Wouldn't this all be much simpler if we just made the hotels and casinos pay the affected guests' hospital bills? And if necessary add punitive fines so that poisoning guests is more expensive that just paying kitchen workers a decent living wage, keeping the kitchens clean, and following basic food safety rules.
"The reason why intelligence agencies are so desperate to break crypto is because if you're encrypting something, you're presumably doing so because it contains information you don't want foreign intelligence agencies to read. Thus it is precisely the type of stuff intelligence agencies want to be able to read."
And it's relatively simple to set up chatbots, Turin machines, and other string generators to generate almost convincing "conversations" in encrypted form to create a haystack in which to hide the sensitive info. Good luck in getting AI to sift through that even if it's not encrypted. If reasonably tech-savvy people don't want to be listened in on, they'll find a way.
The simple answer is just cut out the middle-men, and have the research institutions organize their own publications. The academic departments can do the review and editing, and the libraries can do the archiving and access.
I can see a possible conflict of interest if universities are allowed to "police" their own (or each other's) publications. I think an independent 3rd party would be a more desirable option, preferably a fully democratic, transparent, and non-profit one (a cooperative?) so that it's in keeping with the scientific method.
Yes, publicly funded knowledge should be available to the public free of charge and without restriction. It's the responsibility of universities to share their knowledge and advance science for the public good, unfortunately, they've been hi-jacked by the publishing industry and are now being extorted for access to their own work. It's now got to the point where a substantial chunk of universities' budgets are spent on accessing papers that they funded and their academics wrote.
It boils down to a simple question: Where do want public funds to go? Into the pockets of the academic publishing executives or to stay in university budgets so that they can spend it on things like education and research?
Yeah, it sounds like the stuff of SciFi movies but if you check the research to date on detecting and identifying emotions via EEG, you'll see that even with big expensive medical grade EEG machines and headsets, they're having trouble identifying something as rudimentary as happy vs. sad. The paper the article is referencing is about detecting whether there is an emotional response or not, not what kind of emotional response. In short, it's some tech company trying to sell useless junk to new-agey types without a sufficiently well-developed bullshit detector. Do they think that gamers fall under that category?
I think this is a good thing, because the public employee unions have a corrupting influence, and push the Democratic Party away from their natural role of helping the dispossessed.
You forgot to put the surrounding sarcasm tags around this bit;)
Comparing those taxis to modern electric vehicles is ridiculous. Yes, they both are "electric", have wheels, and carry people for money, but that's pretty much where the similarity ends. Your feigned indignation is very transparent.
Your lack of sense of irony and humour is also very transparent.
Also, until recently, the UK had fleets of milk-floats; almost silent electric vehicles that delivered milk to everyone's doorstep every morning; and how long have we had electric trains and trams?
Antique taxis aside, the point is, electric vehicles are nothing new. We're just being sold the idea that they're something modern and innovative by Tesla, Google, Nissan, et al.
Here's one of 75 electric taxis that operated in London in the late 1800s. They're worth considerably more now than when they were first sold: https://www.youtube.com/watch?......and, electric taxis? Modern and innovative? Seriously?
How many educational specialists, developmental psychologist, or educational scientists will get a seat in any of the policy making decisions? It seems like a few billionaire geeks suddenly become experts in education for... what, exactly? What's their expertise in education?
How about we get those bilionaire geeks to decide Congress' and the Senate's dentistry and medical healthcare policies and practices? How about Silicon Valley disrupt our leaders' pension funds and their social services and then everyone else can decide if they want to vote for some of that disruption for themselves?
I previously tried changing registry settings and removing all traces of GWX entries and files manually. It worked but Microsoft changed them back and reinstalled GWX a few days later:(
The latest version of GWX Control Panel can startup on boot and run in the background (appears in the system tray) and detects whenever GWX changes settings on your machine. It's been working for me on Win7 for a few weeks now but I hardly ever boot into the Windows partition any more (got dual boot).:)
It's a short-term solution. Longer-term, I've gotta switch over completely to Linux but still need to run a few legacy Windows compatible only apps.
What they really mean is that they're losing control of the narrative on the interweb and want to know how they can control it the same way they do in printed and broadcast media.
You rarely, if ever, see any super-rich and powerful people getting embarrassed on state and corporate controlled media (unless they're taking pot-shots at each other). The internet's another story and they hate it.
If, instead, the law only banned the actual abuse of children, rather than thought crime, there could be a legal market that would drive out most of the material involving actual harm to children.
AFAIK, the FBI can't prosecute US citizens for thought crimes. If they had a lawful warrant and prosecuted people for criminal behaviour, i.e. passing on the products of criminal acts (against children), then I don't see any problem with what they're doing. This is an actual case of the FBI doing what they're supposed to do instead of going after political dissidents and whistle blowers. We should be praising these actions, not criticising them.
Yep, avoiding surveillance is about being inconspicuous and blending in. Why not PGP-key-pair encrypt your messages with your friends and associates and embed them into kitten/funny/holiday photos uploaded onto Facebook? Only the intended recipients can decrypt the messages (so all of your circle have to download and decrypt all photos to see which ones are for them) but they're publicly distributed/shared... on social media. You can't get more normal and blended in than that. GCHQ might notice that you've started posting more photos and wonder why, and yes, they already know about this technique.
"Code reuse, libraries, sharing, and open-source are very important to software engineering, but we should be careful to not enable the belief that programming should be as easy as gluing things together."
Too bad he hasn't told this to his colleagues at code.org.
Yep, HTML. What are the web browsers like on Kindle tablets? You can do so much more with HTML+CSS+JS than with eBooks and there are so many more options and better tools and platforms available for creating such a project in HTML.
Would the OP consider putting the "eBook" online in a web-friendly format? Does he want to restrict access? Implement lessons and quizzes? Keep records of participation and performance? Get feedback from learners? Try a free and open source learning management system like Moodle.
In support of @Rosyna's comment: An interesting and relevant anecdote about not thinking through what the evidence tells us: During WWII the allies were losing a lot of bombers from German anti-aircraft defences. They brought in a bunch of statisticians and analysts to work out how to bring that number of bombers shot down, down. They looked at the damaged bombers that had returned to see where they were getting hit and decided to armour those places. Big mistake... why? Well, someone pointed out that those were the bombers that weren't actually shot down and that they should do precisely the opposite and armour the areas that didn't get shot full of holes - The planes that got shot there were the ones that weren't coming back. The new policy was a big success.
So yes, the software projects that report the most vulnerabilities may be the ones that are working hardest to make their software more secure and may also be more open about it, thereby inviting more vulnerability reporting by independent 3rd parties too.
tl;dr - Lots of publicly reported bugs may be a good thing!:) (As long as they're being patched, of course).
Yes, most corps are publicly traded and more than likely owned by overseas shareholders. My mistake; should've checked the source on that one. I think they meant to say state controlled but that doesn't make sense either.
When we compare the USA to any other OECD countries, it looks pretty bad and doesn't have any excuses as to why. Then there's the problems with violence. I guess Americans just don't like each other or themselves very much.
Re: "for the most part being able to put money into the economy involves pulling the same money out of the economy through taxes"
This reminds me of a joke I once read: a CEO, a govt. minister, and a citizen are sitting at a table with a plate of 20 cookies. The CEO takes 18 cookies and when the govt. minister reaches out to take one, the CEO screams, "Watch out! The govt's taking all your cookies!"
The majority of people who comment on this stuff haven't informed themselves sufficiently to know what poverty is and how a basic income works. Why not learn a little from someone who actually implements basic income programmes and studies the effects and outcomes?: http://www.guystanding.com/
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't this all be much simpler if we just made the hotels and casinos pay the affected guests' hospital bills? And if necessary add punitive fines so that poisoning guests is more expensive that just paying kitchen workers a decent living wage, keeping the kitchens clean, and following basic food safety rules.
"The reason why intelligence agencies are so desperate to break crypto is because if you're encrypting something, you're presumably doing so because it contains information you don't want foreign intelligence agencies to read. Thus it is precisely the type of stuff intelligence agencies want to be able to read."
And it's relatively simple to set up chatbots, Turin machines, and other string generators to generate almost convincing "conversations" in encrypted form to create a haystack in which to hide the sensitive info. Good luck in getting AI to sift through that even if it's not encrypted. If reasonably tech-savvy people don't want to be listened in on, they'll find a way.
The simple answer is just cut out the middle-men, and have the research institutions organize their own publications. The academic departments can do the review and editing, and the libraries can do the archiving and access.
I can see a possible conflict of interest if universities are allowed to "police" their own (or each other's) publications. I think an independent 3rd party would be a more desirable option, preferably a fully democratic, transparent, and non-profit one (a cooperative?) so that it's in keeping with the scientific method.
Yes, publicly funded knowledge should be available to the public free of charge and without restriction. It's the responsibility of universities to share their knowledge and advance science for the public good, unfortunately, they've been hi-jacked by the publishing industry and are now being extorted for access to their own work. It's now got to the point where a substantial chunk of universities' budgets are spent on accessing papers that they funded and their academics wrote.
It boils down to a simple question: Where do want public funds to go? Into the pockets of the academic publishing executives or to stay in university budgets so that they can spend it on things like education and research?
The kids won't learn much about computer science but they'll learn how to talk and write like corporate lobbyists ;)
Yeah, it sounds like the stuff of SciFi movies but if you check the research to date on detecting and identifying emotions via EEG, you'll see that even with big expensive medical grade EEG machines and headsets, they're having trouble identifying something as rudimentary as happy vs. sad. The paper the article is referencing is about detecting whether there is an emotional response or not, not what kind of emotional response. In short, it's some tech company trying to sell useless junk to new-agey types without a sufficiently well-developed bullshit detector. Do they think that gamers fall under that category?
Done. http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg....
Looks like those UK socialists beat Musk to it a long time ago ;)
I doubt he has a computer at home, you know, because of spyware, privacy issues, getting hacked, etc.
There's a difference in thinking when you look up "national grid" on Wikipdedia.org:
USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I think this is a good thing, because the public employee unions have a corrupting influence, and push the Democratic Party away from their natural role of helping the dispossessed.
You forgot to put the surrounding sarcasm tags around this bit ;)
Comparing a modern, (relatively) liberal democracy like the USA to the genocidal Nazi fascist regime isn't Godwin's law?
Comparing those taxis to modern electric vehicles is ridiculous. Yes, they both are "electric", have wheels, and carry people for money, but that's pretty much where the similarity ends. Your feigned indignation is very transparent.
Your lack of sense of irony and humour is also very transparent.
Also, until recently, the UK had fleets of milk-floats; almost silent electric vehicles that delivered milk to everyone's doorstep every morning; and how long have we had electric trains and trams?
Antique taxis aside, the point is, electric vehicles are nothing new. We're just being sold the idea that they're something modern and innovative by Tesla, Google, Nissan, et al.
Here's one of 75 electric taxis that operated in London in the late 1800s. They're worth considerably more now than when they were first sold: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ...and, electric taxis? Modern and innovative? Seriously?
And Godwin's law is yet again validated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
How many educational specialists, developmental psychologist, or educational scientists will get a seat in any of the policy making decisions? It seems like a few billionaire geeks suddenly become experts in education for... what, exactly? What's their expertise in education?
How about we get those bilionaire geeks to decide Congress' and the Senate's dentistry and medical healthcare policies and practices? How about Silicon Valley disrupt our leaders' pension funds and their social services and then everyone else can decide if they want to vote for some of that disruption for themselves?
I previously tried changing registry settings and removing all traces of GWX entries and files manually. It worked but Microsoft changed them back and reinstalled GWX a few days later :(
The latest version of GWX Control Panel can startup on boot and run in the background (appears in the system tray) and detects whenever GWX changes settings on your machine. It's been working for me on Win7 for a few weeks now but I hardly ever boot into the Windows partition any more (got dual boot). :)
It's a short-term solution. Longer-term, I've gotta switch over completely to Linux but still need to run a few legacy Windows compatible only apps.
What they really mean is that they're losing control of the narrative on the interweb and want to know how they can control it the same way they do in printed and broadcast media.
You rarely, if ever, see any super-rich and powerful people getting embarrassed on state and corporate controlled media (unless they're taking pot-shots at each other). The internet's another story and they hate it.
If, instead, the law only banned the actual abuse of children, rather than thought crime, there could be a legal market that would drive out most of the material involving actual harm to children.
AFAIK, the FBI can't prosecute US citizens for thought crimes. If they had a lawful warrant and prosecuted people for criminal behaviour, i.e. passing on the products of criminal acts (against children), then I don't see any problem with what they're doing. This is an actual case of the FBI doing what they're supposed to do instead of going after political dissidents and whistle blowers. We should be praising these actions, not criticising them.
The OP said tablet rather than eReader, so I'm assuming something like Kindle Fire. But yes, all the eReaders I've seen have lousy web browsers.
Yep, avoiding surveillance is about being inconspicuous and blending in. Why not PGP-key-pair encrypt your messages with your friends and associates and embed them into kitten/funny/holiday photos uploaded onto Facebook? Only the intended recipients can decrypt the messages (so all of your circle have to download and decrypt all photos to see which ones are for them) but they're publicly distributed/shared... on social media. You can't get more normal and blended in than that. GCHQ might notice that you've started posting more photos and wonder why, and yes, they already know about this technique.
"Code reuse, libraries, sharing, and open-source are very important to software engineering, but we should be careful to not enable the belief that programming should be as easy as gluing things together."
Too bad he hasn't told this to his colleagues at code.org.
Yep, HTML. What are the web browsers like on Kindle tablets? You can do so much more with HTML+CSS+JS than with eBooks and there are so many more options and better tools and platforms available for creating such a project in HTML.
Would the OP consider putting the "eBook" online in a web-friendly format? Does he want to restrict access? Implement lessons and quizzes? Keep records of participation and performance? Get feedback from learners? Try a free and open source learning management system like Moodle.
In support of @Rosyna's comment: An interesting and relevant anecdote about not thinking through what the evidence tells us: During WWII the allies were losing a lot of bombers from German anti-aircraft defences. They brought in a bunch of statisticians and analysts to work out how to bring that number of bombers shot down, down. They looked at the damaged bombers that had returned to see where they were getting hit and decided to armour those places. Big mistake... why? Well, someone pointed out that those were the bombers that weren't actually shot down and that they should do precisely the opposite and armour the areas that didn't get shot full of holes - The planes that got shot there were the ones that weren't coming back. The new policy was a big success.
So yes, the software projects that report the most vulnerabilities may be the ones that are working hardest to make their software more secure and may also be more open about it, thereby inviting more vulnerability reporting by independent 3rd parties too.
tl;dr - Lots of publicly reported bugs may be a good thing! :) (As long as they're being patched, of course).
Yes, most corps are publicly traded and more than likely owned by overseas shareholders. My mistake; should've checked the source on that one. I think they meant to say state controlled but that doesn't make sense either.
When we compare the USA to any other OECD countries, it looks pretty bad and doesn't have any excuses as to why. Then there's the problems with violence. I guess Americans just don't like each other or themselves very much.
Re: "for the most part being able to put money into the economy involves pulling the same money out of the economy through taxes"
This reminds me of a joke I once read: a CEO, a govt. minister, and a citizen are sitting at a table with a plate of 20 cookies. The CEO takes 18 cookies and when the govt. minister reaches out to take one, the CEO screams, "Watch out! The govt's taking all your cookies!"
The majority of people who comment on this stuff haven't informed themselves sufficiently to know what poverty is and how a basic income works. Why not learn a little from someone who actually implements basic income programmes and studies the effects and outcomes?: http://www.guystanding.com/