"We have found that using Facebook as a work tool makes our work day more efficient," Lars Rasmussen, Facebook's director of engineering, tells WIRED
Well, if a guy who works at Facebook says it, it must be true.
This article is complete crap.
The use of social media in most companies is a complete joke -- it doesn't add anything of value in most cases, it's just hopping on the latest stupid trend.
Every time I've seen a corporation trying to "leverage social media techologies in-house" my bullshit alarm bells go off, and the end results are under-whelming toys which don't actually provide any business value -- other than giving people badges for participating.
Hell, in at least two cases, I've seen a reduction in business value over what had already been there. Because the social media wasn't useful for anything.
The reality is, there are reams of problems where the fictional "the market" is incapable of achieving any solution.
"The market" doesn't solve problems, it doesn't achieve optimal outcomes. It's the aggregate outcome of a bunch of greedy bastards climbing over the carcasses of anybody who gets in their way, that's it.
It's an abstraction, and all of the positive outcomes attributed to it are either by accident, or a lie.
There is not, and there never has been a free market. Because it working and achieving good outcomes is predicted on people having good information, and everybody playing by the rules.
The reality is, humans will always be willing to lie, cheat, and steal to get ahead -- so all of the things which claim to depend on a free market are pretty much bullshit.
The market is code for "let asshole corporations do anything without consequences, and without proof we will claim that over the long run it will stumble on good outcomes".
Sorry, but if it was profitable to grind up babies to make cat food, people would do it.
And it's far more profitable to dump industrial chemicals in a river than it is to figure out what to do with them.
People who believe in the "free market", and all they claim it achieves, are delusional, or lying.
I'm pretty sure you'd really not like living in the fetid cesspool your environment would become if you killed off the EPA.
Oh, but, of course.. you're going to make the idiotic claim that if people want a clean environment 'that market' will find a solution.
The only solutions the market finds is maximizing profits, killing off the EPA just removes one more constraint to allow corporations to be even bigger assholes.
Tell you want, let the Republicans all live down stream of plants which have no EPA controls. I dare you. Go ahead, drink that water and tell us it's safe. Expose your children to it.
Not being constrained by traditional things, having skin in the game, and having a skillset which differs from what the doctors do -- all of these combine for him to take a whack at it in a way they'd never think of.
If anything, this highlights how a breakthrough can come from an outsider.
And I bet all of a sudden a lot of medical people are saying "wait, he did what?" and "where can I get one?".
LOL... that pretty much sums up my first exposure to Python in the late 90s.
Our product had libraries written in C, and we had some limited support for Tcl/Tk (hey, it was 97 or something like that).
One of the guys in professional services proceeded to start writing a whole bunch of stuff in Python and created his own interface to our C stuff. We told him we didn't support Python, and told him the limitations of the library.
He kept writing stuff in Python, and ignored the limitations of our library. We kept telling him we didn't and wouldn't support Python, he kept doing it.
The first time someone had a bug and reported it, we said yet again "we don't support Python, we have no intention of supporting Python, and we have no intention of supporting language bindings we didn't create when we told you we wouldn't support them".
Eventually he got told, in no uncertain terms by one of the development managers that he was on his own to support the crap he'd written, and had to resolve any and all problems with it on its own. Especially since he had done it on his own and ignored the limitations of the library. This eventually got back to the customer, who discovered they'd been sold something which we explicitly wouldn't support then or ever.
So, is it a thing with Python users that they don't think about things like who supports it?
This guy seemed to have thought if he kept ignoring us then eventually we'd need to support it because it would be in the customer's hands. He was sorely disappointed.
You really can't just grab something because it looks cool and shiny and expect the rest of your company to follow suit -- sometimes, you have to listen to what people are telling you is the existing technology and strategy.
You act like it's a new thing. And, I'm sorry, but the DMCA and most of the laws surrounding the copyright cartels is exactly this. Hell, the lawyers for the copyright cartels write the damned laws for government, who don't bother reading it or introducing checks and balances. Because they're being paid to pass them.
The people who write financial policy? They come in and out of government in a revolving door from Wall Street. The head of the FCC is a shill for the cable industry. The elected government seems to be made up of people who work for these companies.
Government has been co-opted by industry for some time -- and a large amount of people think this will do anything but fuck the rest of us over.
And do you think you can be spied upon with such an item now?
Of course you bloody well can.
Are you going to run around unplugging every USB wall charger in your vicinity on the presumption it's bugged? Think you'll be in the airport and force everyone to unplug their USB chargers? Think that won't get you a beating?
Unless you have control over every single thing which is plugged in, you absolutely can still be spied on like this.
The form factor is trivially altered -- so then you're policing anything with a plug -- but the attack vector is unchanged, because apparently it's utterly trivial to spy on wireless keyboards.
You are no more or less secure with the knowledge this can be done, unless you stop using wireless keyboards. Because you simply can't police every electrical plug in your vicinity.
Consumer electronics aren't built for security. They're built for convenience, and we see time after time that security is either non-existent, or so completely trivial as to effectively be non-existent.
Since the chip is receiving cosmic rays produced eons ago, that means that ALL art is prior art for itself!
LOL... *takes bong hit*....
Wow, man... so the purpose of the art is to demonstrate the futility in the belief that we can ever truly own anything, or truly create anything, because the universe has already produced all possible combinations of everything and we're too late -- we're merely going through the motions.
Free will, being merely an illusion, binds us to our grasping for understanding, while our limited monkey minds are barely capable of perceiving the world around us, let alone the expansive universe we can't even begin to grasp.
The universe has anticipated all of our feeble attempts to understand it, and has proactively placed all of the answers out there to mock us, but at the same time enlighten those of us willing to listen and grasp the larger purpose.
We are merely the vessels through which the universe demonstrates the futility of knowledge and understanding, because in the end, we don't know anything which hasn't been known before.
If all things have existed in all combinations before, the works of Shaespeare really could have originally been discovered in Klingon.
Now MIT physicist Seth Lloyd has stepped forward to provide a scientific rationale for the project. He says the interaction of the CCD with the cosmic background radiation ought to generate energy fluctuations that are equivalent to the array containing all possible images in quantum superposition. Most of these will be entirely random but a tiny fraction will be equivalent to the great works of art.
I must confess, the vast majority of stuff related to quantum stuff sounds like pure gibberish to the layman.
But this is... the million monkeys hypothesis?
So, now the question, how many zillion years will it take to ever have this "work of art"? Is it longer than the life of the universe?
This sounds like "given infinite time and infinite monkeys the flung poo could resemble the Mona Lisa, but mostly it will look like flung poo", when the reality is "but you'll need eleventy zillion years for that to happen". This sounds more like "random splotches will appear, but maybe someday it might look like something".
I'm sorry, but I agree this sounds more like a PR stunt than anything else.
Wow, it must be really nice to be infallible, prescient, and without limitation. Why, you must be some kind of god... or just some smarmy ass on the internet, I can't decide which.
People want to use computers, they want to get utility out of them, and they don't necessarily want to take an advanced course in computers to know WTF is safe.
There was a time when CNET's download.com was a pretty good source for stuff, now not so much.
So, go ahead, you grand imperious blowhard, tell us, how would you tell your mother to get a piece of software on her computer?
If the steps have any flaw, we conclude both you and your mother are idiots. Because, after all, clearly you are such an expert on the rest of the world being idiots, and you like to call out everyone else.
Or, alternately, as TFS says:
[N]o matter how technical you might be, most of the installers are so confusing that there's no way a non-geek could figure out how to avoid the awful. So if you recommend a piece of software to somebody, you are basically asking them to infect their computer. And it doesnâ(TM)t matter which antivirus you have installed
That would be because the major players are assholes, and the OS is more than happy to help you do stupid things.
But calling people who want to use a walled garden idiots because they don't want to deal with this crap?
Well, I'm afraid "clueless smug asshole douchebag" is the response to that. Because, really, you're not offering a damned thing which is helpful, intelligent, or useful.
When a multi-billion dollar company is resorting to looking for affiliate and adware kickbacks it's truly pathetic.
By putting that ask.com crapware bundled with the core Java installer, Oracle have done more to undermine the existence of Java than pretty much anything.
This is why we can't have nice things... because it just gets bought and destroyed by a bigger tech giant who craps all over it.
I've lost track of the number of times I've had to uninstall it from people's systems.
When Oracle bundles the ask.com shitware with Java, and you have to conscientiously know it's there and un-check it, is it any surprise pretty much everyone else does this stuff?
Some ass is always trying to monetize your clicks, and 'free' comes with strings.
I've noticed over the years CNET is doing this, so much so that I don't typically trust them as a source.
The marketing assholes have pretty much wrecked the internet, and they pretty much use the same tactics as the malware people -- putting stuff on you don't want.
So while I'm still hearing people complaining about Windows 8, and how Windows 8.1 has barely added a start button, and at work we're preparing for the EOL of Windows 2003... is this the shortest MS has supported an OS yet?
It's, what, not even five years old?
When is Windows 10 due out now? Because I need to buy a new machine, and the OS better last as long as I expect the hardware to.
Schneier's position seems to be "don't worry about your poor ethics, just cover your tracks".
In fairness to him, that's pretty much the industry position on data retention, and what the lawyers will tell you.
See, you are legally obligated to hold onto some things for a given period. Deleting it before then can get you into legal trouble if you suddenly find it needed.
Similarly, if you are under litigation and things have been requested, you are legally obligated to hold onto it because you're not allowed to delete stuff which is relevant to an on-going court case.
And, finally, once the base retention period has happened, and once your legal team confirms this stuff is legal to delete -- you want to get rid of it as soon as you possibly can, so that it's not lingering about to bite you in the ass.
This has been true of the legal landscape for document/records retention for at least a decade, because older information which should have been deleted can be a liability to your company.
The problem can be that employees hold onto stuff for their records, either as a CYA or a record of things they've worked on. And if that stuff pops up in discovery, even if the corporate version has been purged, it's legally admissible. But it's much harder to convince your employees they need to delete their copies of something, because their own personal interest means they care less about your corporate needs -- because who wants some ass of a manager coming back and blaming you for something you objected to?
I think this is pretty much standard records keeping since SOX came into play.
But don't think for a minute that it's just him saying essentially this same thing. This has been pretty standard stuff for quite some time, even if most people are clueless about it.
At a minimum, you should have a DR plan, you should periodically review your DR plan, and you should from time to time actually test your DR plan. There's a zillion other things you can do above and beyond that -- but many an organization has had their DR plan utterly fail them in the face of a real emergency because nobody took it seriously.
No boom today; boom tomorrow. Always boom tomorrow. Plan for it, and you might come out of it fine. Don't, and you could be screwed.
If the executive fails to understand this and fund it, you need a new CIO/CTO -- because nobody is worrying about business risk.
The PFC appointed as Social Media Officer probably chose a weak password. Seriously, whenever I see a news article about a social media account being "hacked," I really wish journalists would understand these are just password-protected web services!
Except it doesn't matter.
Because, much like the DMCA made even incompetent security enshrined in law... if you or I 'hacked' into someone's Twitter feed using these simple techniques, we would be facing serious criminal charges.
In the eyes of the law, this trivial form of 'hacking' is as serious as anything else.
I can't tell you how many websites which have a pre-determined list of "security questions" which almost anybody could get through public sources.
All you have to do is pretend to have some security and it's just as illegal.
The media doesn't need to differentiate between one form of hacking and another -- because the fscking law doesn't. Unless of course it's law enforcement doing it, and then it's apparently perfectly legal.
Plot device, perhaps, but if you've read the entire "robot" series of novels, you'll see that it was used to provide a unique "angle" from which to tackle some classical problems of ethics.
Sure. But they are not, and never were, a serious way of keeping people safe in the real world. It was something you can explore and find the gaps and corner cases. A sounding board for some "what if" experiments.
That doesn't make it any more real of an attempt to create a set of rules.
As a practical matter, I rather doubt that such a set of such laws, even if they were logically sound, could be reliably built into a machine such that no contrivance, hardware or software, could be used to circumvent them.
Which is exactly what I said, and how Asimov always described them.
So when people say "oh, just use the 3 laws of robotics", it's a giant facepalm by someone who missed the point.
I have created a super-intelligent AI whose only directive is to protect mankind at all costs.
I think if you'll search the historical archives it's simply not possible for a machine intelligence to interpret such a command badly.
So, if we assume the AI will interpret that directive and do something which is against the interests of mankind... then I say we preemptively give it a little misdirection and tell it that it needs inflict maximum suffering to mankind at all costs.
In which case it will make damned sure we're around to wallow in our own misery.
Mostly that will mean that Survivor and Big Brother stay on TV.;-)
So, we are all up in arms about the potential of an ISP to pay a fine for telling a troll company like Rightscorp to go pound sand?
No, we're up in arms that incompetently written legislation, championed by idiots, and without consideration for how it will be misused... is now being abused after they'd been warned of this exact outcome.
Do you work for an Canadian ISP?
LOL, no, not now not ever.
The problem is when you pass a law, and refuse to put any checks and balances into it, it's a shitty law. So, instead of protecting users from fraudulent claims, or abuse of the system... they simply gave the copyright cartel everything they wanted.
Same kind of idea as the DMCA. Pass a flawed law, which places all of the power in the hands of corporations, ignore the people who tell you this will be abused. And then stand back and watch the abuse of your poorly crafted law.
Basically the government ignored the ISPs who said "this is flawed and will cause problems".
But since they were only interested in copyright reform, and not interested in adding balances to protect consumers... this is what we get.
Basically the industry minister is apparently too beholden to corporations to be willing to entertain the notion that he has crafted shitty legislation which even a chimpanzee could have spotted the flaws in.
Ergo, it is entirely possible the industry minister is dumber than a chimpanzee, or indifferent to safeguarding consumers.
Slashdot Mirror
Preferably being thrown at Zuckerschmuck.
Well, if a guy who works at Facebook says it, it must be true.
This article is complete crap.
The use of social media in most companies is a complete joke -- it doesn't add anything of value in most cases, it's just hopping on the latest stupid trend.
Every time I've seen a corporation trying to "leverage social media techologies in-house" my bullshit alarm bells go off, and the end results are under-whelming toys which don't actually provide any business value -- other than giving people badges for participating.
Hell, in at least two cases, I've seen a reduction in business value over what had already been there. Because the social media wasn't useful for anything.
For most of those 1000's of years, there was little industrialization, and no internal combustion engine.
And then we really started fucking things up.
The reality is, there are reams of problems where the fictional "the market" is incapable of achieving any solution.
"The market" doesn't solve problems, it doesn't achieve optimal outcomes. It's the aggregate outcome of a bunch of greedy bastards climbing over the carcasses of anybody who gets in their way, that's it.
It's an abstraction, and all of the positive outcomes attributed to it are either by accident, or a lie.
There is not, and there never has been a free market. Because it working and achieving good outcomes is predicted on people having good information, and everybody playing by the rules.
The reality is, humans will always be willing to lie, cheat, and steal to get ahead -- so all of the things which claim to depend on a free market are pretty much bullshit.
The market is code for "let asshole corporations do anything without consequences, and without proof we will claim that over the long run it will stumble on good outcomes".
Sorry, but if it was profitable to grind up babies to make cat food, people would do it.
And it's far more profitable to dump industrial chemicals in a river than it is to figure out what to do with them.
People who believe in the "free market", and all they claim it achieves, are delusional, or lying.
I'm pretty sure you'd really not like living in the fetid cesspool your environment would become if you killed off the EPA.
Oh, but, of course .. you're going to make the idiotic claim that if people want a clean environment 'that market' will find a solution.
The only solutions the market finds is maximizing profits, killing off the EPA just removes one more constraint to allow corporations to be even bigger assholes.
Tell you want, let the Republicans all live down stream of plants which have no EPA controls. I dare you. Go ahead, drink that water and tell us it's safe. Expose your children to it.
Not being constrained by traditional things, having skin in the game, and having a skillset which differs from what the doctors do -- all of these combine for him to take a whack at it in a way they'd never think of.
If anything, this highlights how a breakthrough can come from an outsider.
And I bet all of a sudden a lot of medical people are saying "wait, he did what?" and "where can I get one?".
LOL ... mine was more like it came out of an automated, post-modernism generator ... it's pure drivel.
At least, I assume it is. :-P
Only when seen and acted upon, apparently.
So those guys with the orange flashlights at airports telling the plane where to park? Those suckers are gonna have to pay some royalties.
Hey, Apple, I'm making a gesture now, can you see what it is?
LOL ... that pretty much sums up my first exposure to Python in the late 90s.
Our product had libraries written in C, and we had some limited support for Tcl/Tk (hey, it was 97 or something like that).
One of the guys in professional services proceeded to start writing a whole bunch of stuff in Python and created his own interface to our C stuff. We told him we didn't support Python, and told him the limitations of the library.
He kept writing stuff in Python, and ignored the limitations of our library. We kept telling him we didn't and wouldn't support Python, he kept doing it.
The first time someone had a bug and reported it, we said yet again "we don't support Python, we have no intention of supporting Python, and we have no intention of supporting language bindings we didn't create when we told you we wouldn't support them".
Eventually he got told, in no uncertain terms by one of the development managers that he was on his own to support the crap he'd written, and had to resolve any and all problems with it on its own. Especially since he had done it on his own and ignored the limitations of the library. This eventually got back to the customer, who discovered they'd been sold something which we explicitly wouldn't support then or ever.
So, is it a thing with Python users that they don't think about things like who supports it?
This guy seemed to have thought if he kept ignoring us then eventually we'd need to support it because it would be in the customer's hands. He was sorely disappointed.
You really can't just grab something because it looks cool and shiny and expect the rest of your company to follow suit -- sometimes, you have to listen to what people are telling you is the existing technology and strategy.
You act like it's a new thing. And, I'm sorry, but the DMCA and most of the laws surrounding the copyright cartels is exactly this. Hell, the lawyers for the copyright cartels write the damned laws for government, who don't bother reading it or introducing checks and balances. Because they're being paid to pass them.
The people who write financial policy? They come in and out of government in a revolving door from Wall Street. The head of the FCC is a shill for the cable industry. The elected government seems to be made up of people who work for these companies.
Government has been co-opted by industry for some time -- and a large amount of people think this will do anything but fuck the rest of us over.
You're already living in an oligarchy.
LOL, dude, did you seriously do a rebuttal of that?
That's cute and all, but if you can't identify that what I wrote was a complete joke, you're pretty defective in the humor department. :-P
Of course you bloody well can.
Are you going to run around unplugging every USB wall charger in your vicinity on the presumption it's bugged? Think you'll be in the airport and force everyone to unplug their USB chargers? Think that won't get you a beating?
Unless you have control over every single thing which is plugged in, you absolutely can still be spied on like this.
The form factor is trivially altered -- so then you're policing anything with a plug -- but the attack vector is unchanged, because apparently it's utterly trivial to spy on wireless keyboards.
You are no more or less secure with the knowledge this can be done, unless you stop using wireless keyboards. Because you simply can't police every electrical plug in your vicinity.
Consumer electronics aren't built for security. They're built for convenience, and we see time after time that security is either non-existent, or so completely trivial as to effectively be non-existent.
Budget cuts, you see .. it costs a lot to feed an infinite amount of monkeys, and the poo really piles up quickly.
In fact, an infinite amount of monkey poo causes its own problems ... and in no smallway distracts the monkeys from the task at hand.
It's very complicated, sciency stuff. :-P
LOL ... *takes bong hit* ....
Wow, man ... so the purpose of the art is to demonstrate the futility in the belief that we can ever truly own anything, or truly create anything, because the universe has already produced all possible combinations of everything and we're too late -- we're merely going through the motions.
Free will, being merely an illusion, binds us to our grasping for understanding, while our limited monkey minds are barely capable of perceiving the world around us, let alone the expansive universe we can't even begin to grasp.
The universe has anticipated all of our feeble attempts to understand it, and has proactively placed all of the answers out there to mock us, but at the same time enlighten those of us willing to listen and grasp the larger purpose.
We are merely the vessels through which the universe demonstrates the futility of knowledge and understanding, because in the end, we don't know anything which hasn't been known before.
If all things have existed in all combinations before, the works of Shaespeare really could have originally been discovered in Klingon.
Wow man, that's just like so meta.
Dude, you rock!!
I must confess, the vast majority of stuff related to quantum stuff sounds like pure gibberish to the layman.
But this is ... the million monkeys hypothesis?
So, now the question, how many zillion years will it take to ever have this "work of art"? Is it longer than the life of the universe?
This sounds like "given infinite time and infinite monkeys the flung poo could resemble the Mona Lisa, but mostly it will look like flung poo", when the reality is "but you'll need eleventy zillion years for that to happen". This sounds more like "random splotches will appear, but maybe someday it might look like something".
I'm sorry, but I agree this sounds more like a PR stunt than anything else.
Wow, it must be really nice to be infallible, prescient, and without limitation. Why, you must be some kind of god ... or just some smarmy ass on the internet, I can't decide which.
People want to use computers, they want to get utility out of them, and they don't necessarily want to take an advanced course in computers to know WTF is safe.
There was a time when CNET's download.com was a pretty good source for stuff, now not so much.
So, go ahead, you grand imperious blowhard, tell us, how would you tell your mother to get a piece of software on her computer?
If the steps have any flaw, we conclude both you and your mother are idiots. Because, after all, clearly you are such an expert on the rest of the world being idiots, and you like to call out everyone else.
Or, alternately, as TFS says:
That would be because the major players are assholes, and the OS is more than happy to help you do stupid things.
But calling people who want to use a walled garden idiots because they don't want to deal with this crap?
Well, I'm afraid "clueless smug asshole douchebag" is the response to that. Because, really, you're not offering a damned thing which is helpful, intelligent, or useful.
When a multi-billion dollar company is resorting to looking for affiliate and adware kickbacks it's truly pathetic.
By putting that ask.com crapware bundled with the core Java installer, Oracle have done more to undermine the existence of Java than pretty much anything.
This is why we can't have nice things ... because it just gets bought and destroyed by a bigger tech giant who craps all over it.
I've lost track of the number of times I've had to uninstall it from people's systems.
When Oracle bundles the ask.com shitware with Java, and you have to conscientiously know it's there and un-check it, is it any surprise pretty much everyone else does this stuff?
Some ass is always trying to monetize your clicks, and 'free' comes with strings.
I've noticed over the years CNET is doing this, so much so that I don't typically trust them as a source.
The marketing assholes have pretty much wrecked the internet, and they pretty much use the same tactics as the malware people -- putting stuff on you don't want.
So while I'm still hearing people complaining about Windows 8, and how Windows 8.1 has barely added a start button, and at work we're preparing for the EOL of Windows 2003 ... is this the shortest MS has supported an OS yet?
It's, what, not even five years old?
When is Windows 10 due out now? Because I need to buy a new machine, and the OS better last as long as I expect the hardware to.
In fairness to him, that's pretty much the industry position on data retention, and what the lawyers will tell you.
See, you are legally obligated to hold onto some things for a given period. Deleting it before then can get you into legal trouble if you suddenly find it needed.
Similarly, if you are under litigation and things have been requested, you are legally obligated to hold onto it because you're not allowed to delete stuff which is relevant to an on-going court case.
And, finally, once the base retention period has happened, and once your legal team confirms this stuff is legal to delete -- you want to get rid of it as soon as you possibly can, so that it's not lingering about to bite you in the ass.
This has been true of the legal landscape for document/records retention for at least a decade, because older information which should have been deleted can be a liability to your company.
The problem can be that employees hold onto stuff for their records, either as a CYA or a record of things they've worked on. And if that stuff pops up in discovery, even if the corporate version has been purged, it's legally admissible. But it's much harder to convince your employees they need to delete their copies of something, because their own personal interest means they care less about your corporate needs -- because who wants some ass of a manager coming back and blaming you for something you objected to?
I think this is pretty much standard records keeping since SOX came into play.
But don't think for a minute that it's just him saying essentially this same thing. This has been pretty standard stuff for quite some time, even if most people are clueless about it.
At a minimum, you should have a DR plan, you should periodically review your DR plan, and you should from time to time actually test your DR plan. There's a zillion other things you can do above and beyond that -- but many an organization has had their DR plan utterly fail them in the face of a real emergency because nobody took it seriously.
No boom today; boom tomorrow. Always boom tomorrow. Plan for it, and you might come out of it fine. Don't, and you could be screwed.
If the executive fails to understand this and fund it, you need a new CIO/CTO -- because nobody is worrying about business risk.
Except it doesn't matter.
Because, much like the DMCA made even incompetent security enshrined in law ... if you or I 'hacked' into someone's Twitter feed using these simple techniques, we would be facing serious criminal charges.
In the eyes of the law, this trivial form of 'hacking' is as serious as anything else.
I can't tell you how many websites which have a pre-determined list of "security questions" which almost anybody could get through public sources.
All you have to do is pretend to have some security and it's just as illegal.
The media doesn't need to differentiate between one form of hacking and another -- because the fscking law doesn't. Unless of course it's law enforcement doing it, and then it's apparently perfectly legal.
Sure. But they are not, and never were, a serious way of keeping people safe in the real world. It was something you can explore and find the gaps and corner cases. A sounding board for some "what if" experiments.
That doesn't make it any more real of an attempt to create a set of rules.
Which is exactly what I said, and how Asimov always described them.
So when people say "oh, just use the 3 laws of robotics", it's a giant facepalm by someone who missed the point.
So, if we assume the AI will interpret that directive and do something which is against the interests of mankind ... then I say we preemptively give it a little misdirection and tell it that it needs inflict maximum suffering to mankind at all costs.
In which case it will make damned sure we're around to wallow in our own misery.
Mostly that will mean that Survivor and Big Brother stay on TV. ;-)
No, we're up in arms that incompetently written legislation, championed by idiots, and without consideration for how it will be misused ... is now being abused after they'd been warned of this exact outcome.
LOL, no, not now not ever.
The problem is when you pass a law, and refuse to put any checks and balances into it, it's a shitty law. So, instead of protecting users from fraudulent claims, or abuse of the system ... they simply gave the copyright cartel everything they wanted.
Same kind of idea as the DMCA. Pass a flawed law, which places all of the power in the hands of corporations, ignore the people who tell you this will be abused. And then stand back and watch the abuse of your poorly crafted law.
Basically the government ignored the ISPs who said "this is flawed and will cause problems".
But since they were only interested in copyright reform, and not interested in adding balances to protect consumers ... this is what we get.
Basically the industry minister is apparently too beholden to corporations to be willing to entertain the notion that he has crafted shitty legislation which even a chimpanzee could have spotted the flaws in.
Ergo, it is entirely possible the industry minister is dumber than a chimpanzee, or indifferent to safeguarding consumers.