Making devices smaller and smaller means a tighter integration of components. Because cameras are getting cheaper and cheaper, It's often less expensive to simply buy a new device than to get it repaired. That being said, the choice there should be the consumer's, not the manufacturers. It really irks me that Apple can get away with preventing people from replacing batteries and upgrading storage so that they can rope the consumer in to having to constantly upgrade. Good for this guy.
It won't be perfect, but "fundamentally flawed" seems like an over statement to me. A personal AI assistant will be useful for somethings, but not everything. What it will be good at won't necessarily be clear until it's put into use. Then, any shortcomings can still be improved, even if certain tasks must be more or less hard-wired into its bag of tricks. It will be just as interesting to know what it absolutely won't be useful for.
Well, that's the case when the customers of the large corporation are the ones at risk. Here it is the large corporation who took action because it was them who were vulnerable. So, your old cynical view still stands!
No. Censorship would be if they barred you from seeing it all together. This is not censorship, it's another filter that you can opt in or out of. I might agree that it's not their job to decide where the line is, but it's hardly censorship.
"It looks like your heart is at risk. You have not activated your emergency care subscription. Please stay protected by activating your subscription now."
There are different levels. Though, you are right. If all people could be placed in one of two buckets, "Aspie" and "Not Aspie", I'd probably make the first one. If there were a third bucket; "Nearing aspie, but safe to invite to a dinner if it would be rude not to", I'd probably fall in that one.
I cannot help to think that security, open software, and online privacy are all interconnected. There's a fine line between information we knowingly and unknowingly make public. What are you thoughts on personal privacy in the age of Social Networks and Internet tracking?
"pirates went to the trouble of buying the game in a shop, taking it home and breaking the DRM instead"
Who knows if the the downloaded version has some sort of hidden tracking mechanism? With a store bought copy, the pirate can more easily remain anonymous.
It's a stretch perhaps, but that might bring light to why it worked out this way.
I'm not so sure that the Javascript (well, EMCA Script) LANGUAGE is the problem. The challenges with respect to rendering speed have more to do with the DOM and the interaction with the browser itself. The DOM is a bulky beast. When javascript listeners are assigned to page elements the code can in turn alter the DOM creating or destroying elements, all of which can trigger javascript functions, any of which can create or destroy more DOM elements. It's a properly tangled mess. Memory management in this environment is no small task.
I imagine that in the modern World, an individual draws not just from their own intelligence, but from collective intelligence through advanced communications. In a way, we've become thin peer-to-peer clients in a much more powerful supercomputer.
If he's ambitious and hungry for innovation, could he not use the money from Facebook to bootstrap something bigger? If it's just dumb luck, perhaps if his product is of any real value, and he doesn't sell, the big players might just jump in and roll their own faster, cheaper solution. Competing with them will be a different sort of job. Moving forward on his own may involve more work with Lawyers than with Technology and Innovation. So, the answer depends what kind of person he is. Some people are driven by the business end of things. Others want to innovate. Rarely is someone good at both.
Other people's bad code keeps me in business. If half of this crap were written well, no one would need me. Don't avoid bad code, dive in, clean it up where sensible, and move stuff forward.
What if the Terms of Service forbids someone allow third party access to their account? What if the Terms of Service forbid the company from accessing an account they do not own? Can Facebook hold the employer accountable?
What if the site did not allow for account deletion? Facebook arguably doesn't allow this. Maybe you can deactivate, but never delete. Even if it did allow deletion, what if it were some other site that did not allow it. How could the judge order something that isn't (easily) possible?
Now, suppose the judge orders you to give your password, but the site TOS forbids you from giving out the password? Can a judge order you to violate a TOS?
No. "technically" you are correct. Philosophically you are way off target. Philosophy requires that you think more deeply about imlications, causes and effects. You do know that child porn is created because there is a demand for it, right? Your argument about the flesh and blood predators is just wrong. Maybe not all, but children I deed ARE exploited because of that demand. One might not be paying for it, but by swapping, downloading, and arguably by mere possession, they are enabling contributing to the ecosystem that helps the underground economy thrive.
Slashdot Mirror
Making devices smaller and smaller means a tighter integration of components. Because cameras are getting cheaper and cheaper, It's often less expensive to simply buy a new device than to get it repaired. That being said, the choice there should be the consumer's, not the manufacturers. It really irks me that Apple can get away with preventing people from replacing batteries and upgrading storage so that they can rope the consumer in to having to constantly upgrade. Good for this guy.
Since much of this academic work is subsidized with public funding, let's put some servers somewhere at MIT so we can download and mirror it.
It won't be perfect, but "fundamentally flawed" seems like an over statement to me. A personal AI assistant will be useful for somethings, but not everything. What it will be good at won't necessarily be clear until it's put into use. Then, any shortcomings can still be improved, even if certain tasks must be more or less hard-wired into its bag of tricks. It will be just as interesting to know what it absolutely won't be useful for.
I left the site immediately once that video started to auto play. This has to stop.
Well, that's the case when the customers of the large corporation are the ones at risk. Here it is the large corporation who took action because it was them who were vulnerable. So, your old cynical view still stands!
Not sure if your logic / math is correct, but aretn't you missing the number of people who see those billboards indirectly ( TV, photos, etc)?
I'm sure Hans will be just as exciting as any Old Timer is expected to be.
No. Censorship would be if they barred you from seeing it all together. This is not censorship, it's another filter that you can opt in or out of. I might agree that it's not their job to decide where the line is, but it's hardly censorship.
No need to cuss.
No way. Rick Astley? Goatse? Not worth the risk.
"It looks like your heart is at risk. You have not activated your emergency care subscription. Please stay protected by activating your subscription now."
There are different levels. Though, you are right. If all people could be placed in one of two buckets, "Aspie" and "Not Aspie", I'd probably make the first one. If there were a third bucket; "Nearing aspie, but safe to invite to a dinner if it would be rude not to", I'd probably fall in that one.
Not that it's a good thing. Now when I make those curt judgmental remarks due my lack of a sensible social filter, I'm just being an asshole.
Wow. Who would have known that the code for Diablo is so simple.
I cannot help to think that security, open software, and online privacy are all interconnected. There's a fine line between information we knowingly and unknowingly make public. What are you thoughts on personal privacy in the age of Social Networks and Internet tracking?
"pirates went to the trouble of buying the game in a shop, taking it home and breaking the DRM instead"
Who knows if the the downloaded version has some sort of hidden tracking mechanism? With a store bought copy, the pirate can more easily remain anonymous.
It's a stretch perhaps, but that might bring light to why it worked out this way.
I'm not so sure that the Javascript (well, EMCA Script) LANGUAGE is the problem. The challenges with respect to rendering speed have more to do with the DOM and the interaction with the browser itself. The DOM is a bulky beast. When javascript listeners are assigned to page elements the code can in turn alter the DOM creating or destroying elements, all of which can trigger javascript functions, any of which can create or destroy more DOM elements. It's a properly tangled mess. Memory management in this environment is no small task.
I imagine that in the modern World, an individual draws not just from their own intelligence, but from collective intelligence through advanced communications. In a way, we've become thin peer-to-peer clients in a much more powerful supercomputer.
If he's ambitious and hungry for innovation, could he not use the money from Facebook to bootstrap something bigger? If it's just dumb luck, perhaps if his product is of any real value, and he doesn't sell, the big players might just jump in and roll their own faster, cheaper solution. Competing with them will be a different sort of job. Moving forward on his own may involve more work with Lawyers than with Technology and Innovation. So, the answer depends what kind of person he is. Some people are driven by the business end of things. Others want to innovate. Rarely is someone good at both.
I've got a bad feeling about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drkh0YLF8rI
I can easily get to the center of the Grand Canyon by pulling out my iPad, opening the Maps App and requesting directions to Galway, Ireland.
Other people's bad code keeps me in business. If half of this crap were written well, no one would need me. Don't avoid bad code, dive in, clean it up where sensible, and move stuff forward.
What if the Terms of Service forbids someone allow third party access to their account? What if the Terms of Service forbid the company from accessing an account they do not own? Can Facebook hold the employer accountable?
What if the site did not allow for account deletion? Facebook arguably doesn't allow this. Maybe you can deactivate, but never delete. Even if it did allow deletion, what if it were some other site that did not allow it. How could the judge order something that isn't (easily) possible?
Now, suppose the judge orders you to give your password, but the site TOS forbids you from giving out the password? Can a judge order you to violate a TOS?
No. "technically" you are correct. Philosophically you are way off target. Philosophy requires that you think more deeply about imlications, causes and effects. You do know that child porn is created because there is a demand for it, right? Your argument about the flesh and blood predators is just wrong. Maybe not all, but children I deed ARE exploited because of that demand. One might not be paying for it, but by swapping, downloading, and arguably by mere possession, they are enabling contributing to the ecosystem that helps the underground economy thrive.