You don't arrest because of a facial recognition match. Facial recognition is merely partly replacing and partly augmenting the human based facial recognition process. Facial recognition is just a first level of screening, and what is the human error rate of this first level of screening? The computer or the human kicks out a first level of match, you don't move to arrest, you move to the next level of investigation or match, for example a second round of facial recognition by a more experienced / capable human.
In your RA grandma scenario, what does "grandma" have to do with anything? Of course a female member of the 70s/80s RA might be an elderly grandma today. Does grandma happen to coincidentally resemble the RA member? Is the "error" one of matching two similar looking people or two dissimilar people? If a human screener were looking at the 70s/80s photo and grandma's recent photo how often do they find a match? And when a match is found, either computer or human, what happens? Not an arrest but further investigation. Unless the GFS are complete and utter idiots which tells us nothing about the technology.
All you have demonstrated is that GFS folks involved in the evaluation don't understand the technology. The technology is to augment, supplement, not replace humans.
So you lose your right to protest as soon as you got paid to work on the project? (and of course, not all of those complaining actually worked on the project, but that's another point you blissfully ignore via intellectual dishonesty)
What a boot licker you are. So quick to find reasons to ignore the messenger rather than discuss the message.
The real intellectual dishonestly is conflating facial recognition with over-surveillance. Two different things, the latter only one use of the former. And no intellectually honest developer of facial recognition technology was not aware of potential abuses of the technology; abuse by government, abuse by companies, abuse by individuals. However they understood the pluses outweighed the minuses in each of those categories.
... they are replaced by a new worker bee. There is no shortage of software developers who understand the legitimate uses of facial recognition by the military and law enforcement. The worker bee without drive is falsely conflating facial recognition with over-surveillance. You don't address over-surveillance by eliminating a technology that also has legitimate uses by law enforcement.
Quit and get a new job instead of committing career suicide, idiots.
Yeah, workers should just stay quiet and nod, do what they're told, never give feedback.
Give feedback on how to improve the company's products, on how to find new customers, on how to operate the company more efficiently, on how to improve worker productivity, etc.
Not feedback on how the company should only engage in activities that match the employee's personal political ideologies.
Facial recognition is a valid, reasonable and moral tool for the military and law enforcement. That it can be abused does not mean you ban the tool. Facial recognition is one thing, over surveillance is a different thing.
A flashlight can be abused by law enforcement, shall Amazon stop selling those?
They can censor all that "offensive" stuff in the US too, help ensure that the "correct" people are elected to office.
So true. That's why Democrats hold the majority of governorships, state legislatures, the Senate, the House and the Presidency. Oh wait...
Google employee efforts to correct that are somewhat recent, getting a massive boost to fix the problem you state in 2016. You are backward looking, screwing with search results is forward looking. You backwards look says nothing about the power of the tool currently under development.
Of course. The benefits are to Google's bottom line not the people of China.
The benefits are to Google's employee political ideology too. They can censor all that "offensive" stuff in the US too, help ensure that the "correct" people are elected to office.
Seriously, we already have internal emails where they propose and/or try to do this. Won't having this new censorship technology facilitate such desires?
Maybe fast and reliable and secure and supports tons of hardware and has a great network stack that doesn't stall or randomly disconnect, somehow stopped being part of the user experience.
And entirely replaceable in all of those characteristics by a BSD based kernel, and in the future possibly by Google Linux-replacement Fuchsia. Again, hosted on, not based on. Two very different things.
Oh really? Care to enlighten us on what kernel it's running? Android isn't GNU/Linux, but Android is absolutely Linux.
Nope. Android is hosted on the Linux kernel. Linux is not part of the user experience, its not even part of the software development experience for 75% of Android developers. If google replaced Linux with their Fucha kernel it would be a non-event for all but a few.
While nearly all people making some sort of change in their lives will be reasonable, the current culture is one where the unreasonable cannot be told no. Saying "no" is always interpreted as an attack on their beliefs. Accommodation is always required by those with the traditional views, resistance to accommodation is always considered evidence that the person is a *phobe. Now add an unrestrained state government with a 2/3 liberal majority in both houses of the legislature and the governorship that are all extremely inclined to value signaling through passing legislation.
Also phrases like "adopt female identifiers" is a *phobic statement because it is telling a person identifying as female how they should act and present, taking away their right to act and present as they prefer to. Your expectations of femininity cannot override their feelings.
"Nope. Its saying that only straight wide dudes were being properly prepared." So a person's "merit" is based on what others have done to "properly prepare" him? If that is so, then it would seem the solution needs to be broader still. Your take is bigoted and insulting as it discounts the efforts of those who are discriminated against.
Nope, a person's merit is based on their abilities. However one's abilities are often highly correlated to one's training, and the easiest way to create a larger pool of people with the requisite abilities is to train them for those abilities. Waiting for natural born leaders and entrepreneurs to emerge won't work at a large scale; however numerous leaders can be created through training as the Army and Naval Academies demonstrate every year, both male and female leaders in a traditionally male environment.
Your erroneous claim of bigotry and discrimination is failing to see the forest for the trees. The discrimination is primarily based on a failure to properly prepare these individuals, a failure of the educational system and social safety net. The solution to the problem is education and preparation, not mandating token board members who may underperform and reinforce an ignorant stereotype.
And once again, the problem is being corrected in the sense that female enrollment in MBA programs is high and continuing to increase. These young women ARE RECEIVING training and mentoring TODAY. I am suggesting more of what is already working TODAY.
Say it and go through gruelling psychanalysis taking several years. So, no.
I think such psychoanalysis is only required by doctors before performing the operation, declaring an "identity" is something quite different than "physical reassignment".
Does it really work like that in California? Most places it's not just enough to declare you are female, you have to actually live as a female. Shave your beard, wear women's clothing, change your name etc.
Do you really think California would say you have to look like a traditional woman to identify as female? Would dare set a precedent to not to accept a person's self identification? You would get burned at the stake by some members of the lesbian community and University of California students for any such suggestions.:-)
Are the powerful, white, greying power elites really that mobile that they'd up and move to another state? It happens, but not the way you're imagining. A smart person would check out the lay of the land before making a knee-jerk, anger-based life change.
Actually a smart person would know that you can incorporate in Delaware, become a client of a Delaware attorney (i.e. give him/her a modest retainer payment), pay for a service that is your legal mail drop and answering service in Delaware (a modest annual fee), and then you can run your business from and have offices in whatever state you want including California. Most US corporations, in general and fortune 500, are incorporated in Delaware.
If "choosing according to merit" magically selects only straight white dudes, your definition of "merit" badly needs examining because you're basically saying that straight white dudes are somehow objectively superior.
Nope. Its saying that only straight wide dudes were being properly prepared. Mandating board seats does not fix the qualification problem, it merely is equality theatre. Nothing more. A placebo for the dimwitted. But if you fail to see this its not your fault, you weren't properly educated and prepared to understand reality.
Want to fix the actual problem rather than have equality theatre, then make sure young women get properly educated, trained, mentored, etc and then we'll have honest actual diversity. Which is sort of happening, female enrollment in MBA programs is getting better and better each year.
If claiming a female identity is all that is necessary to use the women's restroom, then that is all that is necessary to meet the quota for the boardroom.
I am really looking forward to the lawsuits deciding whether a post-op or pre-op transgender person (is transgender the right term to use? I honestly don't know) is one gender or the other as it comes to sitting on the board for some company.
Is an operation even necessary? I mean can't a person merely say they personally identify as a female and as per California values that's the end of the story, the person's declaration MUST be honored.
The skeptic in me suspects he will fail and has been paid in advance to fail by Facebook and that this is all a show to get him money and make Facebook look secure.
The skeptic in me suspects he will fail but he is not working in collaboration with facebook and his attempt will be sincere. However facebook has, or will, likely lock the account to prevent any deletion.
The only group that OKs segregation, forced isolation, and public ridicule in response to percieved unfairness....
/sarcasm
-- Unbunch you panties, the humor was on point because Linux DXVK are quite rare among the population, and while the total population is quite large the number of those online at the same time will be significantly smaller, multiple orders of magnitude. Now add the low occurrence of Linux DXVK and the player pool will be quite limited.
-- Their segregation is not forced, they chose Linux rather than dual boot. Politics has a cost, get over it.
We used to have sources that the majority of people believed in. Professors. Clergy, civic leaders. Not saying the trust was deserved, but at least people mostly agreed on facts. (even if they were wrong)
The world is full of evidence beyond video. There is no need to resort to leaders, clergy and professors who are offering opinions rather than evidence based conclusions.
Eye witness testimony? Great. It is a good thing we never had a problem with false accusers and poor perception.
Right because...
(1) We had nothing other than eye witness testimony, never that stuff called evidence.
(2) And video eliminated false accusers and perception because actions are never subject to interpretation and the camera/mic catches all, its not like what happened before the video started or after it ended, what is happening out of frame, what beyond mic detection fills in unknown gaps.
Videos gets faked all the time for political purposes and people are largely gullible and believe them. Few have the knowledge relevant to interpret a situation, not unlike eyewitness testimony.
Agreed. The problem is that with photos, video and voice all untrustable, what is left? How can someone come to an independent conclusion about anything?
The same way we did before the proliferation of movie/video cameras and audio recorders. These are only very recent inventions.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't arrest because of a facial recognition match. Facial recognition is merely partly replacing and partly augmenting the human based facial recognition process. Facial recognition is just a first level of screening, and what is the human error rate of this first level of screening? The computer or the human kicks out a first level of match, you don't move to arrest, you move to the next level of investigation or match, for example a second round of facial recognition by a more experienced / capable human.
In your RA grandma scenario, what does "grandma" have to do with anything? Of course a female member of the 70s/80s RA might be an elderly grandma today. Does grandma happen to coincidentally resemble the RA member? Is the "error" one of matching two similar looking people or two dissimilar people? If a human screener were looking at the 70s/80s photo and grandma's recent photo how often do they find a match? And when a match is found, either computer or human, what happens? Not an arrest but further investigation. Unless the GFS are complete and utter idiots which tells us nothing about the technology.
All you have demonstrated is that GFS folks involved in the evaluation don't understand the technology. The technology is to augment, supplement, not replace humans.
So you lose your right to protest as soon as you got paid to work on the project? (and of course, not all of those complaining actually worked on the project, but that's another point you blissfully ignore via intellectual dishonesty)
What a boot licker you are. So quick to find reasons to ignore the messenger rather than discuss the message.
The real intellectual dishonestly is conflating facial recognition with over-surveillance. Two different things, the latter only one use of the former. And no intellectually honest developer of facial recognition technology was not aware of potential abuses of the technology; abuse by government, abuse by companies, abuse by individuals. However they understood the pluses outweighed the minuses in each of those categories.
When the working bees lose the drive - well ...
... they are replaced by a new worker bee. There is no shortage of software developers who understand the legitimate uses of facial recognition by the military and law enforcement. The worker bee without drive is falsely conflating facial recognition with over-surveillance. You don't address over-surveillance by eliminating a technology that also has legitimate uses by law enforcement.
Quit and get a new job instead of committing career suicide, idiots.
Yeah, workers should just stay quiet and nod, do what they're told, never give feedback.
Give feedback on how to improve the company's products, on how to find new customers, on how to operate the company more efficiently, on how to improve worker productivity, etc.
Not feedback on how the company should only engage in activities that match the employee's personal political ideologies.
Facial recognition is a valid, reasonable and moral tool for the military and law enforcement. That it can be abused does not mean you ban the tool. Facial recognition is one thing, over surveillance is a different thing.
A flashlight can be abused by law enforcement, shall Amazon stop selling those?
They can censor all that "offensive" stuff in the US too, help ensure that the "correct" people are elected to office.
So true. That's why Democrats hold the majority of governorships, state legislatures, the Senate, the House and the Presidency. Oh wait...
Google employee efforts to correct that are somewhat recent, getting a massive boost to fix the problem you state in 2016. You are backward looking, screwing with search results is forward looking. You backwards look says nothing about the power of the tool currently under development.
Of course. The benefits are to Google's bottom line not the people of China.
The benefits are to Google's employee political ideology too. They can censor all that "offensive" stuff in the US too, help ensure that the "correct" people are elected to office.
Seriously, we already have internal emails where they propose and/or try to do this. Won't having this new censorship technology facilitate such desires?
Linux is not part of the user experience
Maybe fast and reliable and secure and supports tons of hardware and has a great network stack that doesn't stall or randomly disconnect, somehow stopped being part of the user experience.
And entirely replaceable in all of those characteristics by a BSD based kernel, and in the future possibly by Google Linux-replacement Fuchsia. Again, hosted on, not based on. Two very different things.
Linux does not even have a decent application for reading emails
No one has had a decent email client app since pine :-)
But Cygwin is not Linux.
Fine, the Windows Subsystem for Linux lets you instal Ubuntu, Debian, Suse, Kali, etc from the Microsoft store.
Oh really? Care to enlighten us on what kernel it's running? Android isn't GNU/Linux, but Android is absolutely Linux.
Nope. Android is hosted on the Linux kernel. Linux is not part of the user experience, its not even part of the software development experience for 75% of Android developers. If google replaced Linux with their Fucha kernel it would be a non-event for all but a few.
While nearly all people making some sort of change in their lives will be reasonable, the current culture is one where the unreasonable cannot be told no. Saying "no" is always interpreted as an attack on their beliefs. Accommodation is always required by those with the traditional views, resistance to accommodation is always considered evidence that the person is a *phobe. Now add an unrestrained state government with a 2/3 liberal majority in both houses of the legislature and the governorship that are all extremely inclined to value signaling through passing legislation.
Also phrases like "adopt female identifiers" is a *phobic statement because it is telling a person identifying as female how they should act and present, taking away their right to act and present as they prefer to. Your expectations of femininity cannot override their feelings.
"Nope. Its saying that only straight wide dudes were being properly prepared." So a person's "merit" is based on what others have done to "properly prepare" him? If that is so, then it would seem the solution needs to be broader still. Your take is bigoted and insulting as it discounts the efforts of those who are discriminated against.
Nope, a person's merit is based on their abilities. However one's abilities are often highly correlated to one's training, and the easiest way to create a larger pool of people with the requisite abilities is to train them for those abilities. Waiting for natural born leaders and entrepreneurs to emerge won't work at a large scale; however numerous leaders can be created through training as the Army and Naval Academies demonstrate every year, both male and female leaders in a traditionally male environment.
Your erroneous claim of bigotry and discrimination is failing to see the forest for the trees. The discrimination is primarily based on a failure to properly prepare these individuals, a failure of the educational system and social safety net. The solution to the problem is education and preparation, not mandating token board members who may underperform and reinforce an ignorant stereotype.
And once again, the problem is being corrected in the sense that female enrollment in MBA programs is high and continuing to increase. These young women ARE RECEIVING training and mentoring TODAY. I am suggesting more of what is already working TODAY.
Say it and go through gruelling psychanalysis taking several years. So, no.
I think such psychoanalysis is only required by doctors before performing the operation, declaring an "identity" is something quite different than "physical reassignment".
Does it really work like that in California? Most places it's not just enough to declare you are female, you have to actually live as a female. Shave your beard, wear women's clothing, change your name etc.
Do you really think California would say you have to look like a traditional woman to identify as female? Would dare set a precedent to not to accept a person's self identification? You would get burned at the stake by some members of the lesbian community and University of California students for any such suggestions. :-)
Are the powerful, white, greying power elites really that mobile that they'd up and move to another state? It happens, but not the way you're imagining. A smart person would check out the lay of the land before making a knee-jerk, anger-based life change.
Actually a smart person would know that you can incorporate in Delaware, become a client of a Delaware attorney (i.e. give him/her a modest retainer payment), pay for a service that is your legal mail drop and answering service in Delaware (a modest annual fee), and then you can run your business from and have offices in whatever state you want including California. Most US corporations, in general and fortune 500, are incorporated in Delaware.
If "choosing according to merit" magically selects only straight white dudes, your definition of "merit" badly needs examining because you're basically saying that straight white dudes are somehow objectively superior.
Nope. Its saying that only straight wide dudes were being properly prepared. Mandating board seats does not fix the qualification problem, it merely is equality theatre. Nothing more. A placebo for the dimwitted. But if you fail to see this its not your fault, you weren't properly educated and prepared to understand reality.
Want to fix the actual problem rather than have equality theatre, then make sure young women get properly educated, trained, mentored, etc and then we'll have honest actual diversity. Which is sort of happening, female enrollment in MBA programs is getting better and better each year.
Will boards consisting of 5 women be required to add 2 men?
No, but they will be automatically awarded any state contract they apply for regardless of qualifications or bids.
Do non-binaries count against the new gender quota?
They get two seats/votes
If claiming a female identity is all that is necessary to use the women's restroom, then that is all that is necessary to meet the quota for the boardroom.
I am really looking forward to the lawsuits deciding whether a post-op or pre-op transgender person (is transgender the right term to use? I honestly don't know) is one gender or the other as it comes to sitting on the board for some company.
Is an operation even necessary? I mean can't a person merely say they personally identify as a female and as per California values that's the end of the story, the person's declaration MUST be honored.
The skeptic in me suspects he will fail and has been paid in advance to fail by Facebook and that this is all a show to get him money and make Facebook look secure.
The skeptic in me suspects he will fail but he is not working in collaboration with facebook and his attempt will be sincere. However facebook has, or will, likely lock the account to prevent any deletion.
Ah, the gamers.
The only group that OKs segregation, forced isolation, and public ridicule in response to percieved unfairness....
/sarcasm
-- Unbunch you panties, the humor was on point because Linux DXVK are quite rare among the population, and while the total population is quite large the number of those online at the same time will be significantly smaller, multiple orders of magnitude. Now add the low occurrence of Linux DXVK and the player pool will be quite limited.
-- Their segregation is not forced, they chose Linux rather than dual boot. Politics has a cost, get over it.
We used to have sources that the majority of people believed in. Professors. Clergy, civic leaders. Not saying the trust was deserved, but at least people mostly agreed on facts. (even if they were wrong)
The world is full of evidence beyond video. There is no need to resort to leaders, clergy and professors who are offering opinions rather than evidence based conclusions.
Eye witness testimony? Great. It is a good thing we never had a problem with false accusers and poor perception.
Right because ...
(1) We had nothing other than eye witness testimony, never that stuff called evidence.
(2) And video eliminated false accusers and perception because actions are never subject to interpretation and the camera/mic catches all, its not like what happened before the video started or after it ended, what is happening out of frame, what beyond mic detection fills in unknown gaps.
Videos gets faked all the time for political purposes and people are largely gullible and believe them. Few have the knowledge relevant to interpret a situation, not unlike eyewitness testimony.
Agreed. The problem is that with photos, video and voice all untrustable, what is left? How can someone come to an independent conclusion about anything?
The same way we did before the proliferation of movie/video cameras and audio recorders. These are only very recent inventions.