Before specifying how users would be supposed to confirm legitimacy, it is de rigueur to check the method against a number of classic anti-spam proposals.
A possible breaking tool is fiscal treatment. Each country should take a look at how many other countries a given company is incorporated in. Then, apply taxes accordingly, possibly coordinating with the other countries. Tax rates should be so steep that giant companies would prefer to split, lest being beaten by smaller competitors.
At a quick glance, prof Galloway doesn't seem to consider democracy as an ingredient of those "love affairs". It is well known that investors are rather oriented toward increasing their own revenue than doing The Right Thing. A democratic company should have a policy which provides for employees voting for managers, in the hope that workers know what they're doing. Democratic election is a flawed process which not always results in electing the best leaders, but it's still the least worse model the human race has ever found...
Given that's the entire point of the exercise, that step isn't so much "first", as "only". Yet I gave you the definition. God: everything that has always been, and always will be. That's the Biblical definition.
I'd rather consider the relationship between god and intelligence to be the point of the exercise. Besides, that Biblical definition sounds rather like defining what is the time span.
The main thing the physicists say it explains is the big bang, the creation of the universe itself.
Creation of intelligence is an interesting topic as well. How would it be part of thermodynamics? Physicists explain ideal gases, mentioning heat, temperature, pressure, entropy, enthalpy, and the like, and it sounds so fairly complicated already, that I get dismayed when I realize that that is the "simple case". Explanations of AI —Alien Intelligence— suggest that if particles differ from one another, and can exchange signals and learn, then the general case involves many more mind-blowing intricacies. Albeit Turing machines can emulate one another, systems differ in the way the "intelligence" they produce can act on the matter. The laws of physics are just that.
Besides shrieking and shrugging there is also people who actually does something. Politics is not a bunch of dining philosophers. Decisions have consequences, and they don't always result in nicely combining those gas-guzzling SUVs onto untarnished landscapes as seen on TV ads.
In some countries, where laws protect employees much more than small business, there are many fake-business —individuals formally defined as the local equivalent of an S-corp or LLC, but actually working as employees. Gov's dislike that state of affairs because small business are so many that it becomes very difficult to control them. It is easier to administer a small number of medium sized businesses.
Gov's dislike huge multinational companies as well, of course. They are too big to be controlled. However, most gov's are unable to do anything against huge companies because of corruption. Thus, gov's appear to be strong against small companies and weak against the strong ones. A rather common circumstance.
This morning I sent back to Amazon a copy of Silence I had purchased in May. They are going to refund me 16.20 euros. The Blue-ray disc didn't seem to be damaged, I guess it was defective by design. My reader's firmware is dated 2012, and the encryption key on the disc is probably newer. At Amazon, they've been so fair as to gloss over their return policy, but they cannot sell me a copy that I can see. Should I spend 120 bucks on a new player, just to get new encryption keys? Who is preventing me from seeing Scorsese's work? (Who are the pirates?)
Compare with TV series such as Castle or Elementary, for which I don't even find an Italian edition on DVD. They've been played and replayed on TV, but are available from "unofficial distribution" only. Is it obvious that it is legitimate to download them in that case?
Yes, and there are machines that lay out program's code automatically since that same epoch. Engineers just write high level specs in a language called "C".
On a decent system, one can easily change user-id by logging out and in as necessary. Cookies are not shared among different users. For phones, better use different hardware with different cards. However, that is not enough. Quoting the report:
The people who hire sex workers are also very concerned with anonymity so they’re using alternative emails and alternative names. And sometimes they have phones that they only use for this, for hiring women. You have two ends of people using heightened security, because neither end wants their identity being revealed. And they’re having their real names connected on Facebook.
[...] although it calls for a more expensive, complex and larger space craft.
Besides "these stupid scientists", you need room for teams for every craft and expertise. Think a few million people at least, and all the equipment they need.
It's damn difficult to prove that, since you didn't find it, it doesn't exist. A negation is, in fact, the complement within a set having a frontier which we don't know how far may extend.
Had Weiss, Thorne, and Barish caught no waves even after decades, people might have begun to suspect gravity waves don't exist. No prize would have been granted for a suspicion, though.
Agreed. Small punishments for small crimes are fine. The point with hatred seems to be that it is, or appears to be, the origin of much larger and widespread violence, biased and bad behaviors. Yet, it has to be considered a small crime, in the name of free speech.
I guess it's a bad idea because it is ineffective.
Killers found guilty are going to be locked for some decades at least. That way, outlawing homicide is effective. Outlawing hate, much like drug possession, is a minor crime and people most of times manage to get out of jail in a few months, if they get locked at all.
The logical fallacy is to assume jobs are an array of pigeon holes hanged there irrespectively of how many humans are alive and how they spend their time.
I'm not claiming humans will always be the dominant species on the planet, of course. Until we are, however, that will make a difference in a comparison between the car/horse and the AI/human scenarios. Yes, humans could be ruled out —as a species— by some AI-based circumstance, but that's not the same as hypothesizing joblessness for the masses while we rule the world. Of course, people will cry and grit their teeth in pain, as always happened and always will. However, humans are a social species. We are bound to gather in communities and cooperate with one another. In a number of cases, those forms of cooperation are going to be called jobs.
Who exactly is going to pay people for doing what? That question pertains to economics, not technology. Unless money will fall into disuse, there will be jobs.
The M-03-22 indeed defines Privacy Impact Assessments (PIA) whereby it is possible to analyze how email works. However, that page does not contain the term "domain", so it does not address the point directly. It merely establishes a general principle.
From a web subscriber POV, it may sound like being accused of killing an ant. Yes, she might reply, I know cruelty is unlawful and life is sacred, but I was not aware, I was just walking on the footpath, you know, I never meant to kill anything... The law doesn't forbid to walk the footpaths.
I would argue that an email address is an identity, and that using one which does not belong to you to create an account on a public system is identity theft.
No, it might be an identifier theft, but that issue would only arise if the legitimate address holder will in turn open an account at the same web site. The first user noticed that the identifier was accepted, and considers such acceptance a probative evidence of his right to use the identifier, on a first come first served principle. She or he doesn't have to know whether that identifier was supposed to be globally unique. The SMTP standard is not law. Actually, it is not even an Internet standard, it is merely a draft. Why should people not interested in email take care of it?
I know identity theft is a crime, but the unintended collider didn't actually steal anything, so I don't think she or he can be prosecuted. As for taking the law into one's own hands, it is certainly not allowed.
Personally, I would blame the websites, which should not use address-like identifiers if they are not going to verify they're valid. However, now that you said it, I recall my brother managed to unintentionally steal my Blockbuster account —which wasn't associated with any email address— just because he has the same surname as I. Perhaps DNA sequences...?
Why not? Don't conflate the ability to capture email messages just because you happen to own a domain name with reading communication which was not destined to you. If I were a lawyer I would hold that opening someone else email without their permission is a felony that can jail the offender for up to 5 years.
As far as clicking "forgot password" is concerned, be prepared to answer questions about your mother's maid name or your birthday.
Those stupid people are not interested in email, they just want an identifier they can use for their account. They care so little about email that don't even take the burden to create a free email account somewhere. Why should they?
Now, talking of something we never saw, general AI, how can we be so antly dumb as to identify that 1000x smarter thing with its off-the-cuff creator? How can we assume that a 1000x smarter thing will obey slavishly to whoever "owns" it?
By comparison, consider a dog with its 0.7x smartness w.r.t. its master. It already distinguishes its own will, and in many cases refuses to obey plainly wrong commands.
So you say a 1000x smarter general AI will want to allow a country to take unfair advantages? Hmm...
Luckily, I doubt there's much chance of getting folks to carry such a device around with them at all times....
such-a-device = smartphone, everyone carries one already.
I don't think it's beyond feasibility to get 90% coverage. It will be enough to place G-men in other key places, e.g. hamam, to reach almost 100% coverage.
Difficulties, if any, are going to arise with analysis and transcription of all that footage. Even with the aid of AI, the number of operators is going to be so huge that governments will need means to surveil them in turn.
The liberals were the fascists in the Nazi party (Nazi meaning new socialist)
Where the heck does this come from?? Every single iota of non-biased information I've ever seen points to the opposite. Eg Wikipedia:
the Nazi Party was a far-right political party in Germany
Hmm... the original post is not there any more. It probably was a good example of "self-righteousness".
However, it is true that the Nazi Party was named Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP, literally "National Socialist German Workers' Party").
Likewise, the term liberal can be used to mean the rightish economic thinking associated with laissez-faireeconomic liberalism, which is considered opposed to socialism.
It would be interesting to know if that kind of political-terminology kidnapping always goes left to right (as in the previous two examples) or there are also right-to-left cases. Let me add that the expulsion of the professors from the universities in nazi Germany certifies that they too didn't think universities had a positive impact on the way things were going in their country. I suspect that the resulting ignorance favors such kind of linguistic overturns...
You can decompile everything on the web pretty easy.
Not when all variable and function names are replaced by random strings. I'm unclear whether they do it to prevent code reuse or to hide their web site logic.
Slashdot Mirror
Before specifying how users would be supposed to confirm legitimacy, it is de rigueur to check the method against a number of classic anti-spam proposals.
A possible breaking tool is fiscal treatment. Each country should take a look at how many other countries a given company is incorporated in. Then, apply taxes accordingly, possibly coordinating with the other countries. Tax rates should be so steep that giant companies would prefer to split, lest being beaten by smaller competitors.
At a quick glance, prof Galloway doesn't seem to consider democracy as an ingredient of those "love affairs". It is well known that investors are rather oriented toward increasing their own revenue than doing The Right Thing. A democratic company should have a policy which provides for employees voting for managers, in the hope that workers know what they're doing. Democratic election is a flawed process which not always results in electing the best leaders, but it's still the least worse model the human race has ever found...
I recently quit expecting someone to be appreciable just because people elected him POTUS
First, one would have to define the term "god."
Given that's the entire point of the exercise, that step isn't so much "first", as "only". Yet I gave you the definition. God: everything that has always been, and always will be. That's the Biblical definition.
I'd rather consider the relationship between god and intelligence to be the point of the exercise. Besides, that Biblical definition sounds rather like defining what is the time span.
The main thing the physicists say it explains is the big bang, the creation of the universe itself.
Creation of intelligence is an interesting topic as well. How would it be part of thermodynamics? Physicists explain ideal gases, mentioning heat, temperature, pressure, entropy, enthalpy, and the like, and it sounds so fairly complicated already, that I get dismayed when I realize that that is the "simple case". Explanations of AI —Alien Intelligence— suggest that if particles differ from one another, and can exchange signals and learn, then the general case involves many more mind-blowing intricacies. Albeit Turing machines can emulate one another, systems differ in the way the "intelligence" they produce can act on the matter. The laws of physics are just that.
Besides shrieking and shrugging there is also people who actually does something. Politics is not a bunch of dining philosophers. Decisions have consequences, and they don't always result in nicely combining those gas-guzzling SUVs onto untarnished landscapes as seen on TV ads.
In some countries, where laws protect employees much more than small business, there are many fake-business —individuals formally defined as the local equivalent of an S-corp or LLC, but actually working as employees. Gov's dislike that state of affairs because small business are so many that it becomes very difficult to control them. It is easier to administer a small number of medium sized businesses.
Gov's dislike huge multinational companies as well, of course. They are too big to be controlled. However, most gov's are unable to do anything against huge companies because of corruption. Thus, gov's appear to be strong against small companies and weak against the strong ones. A rather common circumstance.
This morning I sent back to Amazon a copy of Silence I had purchased in May. They are going to refund me 16.20 euros. The Blue-ray disc didn't seem to be damaged, I guess it was defective by design. My reader's firmware is dated 2012, and the encryption key on the disc is probably newer. At Amazon, they've been so fair as to gloss over their return policy, but they cannot sell me a copy that I can see. Should I spend 120 bucks on a new player, just to get new encryption keys? Who is preventing me from seeing Scorsese's work? (Who are the pirates?)
Compare with TV series such as Castle or Elementary, for which I don't even find an Italian edition on DVD. They've been played and replayed on TV, but are available from "unofficial distribution" only. Is it obvious that it is legitimate to download them in that case?
So we don't have to wait for life to talk about miracles...
Yes, and there are machines that lay out program's code automatically since that same epoch. Engineers just write high level specs in a language called "C".
On a decent system, one can easily change user-id by logging out and in as necessary. Cookies are not shared among different users. For phones, better use different hardware with different cards. However, that is not enough. Quoting the report:
[...] although it calls for a more expensive, complex and larger space craft.
Besides "these stupid scientists", you need room for teams for every craft and expertise. Think a few million people at least, and all the equipment they need.
Yes, larger space craft could do.
It's damn difficult to prove that, since you didn't find it, it doesn't exist. A negation is, in fact, the complement within a set having a frontier which we don't know how far may extend.
Had Weiss, Thorne, and Barish caught no waves even after decades, people might have begun to suspect gravity waves don't exist. No prize would have been granted for a suspicion, though.
Agreed. Small punishments for small crimes are fine. The point with hatred seems to be that it is, or appears to be, the origin of much larger and widespread violence, biased and bad behaviors. Yet, it has to be considered a small crime, in the name of free speech.
I guess it's a bad idea because it is ineffective.
Killers found guilty are going to be locked for some decades at least. That way, outlawing homicide is effective. Outlawing hate, much like drug possession, is a minor crime and people most of times manage to get out of jail in a few months, if they get locked at all.
The logical fallacy is to assume jobs are an array of pigeon holes hanged there irrespectively of how many humans are alive and how they spend their time.
I'm not claiming humans will always be the dominant species on the planet, of course. Until we are, however, that will make a difference in a comparison between the car/horse and the AI/human scenarios. Yes, humans could be ruled out —as a species— by some AI-based circumstance, but that's not the same as hypothesizing joblessness for the masses while we rule the world. Of course, people will cry and grit their teeth in pain, as always happened and always will. However, humans are a social species. We are bound to gather in communities and cooperate with one another. In a number of cases, those forms of cooperation are going to be called jobs.
Who exactly is going to pay people for doing what? That question pertains to economics, not technology. Unless money will fall into disuse, there will be jobs.
What hurts legal revenue is to consider marketing as a prey/predator relationship.
The M-03-22 indeed defines Privacy Impact Assessments (PIA) whereby it is possible to analyze how email works. However, that page does not contain the term "domain", so it does not address the point directly. It merely establishes a general principle.
From a web subscriber POV, it may sound like being accused of killing an ant. Yes, she might reply, I know cruelty is unlawful and life is sacred, but I was not aware, I was just walking on the footpath, you know, I never meant to kill anything... The law doesn't forbid to walk the footpaths.
I would argue that an email address is an identity, and that using one which does not belong to you to create an account on a public system is identity theft.
No, it might be an identifier theft, but that issue would only arise if the legitimate address holder will in turn open an account at the same web site. The first user noticed that the identifier was accepted, and considers such acceptance a probative evidence of his right to use the identifier, on a first come first served principle. She or he doesn't have to know whether that identifier was supposed to be globally unique. The SMTP standard is not law. Actually, it is not even an Internet standard, it is merely a draft. Why should people not interested in email take care of it?
I know identity theft is a crime, but the unintended collider didn't actually steal anything, so I don't think she or he can be prosecuted. As for taking the law into one's own hands, it is certainly not allowed.
Personally, I would blame the websites, which should not use address-like identifiers if they are not going to verify they're valid. However, now that you said it, I recall my brother managed to unintentionally steal my Blockbuster account —which wasn't associated with any email address— just because he has the same surname as I. Perhaps DNA sequences...?
This does not go to court.
Why not? Don't conflate the ability to capture email messages just because you happen to own a domain name with reading communication which was not destined to you. If I were a lawyer I would hold that opening someone else email without their permission is a felony that can jail the offender for up to 5 years.
As far as clicking "forgot password" is concerned, be prepared to answer questions about your mother's maid name or your birthday.
Those stupid people are not interested in email, they just want an identifier they can use for their account. They care so little about email that don't even take the burden to create a free email account somewhere. Why should they?
Now, talking of something we never saw, general AI, how can we be so antly dumb as to identify that 1000x smarter thing with its off-the-cuff creator? How can we assume that a 1000x smarter thing will obey slavishly to whoever "owns" it?
By comparison, consider a dog with its 0.7x smartness w.r.t. its master. It already distinguishes its own will, and in many cases refuses to obey plainly wrong commands.
So you say a 1000x smarter general AI will want to allow a country to take unfair advantages? Hmm...
Before 2030 they will be world largest economy, according to projection.
especially since the demand for fake news is high.
I'm not sure they aimed at producing fake news. Otherwise they would not have designed the tool to require a voice impressionist.
Luckily, I doubt there's much chance of getting folks to carry such a device around with them at all times....
such-a-device = smartphone, everyone carries one already.
I don't think it's beyond feasibility to get 90% coverage. It will be enough to place G-men in other key places, e.g. hamam, to reach almost 100% coverage.
Difficulties, if any, are going to arise with analysis and transcription of all that footage. Even with the aid of AI, the number of operators is going to be so huge that governments will need means to surveil them in turn.
The liberals were the fascists in the Nazi party (Nazi meaning new socialist)
Where the heck does this come from?? Every single iota of non-biased information I've ever seen points to the opposite. Eg Wikipedia:
Hmm... the original post is not there any more. It probably was a good example of "self-righteousness".
However, it is true that the Nazi Party was named Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP, literally "National Socialist German Workers' Party").
Likewise, the term liberal can be used to mean the rightish economic thinking associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism, which is considered opposed to socialism.
It would be interesting to know if that kind of political-terminology kidnapping always goes left to right (as in the previous two examples) or there are also right-to-left cases. Let me add that the expulsion of the professors from the universities in nazi Germany certifies that they too didn't think universities had a positive impact on the way things were going in their country. I suspect that the resulting ignorance favors such kind of linguistic overturns...
You can decompile everything on the web pretty easy.
Not when all variable and function names are replaced by random strings. I'm unclear whether they do it to prevent code reuse or to hide their web site logic.
Rather than reboot ViewSource, I deploy NoScript