Pure robocalls really aren't the battlefront these days. The TCPA also applies to automated dialing systems that dial numbers until they find someone who picks up, and then connects the call to a human (the "hello?" . . . CLICK . . . pause . . . "Hello, am I speaking with [name]" routine).
I think you have it backwards. Autodialers that connect you to a human when you pick up were the 20th century way of doing spam calls. The 21st century way to do it is to have no humans involved at all.
The higher-quality robots even have some ability to respond to what you say.
Robots are taking our jobs, even the below-minimum-wage spam caller jobs.
I have to say, having Google news search prioritize sources that I subscribe to sounds like a great idea to me. I would want to learn first what the sources I've already paid for have to say.
I canceled my last magazine and newspaper subscriptions 10 years ago, and I will never again, as long as I live, pay $1 for for any of it. Ever.
That is, of course, why fake news is running rampant: people like you don't want to pay anything to reporters to get real news, and so what you get is what you pay for: worthless news.
the type of person that is attracted to terrorist organizations has never, ever believed that the U.S. was part of the "good guys"... regardless of the existence of waterboarding methods.
This would be true if the world consisted of only two clearly distinct types of people "the type of person that is attracted to terrorist organizations" and the type that isn't, and if the type that "is" will always go and join Al Qaeda without any convincing. But the world is not, and they don't. People are anywhere in any range in between. Radicals have to be radicalized. Angry young men are plentiful, but they don't become terrorists until they have their anger focussed and fanned and, most particularly, given a target. "Terrorists" don't pop up out of nowhere, they are recruited and radicalized.
They might get radicalized to say "my country is repressive, I need to fight for more freedom for myself and my brothers." They might say "I need to fight to leave my country and go to America where I can open a falafel stand and get rich." Or they might get radicalized to "America is evil and wants to destroy us and our way of life and we need to fight it."
Our use of torture is a tool that gets organizations like ISIS or Al Qaeda the ability to take these angry young men and turn them to that last option.
Just like you can't convince a truther than 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy, a birther that obama is an american, a fookooshimar that fukushima will kill every single person in japan and then some, a typical terrorist has an image of the West that does not need to be based in reality or fact.
But how did that "typical terrorist [who] has an image of the West that does not need to be based in reality or fact" become a terrorist? How do they get that image of the west? They are radicalized. We are giving the terrorist organizations the tools to do that.
I take you've never met anybody from the middle east, right? They aren't born saying "I need to kill infidels". They have to be recruited.
Waterboarding by the CIA was something that helped terrorists. Our doing it gave a powerful recruiting tool to terrorist organizations: it allowed them to show that the U.S. are not the good guys. This was a stupid stupid thing to do, and we should object to her being Director because we should not reward people for doing stupid things in their job.
Oh yes, it was the waterboarding that led to ISIS and Al Qaeda believing the US was evil.
You mis-interpreted what I said. ISIS and Al Queda believe the U.S. is evil, and utilize America's use of torture as a recruitment tool to get people to sign on to that belief.
It had nothing to do with brainwashing, fanaticism, extremist religious leaders, or any of that.
They have to recruit. They have to turn people into fanatics, and they do that by showing that we are the bad guys, and they are the people opposing the bad guya.
When our message is trying to be "we're the good guys, we want to help you," their pointing to the U.S. using torture pretty much zeros out that argument, getting people to listen to the fanaticism and extremist religious leaders.
So it's OK for her to be the Deputy director, but once she gets to climb one rung of the ladder that's a big problem?
It's not OK for her to be either Deputy Director or Director, but it is nearly impossible to pull out the bad ones who are already in place.
Waterboarding by the CIA was something that helped terrorists. Our doing it gave a powerful recruiting tool to terrorist organizations: it allowed them to show that the U.S. are not the good guys. This was a stupid stupid thing to do, and we should object to her being Director because we should not reward people for doing stupid things in their job.
Also, real news is reported by a lot of sources-- people don't feel the need to spread "did you see what Trump just did" news when it's on all the news channels and headlines in all the newspapers,
Then why do they? Because they most assuredly do.
They most assuredly do what?
What the article showed is that fake news gets forwarded ten to a hundred times more than real news.
And then they add on top of it, with a lot unfounded Russian implications and other things that aren't real news.
Ah, I see. You're one of those "the Russian stuff is fake news!" guys.
No, "fake news" is a phrase that should be reserved for stuff that is actually completely made up-- like, "there's a pedophile ring operating underneath a pizza shop in New York that's frequented by celebrities and politicians", or 'Michele Bachmann said 'Jesus Created Assault Rifles'."
The fact that Russia did what they could to disrupt the U.S. elections (and for that matter, to foment dissent of any sort) is quite well documented-- it's not "fake news". Now, there's a lot of speculation that's been attached to that (a lot of "Mueller is investigating X!, and a lot of "who in the campaign knew, and what will we find out?") But the speculation is usually labelled speculation.
Everyone loves a good conspiracy. A good portion of the outrage stuff is fake (it exists on both sides); and some of it is real; the main stream media either prefers to highlight it, or to sweep it under the carpet, depending on whether it fits the narrative; while Buzzfeed and Salon are no more veracious than Breitbart.
The mainstream media for the most part labels speculation as speculation (and puts it on the opinion-editorial page). The way you can tell real journalism from fake journalism, by the way, is that real journalism issues corrections when they're wrong. https://cdn.ampproject.org/c/s...
I'm just not sure that this is really news. I guess it's mildly interesting to combine both tectonic subsidence and sea level rise, but, frankly, most of San Francisco is hilly. There won't be much impact. A small amount of the waterfront may get more wet, but most of SF will remain high and dry.
SFO airport is indeed at sea level-- it's right on the bay. But you can build runways up if you need to; it's not hard.
Perhaps fake news is designed to excite people while real news isn't.
This is it precisely. Fake news is deliberately crafted to outrage people. Real news is messy-- it doesn't have all the details, and there is always some "well this side makes a point but the other side has a point, too."
Also, real news is reported by a lot of sources-- people don't feel the need to spread "did you see what Trump just did" news when it's on all the news channels and headlines in all the newspapers, but they do feel the need to spread the "here's something outrageous that isn't in the news but should be" stories that are not in the news because they are made up.
But overall, yes: fake news spreads faster because it is crafted to outrage people.
They had to vote on the ACA bill first before they could find out what was in it.
Yes... the Democrats passed the ACA after 79 hearings, and about two months of discussion, including multiple amendments from Republicans: https://mic.com/articles/17630...
I was paying attention to the Republican complaint at how "quickly" ACA was passed right up until I saw how they decided to do in the "repeal and replace" bill, which was NO hearings, a bill written in secret, and an attempt to pass the bill before the budget office even stated what the cost would be.
Most times an Ambulance isn't required. I don't see a problem here. If they choose an Uber over an ambulance, that's their chose.
Yeah. You self-diagnose and your results depend on how accurate your self-diagnosis is.
Guess wrong, you die. That's your choice. "I don't see a problem here" either, assuming "sometimes you guess wrong and die" is not considered a "problem".
At least. Or $2,000 or more. Or $3,660. Ambulences are insanely expensive. And the new thing: insurance companies are deciding after you have been diagnosed and treated whether you needed the ambulence. They can decide "oh, that wasn't life-threatening, it just seemed like it to you, but since it was not a heart attack, we won't pay for an ambulance ride.": http://articles.latimes.com/20...
HOWEVER, ambulances also bypass the first stage of emergency room screening-- they have radioed ahead and you get right in and seen. They will also start keeping you alive the moment they arrive.
Where did the jobs go? It's hardly a mystery: automation.
It's so obvious that people who track this stuff for a living aren't sure.
From the abstract cited: "Our review of the evidence leads us to conclude that labor demand factors, in particular trade and the penetration of robots into the labor market, are the most important drivers of observed within-group declines in employment. "
I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you have any data, or just your gut?
You mean, other than what was in the article being discussed? The first one is annoyingly paywalled, but the WP article linked in the summary isn't:
"Robots: Automation also seems to have cost more jobs than it created. Guided by research showing that each robot takes the jobs of about 5.6 workers and that 250,475 robots had been added since 1999, the duo estimated that robots cost the economy another 1.4 million workers."
Where I work zero jobs were lost to automation. All of our cut jobs just had their duties dumped on someone else, who in 2009 was just happy to still have a job. Unfortunately after a decade, the company, and some employees, have forgotten that what they do used to be three jobs.
(my italics).
Nice anecdote. You just told me that each person now does the work that used to be three jobs. Sounds like "jobs cut due to automation" to me.
This is why I don't download FaceBook and just use it in a web browser.
If you'd read the article, you would have seen that Facebook's malware warning and mandatory demand for you to run their scan occurs when people are accessing Facebook via a browser.
Considering that the Dodd-Frank bill is named for Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, it is hard for me to believe
Why should we care whether something is it hard for you to believe?
What the Dodd Frank act does is of interest. What you do or don't believe is not.
I assume, however, assume from what you post that you think that the problem with Dodd Frank is that it does not go far enough in protecting the public, and thus that you hold the opposite opinion from that of the original anonymous coward.
9-0 vote shows how Trump has stacked the court. He should've never appointed that batty ginsburg.
I assume that this is intended as some sort of deadpan sarcasm. The overall cluelessness of Anonymous Cowards on/. makes it hard to tell-- Poe's law, you know.
I hate the result, but the result is correct: if the law as written protects specifically people who report misconduct to the SEC, then the way the law is written is the way it should be interpreted.
I understand that it would be nice to protect people who report wrongdoing to their own company, but if that's not what the law says, the courts should not be allowed to pretend it does because "it would be nice if it had said that."
I'm baffled, however, as to why Anonymous Coward says "it shows Dodd Frank needs to go." It shows nothing of the sort. Dodd Frank gives the public a tiny bit of oversight over banks gambling with consumer's money and expecting to pocket the profit if they win and get bailed out by the public when they lose. If by "needs to go", Anonymous Coward means "needs to go further," then ok, maybe.
Pretty depressing. So, he basically says you should make great stuff, and people will copy it and sell it and you won't make any money, but hey that's business, suck it up.
Who is this guy, and why the heck are we supposed to listen to him?
Slashdot Mirror
https://www.wired.com/story/sociologists-examine-hackathons-and-see-exploitation/amp
nor the actual paper being discussed:
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/S0277-283320170000031005
Pure robocalls really aren't the battlefront these days. The TCPA also applies to automated dialing systems that dial numbers until they find someone who picks up, and then connects the call to a human (the "hello?" . . . CLICK . . . pause . . . "Hello, am I speaking with [name]" routine).
I think you have it backwards. Autodialers that connect you to a human when you pick up were the 20th century way of doing spam calls. The 21st century way to do it is to have no humans involved at all.
The higher-quality robots even have some ability to respond to what you say.
Robots are taking our jobs, even the below-minimum-wage spam caller jobs.
Did I miss something about a party? I said no such thing.
Yes, apparently you did: the headline.
The headline said "Ajit Pai Celebrates". No celebration was mentioned in the article.
I have to say, having Google news search prioritize sources that I subscribe to sounds like a great idea to me. I would want to learn first what the sources I've already paid for have to say.
I canceled my last magazine and newspaper subscriptions 10 years ago, and I will never again, as long as I live, pay $1 for for any of it. Ever.
That is, of course, why fake news is running rampant: people like you don't want to pay anything to reporters to get real news, and so what you get is what you pay for: worthless news.
the type of person that is attracted to terrorist organizations has never, ever believed that the U.S. was part of the "good guys"... regardless of the existence of waterboarding methods.
This would be true if the world consisted of only two clearly distinct types of people "the type of person that is attracted to terrorist organizations" and the type that isn't, and if the type that "is" will always go and join Al Qaeda without any convincing. But the world is not, and they don't. People are anywhere in any range in between. Radicals have to be radicalized. Angry young men are plentiful, but they don't become terrorists until they have their anger focussed and fanned and, most particularly, given a target. "Terrorists" don't pop up out of nowhere, they are recruited and radicalized.
They might get radicalized to say "my country is repressive, I need to fight for more freedom for myself and my brothers." They might say "I need to fight to leave my country and go to America where I can open a falafel stand and get rich." Or they might get radicalized to "America is evil and wants to destroy us and our way of life and we need to fight it."
Our use of torture is a tool that gets organizations like ISIS or Al Qaeda the ability to take these angry young men and turn them to that last option.
Just like you can't convince a truther than 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy, a birther that obama is an american, a fookooshimar that fukushima will kill every single person in japan and then some, a typical terrorist has an image of the West that does not need to be based in reality or fact.
But how did that "typical terrorist [who] has an image of the West that does not need to be based in reality or fact" become a terrorist? How do they get that image of the west? They are radicalized. We are giving the terrorist organizations the tools to do that.
I take you've never met anybody from the middle east, right? They aren't born saying "I need to kill infidels". They have to be recruited.
Waterboarding by the CIA was something that helped terrorists. Our doing it gave a powerful recruiting tool to terrorist organizations: it allowed them to show that the U.S. are not the good guys. This was a stupid stupid thing to do, and we should object to her being Director because we should not reward people for doing stupid things in their job.
Oh yes, it was the waterboarding that led to ISIS and Al Qaeda believing the US was evil.
You mis-interpreted what I said. ISIS and Al Queda believe the U.S. is evil, and utilize America's use of torture as a recruitment tool to get people to sign on to that belief.
It had nothing to do with brainwashing, fanaticism, extremist religious leaders, or any of that.
They have to recruit. They have to turn people into fanatics, and they do that by showing that we are the bad guys, and they are the people opposing the bad guya. When our message is trying to be "we're the good guys, we want to help you," their pointing to the U.S. using torture pretty much zeros out that argument, getting people to listen to the fanaticism and extremist religious leaders.
CNN before: "He's the ex CEO of Exon Mobil. He's trash". CNN after: "Rex Tillerson is a Hero. He stood up to Trump"
It is possible for both of those statements to be reasonable. It's possible for him to be trash, and also for him to be heroic.
So it's OK for her to be the Deputy director, but once she gets to climb one rung of the ladder that's a big problem?
It's not OK for her to be either Deputy Director or Director, but it is nearly impossible to pull out the bad ones who are already in place.
Waterboarding by the CIA was something that helped terrorists. Our doing it gave a powerful recruiting tool to terrorist organizations: it allowed them to show that the U.S. are not the good guys. This was a stupid stupid thing to do, and we should object to her being Director because we should not reward people for doing stupid things in their job.
1) Drones are virtually silent at 20 ft, they often live at 30-40' above ground level
Small ones are.
These are going to be pretty honking big drones, at least if what you're used to is the little camera-carrying things
Siri has a "founder"? Not a programmer? Do other apps have "founders", or just Siri?
Really, Siri is just Hal by another name. They should have just called it "Hal-9000" and left it at that.
Also, real news is reported by a lot of sources-- people don't feel the need to spread "did you see what Trump just did" news when it's on all the news channels and headlines in all the newspapers,
Then why do they? Because they most assuredly do.
They most assuredly do what?
What the article showed is that fake news gets forwarded ten to a hundred times more than real news.
And then they add on top of it, with a lot unfounded Russian implications and other things that aren't real news.
Ah, I see. You're one of those "the Russian stuff is fake news!" guys.
No, "fake news" is a phrase that should be reserved for stuff that is actually completely made up-- like, "there's a pedophile ring operating underneath a pizza shop in New York that's frequented by celebrities and politicians", or 'Michele Bachmann said 'Jesus Created Assault Rifles'."
The fact that Russia did what they could to disrupt the U.S. elections (and for that matter, to foment dissent of any sort) is quite well documented-- it's not "fake news". Now, there's a lot of speculation that's been attached to that (a lot of "Mueller is investigating X!, and a lot of "who in the campaign knew, and what will we find out?") But the speculation is usually labelled speculation.
Everyone loves a good conspiracy. A good portion of the outrage stuff is fake (it exists on both sides); and some of it is real; the main stream media either prefers to highlight it, or to sweep it under the carpet, depending on whether it fits the narrative; while Buzzfeed and Salon are no more veracious than Breitbart.
The mainstream media for the most part labels speculation as speculation (and puts it on the opinion-editorial page). The way you can tell real journalism from fake journalism, by the way, is that real journalism issues corrections when they're wrong. https://cdn.ampproject.org/c/s...
I'm just not sure that this is really news. I guess it's mildly interesting to combine both tectonic subsidence and sea level rise, but, frankly, most of San Francisco is hilly. There won't be much impact. A small amount of the waterfront may get more wet, but most of SF will remain high and dry.
SFO airport is indeed at sea level-- it's right on the bay. But you can build runways up if you need to; it's not hard.
Perhaps fake news is designed to excite people while real news isn't.
This is it precisely. Fake news is deliberately crafted to outrage people. Real news is messy-- it doesn't have all the details, and there is always some "well this side makes a point but the other side has a point, too."
Also, real news is reported by a lot of sources-- people don't feel the need to spread "did you see what Trump just did" news when it's on all the news channels and headlines in all the newspapers, but they do feel the need to spread the "here's something outrageous that isn't in the news but should be" stories that are not in the news because they are made up.
But overall, yes: fake news spreads faster because it is crafted to outrage people.
They had to vote on the ACA bill first before they could find out what was in it.
Yes... the Democrats passed the ACA after 79 hearings, and about two months of discussion, including multiple amendments from Republicans: https://mic.com/articles/17630...
I was paying attention to the Republican complaint at how "quickly" ACA was passed right up until I saw how they decided to do in the "repeal and replace" bill, which was NO hearings, a bill written in secret, and an attempt to pass the bill before the budget office even stated what the cost would be.
Not to mention provisions being added to the bill handwritten in the margins overnight before voting... which no senators or representatives actually admitted to adding https://www.vox.com/policy-and....
The Republicans did everything that they accused the Democrats of doing, but even more so.
Most times an Ambulance isn't required. I don't see a problem here. If they choose an Uber over an ambulance, that's their chose.
Yeah. You self-diagnose and your results depend on how accurate your self-diagnosis is.
Guess wrong, you die. That's your choice. "I don't see a problem here" either, assuming "sometimes you guess wrong and die" is not considered a "problem".
At least. Or $2,000 or more. Or $3,660. Ambulences are insanely expensive. And the new thing: insurance companies are deciding after you have been diagnosed and treated whether you needed the ambulence. They can decide "oh, that wasn't life-threatening, it just seemed like it to you, but since it was not a heart attack, we won't pay for an ambulance ride.": http://articles.latimes.com/20...
HOWEVER, ambulances also bypass the first stage of emergency room screening-- they have radioed ahead and you get right in and seen. They will also start keeping you alive the moment they arrive.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/health/think-the-er-was-expensive-look-at-the-ambulance-bill.html
Where did the jobs go? It's hardly a mystery: automation.
It's so obvious that people who track this stuff for a living aren't sure.
From the abstract cited: "Our review of the evidence leads us to conclude that labor demand factors, in particular trade and the penetration of robots into the labor market, are the most important drivers of observed within-group declines in employment. "
I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you have any data, or just your gut?
You mean, other than what was in the article being discussed? The first one is annoyingly paywalled, but the WP article linked in the summary isn't:
" Robots:
Automation also seems to have cost more jobs than it created. Guided by research showing that each robot takes the jobs of about 5.6 workers and that 250,475 robots had been added since 1999, the duo estimated that robots cost the economy another 1.4 million workers."
Where I work zero jobs were lost to automation. All of our cut jobs just had their duties dumped on someone else, who in 2009 was just happy to still have a job. Unfortunately after a decade, the company, and some employees, have forgotten that what they do used to be three jobs.
(my italics). Nice anecdote. You just told me that each person now does the work that used to be three jobs. Sounds like "jobs cut due to automation" to me.
This is why I don't download FaceBook and just use it in a web browser.
If you'd read the article, you would have seen that Facebook's malware warning and mandatory demand for you to run their scan occurs when people are accessing Facebook via a browser.
Considering that the Dodd-Frank bill is named for Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, it is hard for me to believe
Why should we care whether something is it hard for you to believe?
What the Dodd Frank act does is of interest. What you do or don't believe is not.
I assume, however, assume from what you post that you think that the problem with Dodd Frank is that it does not go far enough in protecting the public, and thus that you hold the opposite opinion from that of the original anonymous coward.
when you think "they couldn't actually be that stupid"... think again.
9-0 vote shows how Trump has stacked the court. He should've never appointed that batty ginsburg.
I assume that this is intended as some sort of deadpan sarcasm. The overall cluelessness of Anonymous Cowards on /. makes it hard to tell-- Poe's law, you know.
I hate the result, but the result is correct: if the law as written protects specifically people who report misconduct to the SEC, then the way the law is written is the way it should be interpreted.
I understand that it would be nice to protect people who report wrongdoing to their own company, but if that's not what the law says, the courts should not be allowed to pretend it does because "it would be nice if it had said that."
I'm baffled, however, as to why Anonymous Coward says "it shows Dodd Frank needs to go." It shows nothing of the sort. Dodd Frank gives the public a tiny bit of oversight over banks gambling with consumer's money and expecting to pocket the profit if they win and get bailed out by the public when they lose. If by "needs to go", Anonymous Coward means "needs to go further," then ok, maybe.
Who is this guy, and why the heck are we supposed to listen to him?
They already know it, of course-- they hoover up information from everywhere. But they can't officially admit that they know it.