OK. So you concede justice doesn't descend from an algorithm.
Sounds like you're saying it is worded poorly, but I suspect the OP thinks justice can come from an algorithm.
And FWIW, there are black boxes all over (including outside tech) that are not evaluated by the courts (i.e. Pepsi's earnings, manufacturing processes, etc) and this is not only a legal precedent, but it is necessary for justice. You have to have good reason (i.e. a subpoena) to get at that. If a circuit court wants to know why I named one of my children something and to evaluate if that was sufficiently justified it is time to flee the country.
I wouldn't describe Saddam as disarming. His nuclear weapons program went dormant (not extinct, still with 4+ metric tons of uranium), and he wouldn't allow weapons inspectors to do their stuff. He sounded belligerent in the press to me.
Looking back on it, I think we should have set the threshold higher for going to war, but it's not like he was complying with the terms of Iraq 1 surrender.
The tech world is run by lizards who hire people primarily based on looks and age and want to put as many lives into the ground to scratch whatever itch enters into their head. Crimes to them are just reminders about how 'ahead of their time' they are, and it pains them to be held to the same standard as others.
Exhibit A: Eric Schmit, Exhibit B: Steve Jobs
And these guys want to be able to run the world, but they can't even run their own lives and deserve jail time.
Somehow the potential for censorship counts as censorship.
I'm afraid people are going to care less about countries like China and Cuba preventing criticisms of their governments since that now falls into the same bucket of "censorship".
If your phone company cuts off your calls... drop your phone company!
And if you have to ask how net neutrality is protecting cyber monday then we're just going to accuse you of being stupid, mostly because we don't have any case to explain this.
Consider the NSA is broadly scooping up all communication in a broad warrant, the IRS has been auditing based on political views, the EPA has been crucifying people based on unlegislated regulation, and the NEA has been using federal funds to promote the presidents agenda... would you consider the US a success at not turning into a tyranny?
I don't know anyone who thinks netflix is abusing them.
The government abuses people as a matter of enforced policy (see the IRS auditing groups based on their political views, the NSA sweeping up everything using broad warrants, and the EPA "crucifying" people who don't follow their green rules that don't come from any legislature).
Even if you're right your style suggestions you have nothing but ad hominem attacks to support your cause.
Bwah... that's like saying when the grocery store charges 2x for selling you the same product twice they are "manipulating" your grocery access.
Interesting you refer to it as "the problem"... in other words it is this complex thing that would take to long to explain here (i.e. it is not really a problem).
Part of "the complexity" of the problem is you have to be educated enough, which is why you impugned my intelligence. Because if I really had the right brain washing (I mean, ahem, brains) I would already understand all this.
You are overthinking it. The last administration's emporer (FCC chief) is not wearing any clothes.
I learned about databases using database algebra, and I didn't understand anything until people started showing examples of successful queries. Now I just explain databases to people like they are glorified spreadsheets.
Usually when people make distinctions between "real databases" and Access or Excel they're not really true (e.g. "Access just writes to a file"... as opposed to the 2 files SQL server writes to?).
SSMS has a grid-looking thing that you can edit data with. Is it really such a breech of etiquette to refer to that as a spreadsheet?
When I explain tables to people, I use Excel sheets as an analogy. Usually people don't link cells between sheets, but normalization is becoming recognized as more academic than practical.
Slashdot Mirror
OK. So you concede justice doesn't descend from an algorithm.
Sounds like you're saying it is worded poorly, but I suspect the OP thinks justice can come from an algorithm.
And FWIW, there are black boxes all over (including outside tech) that are not evaluated by the courts (i.e. Pepsi's earnings, manufacturing processes, etc) and this is not only a legal precedent, but it is necessary for justice. You have to have good reason (i.e. a subpoena) to get at that. If a circuit court wants to know why I named one of my children something and to evaluate if that was sufficiently justified it is time to flee the country.
Lots of recent corruption, to be sure.
I wouldn't describe Saddam as disarming. His nuclear weapons program went dormant (not extinct, still with 4+ metric tons of uranium), and he wouldn't allow weapons inspectors to do their stuff. He sounded belligerent in the press to me.
Looking back on it, I think we should have set the threshold higher for going to war, but it's not like he was complying with the terms of Iraq 1 surrender.
Every time someone comes out with something innovative, Google or Facebook buys it.
The going rate is 20 billion USD.
How is that stifling innovation?
Would you want to work at a place where your peer was your boss's wife?
What if she gets bonuses and you don't (regardless if she deserves them).
This is not Bible thumping.
The tech world is run by lizards who hire people primarily based on looks and age and want to put as many lives into the ground to scratch whatever itch enters into their head. Crimes to them are just reminders about how 'ahead of their time' they are, and it pains them to be held to the same standard as others.
Exhibit A: Eric Schmit, Exhibit B: Steve Jobs
And these guys want to be able to run the world, but they can't even run their own lives and deserve jail time.
"justice from an unknown algorithm is no justice at all"
...
A successful conviction may be legitimately tipped by accurate checked evidence, in this case DNA
But justice is not a matter of technical facticity. It is withholding something from a party that they deserve.
The evidence may help identify discrepancies between the two, but it is a major conflation to substitute that with justice.
Hell is the place where you no longer have to return to being yourself.
... No Exit by Sartre
The scary thing is everyone is allowed to go there.
There's a play about it
You walked right into that one.
No one makes a case for saving net neutrality because there isn't one.
Whoa ... I'd never believe it if I hadn't heard of the Chicago fire dept having similar results.
Didn't think there was anything so broad / immense.
Somehow the potential for censorship counts as censorship.
... drop your phone company!
I'm afraid people are going to care less about countries like China and Cuba preventing criticisms of their governments since that now falls into the same bucket of "censorship".
If your phone company cuts off your calls
And if you have to ask how net neutrality is protecting cyber monday then we're just going to accuse you of being stupid, mostly because we don't have any case to explain this.
Consider the NSA is broadly scooping up all communication in a broad warrant, the IRS has been auditing based on political views, the EPA has been crucifying people based on unlegislated regulation, and the NEA has been using federal funds to promote the presidents agenda ... would you consider the US a success at not turning into a tyranny?
I don't know anyone who thinks netflix is abusing them.
The government abuses people as a matter of enforced policy (see the IRS auditing groups based on their political views, the NSA sweeping up everything using broad warrants, and the EPA "crucifying" people who don't follow their green rules that don't come from any legislature).
Even if you're right your style suggestions you have nothing but ad hominem attacks to support your cause.
You are trying to argue tech X should have beaurocracy A applied to it because tech Y had the same thing.
That is not very compelling to me.
In all likelihood neither should have had it in the first place.
Bwah ... that's like saying when the grocery store charges 2x for selling you the same product twice they are "manipulating" your grocery access.
... in other words it is this complex thing that would take to long to explain here (i.e. it is not really a problem).
Interesting you refer to it as "the problem"
Part of "the complexity" of the problem is you have to be educated enough, which is why you impugned my intelligence. Because if I really had the right brain washing (I mean, ahem, brains) I would already understand all this.
You are overthinking it. The last administration's emporer (FCC chief) is not wearing any clothes.
You've got first world problems.
... taste comes from the skin + slight amount of gravy.
Besides
Did you just prove people who don't like the market think they understand better than everyone else and want to become tyrants?
I learned about databases using database algebra, and I didn't understand anything until people started showing examples of successful queries. Now I just explain databases to people like they are glorified spreadsheets.
... as opposed to the 2 files SQL server writes to?).
Usually when people make distinctions between "real databases" and Access or Excel they're not really true (e.g. "Access just writes to a file"
SSMS has a grid-looking thing that you can edit data with. Is it really such a breech of etiquette to refer to that as a spreadsheet?
When I explain tables to people, I use Excel sheets as an analogy. Usually people don't link cells between sheets, but normalization is becoming recognized as more academic than practical.
Advertisers would sell to their own worst enemies if they could make a buck off of it.
... those are different stories.
If a company doesn't want to promote itself to a specific ethnicity it is most likely because they don't think the target wants to buy anything.
If that is true, both sides are better off.
Hiring, marriage, cliches
I guess you weren't following the oil for food scandal with Iraq.
Or how NK, Iran, and Iraq give WMD inspectors the run around (always successfully).
We are prospering too much!
Seriously I can easily image JFK, Eisenhower, or one of those guys promising that in the future Turkeys would be larger.
They're larger in part because our better economy carries that demand.
Oh I see ... politics should be running technology.
Brilliant !!
What concerns me is handing over the internet to the UN while both parties were AGAINST it and no one was able to explain why it was happening.
The UN doesn't prevent corruption. It ENFORCES it!
I see ... so NN is what is protecting the elections from being hijacked.
... oh wait! We're supposed to believe the Russians hijacked the elections while NN was in place!
Except
I am so dizzy trying to understand what we are supposed to believe.
Who was getting abused before net neutrality?
...
... I don't "understand" because I don't like Joseph Stalin, or whatever.
People who were paying lower rates and getting throttled or what exactly?
First world problems
This is such a half-baked way of putting Karl Marx into technology.
I know, I know