Let's think about the security implications of unlocking/starting your car with your phone instead of the key. The key is probably just as vulnerable to theft since you have to have it on you, but has no authentication mechanism at all. No fingerprints, no passcodes, just having it unlocks and starts you car. So even if you disable authentication on your phone it's still no worse than the key.
But I know that no malware is going to creep onto my key from the internet. If my phone gets hacked, they can exfiltrate the codes, or disable my access and hold me for ransom.
Should Facial Recognition Cameras Belong In Schools?
No. "Should Facial Recognition Cameras Be In Schools" or "Do Facial Recognition Cameras Belong In Schools". Not trying to be pedantic, but I'd really like to think the editors have a command of the language when they construct the titles. ESPECIALLY for an article that involves education.
If true, I wish I didn't get lumped in with the anticipated "peanut gallery morons". It's like listening to a radio station and hearing a commercial that is so obviously tuned to a segment of the populace that you grew out of long ago (or were never in). Channel change time.
I detest writing like the above. People trot out the "I know I/it/whatever isn't perfect" lead-in all the time, and I dislike it because it's seductively-packaged idiocy... it costs the speaker nothing (who would, or even could, argue that xyz IS in fact perfect?), while then paving the way for them to follow with an equally vapid statement that does nothing to inform.
I was recently trying to assess whether buying expensive retainers for my son's post-braces teeth would be worthwhile, and asked his orthodontist what the success/stability rate with them was. She replied, "Well, we can't guarantee perfection, of course, but most people like them." Which cornered me into "being rude" by explaining to her that the fact that the outcomes weren't "perfect" was not informative or helpful; do they work in 80% of patients? 99? 40? THAT information is helpful.
Curious, what are the problems posed by simply leaving it where it is? Is it too expensive to leave, does it leak bad chemicals, cause some kind of problem?
A cop friend of mine told me how I should have, "Sue that asshole!" cop, I told him, "I don't sue cops."
By not suing, you allowed this to go unchecked, and thus -- by omission -- contributed to the problem. I hope you've learned your lesson. It's ok to not sue because you're too busy or stressed or apathetic, but to not sue rogue cops out of "principle" is just a big "thanks, may I have another" for them.
Patents are awarded for implementation. Your example would also be true of the steam engine: coal burns, water turns to steam, moves stuff. It's a bit more complex.
I don't know how hard to think of the steam engine was back in the day... vaccines seem obvious, but that's because now we're all familar with how they work. But more to the point: in the world of software the line between "idea" and "implementation" is razor thin, something that is distinctly not true of a lot of mechanical devices. There are in fact many people who believe that software should be unpatentable, in large part for this blurry-to-nonexistent divide; regardless of whether I'm one of them, the ideas in this patent are stare-you-in-the-face obvious and should not be patentable.
This *shouldn't* be patentable, per the rule that obvious things shouldn't be patentable. Just reading the headline, my immediate set of thoughts on how to infer drunkenness included all of the ones mentioned in the summary (typos, accelerometer info, location) and then some (scanning text messages for "so fucked up"/"alcohol"/"drinking"/"partying", correlating previous instances of all such conditions cyclically in a week or per an individual binge recovery period, sensing flashing lights, etc). This stuff is obvious. Many patents granted are on obvious things, and so in effect become patents on "had the idea to file the patent first", as opposed to "had a novel idea that is very hard to think of". It's disgusting how stupid or corrupt (whichever) the US patent office is.
we're not working towards replacing it (finding a new one elsewhere)
d
About this particular sub-point, a note of realism: global thermonuclear war could obliterate huge swaths of the globe and Earth would *still* be far more inhabitable and worth trying to rehab than Mars. Effort on this front would be flat out wasted (and yes, Elon Musk is a kook in this regard, and I'd be delighted for the future to prove me wrong).
hmm... that's like saying "stopping global warming" is the new "avoiding nuclear war". They're both fabulous ideas, for different reasons. Conflating them might work on your fb yes-men, but it won't work on me.:)
1) There should be a governmental regulatory agency in place which constantly determines whether a given product can be sold in the US, based on its safety, and IF it can be sold whether the seller is required to warn of any particular or general dangers.
2) Amazon should be required to comply with the dictates of said agency. Specifically, it should be illegal for Amazon to facilitate the sale of (for an extreme but illustrative example) a bomb... and if Amazon knows a given product causes cancer (whether it knows that from the regulatory agency or the manufacturer), it should be required to disclose that at the point of sale.
3) Amazon should be required to make available the manufacturer's name / contact info / etc, both before the sale and as needed upon request after the sale (even if the vendor has ceased selling on Amazon).
I'm fairly certain that #1 is already in place, and my guess is that #2 is being contested by Amazon, that Amazon is claiming something to the effect that they're more like a postal service than a store. If I have that right, then I wholeheartedly side against Amazon in this case; whether or not they're "like" a store or a delivery service in a traditional sense, they're a new kind of entity and we need tech laws to keep up with new tech entities. I don't think Amazon should be required to do consumer device testing, but IF there is an available database (from a regulatory entity) documenting harm, Amazon absolutely should be required to present that information at the point of sale.
To put it another way: You deleted your FB. Is that the case?
I've never had a fb account, never will.
I'm not the OP, but your question implied that nobody could be without fb. I love not being on it. FB is "the mosh pit", full of people who absolutely need others to constantly acknowledge them... and it's gross and pathetic.
Ah, the old "It's not my job to educate you, SHITLORD!"
Well, yes (except for the "shitlord" addition). I don't make the rules. There are a bunch of old sayings that apply despite being much-used, including "be honest", "pick your battles", and "if you don't like it you can go fuck yourself".
I read a lot of stuff on Slashdot about how bad it is that Facebook knows everything about us, but y'all haven't successfully articulated just what I should fear.
I (and I suspect many others) don't have the bent to evangelize to someone who -- in the wake of all kinds of studies, revelations, and developments showing precisely why people SHOULD care-- nevertheless doesn't seem to care... so I'm just writing to note that reciprocally, you have failed to articulate a sound basis for why people shouldn't care. It's not up to others to save you from yourself. Enjoy.
Agreed. NOT that this valuable litmus test should be taken as an excuse for Facebook, just a warning to the wary. We, the public, need governmental/regulatory protection from predatory practices, even free ones. If a corporation hands out poisonous muffins, it's not legal or ethical to do so simply because they're free.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's think about the security implications of unlocking/starting your car with your phone instead of the key. The key is probably just as vulnerable to theft since you have to have it on you, but has no authentication mechanism at all. No fingerprints, no passcodes, just having it unlocks and starts you car. So even if you disable authentication on your phone it's still no worse than the key.
But I know that no malware is going to creep onto my key from the internet. If my phone gets hacked, they can exfiltrate the codes, or disable my access and hold me for ransom.
In that case I think it fits the definition of condescension.
Should Facial Recognition Cameras Belong In Schools?
No. "Should Facial Recognition Cameras Be In Schools" or "Do Facial Recognition Cameras Belong In Schools". Not trying to be pedantic, but I'd really like to think the editors have a command of the language when they construct the titles. ESPECIALLY for an article that involves education.
If true, I wish I didn't get lumped in with the anticipated "peanut gallery morons". It's like listening to a radio station and hearing a commercial that is so obviously tuned to a segment of the populace that you grew out of long ago (or were never in). Channel change time.
Amazon is finally bringing Alexa to the hotel room.
What is this, an advertisement? Pre-supposing the audience has wanted this for a long time?
IBM's engineers know the AI isn't perfect.
I detest writing like the above. People trot out the "I know I/it/whatever isn't perfect" lead-in all the time, and I dislike it because it's seductively-packaged idiocy... it costs the speaker nothing (who would, or even could, argue that xyz IS in fact perfect?), while then paving the way for them to follow with an equally vapid statement that does nothing to inform.
I was recently trying to assess whether buying expensive retainers for my son's post-braces teeth would be worthwhile, and asked his orthodontist what the success/stability rate with them was. She replied, "Well, we can't guarantee perfection, of course, but most people like them." Which cornered me into "being rude" by explaining to her that the fact that the outcomes weren't "perfect" was not informative or helpful; do they work in 80% of patients? 99? 40? THAT information is helpful.
Pushbullet is still going, no?
Curious, what are the problems posed by simply leaving it where it is? Is it too expensive to leave, does it leak bad chemicals, cause some kind of problem?
A cop friend of mine told me how I should have, "Sue that asshole!" cop, I told him, "I don't sue cops."
By not suing, you allowed this to go unchecked, and thus -- by omission -- contributed to the problem. I hope you've learned your lesson. It's ok to not sue because you're too busy or stressed or apathetic, but to not sue rogue cops out of "principle" is just a big "thanks, may I have another" for them.
b-but... she's a GIRL.
Patents are awarded for implementation. Your example would also be true of the steam engine: coal burns, water turns to steam, moves stuff. It's a bit more complex.
I don't know how hard to think of the steam engine was back in the day... vaccines seem obvious, but that's because now we're all familar with how they work. But more to the point: in the world of software the line between "idea" and "implementation" is razor thin, something that is distinctly not true of a lot of mechanical devices. There are in fact many people who believe that software should be unpatentable, in large part for this blurry-to-nonexistent divide; regardless of whether I'm one of them, the ideas in this patent are stare-you-in-the-face obvious and should not be patentable.
And besides, Mark Zuckerberg *said* he was sorry. How much punishment is enough?
This *shouldn't* be patentable, per the rule that obvious things shouldn't be patentable. Just reading the headline, my immediate set of thoughts on how to infer drunkenness included all of the ones mentioned in the summary (typos, accelerometer info, location) and then some (scanning text messages for "so fucked up"/"alcohol"/"drinking"/"partying", correlating previous instances of all such conditions cyclically in a week or per an individual binge recovery period, sensing flashing lights, etc). This stuff is obvious. Many patents granted are on obvious things, and so in effect become patents on "had the idea to file the patent first", as opposed to "had a novel idea that is very hard to think of". It's disgusting how stupid or corrupt (whichever) the US patent office is.
we're not working towards replacing it (finding a new one elsewhere)
d About this particular sub-point, a note of realism: global thermonuclear war could obliterate huge swaths of the globe and Earth would *still* be far more inhabitable and worth trying to rehab than Mars. Effort on this front would be flat out wasted (and yes, Elon Musk is a kook in this regard, and I'd be delighted for the future to prove me wrong).
Yes, I am.
They're tracking you anyway, via all those obliquitous "like" and "share" buttons
Not me. I've got my browser loaded with blockers and filters.
hmm... that's like saying "stopping global warming" is the new "avoiding nuclear war". They're both fabulous ideas, for different reasons. Conflating them might work on your fb yes-men, but it won't work on me. :)
Uber Facing Ban In Turkey After Erdogan Backs Taxis
Initial skim: "Uber Facing Ban In Turkey After Evading Back Taxes".
I'm fairly certain that #1 is already in place, and my guess is that #2 is being contested by Amazon, that Amazon is claiming something to the effect that they're more like a postal service than a store. If I have that right, then I wholeheartedly side against Amazon in this case; whether or not they're "like" a store or a delivery service in a traditional sense, they're a new kind of entity and we need tech laws to keep up with new tech entities. I don't think Amazon should be required to do consumer device testing, but IF there is an available database (from a regulatory entity) documenting harm, Amazon absolutely should be required to present that information at the point of sale.
To put it another way: You deleted your FB. Is that the case?
I've never had a fb account, never will.
I'm not the OP, but your question implied that nobody could be without fb. I love not being on it. FB is "the mosh pit", full of people who absolutely need others to constantly acknowledge them... and it's gross and pathetic.
Well said.
Ah, the old "It's not my job to educate you, SHITLORD!"
Well, yes (except for the "shitlord" addition). I don't make the rules. There are a bunch of old sayings that apply despite being much-used, including "be honest", "pick your battles", and "if you don't like it you can go fuck yourself".
I read a lot of stuff on Slashdot about how bad it is that Facebook knows everything about us, but y'all haven't successfully articulated just what I should fear.
I (and I suspect many others) don't have the bent to evangelize to someone who -- in the wake of all kinds of studies, revelations, and developments showing precisely why people SHOULD care-- nevertheless doesn't seem to care... so I'm just writing to note that reciprocally, you have failed to articulate a sound basis for why people shouldn't care. It's not up to others to save you from yourself. Enjoy.
When it's free, everyone is the product
Agreed. NOT that this valuable litmus test should be taken as an excuse for Facebook, just a warning to the wary. We, the public, need governmental/regulatory protection from predatory practices, even free ones. If a corporation hands out poisonous muffins, it's not legal or ethical to do so simply because they're free.
Guess I'll be buying my hookers by the six pack rather than by the case.