Or like W3C publishing DRM standards that only works for specific browsers approved by specific companies. You know like that thing that has already happened: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
Anybody who has worked in any real software company with real projects and real life infrastructure knows that you have to keep the live environment and the test environment totally separate and the development team can't have any influence on the live environment in any way. Faster and more deployments on live systems only means more chances for failures and bugs. If you need rapid changes to the live system then obviously you haven't designed and planned the project before hand. Any automatic deployment to live system without any manual supervision is a disaster waiting to happen.
Let me guess you are young and naive? Call me again after having worked at least 20 years in the business. Companies don't care about you as an employee. Companies only care about making a profit. That's just the way it is. You may think your company cares about you, but they really don't because everything comes down to making money, and if you are somehow in the way you are not important.
I knew long ago when their motto was "Don't be evil" that it was only a question of time until it changed to "Be evil to make more money" because all capitalist companies evolve into doing evil things because evil things are more profitable.
If you reading the code also from an untrusted stream then yes of course you will have security issues. But that is a completely separate matter. You don't ever load code from an untrusted source.
I don't see anywhere in the Java specifications that code is also read in when dezerializing can you point me to that spec?
I saw this scenario coming a mile away. When you use a constant listening device that can execute actions on your behalf with very poor AI then this will happen. Until the AI can rival human intelligence then this device can not be relied upon.
OK I don't get it. Serialization is just saving the field values to a file and then reading it back. Of course if you just read a file without any validation and you don't know if it has been tampered with then of course you can have security issues. But this applies to any file formats or data anywhere. Java serialization is not a unique case. Serialization is an easy way to load values without going through an intermediary format. Replacing it with JSON or XML doesn't change the issue one bit.
Having physical buttons for volume is also something I would think is necessary if you are using the phone as a music player and have for example strapped it onto your hip or arm where you can't see the screen.
I have no idea what you regard as "standard" buttons.
Well most phones have these buttons: Power on, Volume up, Volume down, Back, Home and programs. The first five are a must to have.
All reasonable but the question becomes what engineering trade offs are you willing to make to get them?
Waterproof and replaceable are not at odds end. If you have a protecting screen it only needs to be clipped on but doesn't need to be connected so doesn't need to be waterproof. The battery only needs a couple of pins for contact with the phone, and the pins can be enclosed in a watertight enclosure. Today you can insert the SIM card and the SD card into a phone that is waterproof, the same can be done with the battery.
The reason for the non replacable battery is just so that you buy a new phone when the battery gets old. It's all a scam.
Maybe I am the exception, but none this is what I want in a smarthphone. I want standard physical buttons, I want a good front facing camera, I want a good speaker. I want a replacable battery. I want a longer battery life. I want a headphone socket. I want an easy to replace glass screen.
The size of the screen is not what is the most important.
But what I do NOT want is a curved screen or edge to edge screen that makes the screen more fragile and breakable. The screen is the most vulnarable part of the device so the primary design should be to protect the screen with edges and sides to cover the screen.
I am not the one asserting that something exists. You are the one asserting a positive claim. I am simply saying that unless you can define and provide evidence for free will then we can assume that no such thing exists.
Let's take a different example. If we where discussing the "invisible pink color", and I would say that it doesn't exist. Then you would have to provide evidence that the invisible pink color does exist not the other way around.
If it's impossible to define something in any way shape or form, then how can you say that it definitely exists?
The problem with the dictionary is that it just substitues other words for free will. "Fate" how do you define fate? The dictionary just refers to God for the definition. Or "Discretion" if you look up discretion it refers to freedom of judgement, which is just circular reference to free will.
Ok how about a usuable text editor? This company has billions of dollars but can't even create a simple usable text editor. Or a usable text search. Holy shit why can't I search for simple text in any file? Are these people just impeciles?
Actually no. Free will is directly related to physics. Your thoughts are chemical reactions. They are defined by chemistry and how your brain grew and learned when you where a child. If I could restart your existence and you would have identical life to the molacular level you would write the above comment exactly as before. I know that it sounds maybe depressing that you actually don't have free will, but it really doesn't make any difference because having free will or not would not actually change anything about how we are because for us the chemical reactions are complex enough that we all have the illusion of having free will.
You think free will exists? Ok let's do this thought experiment: There are twins. One of them has free will the other one doesn't. You have access to all the resources in the world and can do whatever you want to find out. How do you find out which one has the free will?
Yes it seems that he doesn't know about the uncanny valley effect. We humans have been training our brain all our lifetime to recognise humans and especially human faces. We can spot a mile away if flesh isn't just the right texture or movements are not correct. Just look at the new star wars movie Rogue One. It had top of the line CGI characters that still where really plastic looking and with wierd facial expressions.
Basically the only way to have a lifelike robot would be if it had actual skin, intelligence and the same knowledge as we do. But in that case it wouldn't be a robot any more it would be a living entity, just like us humans.
I wonder how they managed to talk for 8 hours about free will since there doesn't even exists such a concept as free will. It's very simple: Free will doesn't exists, it's just an illusion.
Talk to me again in a year from now and I can guarantee that nothing has changed and this will not work as a viable treatment. There is no silver bullet for AIDS or cancer for that matter.
but until self driving cars are more reliable, taking your eyes off the road like this is not a good idea.
But then there is no point in using a self driving car. If you always have to monitor the car 100% then you might as well just stear it yourself in order to be focused.
Slashdot Mirror
Or like W3C publishing DRM standards that only works for specific browsers approved by specific companies. You know like that thing that has already happened:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
Anybody who has worked in any real software company with real projects and real life infrastructure knows that you have to keep the live environment and the test environment totally separate and the development team can't have any influence on the live environment in any way. Faster and more deployments on live systems only means more chances for failures and bugs. If you need rapid changes to the live system then obviously you haven't designed and planned the project before hand. Any automatic deployment to live system without any manual supervision is a disaster waiting to happen.
Let me guess you are young and naive? Call me again after having worked at least 20 years in the business. Companies don't care about you as an employee. Companies only care about making a profit. That's just the way it is. You may think your company cares about you, but they really don't because everything comes down to making money, and if you are somehow in the way you are not important.
There is a name for this. It's called work. Welcome to the club.
I knew long ago when their motto was "Don't be evil" that it was only a question of time until it changed to "Be evil to make more money" because all capitalist companies evolve into doing evil things because evil things are more profitable.
If you reading the code also from an untrusted stream then yes of course you will have security issues. But that is a completely separate matter. You don't ever load code from an untrusted source.
I don't see anywhere in the Java specifications that code is also read in when dezerializing can you point me to that spec?
I saw this scenario coming a mile away. When you use a constant listening device that can execute actions on your behalf with very poor AI then this will happen. Until the AI can rival human intelligence then this device can not be relied upon.
OK I don't get it. Serialization is just saving the field values to a file and then reading it back. Of course if you just read a file without any validation and you don't know if it has been tampered with then of course you can have security issues. But this applies to any file formats or data anywhere. Java serialization is not a unique case. Serialization is an easy way to load values without going through an intermediary format. Replacing it with JSON or XML doesn't change the issue one bit.
Having physical buttons for volume is also something I would think is necessary if you are using the phone as a music player and have for example strapped it onto your hip or arm where you can't see the screen.
I have no idea what you regard as "standard" buttons.
Well most phones have these buttons: Power on, Volume up, Volume down, Back, Home and programs. The first five are a must to have.
All reasonable but the question becomes what engineering trade offs are you willing to make to get them?
Waterproof and replaceable are not at odds end. If you have a protecting screen it only needs to be clipped on but doesn't need to be connected so doesn't need to be waterproof. The battery only needs a couple of pins for contact with the phone, and the pins can be enclosed in a watertight enclosure. Today you can insert the SIM card and the SD card into a phone that is waterproof, the same can be done with the battery.
The reason for the non replacable battery is just so that you buy a new phone when the battery gets old. It's all a scam.
Maybe I am the exception, but none this is what I want in a smarthphone. I want standard physical buttons, I want a good front facing camera, I want a good speaker. I want a replacable battery. I want a longer battery life. I want a headphone socket. I want an easy to replace glass screen.
The size of the screen is not what is the most important.
But what I do NOT want is a curved screen or edge to edge screen that makes the screen more fragile and breakable. The screen is the most vulnarable part of the device so the primary design should be to protect the screen with edges and sides to cover the screen.
I am not the one asserting that something exists. You are the one asserting a positive claim. I am simply saying that unless you can define and provide evidence for free will then we can assume that no such thing exists.
Let's take a different example. If we where discussing the "invisible pink color", and I would say that it doesn't exist. Then you would have to provide evidence that the invisible pink color does exist not the other way around.
If it's impossible to define something in any way shape or form, then how can you say that it definitely exists?
The problem with the dictionary is that it just substitues other words for free will. "Fate" how do you define fate? The dictionary just refers to God for the definition. Or "Discretion" if you look up discretion it refers to freedom of judgement, which is just circular reference to free will.
I don't see how a p-zombie is relevant to this discussion. My thought experiments exaplains exactly why free will can't be defined.
Ok how about a usuable text editor? This company has billions of dollars but can't even create a simple usable text editor.
Or a usable text search. Holy shit why can't I search for simple text in any file? Are these people just impeciles?
Actually no. Free will is directly related to physics. Your thoughts are chemical reactions. They are defined by chemistry and how your brain grew and learned when you where a child. If I could restart your existence and you would have identical life to the molacular level you would write the above comment exactly as before. I know that it sounds maybe depressing that you actually don't have free will, but it really doesn't make any difference because having free will or not would not actually change anything about how we are because for us the chemical reactions are complex enough that we all have the illusion of having free will.
You think you have free will. But you actually don't. All of your actions are the product of chemical and molecular reactions.
You think free will exists? Ok let's do this thought experiment: There are twins. One of them has free will the other one doesn't. You have access to all the resources in the world and can do whatever you want to find out. How do you find out which one has the free will?
Believing that free will exists is invigorating and can be a key element in enjoying life, but it doesn't mean that it is actually true.
The problem is you can't even define what is free will. Just try it. Your definition will always be flawed and incomplete.
Yes it seems that he doesn't know about the uncanny valley effect. We humans have been training our brain all our lifetime to recognise humans and especially human faces. We can spot a mile away if flesh isn't just the right texture or movements are not correct. Just look at the new star wars movie Rogue One. It had top of the line CGI characters that still where really plastic looking and with wierd facial expressions.
Basically the only way to have a lifelike robot would be if it had actual skin, intelligence and the same knowledge as we do. But in that case it wouldn't be a robot any more it would be a living entity, just like us humans.
I wonder how they managed to talk for 8 hours about free will since there doesn't even exists such a concept as free will. It's very simple: Free will doesn't exists, it's just an illusion.
Talk to me again in a year from now and I can guarantee that nothing has changed and this will not work as a viable treatment. There is no silver bullet for AIDS or cancer for that matter.
If you have to ask, the answer is always No.
but until self driving cars are more reliable, taking your eyes off the road like this is not a good idea.
But then there is no point in using a self driving car. If you always have to monitor the car 100% then you might as well just stear it yourself in order to be focused.