Context: There have been a number of articles over the past few days claiming MP3 is dead (and usually 'incidentally' citing AAC as being the 'superior' 'de facto' 'standard' now - AAC incidentally still being patent-encumbered, and for which Fraunhofer still extract licensing fees)... in other words, FUD claims have been issued to the media, seemingly to try 'scare' people off MP3 by claiming it's "dead" (when in fact it's now completely open), and trying to steer people toward AAC. I'm going to speculate that Fraunhofer are behind the FUD press releases.
I'm also a 'technologist who works with academics' and I find your comments bizarre. That 'three-five minute self-introduction of themselves' is the part where I like to listen most clearly, as understanding where someone is coming from, their context, what they're working on, what they want to solve, is the single-most important thing to ensure I'm giving them effective solutions that they are actually looking for, i.e. that I'm going to be offering something of value to them.
And knowing someone's title is just a trivial, basic matter of respect in the academic. If you keep calling someone who has earned a doctorate "Mister" then yeah, they're probably going to keep getting annoyed about it, because you're being sloppy and disrespectful, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder, and I would never hire you, because that same sloppiness is probably going to translate to the work you do also. If you can't even remember someone's title, you probably can't remember basic things relating to the technical problems at hand.
I'm going to guess that this is connected to the recent Larson Studios hack (https://www.databreaches.net/thedarkoverlord-leaks-upcoming-episode-of-orange-is-the-new-black-after-netflix-doesnt-pay-extortion-demand/); if so, then it doesn't have anything to do with shipping jobs overseas, as they're a California-based post-production company.
Oh and yes, to the idiots who are going to inevitably say this, yes I know the 4th Amendment is a "US thing" while this is the UK. DUh. My point is, the 4th Amendment is based on the fundamental underlying inalienable right to due process, and that underlying natural right, being inalienable, is in fact universal to every individual on earth. Government does not "grant" rights, we have rights by virtue of existing - government can only either choose not to violate them (e.g. 4th Amendment), or violate them.
I believe the legal/ethical principle in question is due process, and whether that constitutes a natural right (hint: yes). The 4th Amendment protects the right of individuals to be free from searches absent of a warrant, which may only be issued on the principled basis that there is reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime, or preparing to do so in a way that makes you a threat.
Any law that creates the power for a government to blanket search anyone and everyone they please simply for passing through the border (and in the absence of reasonable suspicion), effectively thus either violates the natural right to due process, or must be premised on the flimsy notion that merely travelling constitutes reasonable suspicion. It would be incredibly difficult to argue with a straight face that the simple act of travel alone constitutes reasonable suspicion that you are a criminal/terrorist. Likewise, even travelling to a so-called "terrorist state" seems flimsy to me, as there are millions of innocent people within these nations, and only a small percentage are engaged in terrorist activities.
In the case of pre-existing intelligence sources implicating a specific individual that they may be closely connected to e.g. ISIS (as your example of someone whose brother is a high ranking official in ISIS), then yes, thought the procedure should be, the evidence constituting reasonable suspicion should be used to obtain some sort of special type of warrant targeting that particular individual, which could then be used when they cross the border.
But, that is quite different from a blanket power to search everyone at the border (e.g. force everyone hand over passwords)..... the latter would be the equivalent of throwing away the 4th Amendment in the US and simply saying, to hell with it, we can now search everyone's houses "just in case" they might be a terrorist.
Will some terrorists slip through if we restricted such searches to cases with reasonable suspicion and applied due process? Yes, likely. But we don't throw away basic human rights for everyone, to make us slightly safer, do we?
You are looking at national averages, which is disingenuous: US cities like Seattle and Detroit are covered by the same gun laws and yet vary from safer than European cities, to far more dangerous. Which means, it has almost nothing to do with the gun laws, and has to be something else. What that something else might be, is left as homework to the reader.
Very misleading to the point of being BS. Compare the per-capita homicide rates of, say, Seattle, Amsterdam, and Detroit. Amsterdam has a higher murder rate than Seattle, in spite of having the freedom to own and carry guns and a 28% gun ownership rate in the latter. So you'll have to do better than "It's Teh GUNZ hur hur"
It is definitely improving. Some applications I tried in 0.4.2 that didn't work then, now do work in the latest release. However, they were still a bit glitchy. I think IF they can sorta start hitting some sort of 'critical mass' (e.g. where enough applications work well enough to attract more users, and at the same they attract a few extra serious developers), they have a shot at something good. I'm keeping an eye on it, I think within a year or two it may be viable to start using it to replace some of the applications I now run in XP VMs.
They did at least thankfully scrap that (IMO stupid) 'asteroid redirect mission', which to me seemed more like busywork to avoid and postpone actually going to Mars by bureaucrats not up to the challenge nor interested in leading anything visionary or groundbreaking or 'risky' but rather treading it safe. As popular as it is to make fun of Trump, and regardless of whether it's about his ego, I think he did a good thing egging them on to get us to Mars... it's what we need... we haven't had a prominent politician since what, JFK who actually bothered trying to set some meaningful national vision for space exploration. Going to Mars will be a good thing, it's exciting. Of course he wants to go down in history as the president who got humans to Mars, though his timeline is unrealistic, that's only because we've been sitting on our asses so long.
That is indeed the ideal goal - automation and AI should allow us to achieve a post-scarcity 'Star Trek future' for mankind. However, to transition to this relatively more post-scarcity society requires significant and very careful changes to how society is structured politically. These changes can only be performed successfully by good quality political leadership (ha ha) that has both vision and a good understanding of technology. We simply do not have "good quality political leadership" anywhere in the world right now. This is a major concern. So there will likely be further unrest along the way. This is partly why we're already seeing a rise in leftist-Marxist protesting/unrest.
I'm curious how such a study would define the benchmark of what 'correct' decisions by those CEOs would have been - how could they know? Play out alternative universe simulations in which the CEOs took an alternative decision? That's not possible. Not being facetious, am seriously wondering... the types of decisions CEOs make aren't easy, and are made with incomplete information - if the CEOs (who have the most information) can't easily make the "correct" decision then how can some random scientist doing some study know the "correct" decision?
The people claiming this is "weird" or "fucked up" are either strange themselves, or they're pretending. Either way, they're pushing a moral or ethical idea that contradicts nature
Yeah; to the guy's saying it "shouldn't matter" to the father whether the child has his genes, I say, let me have sexual access to your wife and impregnate her and you pay the child-rearing costs, I'm sure they won't mind as it "shouldn't matter".
The specific primary reason I wanted children was to pass my genes on. This is an extremely deep, natural instinct to most people. I'd never in a million years want to invest a lifetime of resources (financial, time etc.) parenting and supporting some other man's child, to further his genetics - whether the clinic made the mistake or my partner cheated - that is not the deal. The deal is, my genetic offspring in exchange for my parenting resources. If I was this poor German father I would be trying to pay 0% of the parenting costs... he's been supremely cuckolded by someone's incompetence. Most men don't have the financial resources to raise many children as modern child-rearing is very expensive, you only get one or two or a few chances at best, and he's now lost one of his chances at having kids of his own. This is a travesty.
This isn't Google showing merely 'showing the indexed results'... it's copying and reincorporating his content such that the users never visit his site in the first place. You shouldn't have to require not being indexed to not have Google behave like a greedy monopolistic parasite, but such is the world we live in.
I watched the video closely again, and the hands clearly move. I'm really not seeing the problem. Nothing else needs to move... this isn't a Hollywood movie...
have you ever shot a handgun?
I agree, that video looked rigged as hell. I've seen a lot more convincing animatronics in theme parks.
To me this looks kinda like effectively a demo video designed to show the potential of the (next generation of this) technology, given further funding (which they are probably likely to get). I'm not worried about robot soldier tech of today, but given it another 10 or 20 years development and it's not going to be a joke anymore.
The "robot" doesn't even appear to move at all as targets fall at significant angles relative to it.
I think you failed to notice the fitted lasersights, which are an obvious giveaway as to the mechanism they're using for visual targeting, and given that, the only movement necessary is very small adjustments of the hands and perhaps lower arms.
What I take away from that video is that they're not-so-subtly courting further investment from the military in order to develop a way more lethal 'version 2'. And the military is going to jump on this.. expect them to succeed in getting further funding and ultimately, bulk orders. This trend is worrying and likely inevitable... scoff now, I would not want to be facing down an army of these invading my jurisdiction after another decade or two's advancement of the tech (this will happen in our lifetimes). The 2nd Amendment could become an important defense against robot armies.
That's like say, if I leave my front door open and a trespasser enters, "YOU invited that situation by buying a house with a door! YOU caused the issue!"... that's just dumb. Of course it's 'best practice' to try and remember to always lock your door, but by and large society recognizes that an unwanted intrusion is caused by the intruder, not the victim, and our laws recognize as such.
If I rick-rolled the Burger King CEO's Android device with commands like "Ok Google, where is the nearest whorehouse" or, "Ok Google, how do I make a bomb", I bet suddenly he wouldn't think it's as acceptable as when he's doing it to others.
Slashdot Mirror
Context: There have been a number of articles over the past few days claiming MP3 is dead (and usually 'incidentally' citing AAC as being the 'superior' 'de facto' 'standard' now - AAC incidentally still being patent-encumbered, and for which Fraunhofer still extract licensing fees) ... in other words, FUD claims have been issued to the media, seemingly to try 'scare' people off MP3 by claiming it's "dead" (when in fact it's now completely open), and trying to steer people toward AAC. I'm going to speculate that Fraunhofer are behind the FUD press releases.
I'm also a 'technologist who works with academics' and I find your comments bizarre. That 'three-five minute self-introduction of themselves' is the part where I like to listen most clearly, as understanding where someone is coming from, their context, what they're working on, what they want to solve, is the single-most important thing to ensure I'm giving them effective solutions that they are actually looking for, i.e. that I'm going to be offering something of value to them.
And knowing someone's title is just a trivial, basic matter of respect in the academic. If you keep calling someone who has earned a doctorate "Mister" then yeah, they're probably going to keep getting annoyed about it, because you're being sloppy and disrespectful, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder, and I would never hire you, because that same sloppiness is probably going to translate to the work you do also. If you can't even remember someone's title, you probably can't remember basic things relating to the technical problems at hand.
I'm going to guess that this is connected to the recent Larson Studios hack (https://www.databreaches.net/thedarkoverlord-leaks-upcoming-episode-of-orange-is-the-new-black-after-netflix-doesnt-pay-extortion-demand/); if so, then it doesn't have anything to do with shipping jobs overseas, as they're a California-based post-production company.
Oh and yes, to the idiots who are going to inevitably say this, yes I know the 4th Amendment is a "US thing" while this is the UK. DUh. My point is, the 4th Amendment is based on the fundamental underlying inalienable right to due process, and that underlying natural right, being inalienable, is in fact universal to every individual on earth. Government does not "grant" rights, we have rights by virtue of existing - government can only either choose not to violate them (e.g. 4th Amendment), or violate them.
I believe the legal/ethical principle in question is due process, and whether that constitutes a natural right (hint: yes). The 4th Amendment protects the right of individuals to be free from searches absent of a warrant, which may only be issued on the principled basis that there is reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime, or preparing to do so in a way that makes you a threat.
Any law that creates the power for a government to blanket search anyone and everyone they please simply for passing through the border (and in the absence of reasonable suspicion), effectively thus either violates the natural right to due process, or must be premised on the flimsy notion that merely travelling constitutes reasonable suspicion. It would be incredibly difficult to argue with a straight face that the simple act of travel alone constitutes reasonable suspicion that you are a criminal/terrorist. Likewise, even travelling to a so-called "terrorist state" seems flimsy to me, as there are millions of innocent people within these nations, and only a small percentage are engaged in terrorist activities.
In the case of pre-existing intelligence sources implicating a specific individual that they may be closely connected to e.g. ISIS (as your example of someone whose brother is a high ranking official in ISIS), then yes, thought the procedure should be, the evidence constituting reasonable suspicion should be used to obtain some sort of special type of warrant targeting that particular individual, which could then be used when they cross the border.
But, that is quite different from a blanket power to search everyone at the border (e.g. force everyone hand over passwords) ..... the latter would be the equivalent of throwing away the 4th Amendment in the US and simply saying, to hell with it, we can now search everyone's houses "just in case" they might be a terrorist.
Will some terrorists slip through if we restricted such searches to cases with reasonable suspicion and applied due process? Yes, likely. But we don't throw away basic human rights for everyone, to make us slightly safer, do we?
Where I live they're almost always higher than market price, so the local government can extract higher taxes
Which will probably trick their algorithms into increasing their estimate of your neighbors' properties.
You are looking at national averages, which is disingenuous: US cities like Seattle and Detroit are covered by the same gun laws and yet vary from safer than European cities, to far more dangerous. Which means, it has almost nothing to do with the gun laws, and has to be something else. What that something else might be, is left as homework to the reader.
If I was "cherry-picking" would I have put Detroit in there? Try again.
Very misleading to the point of being BS. Compare the per-capita homicide rates of, say, Seattle, Amsterdam, and Detroit. Amsterdam has a higher murder rate than Seattle, in spite of having the freedom to own and carry guns and a 28% gun ownership rate in the latter. So you'll have to do better than "It's Teh GUNZ hur hur"
It is definitely improving. Some applications I tried in 0.4.2 that didn't work then, now do work in the latest release. However, they were still a bit glitchy. I think IF they can sorta start hitting some sort of 'critical mass' (e.g. where enough applications work well enough to attract more users, and at the same they attract a few extra serious developers), they have a shot at something good. I'm keeping an eye on it, I think within a year or two it may be viable to start using it to replace some of the applications I now run in XP VMs.
They did at least thankfully scrap that (IMO stupid) 'asteroid redirect mission', which to me seemed more like busywork to avoid and postpone actually going to Mars by bureaucrats not up to the challenge nor interested in leading anything visionary or groundbreaking or 'risky' but rather treading it safe. As popular as it is to make fun of Trump, and regardless of whether it's about his ego, I think he did a good thing egging them on to get us to Mars ... it's what we need ... we haven't had a prominent politician since what, JFK who actually bothered trying to set some meaningful national vision for space exploration. Going to Mars will be a good thing, it's exciting. Of course he wants to go down in history as the president who got humans to Mars, though his timeline is unrealistic, that's only because we've been sitting on our asses so long.
That is indeed the ideal goal - automation and AI should allow us to achieve a post-scarcity 'Star Trek future' for mankind. However, to transition to this relatively more post-scarcity society requires significant and very careful changes to how society is structured politically. These changes can only be performed successfully by good quality political leadership (ha ha) that has both vision and a good understanding of technology. We simply do not have "good quality political leadership" anywhere in the world right now. This is a major concern. So there will likely be further unrest along the way. This is partly why we're already seeing a rise in leftist-Marxist protesting/unrest.
I'm curious how such a study would define the benchmark of what 'correct' decisions by those CEOs would have been - how could they know? Play out alternative universe simulations in which the CEOs took an alternative decision? That's not possible. Not being facetious, am seriously wondering ... the types of decisions CEOs make aren't easy, and are made with incomplete information - if the CEOs (who have the most information) can't easily make the "correct" decision then how can some random scientist doing some study know the "correct" decision?
The people claiming this is "weird" or "fucked up" are either strange themselves, or they're pretending. Either way, they're pushing a moral or ethical idea that contradicts nature
Yeah; to the guy's saying it "shouldn't matter" to the father whether the child has his genes, I say, let me have sexual access to your wife and impregnate her and you pay the child-rearing costs, I'm sure they won't mind as it "shouldn't matter".
The specific primary reason I wanted children was to pass my genes on. This is an extremely deep, natural instinct to most people. I'd never in a million years want to invest a lifetime of resources (financial, time etc.) parenting and supporting some other man's child, to further his genetics - whether the clinic made the mistake or my partner cheated - that is not the deal. The deal is, my genetic offspring in exchange for my parenting resources. If I was this poor German father I would be trying to pay 0% of the parenting costs ... he's been supremely cuckolded by someone's incompetence. Most men don't have the financial resources to raise many children as modern child-rearing is very expensive, you only get one or two or a few chances at best, and he's now lost one of his chances at having kids of his own. This is a travesty.
Detect when Google is scraping and feed them a long string of hilariously-fake data
This would be temporarily amusing, however, Google's T&C's allow them to de-index you if you deliver different results to what a normal user sees.
This isn't Google showing merely 'showing the indexed results' ... it's copying and reincorporating his content such that the users never visit his site in the first place. You shouldn't have to require not being indexed to not have Google behave like a greedy monopolistic parasite, but such is the world we live in.
Nothing moves; it's all perfectly still.
I watched the video closely again, and the hands clearly move. I'm really not seeing the problem. Nothing else needs to move ... this isn't a Hollywood movie ...
have you ever shot a handgun?
You do know technology actually progresses?
I agree, that video looked rigged as hell. I've seen a lot more convincing animatronics in theme parks.
To me this looks kinda like effectively a demo video designed to show the potential of the (next generation of this) technology, given further funding (which they are probably likely to get). I'm not worried about robot soldier tech of today, but given it another 10 or 20 years development and it's not going to be a joke anymore.
The "robot" doesn't even appear to move at all as targets fall at significant angles relative to it.
I think you failed to notice the fitted lasersights, which are an obvious giveaway as to the mechanism they're using for visual targeting, and given that, the only movement necessary is very small adjustments of the hands and perhaps lower arms.
What I take away from that video is that they're not-so-subtly courting further investment from the military in order to develop a way more lethal 'version 2'. And the military is going to jump on this .. expect them to succeed in getting further funding and ultimately, bulk orders. This trend is worrying and likely inevitable ... scoff now, I would not want to be facing down an army of these invading my jurisdiction after another decade or two's advancement of the tech (this will happen in our lifetimes). The 2nd Amendment could become an important defense against robot armies.
is how ugly and badly designed their user interface is.
That's like say, if I leave my front door open and a trespasser enters, "YOU invited that situation by buying a house with a door! YOU caused the issue!" ... that's just dumb. Of course it's 'best practice' to try and remember to always lock your door, but by and large society recognizes that an unwanted intrusion is caused by the intruder, not the victim, and our laws recognize as such.
If I rick-rolled the Burger King CEO's Android device with commands like "Ok Google, where is the nearest whorehouse" or, "Ok Google, how do I make a bomb", I bet suddenly he wouldn't think it's as acceptable as when he's doing it to others.