a fight.
Admittedly with no data to hand, the demographic who watches FOX as a source of news likely anti-intellectual, science-denying, god-fearing, economically disenfranchised, and socially regressive.
It looks like you missed at least three words in this sentence. But that's the problem with calling people dumb over the Internet, isn't it?
I missed one word, an "is" between "news" and "likely".
I called no one dumb, though I did insinuate it by calling people a subset of people who don't get their news from cable TV "smart ones". I stand by that assertion, that people who get their news through the Internet are more literate, skeptical, and open to evidence-based claims than those who get their news through cable TV.
I have no data for my claim, which I admit is a stereotype.
Finally, I don't hate the audience I characterized, though my political differences with that audience may be great.
I've never heard of a cable package with CNN not on basic cable. You usually get CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. Dish network, the company who we're allegedly talking about, has all 3 on their basic service.
Also, the bonus for doctor's offices and car dealerships doesn't account for the success of Fox's prime time shows. Fox News routinely blows out its competitors in prime time, a time at which most of those businesses are closed and viewers are watching at home.
The people still glued to their TV sets and cable television in the US in 2014 are very likely politically and educationally uniform.
Admittedly with no data to hand, the demographic who watches FOX as a source of news likely anti-intellectual, science-denying, god-fearing, economically disenfranchised, and socially regressive.
But even if I'm mistaken in my gross stereotype of the audience for FOX News, judging the "merits" of a TV network according to the size of the TV audience misses the forest for the trees which is that in 2014 the smart ones aren't really watching any cable TV at all.
One guess where those smart people are getting their news. (Hint: the Internet has many, many sources of information where even single individuals can reach millions of people pretty much in real time.)
That's why the price of oil has tumbled. It's collusion to drive Russia further into chaos.
That's why the price of oil has tumbled. It's collusion to drive Russia further into chaos.
It's not collusion; it's strategic economic sanction using market manipulation.
Non-OPEC oil-producing nations have increased their oil production thereby glutting the market. Once the oil market tumbled, Russia's bid to annex Ukraine to secure oil supply not only became moot. It also became a liability.
Now that the fallen Russian economy is forecast to fall even further, Putin's political machine is trying to counter the historical record provided by international journalism with Russia's homegrown Internet propaganda machine, which is part of the reason Google is being forced out of Russia.
That is, at the same time Russia ramps its efforts to pollute the historical record with Internet trolls, it needs to eject the (mostly, ha!) politically neutral search results provided by Western Internet companies such as Google.
What confuses me is how Net Neutrality could do anything but help the urban and rural poor because Net Neutrality aims to prevent ISPs from discriminating between the sources and destinations of packets meaning that the traffic of non-profits (for example) and will be equally served by ISP networks in the US to the users of those networks.
Am I missing something here?
My suspicion is that the advocacy groups don't have a good understanding of how Net Neutrality will protect all users and content providers from ISP exploitation and that these advocacy groups have been given misinformation by advisors who, in fact, are in the back pocket's of the ISPs.
My 8th grade English teacher told us that books were written in the third person, and sometimes the first person. I raised my hand and asked about books written in the second person. She told me there was no such thing. The next day, I came in with "The Mystery Of Chimney Rock" and got a frown from Mrs. Sampson. She had what I found in later life to be a common reaction from the literati when they encounter an inconvenient truth: she disparaged it as garbage literature and said it didn't count.
Mrs. Sampson, you really disappointed me. Here was a chance to learn something new, and you refused because it threatened your existing view of what literature is.
Unfortunately, many teachers become interested in "education" not because they want to learn and explore but because they want to "master" a field of knowledge. They want to swallow truth whole and digest it so that it will embiggen them. They often don't consider that the domains which constitute knowledge will grow and change as long as there are things that can be known.
More directly concerning the question of second-person Literature-with-a-capital-"L" Literature, Jay McInerney's Bright Lights, Big City is written in the second-person and is well-regarded by many teachers of creative writing and professors of Literature.
The ^ in the sig is to the power. So "1^2=1" reads "One squared equals one."
If you follow the logic laid in the sig, the final assertion seems wrong to me. I think it should read "2=0" (after adding "1" to both sides of "1=-1").
But what do I know and, more importantly, what does it matter?! ; )
There is a huge difference between being in a room with someone with early stages of ebola for a few minutes and working in a hospital. Here are some factors when working in a hospital with ebola patients;
1. Much longer contact periods. Many health workers in Africa work 18 hour days.
2. Much closer contact. Health workers touch ebola patients much more often than the general public.
3. Contact later in the disease progression. Ebola is transmitted by bodily fluids. As the disease progresses more bodily fluids are secreted, it is a hemorrhagic disease, and more pathogen is present in the excretions.
If one works long hours and their suit is covered in ebola laden fluids it is quite probable that a small mistake can cause infection. Even the fatigue factor may cause errors in protocol.
The nurses in Texas who contracted Ebola from Duncan, do you believe that they had "prolonged" contact with him?
The Ebola virus spreads through bodily fluids including saliva (aerosolized when sneezing) and sweat. I think it is easier to spread than is currently believed, especially because fluids are more readily spread than is understood even by health experts.
Also, the Ebola virus apparently can live outside the body for several days if encapsulated in body fluids.
So far we have a small handful of US infections - mostly related to one guy who brought it in the country and the healthcare workers who didn't follow appropriate protocols while working with him. (Some of that blame might lie on the CDC and the hospital's management - not all of it on the nurses.)
Contrast this with the 5% - 20% of people in the US who get the flu every year and the 200,000 who are hospitalized with flu-related complications. (Source)
Can we please stop comparing Ebola to the flu?
For starters, Ebola apparently has a 70% mortality rate. Additionally, Ebola kills people who are otherwise perfectly healthy. The flu does not.
The flu is a health concern, yes, but widespread infection of Ebola is a nightmare that would make (in Sierra Leone, "makes") most years' flu seasons look like a sneezing fit.
well no, I bet a dollar there was a tear in his suit. Simplest explanation is always right.
My favorite part about this is how it gives the lie to all the xenophobic rationalizations that people in various African nations were contracting Ebola because of $DANGEROUS_TRIBAL_FUNERARY_CEREMONY.
Ebola is transmitted through bodily fluids including sweat and aerosolized saliva (produced by sneezing). Containing bodily fluids in a social context—especially saliva and sweat—is virtually impossible and probably makes Ebola a lot more contagious than the talking heads are letting on.
So surprisingly few competently written applications do this; GNU dhcpd was one, I'll give you that if you can give me another.
A Leopard (Mac OS X v.10.5.8) web server (Apache) I admin was defaced a few days after the exploit was announced.
Totally my fault for not immediately securing BASH, but yeah, I'm pretty sure the cgi scripts authored by MovableType (3.x) make calls to/bin/sh.
I do consider MovableType to be competently written. The reality is that the Shellshock vulnerability was something no one was really thinking about and it took many admins and even highly technical groups of people by surprise.*
* Whatever you think of Yahoo! their engineers and admins are highly technical. Shellshock is just a very nasty bug.
Except they've pivoted and HAVE been making HTML5 authoring tools for the last 3 years. Edge, Muse, Flash (yes, it's been exporting to HTML5 for a while now), among others use HTML5 as their final output.
I went to a pitch-disguised-as-a-conference for one of Adobe's then-upcoming products (Edge?) and was fairly impressed about Adobe's recommitting to HTML5 authoring and a CSS/JS IDE.
Fast forward two years and many developers still haven't touched these products because they are avoiding Adobe's subscription-based licensing.
Adobe needs radically to change their corporate culture because a significant portion of the developers who would love to use their products are NOT going to start paying rent to even read the content they've created.*
* This sentence is a polite translation of "Adobe can go die in a fire."
Slashdot Mirror
Google doesn't need anymore money, thank you very much. It's fine that they 'waste' it on research. Much like ol Elon.
Nonetheless, I think they need to think about doing something with less potential for serious problems. I found the phrase
We never told it during training, ‘This is a cat,’” Dean told the New York Times. “It basically invented the concept of a cat.”
To be the scariest thing I've read all day. It did that by parsing YouTube. That was the first attempt to parse YouTube with 'Deep Learning".
I do not want to be around when it finally figures out about 4Chan.
My OMG moment came when I read
because looking at those images made me realize the machine basically trained itself to do couple two domains of knowledge that even experts in language acquisition and image recognition only partially understand.
That's just flat out amazing.
The other part that got me going "Wow" reads
As an old-timer (older than Dean which makes me feel like I missed the boat by spending so much time earning a doctorate in the humanities), I wanted to know precisely what successful alternative strategies DeepMind had devised in which games.
I mean, besides being completely fucking cool, that shit is like gothic scary.
The end of the article where Hassabis notes that humans should never spend any time wondering what book they should read next made me think of Richard Powers’ Galatea 2.2 which is an incredible read about the attempt to build an AI capable of passing a Master's exam in English Literature. Not as nerdy as the /. might like but it raises many of the important questions that we face as machines increasingly become able to make autonomous decisions based on (as the article calls it) "unstructured data".
I'm really glad to hear DeepMind has formed an external board to monitor the progress of its development and while the composition of that board is secret, I do think the product of its deliberations should be made public. In any case, it won't be too long before the US government (or the government of whatever country DeepMind cares to be in) will consider it an issue of national security and categorize AI and neural net technology as a munition or whatever it takes to get greater insight into what DeepMind and companies like it are actually building.
Unix doesn't help much. I mean if apache can't read /home/me/www/path/to/index.html the OS isn't going to tell you its because of the permissions on /home. Meanwhile you have given up and gone chmod -R 777 /
Actually, both the browser and the Apache log will tell you it's a permissions issue. Go to the root of /home and either add the Apache user to the group that has access to "/home/me/www/path/to/index.html" or change the group access to Apache's user.
Once the group is correct, change the permissions to g+r if necessary.
Taking the 15 seconds to properly set permissions when you know the issue is a permissions issue (otherwise why would chmod 777 fix the issue) really is just too easy not to do.
Also, use your signal lights!
Whenever I see devs take the stupid shortcut of "chmod 777" I wonder what is the brain drain for these "professionals" that they can't figure out how to enable make use of "chown root:admin" and then "chmod g+x", or whatever's the appropriate level of permissions for the task at hand.
How can developers be so lazy and so security naive? It's like using signal lights when driving. Just do it because it makes for good habits.
Today is not 1 April!
Hard to believe what I'm reading here. I was starting to grow cynical.
Anyhow, just wanted to post to say this appears to be a good thing. Very, very exciting.
P. S. I meant to mod GP "Insightful", which it most certainly is.
Please mod GP up.
Replying to undo "Redundant" mod.
Parent heads off the practically inevitable trivializations of how universal surveillance produces a chilling effect, squelching dissent and suppressing critiques that would uncover, for example, corporate malfeasance and government corruption.
Additionally, the surveillance regime of early the early 21st-century United States is one of the greatest ideological errors and phenomenological atrocities of human history. I'm not sure there exist (nor can exist) a human institution more worrisome or troubling without its being coupled to an enforcement regime which—as we all too plainly know—the system of US surveillance is.
Uber is an ethically-challenged company. They are repeatedly in the news for their unscrupulous behavior (e.g. DDoSing their competitors by requesting and canceling rides) and dragged into court by multiple jurisdictions for their negligence in matters of insurance, background checks for their drivers, and predatory business practices.
Uber's CEO's tone deaf call to harass journalists was the last straw for me and I stopped using Uber and began using their competitor Lyft.
If Lyft is as good in your city as it is in mine, you may be pleasantly surprised should you also choose to switch.
I'm personally sick of hearing about Uber acting like assholes in the news and, for my money, they can't go under quickly enough.
Since SMTP allows forwarding by other servers this would require deep packet inspection.
If you mean the SMTP protocol supports chained delivery routes, then I do not think this is true (at least not used in practice). However, business customers of Gmail (at least) can request that a different SMTP server than Google's be used for outgoing mail, and (of course) anyone using an external mail client can send using any SMTP server they like.
I run a personal mail server and know I know just enough to know that I have vast chasms of ignorance about mail and network rules/firewalls.
Wouldn't it be easier to filter outbound packets destined for Gmail's SMTP servers and prevent Chinese email users from sending email to Gmail users? (This is an honest question.)
I will admit that I am pretty quick to shout heads up and escalate the verbal stakes (e.g. cursing) when motorists honk if I (for example) legally and quickly take the full lane, but I only do so in the interest of encouraging safer driving and cycling. I have zero interest in provoking a fight.
"Quickly?" In other words, you're riding along the right hand side of your lane, and as a car approaches intending to pass you, you quickly move into the middle or left of the lane to force them to quickly slow down to prevent passing. Doing anything "quickly" that obstructs others is a dick move and you know it. You're an asshole who makes the rest of us cyclists look bad. Only in very rare situations would that "quickly" move promote safety. It's unsafe to anger another driver, both to you and the next cyclist they come upon. You're not doing it to promote safety, you're doing it to express dominance, like a gorilla beating its chest.
Next time you try that, think about this - are you doing it to promote safety, or are you doing it to try to express dominance by proving that you can legally be a dick? Believe me, the other driver doesn't care how big your penis is, so be the better person and don't be a dick or a dumbass to cars when you're on your bike, you're making the rest of us look bad, and it hurts us when we actually want to promote safety or policy changes (who wants their tax dollars to pay for bike lanes for a bunch of assholes like you?)
What's with your attitude? As far as anyone can tell, you're the asshole for all your presumption.
In any case, I do signal before moving from the edge of a lane to the middle, and I do assess if it's OK to do so.
Also, where I live (California), drivers may only pass when there is three or more feet between a cyclist and a driver.
Why don't you take your sanctimoniousness someplace where it's warranted?
"legally and quickly take the full lane" as long as you are not impeding the flow of traffic, i have no problems.
Where I live, as in many municipalities, motorists must yield to cyclists who may be avoiding hazards that motorists cannot see such as roadside debris, potholes, opening doors, etc.
Additionally, in major metropolitan areas, it's safer to yield to bicyclists who will pass through traffic once they've done taking the full lane as they need.
With regard to cycling safety: when I drive, I think like a bicyclist and when I bike, I think like a motorist.
Not to mention that when one cycles, a mirror doesn't provide the same kind of "rear view" as a rear view mirror does while driving.
Not all motorists are calmed when they see my camera, but it seems many are (for example, they'll ease off tailgating me and shadowing my blind spots).
You are on a bicycle. You have no blind spots.
That's ridiculous.
Just as when driving your blind spots are at 7 o'clock and 5 o'clock. And just as when driving, one compensates by turning one's head or using a mirror.
I cycle in a major metro area and started wearing a highly visible helmet camera for liability reasons.
I also noticed (anecdata!) that the camera tended to have a calming effect on motorists near me as I would (for example) turn to look over my shoulder and the camera profile was visible.
Not all motorists are calmed when they see my camera, but it seems many are (for example, they'll ease off tailgating me and shadowing my blind spots).
I will admit that I am pretty quick to shout heads up and escalate the verbal stakes (e.g. cursing) when motorists honk if I (for example) legally and quickly take the full lane, but I only do so in the interest of encouraging safer driving and cycling. I have zero interest in provoking a fight.
YMMV
Admittedly with no data to hand, the demographic who watches FOX as a source of news likely anti-intellectual, science-denying, god-fearing, economically disenfranchised, and socially regressive.
It looks like you missed at least three words in this sentence. But that's the problem with calling people dumb over the Internet, isn't it?
I missed one word, an "is" between "news" and "likely".
I called no one dumb, though I did insinuate it by calling people a subset of people who don't get their news from cable TV "smart ones". I stand by that assertion, that people who get their news through the Internet are more literate, skeptical, and open to evidence-based claims than those who get their news through cable TV.
I have no data for my claim, which I admit is a stereotype.
Finally, I don't hate the audience I characterized, though my political differences with that audience may be great.
I've never heard of a cable package with CNN not on basic cable. You usually get CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. Dish network, the company who we're allegedly talking about, has all 3 on their basic service.
Also, the bonus for doctor's offices and car dealerships doesn't account for the success of Fox's prime time shows. Fox News routinely blows out its competitors in prime time, a time at which most of those businesses are closed and viewers are watching at home.
The people still glued to their TV sets and cable television in the US in 2014 are very likely politically and educationally uniform.
Admittedly with no data to hand, the demographic who watches FOX as a source of news likely anti-intellectual, science-denying, god-fearing, economically disenfranchised, and socially regressive.
But even if I'm mistaken in my gross stereotype of the audience for FOX News, judging the "merits" of a TV network according to the size of the TV audience misses the forest for the trees which is that in 2014 the smart ones aren't really watching any cable TV at all.
One guess where those smart people are getting their news. (Hint: the Internet has many, many sources of information where even single individuals can reach millions of people pretty much in real time.)
That's why the price of oil has tumbled. It's collusion to drive Russia further into chaos.
That's why the price of oil has tumbled. It's collusion to drive Russia further into chaos.
It's not collusion; it's strategic economic sanction using market manipulation.
Non-OPEC oil-producing nations have increased their oil production thereby glutting the market. Once the oil market tumbled, Russia's bid to annex Ukraine to secure oil supply not only became moot. It also became a liability.
Now that the fallen Russian economy is forecast to fall even further, Putin's political machine is trying to counter the historical record provided by international journalism with Russia's homegrown Internet propaganda machine, which is part of the reason Google is being forced out of Russia.
That is, at the same time Russia ramps its efforts to pollute the historical record with Internet trolls, it needs to eject the (mostly, ha!) politically neutral search results provided by Western Internet companies such as Google.
Because of your clear and thoughtful reply, I understand the context and positions much better.
Much appreciated.
What confuses me is how Net Neutrality could do anything but help the urban and rural poor because Net Neutrality aims to prevent ISPs from discriminating between the sources and destinations of packets meaning that the traffic of non-profits (for example) and will be equally served by ISP networks in the US to the users of those networks.
Am I missing something here?
My suspicion is that the advocacy groups don't have a good understanding of how Net Neutrality will protect all users and content providers from ISP exploitation and that these advocacy groups have been given misinformation by advisors who, in fact, are in the back pocket's of the ISPs.
Is this what's going on?
My 8th grade English teacher told us that books were written in the third person, and sometimes the first person. I raised my hand and asked about books written in the second person. She told me there was no such thing. The next day, I came in with "The Mystery Of Chimney Rock" and got a frown from Mrs. Sampson. She had what I found in later life to be a common reaction from the literati when they encounter an inconvenient truth: she disparaged it as garbage literature and said it didn't count.
Mrs. Sampson, you really disappointed me. Here was a chance to learn something new, and you refused because it threatened your existing view of what literature is.
Unfortunately, many teachers become interested in "education" not because they want to learn and explore but because they want to "master" a field of knowledge. They want to swallow truth whole and digest it so that it will embiggen them. They often don't consider that the domains which constitute knowledge will grow and change as long as there are things that can be known.
More directly concerning the question of second-person Literature-with-a-capital-"L" Literature, Jay McInerney's Bright Lights, Big City is written in the second-person and is well-regarded by many teachers of creative writing and professors of Literature.
The ^ in the sig is to the power. So "1^2=1" reads "One squared equals one."
If you follow the logic laid in the sig, the final assertion seems wrong to me. I think it should read "2=0" (after adding "1" to both sides of "1=-1").
But what do I know and, more importantly, what does it matter?! ; )
There is a huge difference between being in a room with someone with early stages of ebola for a few minutes and working in a hospital. Here are some factors when working in a hospital with ebola patients; 1. Much longer contact periods. Many health workers in Africa work 18 hour days. 2. Much closer contact. Health workers touch ebola patients much more often than the general public. 3. Contact later in the disease progression. Ebola is transmitted by bodily fluids. As the disease progresses more bodily fluids are secreted, it is a hemorrhagic disease, and more pathogen is present in the excretions.
If one works long hours and their suit is covered in ebola laden fluids it is quite probable that a small mistake can cause infection. Even the fatigue factor may cause errors in protocol.
The nurses in Texas who contracted Ebola from Duncan, do you believe that they had "prolonged" contact with him?
The Ebola virus spreads through bodily fluids including saliva (aerosolized when sneezing) and sweat. I think it is easier to spread than is currently believed, especially because fluids are more readily spread than is understood even by health experts.
Also, the Ebola virus apparently can live outside the body for several days if encapsulated in body fluids.
Anyone can verify these facts about about Ebola on the US CDC FAQ about Ebola.
So far we have a small handful of US infections - mostly related to one guy who brought it in the country and the healthcare workers who didn't follow appropriate protocols while working with him. (Some of that blame might lie on the CDC and the hospital's management - not all of it on the nurses.)
Contrast this with the 5% - 20% of people in the US who get the flu every year and the 200,000 who are hospitalized with flu-related complications. (Source)
Can we please stop comparing Ebola to the flu?
For starters, Ebola apparently has a 70% mortality rate. Additionally, Ebola kills people who are otherwise perfectly healthy. The flu does not.
The flu is a health concern, yes, but widespread infection of Ebola is a nightmare that would make (in Sierra Leone, "makes") most years' flu seasons look like a sneezing fit.
well no, I bet a dollar there was a tear in his suit. Simplest explanation is always right.
My favorite part about this is how it gives the lie to all the xenophobic rationalizations that people in various African nations were contracting Ebola because of $DANGEROUS_TRIBAL_FUNERARY_CEREMONY.
Ebola is transmitted through bodily fluids including sweat and aerosolized saliva (produced by sneezing). Containing bodily fluids in a social context—especially saliva and sweat—is virtually impossible and probably makes Ebola a lot more contagious than the talking heads are letting on.
So surprisingly few competently written applications do this; GNU dhcpd was one, I'll give you that if you can give me another.
A Leopard (Mac OS X v.10.5.8) web server (Apache) I admin was defaced a few days after the exploit was announced.
Totally my fault for not immediately securing BASH, but yeah, I'm pretty sure the cgi scripts authored by MovableType (3.x) make calls to /bin/sh.
I do consider MovableType to be competently written. The reality is that the Shellshock vulnerability was something no one was really thinking about and it took many admins and even highly technical groups of people by surprise.*
* Whatever you think of Yahoo! their engineers and admins are highly technical. Shellshock is just a very nasty bug.
Except they've pivoted and HAVE been making HTML5 authoring tools for the last 3 years. Edge, Muse, Flash (yes, it's been exporting to HTML5 for a while now), among others use HTML5 as their final output.
I went to a pitch-disguised-as-a-conference for one of Adobe's then-upcoming products (Edge?) and was fairly impressed about Adobe's recommitting to HTML5 authoring and a CSS/JS IDE.
Fast forward two years and many developers still haven't touched these products because they are avoiding Adobe's subscription-based licensing.
Adobe needs radically to change their corporate culture because a significant portion of the developers who would love to use their products are NOT going to start paying rent to even read the content they've created.*
* This sentence is a polite translation of "Adobe can go die in a fire."