Voting for the lesser of two evils still means you;re voting for evil.
Seriously - it's like saying "Oh, I'm voting for Stalin because that Hitler guy is just nasty...
You realize we sent Stalin a massive infusion of arms and armaments to help him keep fighting Hitler, and supported him despite his evil, right through V-E day? That we really preferred having Russian soldiers dying to having Americans dying, so we gave him all the help we could?
Yes, there was a strong feeling in certain circles that when the eastern front met the western front, the fighting would continue and we'd wind up in a war with the Russians. But still, we absolutely supported evil when it was fighting another evil.
On the one hand, a danger on many sets is like a slight danger at summer camp--yes, sometimes people throw things together that work and sometimes people can get hurt. If this were a small budget community theater set that was otherwise safe and an isolated incident it might be understandable.
On the other hand, the Star Wars budget can afford one of those sensors like you have in every modern elevator that stops when someone is still in the door, as well as the guy who knows how to install it. So there is no question that they should be both liable for the medical expenses and fined. (This is how you encourage other people to install the sensor in the future.)
The First Congress obviously considered border searches reasonable because they authorized searching every room and every item of a ship for contraband. They (or a significant overlap) also wrote the Fourth Amendment, prohibiting "unreasonable" search and seizure. Thus under an originalist view and a traditional view, there is a very low expectation of privacy at the border, and Fourth Amendment rights are very small there.
They are not quite nonexistent. For example, I believe there was a case a little while ago saying that if they wanted to do a destructive search of your vehicle, they needed reasonable suspicion. RS is a very, very low standard, but it is a standard.
There is a more legitimate dispute about searching the contents of electronic devices. (Because it is more intrusive, since they can contain massive amounts of information about your life.) But regarding the border search exception generally, GP is correct that there has always been a strong border search exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. And since the rise of modern warfare, there's really been no legitimate argument against that. (Nations have an existential interest in controlling the movement of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.)
A franchise being milked dry by its IP holder, fans being sued for trying to create something, and mostly being sued for creating something that's better and closer to the core idea of the franchise than its IP holder creates...
What exactly is there to celebrate? Any "real" celebration would probably be snuffed instantly by the IP holders.
In the eternal words of Bones: "It's dead, Jim."
You did see Voyager, right? Because that particular horse has been dead for a while now... OK, Scott Bacula quantum leaped into it for a moment and tried to set things right, but still...
Sooner or later, this will be used to kill Americans and allies. The man's action is a but-for cause of their death. He is getting off very light from that POV.
On the other hand, America's legal arms dealers are a massive industry, and they never get held responsible for how the weapons are used. So the ten years isn't for the deaths that are being caused, it's for the fact that the particular weapon is one that someone doesn't want sent overseas.
Any communications system with a central point of failure (e.g. simple vulnerability to deliberate censorship, such as reliance on a given data center) will be a target during any kind of power struggle, coup, war, or other time of political dissent.
An exploit was being used for the install. They patched the exploit. If this is annoying to you, don't buy a system that you need to crack in order to install your chosen O/S.
No, he's actually intelligent. He is not saying this because it would be a smart thing to do, he is saying it to get press coverage and help with some strategic goal for his personal brand or for one of his current projects.
You absolutely do not have to and shame on you for saying that.
Actually, it's more nuanced than that. The real question is about what you should do, not about what you have to do.
If you are in a swing state you should vote for one of them, assuming they are not equal in your eyes, because you are one of the few people with the power to influence the outcome. (Unless your pride in supporting a third-party candidate who will lose is more important than the difference between which of Hillary and Donald has the power to shape, or destroy, the world.)
If you are not in a swing state then you already voted, in your primary, and your vote for president doesn't matter any more. Research and vote on your local candidates (e.g. for congress or your town).
Yes, there is no privacy. And privacy is already hard enough without naming permissions "full account access" when it does not include full access to an account, rather than to a certain subset of the account. It sounds like somebody did that.
The reporting error wasn't the blogger's fault; it was the fault of whoever named the permission "full account access." And it is still good that he reported it, because it highlighted a problem where the app programmer requested broader permission than needed. The blogger's confusion was understandable, and people should feel absolutely free to blog about their security concerns.
The right thing is then to ask Google or the app owner before publishing an article in the real media. Gizmodo did the right thing: vetted it with experts and tried to get a statement from Google.
Saying it originated in 1989 is like saying gravity originated in the 1600s with Newton, or like saying the idea of America originated with Columbus.
I personally know people who heard variations on the "hygiene hypothesis" from doctors in the 70s, although maybe nobody managed to get it published until later. But anybody with a brain would have tossed variations on it around casually in conversation once they understood we could build up resistance to things. Contrary to the certainty of all of us today, there really were smart people before we were around.
I want everyone who isn't like me dead and will take actions towards those ends
Careful. You just described the effective position of many governments. With the US all you have to do is be too anti corporate and you're a target....
This is not the position of the United States. In that context, it seems more likely that this is something that sounds comfortable if you already dislike corporations or the US. Notice how even the most extreme Bernie Sanders supporters (on the left) and Tea Party supporters (on the right) are both incredibly anti-corporate and nobody is trying to make them dead or taking actions towards those ends.
I'm not so sure it is frivolous. FB opened this can of worms itself by engaging in censorship and control of its pages. Now, if they can prove in court that it is just a false perception of censorship and control, they can get away with this. But, if they are filtering their content manually at all, they become legally responsible for all of it.
It is worth noting that Facebook's reporting system appears to be designed more for hate speech and nudity than for terrorism, and they made design decisions in the reporting system. For example, there are thousands of shares of terrorist hoaxes every day that they don't appear to even try to stop. E.g. the meme about all the stolen UPS uniforms (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/upsuniforms.asp)
The problem is how the police are chosen and trained.
No. There is more than one problem. That is sometimes one of the problems, because it is not like that is uniform either.
If people broke laws less, we would also have less need for police. So having too many laws is also a problem.
So is breaking the laws, and anything that incentivizes people to break the laws.
So is mistreating criminal suspects in ways which may be as you are trained to do, but which will cause their entire community to distrust police officers forever.
So is abuse of alcohol and inhibited judgment.
So is any society where the punishment for a simple misdemeanor includes not being able to rent an apartment.
So is a police culture where reporting a concern about a fellow officer's behavior makes you a pariah.
So is a society where police lives are at risk at every traffic stop.
A bat once got loose in the computer science lounge at my undergrad, and flew around in big circles for an hour as the staff and faculty hid in their offices. I ignored it and went about my day, so after a while one of the professors recruited me to help capture it. Because random undergrads and computer science professors are totally who you want in charge of capturing bats.
IRC, there was an episode planned for TNG that included a gay crew member or crew member couple, but it was scrapped by the studio. Does somebody remember the details offhand?
TOS pushed back against racism and bigotry in a big way. TNG was still an excellent show, and those principles still underlie Trek, but it did not do that in the same way.
The question posed is "Has there ever been a circumstance that warranted quitting your job without any prior notice?"
Of course such situations arise. Giving notice should be the default, out of respect for co-workers who may have to juggle their tasks and schedules if you leave and ideally out of a respect for your employer. But if you work in an abusive workplace and have no ability to change that, then leaving immediately is often justified by the way you are being treated or by the way your employer is treating others.
Whether it is legally advisable, financially plausible, will hurt your career to leave, or will leave good co-workers in the lurch if you leave are all other questions that will influence the decision of whether to actually do it.
Google only had what, a 28 billion cost of revenue for 2015? A billion dollars out of that mix starts to be a big enough number that there's an argument it should be publicly disclosed in SEC filings. I'm not saying it necessarily has to be, just that there would be public policy reasons for it. It better informs the investors and transparency generally results in healthier markets, because it allows for more competition between bidders.
While a good idea in theory, ultimately Telecom has a massive and very effective lobby. This also fails to address the very real problem you sometimes have in the Northeast where competing installers will cut or pull another guy's cable during an install, either to make room for theirs or out of a more childish nonprofessionalism in some parts of installer culture. However, there are plenty of ways to deal with that which do not stifle competition.
It is a case where a driver of a car at speed was not aware of the road directly ahead of them, that makes this border on a darwin here folks..
Not necessarily. Maybe the rest of the automation had been so good that the driver saw the struck, but believed the car also saw the truck. If you are a passenger in a car, you don't pull the handbrake to avoid an accident when you expect the driver is going to press the foot brake.
That said, he was probably just watching Harry Potter.
Terrorism is doing those things for political purposes. If their motive is money, it isn't terrorism.
Holding someone hostage during a bank robbery poses the threat of their death, but we don't call it terrorism.
There has been a lot of debate about the meaning of terrorism over the years; you are right that the lack of a clear political motive suggests this does not fit into most of those definitions. However, I would submit that an asymmetric attack made by people out of uniform deliberately threatening the lives of a large number of civilians should be considered a terrorist attack and should be treated like one.
These people are basically terrorists--they are threatening the lives and well-being of millions of innocent American Civilians. Let's make them a national security priority.
Artificial intelligence, like genuine intelligence, is complex. Because it's complex, it can't be transparent.
Not only is it complex, but (1) people don't pay enough attention to transparency for it to matter 98% of the time; ask any local government in America what percentage of their population show up for local meetings, or ask anyone on the street for a single detail from their municipal budget. Also, (2) governments and investment banks have the biggest incentive to discover strong AI, and neither of them has ANY incentive to be transparent about it. Transparency limits the advantage you get by creating something smarter than all of humanity and asking it to help you further your agenda.
Yes, there is *really* exciting geek stuff that can happen with AI, and it has an incredible potential to move us to an almost post-scarcity economy that we are not prepared for in the least. But there was also really exciting geek stuff and incredible potential when we split that atom. With great power comes great responsibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Voting for the lesser of two evils still means you;re voting for evil.
Seriously - it's like saying "Oh, I'm voting for Stalin because that Hitler guy is just nasty...
You realize we sent Stalin a massive infusion of arms and armaments to help him keep fighting Hitler, and supported him despite his evil, right through V-E day? That we really preferred having Russian soldiers dying to having Americans dying, so we gave him all the help we could?
Yes, there was a strong feeling in certain circles that when the eastern front met the western front, the fighting would continue and we'd wind up in a war with the Russians. But still, we absolutely supported evil when it was fighting another evil.
On the one hand, a danger on many sets is like a slight danger at summer camp--yes, sometimes people throw things together that work and sometimes people can get hurt. If this were a small budget community theater set that was otherwise safe and an isolated incident it might be understandable.
On the other hand, the Star Wars budget can afford one of those sensors like you have in every modern elevator that stops when someone is still in the door, as well as the guy who knows how to install it. So there is no question that they should be both liable for the medical expenses and fined. (This is how you encourage other people to install the sensor in the future.)
The First Congress obviously considered border searches reasonable because they authorized searching every room and every item of a ship for contraband. They (or a significant overlap) also wrote the Fourth Amendment, prohibiting "unreasonable" search and seizure. Thus under an originalist view and a traditional view, there is a very low expectation of privacy at the border, and Fourth Amendment rights are very small there.
They are not quite nonexistent. For example, I believe there was a case a little while ago saying that if they wanted to do a destructive search of your vehicle, they needed reasonable suspicion. RS is a very, very low standard, but it is a standard.
There is a more legitimate dispute about searching the contents of electronic devices. (Because it is more intrusive, since they can contain massive amounts of information about your life.) But regarding the border search exception generally, GP is correct that there has always been a strong border search exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. And since the rise of modern warfare, there's really been no legitimate argument against that. (Nations have an existential interest in controlling the movement of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.)
A franchise being milked dry by its IP holder, fans being sued for trying to create something, and mostly being sued for creating something that's better and closer to the core idea of the franchise than its IP holder creates...
What exactly is there to celebrate? Any "real" celebration would probably be snuffed instantly by the IP holders.
In the eternal words of Bones: "It's dead, Jim."
You did see Voyager, right? Because that particular horse has been dead for a while now... OK, Scott Bacula quantum leaped into it for a moment and tried to set things right, but still...
Sooner or later, this will be used to kill Americans and allies. The man's action is a but-for cause of their death. He is getting off very light from that POV.
On the other hand, America's legal arms dealers are a massive industry, and they never get held responsible for how the weapons are used. So the ten years isn't for the deaths that are being caused, it's for the fact that the particular weapon is one that someone doesn't want sent overseas.
Any communications system with a central point of failure (e.g. simple vulnerability to deliberate censorship, such as reliance on a given data center) will be a target during any kind of power struggle, coup, war, or other time of political dissent.
An exploit was being used for the install. They patched the exploit. If this is annoying to you, don't buy a system that you need to crack in order to install your chosen O/S.
No, he's actually intelligent. He is not saying this because it would be a smart thing to do, he is saying it to get press coverage and help with some strategic goal for his personal brand or for one of his current projects.
"You have to vote for one of them"
You absolutely do not have to and shame on you for saying that.
Actually, it's more nuanced than that. The real question is about what you should do, not about what you have to do.
If you are in a swing state you should vote for one of them, assuming they are not equal in your eyes, because you are one of the few people with the power to influence the outcome. (Unless your pride in supporting a third-party candidate who will lose is more important than the difference between which of Hillary and Donald has the power to shape, or destroy, the world.)
If you are not in a swing state then you already voted, in your primary, and your vote for president doesn't matter any more. Research and vote on your local candidates (e.g. for congress or your town).
Yes, there is no privacy. And privacy is already hard enough without naming permissions "full account access" when it does not include full access to an account, rather than to a certain subset of the account. It sounds like somebody did that.
The reporting error wasn't the blogger's fault; it was the fault of whoever named the permission "full account access." And it is still good that he reported it, because it highlighted a problem where the app programmer requested broader permission than needed. The blogger's confusion was understandable, and people should feel absolutely free to blog about their security concerns.
The right thing is then to ask Google or the app owner before publishing an article in the real media. Gizmodo did the right thing: vetted it with experts and tried to get a statement from Google.
Saying it originated in 1989 is like saying gravity originated in the 1600s with Newton, or like saying the idea of America originated with Columbus.
I personally know people who heard variations on the "hygiene hypothesis" from doctors in the 70s, although maybe nobody managed to get it published until later. But anybody with a brain would have tossed variations on it around casually in conversation once they understood we could build up resistance to things. Contrary to the certainty of all of us today, there really were smart people before we were around.
I want everyone who isn't like me dead and will take actions towards those ends
Careful. You just described the effective position of many governments. With the US all you have to do is be too anti corporate and you're a target. ...
This is not the position of the United States. In that context, it seems more likely that this is something that sounds comfortable if you already dislike corporations or the US. Notice how even the most extreme Bernie Sanders supporters (on the left) and Tea Party supporters (on the right) are both incredibly anti-corporate and nobody is trying to make them dead or taking actions towards those ends.
I'm not so sure it is frivolous. FB opened this can of worms itself by engaging in censorship and control of its pages. Now, if they can prove in court that it is just a false perception of censorship and control, they can get away with this. But, if they are filtering their content manually at all, they become legally responsible for all of it.
It is worth noting that Facebook's reporting system appears to be designed more for hate speech and nudity than for terrorism, and they made design decisions in the reporting system. For example, there are thousands of shares of terrorist hoaxes every day that they don't appear to even try to stop. E.g. the meme about all the stolen UPS uniforms (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/upsuniforms.asp)
The problem is how the police are chosen and trained.
No. There is more than one problem. That is sometimes one of the problems, because it is not like that is uniform either.
If people broke laws less, we would also have less need for police. So having too many laws is also a problem.
So is breaking the laws, and anything that incentivizes people to break the laws.
So is mistreating criminal suspects in ways which may be as you are trained to do, but which will cause their entire community to distrust police officers forever.
So is abuse of alcohol and inhibited judgment.
So is any society where the punishment for a simple misdemeanor includes not being able to rent an apartment.
So is a police culture where reporting a concern about a fellow officer's behavior makes you a pariah.
So is a society where police lives are at risk at every traffic stop.
It's not just one problem.
A bat once got loose in the computer science lounge at my undergrad, and flew around in big circles for an hour as the staff and faculty hid in their offices. I ignored it and went about my day, so after a while one of the professors recruited me to help capture it. Because random undergrads and computer science professors are totally who you want in charge of capturing bats.
Claiming you are testing security by breaking into companies' networks to advertise your product is not a great idea.
IRC, there was an episode planned for TNG that included a gay crew member or crew member couple, but it was scrapped by the studio. Does somebody remember the details offhand?
TOS pushed back against racism and bigotry in a big way. TNG was still an excellent show, and those principles still underlie Trek, but it did not do that in the same way.
The question posed is "Has there ever been a circumstance that warranted quitting your job without any prior notice?"
Of course such situations arise. Giving notice should be the default, out of respect for co-workers who may have to juggle their tasks and schedules if you leave and ideally out of a respect for your employer. But if you work in an abusive workplace and have no ability to change that, then leaving immediately is often justified by the way you are being treated or by the way your employer is treating others.
Whether it is legally advisable, financially plausible, will hurt your career to leave, or will leave good co-workers in the lurch if you leave are all other questions that will influence the decision of whether to actually do it.
Google only had what, a 28 billion cost of revenue for 2015? A billion dollars out of that mix starts to be a big enough number that there's an argument it should be publicly disclosed in SEC filings. I'm not saying it necessarily has to be, just that there would be public policy reasons for it. It better informs the investors and transparency generally results in healthier markets, because it allows for more competition between bidders.
After you are barometrically identified by the cameras...
Aaaah, finally an algorithm for uniquely identifying people by the pressure they are under.
While a good idea in theory, ultimately Telecom has a massive and very effective lobby. This also fails to address the very real problem you sometimes have in the Northeast where competing installers will cut or pull another guy's cable during an install, either to make room for theirs or out of a more childish nonprofessionalism in some parts of installer culture. However, there are plenty of ways to deal with that which do not stifle competition.
It is a case where a driver of a car
at speed was not aware of the road directly ahead of them, that makes this border on a darwin here folks..
Not necessarily. Maybe the rest of the automation had been so good that the driver saw the struck, but believed the car also saw the truck. If you are a passenger in a car, you don't pull the handbrake to avoid an accident when you expect the driver is going to press the foot brake.
That said, he was probably just watching Harry Potter.
Terrorism is doing those things for political purposes. If their motive is money, it isn't terrorism.
Holding someone hostage during a bank robbery poses the threat of their death, but we don't call it terrorism.
There has been a lot of debate about the meaning of terrorism over the years; you are right that the lack of a clear political motive suggests this does not fit into most of those definitions. However, I would submit that an asymmetric attack made by people out of uniform deliberately threatening the lives of a large number of civilians should be considered a terrorist attack and should be treated like one.
These people are basically terrorists--they are threatening the lives and well-being of millions of innocent American Civilians. Let's make them a national security priority.
We have fought wars over less.
Artificial intelligence, like genuine intelligence, is complex. Because it's complex, it can't be transparent.
Not only is it complex, but (1) people don't pay enough attention to transparency for it to matter 98% of the time; ask any local government in America what percentage of their population show up for local meetings, or ask anyone on the street for a single detail from their municipal budget. Also, (2) governments and investment banks have the biggest incentive to discover strong AI, and neither of them has ANY incentive to be transparent about it. Transparency limits the advantage you get by creating something smarter than all of humanity and asking it to help you further your agenda.
Yes, there is *really* exciting geek stuff that can happen with AI, and it has an incredible potential to move us to an almost post-scarcity economy that we are not prepared for in the least. But there was also really exciting geek stuff and incredible potential when we split that atom. With great power comes great responsibility.