In order to have a caste system, you need assortative mating, which will probably happen if a 'good' spouse can't take high-speed rail, go abroad on vacations, or fly, when marrying a 'bad' spouse.
Coins are not lost if the transaction isn't processed. The sender still owns the coins until the public distributed ledger says otherwise, which it won't until the transaction is confirmed and included in the block chain. The protocol has a "replace-by-fee" (RBF) where you can just re-create a new transaction with a higher fee than the old unconfirmed transaction and the new transaction, once confirmed, becomes the fate of the sender's coin, and the old transaction, if it ever gets processed, will be rejected as that coin has already been spent.
UFO in the military means something different than in pop-culture. In pop-culture, it means aliens and flying saucers, and ray-guns, and Martians. In the military, it means an unidentified flying object, including flights by non-cleared personnel like hobbyists or foreign surveillance drones. Every one of our "drones" in Afghanistan would be a UFO to the Afghan military if we didn't seek clearance from them first.
My guess is the name "UFO" wreaked of bad smell over the years and the military just changed the name and defunded the old one. They likely *still* want to investigate any sightings or blips on the radar to record when and where China or Russia are running spy drones over American soil or international waters, and hence whatever personnel are conducting those investigations are still funded, just under a better name than UFOs.
The transaction fees are variable and optional in the bitcoin protocol (the sender chooses the fee to use). The only issue is that most exchanges use a fixed transaction fee when sending to your private wallet or whatever address you request they send it to. These exchanges usually set it as 0.0005 BTC ($8.50 when BTC is $17,000). If they have to create a multi-transaction transfer to aggregate smaller sizes across multiple wallets, the fee can be 4x or 6x larger, so $34 - $51 per transaction, but that's usually only if the exchange has to send large sizes.
The exchange doesn't really care what the fee is set to, because they're spending your money, not theirs, and as a result they haven't updated their fees since when BTC was $700. This causes a game-theoretical problem because a lot of the transactions in the block are coming from exchanges, using large fees that they don't have to pay for, but now that means any smaller fee transaction queues up behind them since miners always process the biggest fee transactions first.
Encryption without identity is vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack. The whole point of root certificates is verifying your identity and checking documentation of ownership of a website before they give you a certificate. If it were just encryption, sans identity, then https wouldn't accomplish anything, and any one in the middle can just encrypt with their own self-signed certificate and you haven't achieved a secure end-to-end session. A stolen certificate is rare, and when it does happen, there's a revocation process. This is similar to someone else finding out your password and you have to change the password.
Your illustrated problem of a teenager or someone else gaining access is not unique to digital certificates, the same is true with passwords, since passwords are generally used only once per session and the then the rest of the session assumes continuity of identity. If you go to the bathroom or leave your desk, those websites will assume whoever sits down next has the same identity. This is why most offices require employees to lock their terminal before going to the bathroom or leaving for a meeting.
In fact, passwords are generally considered less secure than crypto signatures due to the prevalence of keyloggers. Most secure websites generally recommend 2FA. You can essentially flip the precedence, so the primary login can be the crypto signature instead of the password, and the secondary authentication can be a pin, or mother maiden's name or any arbitrary security question & answer, only when you're doing some thing that requires 2FA like transferring money out of your bank account or changing the security settings.
If you've ever used kerberos or any other key management system, you'll realize that the password is only asked once when it has to read your password-protected private key from cold storage (disk) and thereafter it uses ephemeral keys stored in volatile memory and never bothers with asking for your password again until you reboot or shut down.
Proof of identity isn't the same as SSO. Whenever you access "https" the server is proving its identity to you, since you access its public key (certificate) and trace it up to the root certificate that you already have installed. The server does not "sign on" to your desktop to prove its identity or use some kind of password or login authentication.
The blockchain can eliminate the need for getting blessed by a root certificate like Verisign (Verisign is very expensive, at $400/yr). That can open the door to consumers self-signing their data (no sane consumer would pay $400/yr to Verisign), and eliminates the need for "logging in". Any server can verify your identity through your own digital signature the same way your browser verifies a server's identity through its digital signature.
Any CEO of Microsoft, even if they hired an orangutan, would have withdrawn from the phone market, because Windows Mobile is junk and you can't even convince illiterate people to get one instead of an Android.
No, the British handed over HK to China in the late 1990s. China promised not to "interfere" with HK until 2047, but are already meddling in massive ways like requiring all elections in HK to only involve candidates China has pre-approved. HK is classified as a SAR (semi-autonomous region) along with places like Macau, part of China's "one-country, two-systems" policy. That means as a HK resident you pay HK taxes and not Chinese taxes. It also means as a HK resident, you follow HK laws and not Chinese laws (an agreement that expires in 2047, and weakened by China's view that anti-secession laws in China still apply to SARs like HK). All that said, HK is not a country, and China's military is stationed in HK. To avoid alarming people, the Chinese military is instructed to dress in a special uniform for HK and not the standard PRC military regalia.
No, it's not the same. Windows already has proper permissions for user directories since Windows NT. The issue is that ransomware runs under the same uid as yourself, so if you can access your own file, then the ransomware program can access those same files. This new feature makes it so that even if the uid has access, you can specify ADDITIONAL restrictions, like which exe is permitted to do so. So some ransomware.exe, even with your uid, will be unable to make changes.
There is no such ability in Linux or *nix, since ACLs are solely based on uid and not the name of the executable with your uid. The closest might be a sudoers file with specific commands for which you're allowed to escalate to root privilege. A *nix ransomware program running with your uid has the exact same privileges as bash or kde or gnome running with your uid and access to all your files.
All that said, there are still ways to circumvent privileges restricting which execs are allowed to access the folder/directory. For instance, if chrome.exe is given access, then any ransomware running as a chrome app will appear to be chrome.exe from Windows' perspective and be given access. This problem exists for any exec that allows running scripts or remote code, like bash or the Windows-equivalent powershell. You either have to deny all powershell execs from access, or grant all powershell execs access. The safest approach would be to not get infected with rogue code with your uid privilege. And if you get infected with rogue code that has Administrator (root) privileges, you're hosed because it can bypass or remove these restrictions altogether.
Apparently not just any 3D scan, but infrared, so it's a thermal image. Even with 2 photos (for the left and right cameras) and a double-sided mirror, you can't fake authentication because paper under infrared doesn't look like a person. Are there any infrared printers?
That's actually cool, I was wondering how it would handle night-time conditions. It also solves my concern about faking authentication easily with any 3D (stereoscopic) photo. I thought maybe you could print them out onto 2 different pieces of paper for the left and right eye, hold a double-sided mirror up between the two cameras, and fake authentication, but most camera-phones can't take infrared photos (yet) and we don't have any infrared printers!
Just as we push for greater automation of tasks, the task of coaching can also be automated (it's called unsupervised learning). Even with unsupervised learning, there is still a fair amount of input sanitizing and scrubbing and sanity-checking because we're at a very crude stage of machine learning. But don't bet your career on humanity getting "coaching" jobs for AI.
I don't really see any need for human labor in the next 100yrs in the same way I see next to no need for horse labor. CGPGrey makes the great analogy between humans and horses, and just because horses moved from battlefields and farm ploughs to cushy city carriage jobs, it doesn't mean all technological progress leads to a better life for horses.
I've had many conversations and people refer to AI as just a "tool". This is completely incorrect. A tool is a device that requires a wielder. A hammer is a tool, on its own it does nothing. A television is a tool, on its own it does nothing. Tools are utterly reliant on human presence. All technological innovation in the past has been on tools: you pick painstakingly pick cotton? Eli Whitney has the cotton gin, but it still requires a human to operate it! Jackhammers, bulldozers, airplanes, these all require human operators to wield the tool. We do not refer to wild dandelions as a tool. Wild dandelions know how to process light and have an entire self-sustaining life-cycle of aggregation, material processing, and recycling that is self-contained without human intervention. Dandelions are NOT tools. Monsanto non-sterile GM crops are not tools. Adjacent farmers have big issues with wild GM crops blowing into their farms and Monsanto suing them. Anything that is devoid of human intervention is NOT a tool. We are rapidly entering into the pure technology age where our technology can no longer be considered tools, but rather end-to-end processes like wild crops. An LCD plasma tv can be the fruit of a fully automated plant, self-running energy plants, self-running mining quarries for rare-earth minerals and other commodities, self-piloting cars and planes for delivery. This is exactly how a mushroom operates, organically growing tendrils to delivery resources to the central site for a mushroom to bloom. We should not consider a mushroom as a tool. What is it? Life? I wouldn't go so far, because moral or philosophical quagmires delay the more pressing issue: how to protect decaying egalitiarianism.
Do we want to live in a society where wild auto-plants are public domain, and we freely walk like Adam and Eve in the garden and pluck a Plasma TV from a tree, like Jean-Luc Picard brewing coffee from the replicator? Or do we want to live in a society where oligarchs own all the auto-plants, patented, copyrighted, trademarked, in perpetuity, with sweet-heart deals and land-giveaways for their auto-plants by states desperate for the tiny tax revenue they think they'll receive?
Neither of those two societies will have jobs, that's a given. If you're curious what a jobless society looks like, we have several today you can examine. Look at Saudi Arabia, they tax their citizens negative $75k/yr. Yes, negative. Their citizens receive $75k/yr for doing nothing. Of course, they're stingy and get huge amounts of slave labor from South Asia and will never make their slaves citizens. But you can study them to see what rich jobless people do. They mostly squander their lives, playing bumper cars with Lamborghinis. We have "trust fund kiddies" in the U.S. as well, jobless and rich. And we have the jobless poor, frustrated and struggling. Money should only have value due to scarcity. Trash has no value (you have to pay others to remove it) because it's abundant. Some trash has value, like glass, or rare-earth metals, and those recycled goods can be sold for profit, but only because those materials and/or the energy to make and transport them are scarce.
The economics of a post-scarcity economy changes things dramatically. Do we want an economy with poor people who canno
Regarding multi-variate / multi-signal modeling, LIGO used the same approach to successfully detect gravitational waves. They used multiple low-SNR signals from different detectors (Washington State and Louisiana) since their noise is highly orthogonal and the signal is highly correlated with the correct phase-shift applied (solve for phase-shift using SSE minimization, then extract a high-SNR signal from the newly aligned signals). Some similar approach with multiple HDDs may work if the noise is less about ambient room noise and more about internal HDD initial-head location, other HDD geometric properties, and OS reporting error due to jiffies and NMIs (these are the sort of noise that should be very non-correlated / orthogonal across multiple HDD/CPU sources).
This is the BlackHat pdf / powerpoint from 2009, by Andrea Barisani and Daniele Bianco, titled "Side Channel Attacks Using Optical Sampling Of Mechanical Energy and Power Line Leakage": https://www.blackhat.com/prese...
It appears it less about predictive modeling regarding cadence of keystrokes and more about the data cable itself being poorly shielded and leaking onto the +5V and GND power cables.
I still think a multivariate model using multiple low-SNR signals can be quite useful even if no univariate model of a single low-SNR signal has enough fidelity to reconstruct conversations or keystrokes. Speaking of which, how orthogonal are the signals from different HDDs in a JBOD? Will signals from 12 HDDs in the room provide sufficient signal strength for a multivariate model? If you're able to sample at 60Hz, speed of sound moves 5 meters in 1/60th of a second, so HDDs separated by 2.5m should provide considerable phase-shift. Even at 1m separation, the signals should be fairly orthogonal, and having 12 HDDs at varying distances from the audio source should give you nearly 10x the sampling frequency.
I would like to apologize on behalf of people with dismissive attitudes. It is a real problem not just with anonymous posts, but even at the workplace, especially among "half-technical" people, who are are smart enough to understand jargon and comment but not enough to understand a reasoned argument. I've seen countless times where someone will quote from stackoverflow or some other source out-of-context, and several times where the source itself they quote from is utterly wrong to begin without even in-context. I might prove something with complex numbers, and they'll just quote someone saying you can't take a square root of negative numbers. Even after I convince them, they'll just laugh saying Intel cpus don't support complex numbers, and I have to show them the Intel cpu spec for hardware acceleration of complex numbers (and even without hardware support, it can be easily emulated in software). I've learned to stop trying, half-technical people are impediments to innovations.
Now, after that apology is done, I would like to bring up some academic research that may relate to your study of signal processing. There was some research done a while back (early 2000s, I think), that found that keyboard keystrokes leaked information on electricity draw. And even though they could not directly tell which key was hit, they were able to apply a model of qwerty keystroke cadence, since people tend to be faster or slower with keystrokes depending on the sequence of keys. Applying that model with a roughly 60Hz electrical tap, they were able to successfully reconstruct full text input at a 90% confidence. Because the model relied heavily on predictive modeling, it is not good for high-entropy signals like 8-character passwords, but it is excellent for low-entropy signals like a legal memo with several paragraphs explaining one point. You also mentioned a study directly applying to low SNR audio, for speech. However, I wonder if the vibrations for keystrokes are enough to disrupt HDD latency, and if so, a bivariate model using both HDD signal and electricity signal may yield a far superior reconstruction than electricity on its own, especially since the two 60Hz signals are likely out-of-phase. My 2 cents.
It's against the law in NYC for prospective employers to ask for, or require, candidate compensation history. The motivation is that women and minorities are often underpaid and when leaving their salary-biased job for a new one, often this bias carries forward with them if they have to report their past salary, which makes the problem of eliminating wage gaps due to gender or race difficult when the new employer can say "hey, I'm not racist, I just paid him what he was making before.. if his last employer was racist, not my problem!". This will mean interviews will be more in-depth and employers are expected to properly assess your skills and value to the company. Employers will still be allowed to do background checks, so if you got fired for watching porn on your office pc, or for incompetence, then new employers will know about it and can decide not to hire you.
Generally, most people who are "fired" aren't really fired. We use words like "fired" and "laid off" but those are not legal terms. The only legal documents a company can file to terminate your position is "involuntary termination with cause" (you were fired), "involuntary termination without cause" (you were laid off), and "voluntary termination" (you quit). In 99% of the cases where you manager "fires" you, the paperwork they file with the government is "involuntary termination without cause" (you were laid off). People think "laid off" is when 100s are let go and "fired" is when a manager singles you out for removal. That is just a misconception and in the U.S. nearly all involuntary terminations are "without cause". This is because "with cause" is very RISKY for the employer. You can sue them if you disagree with the cause of your termination, seek damages, and reinstatement. You have NO recourse if you terminated "without cause". It's similar to "at-fault" divorce and "no-fault" divorce. Even in cases where a spouse cheats on another, they generally file the paperwork of "no-fault" divorce, because "at-fault" requires you to PROVE they were at fault and is a huge hurdle to pass. If you sucked at your job and were fired, 99% odds are that it was a "without cause" involuntary termination, despite your manager yelling "you're FIRED!" in front of the entire kitchen staff. If you stole money from the company, committed fraud, or sexually harassed colleagues, odds are you were fired "with cause" and additionally criminal charges may be filed. No company with any half-competent lawyer on retainer will ever file a "with cause" termination for an employee being mediocre or bottom performing.
In about 100 years, the codebase of most simple appliances will start to resemble the size of the entire genetic material for a small insect. While no human can possibly think about the entire DNA sequence for even a simple creature, we start to think of which alleles can be switched "on" or "off" and cut and paste sections using CRISPR from related codebases. This is the ultimate in "script kiddie" hacking, but that's where we are with complex code like genetics, and that's where we will be with manmade code as well once it reaches hundreds of billions of lines of code.
You might think, "no human can analyze or write that much code!!!", and you would be correct. However, we will start using more and more automated tools. We will have programming interfaces where you can just talk to it and roughly describe what you want and it will spit out a portfolio of possible solutions like a commissioned artist might at their patron's behest. "I want my self-driving car to prioritize skipping potholes over saving running over kittens!". And while those solutions will look polished and smooth, it will be anything but in the underlying code and employ not just hideously complex code but hideously complex data like random forests or gradient-boosted regression trees with tens of thousands of trees and millions of leaf nodes for the simplest of classification questions, "is it a pothole or a kitten?".
It will be akin to those Frontpage and WYSIWYG web editors that spew out hundreds of thousands of lines of HTML code for the simplest of web pages. We will move to an FDA-like deployment process, where no one reviews the code but we just test it in simulation, and then in real life with mice and then monkeys and then humans. It will take 5-7 years to release code because no one will understand what it does or its long-term side-effects like modern pharmaceuticals. The QA-process will just involve large-scale clinical trials and zero code review.
I've seen Hans Rosling talk about how his common-sense ideas were dismissed as obvious in many of his initial presentations, so he switched to first asking the audience what they thought, and then presented his findings, and suddenly everyone thought he had remarkable and ground-breaking insights.
There's not a whole lot that the Y chromosome carries, and there are predictions that it will atrophy into carrying no information in 4.6 million years at the current rate of decay: https://www.quantamagazine.org...
While the X chromosome carries 1,000 or so genes, the Y chromosome currently carries 200 genes and declining: http://gizmodo.com/the-y-chrom...
Most of what people think the "male" chromosome carries is based on unscientific knowledge. Your chest hair, beard, and other male traits, do not come from the Y chromosome, but are instead expressions of the X chromosome under high levels of testosterone. That's why people without the Y chromosome can have sex-change operations and get a beard, chest hair, etc. by taking testosterone supplements. Testosterone also increases aggression and risk-taking, even for individuals without the Y chromosome.
That's not realistic. If Microsoft makes an extension, they can't notify Google every time some little old lady buys or sells some shares from her retirement account. Similarly, if your chrome extension is owned by some Ireland holding company, and it is in turn owned by some Cayman holding company, and it is in turn owned by some, etc., there's no way to know or get reports that every entity that holds any stake has to report when it sells. And you don't even have to own the entity to get its profits. Your holding company in China can have a mere contract with your Cayman holding company for assignment of all profits *without* ownership. You can have another contract with some McKinsey consultant that she has administrative access *without* ownership. Many celebrities contract out their twitter and facebook accounts to professional management teams. Are they the owners of the twitter/facebook account? Like most laws, such a policy trying to "fix" the problem will only affect honest, good people, and have ZERO effect on the dishonest people it's trying to deal with since the dishonest bunch are more than happy to create a Russian nesting doll of legal entities and a labyrinth of contracts and profit assignments that would make a veteran CPA cry into a fetal position.
Slashdot Mirror
In order to have a caste system, you need assortative mating, which will probably happen if a 'good' spouse can't take high-speed rail, go abroad on vacations, or fly, when marrying a 'bad' spouse.
I think you mean to say the people in western china (e.g. Xinjiang), aren't treated or considered as people by China.
Coins are not lost if the transaction isn't processed. The sender still owns the coins until the public distributed ledger says otherwise, which it won't until the transaction is confirmed and included in the block chain. The protocol has a "replace-by-fee" (RBF) where you can just re-create a new transaction with a higher fee than the old unconfirmed transaction and the new transaction, once confirmed, becomes the fate of the sender's coin, and the old transaction, if it ever gets processed, will be rejected as that coin has already been spent.
They just want more people to binge watch The Last Ship.
UFO in the military means something different than in pop-culture. In pop-culture, it means aliens and flying saucers, and ray-guns, and Martians. In the military, it means an unidentified flying object, including flights by non-cleared personnel like hobbyists or foreign surveillance drones. Every one of our "drones" in Afghanistan would be a UFO to the Afghan military if we didn't seek clearance from them first.
My guess is the name "UFO" wreaked of bad smell over the years and the military just changed the name and defunded the old one. They likely *still* want to investigate any sightings or blips on the radar to record when and where China or Russia are running spy drones over American soil or international waters, and hence whatever personnel are conducting those investigations are still funded, just under a better name than UFOs.
The transaction fees are variable and optional in the bitcoin protocol (the sender chooses the fee to use). The only issue is that most exchanges use a fixed transaction fee when sending to your private wallet or whatever address you request they send it to. These exchanges usually set it as 0.0005 BTC ($8.50 when BTC is $17,000). If they have to create a multi-transaction transfer to aggregate smaller sizes across multiple wallets, the fee can be 4x or 6x larger, so $34 - $51 per transaction, but that's usually only if the exchange has to send large sizes.
The exchange doesn't really care what the fee is set to, because they're spending your money, not theirs, and as a result they haven't updated their fees since when BTC was $700. This causes a game-theoretical problem because a lot of the transactions in the block are coming from exchanges, using large fees that they don't have to pay for, but now that means any smaller fee transaction queues up behind them since miners always process the biggest fee transactions first.
Encryption without identity is vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack. The whole point of root certificates is verifying your identity and checking documentation of ownership of a website before they give you a certificate. If it were just encryption, sans identity, then https wouldn't accomplish anything, and any one in the middle can just encrypt with their own self-signed certificate and you haven't achieved a secure end-to-end session. A stolen certificate is rare, and when it does happen, there's a revocation process. This is similar to someone else finding out your password and you have to change the password.
Your illustrated problem of a teenager or someone else gaining access is not unique to digital certificates, the same is true with passwords, since passwords are generally used only once per session and the then the rest of the session assumes continuity of identity. If you go to the bathroom or leave your desk, those websites will assume whoever sits down next has the same identity. This is why most offices require employees to lock their terminal before going to the bathroom or leaving for a meeting.
In fact, passwords are generally considered less secure than crypto signatures due to the prevalence of keyloggers. Most secure websites generally recommend 2FA. You can essentially flip the precedence, so the primary login can be the crypto signature instead of the password, and the secondary authentication can be a pin, or mother maiden's name or any arbitrary security question & answer, only when you're doing some thing that requires 2FA like transferring money out of your bank account or changing the security settings.
If you've ever used kerberos or any other key management system, you'll realize that the password is only asked once when it has to read your password-protected private key from cold storage (disk) and thereafter it uses ephemeral keys stored in volatile memory and never bothers with asking for your password again until you reboot or shut down.
Proof of identity isn't the same as SSO. Whenever you access "https" the server is proving its identity to you, since you access its public key (certificate) and trace it up to the root certificate that you already have installed. The server does not "sign on" to your desktop to prove its identity or use some kind of password or login authentication.
The blockchain can eliminate the need for getting blessed by a root certificate like Verisign (Verisign is very expensive, at $400/yr). That can open the door to consumers self-signing their data (no sane consumer would pay $400/yr to Verisign), and eliminates the need for "logging in". Any server can verify your identity through your own digital signature the same way your browser verifies a server's identity through its digital signature.
Any CEO of Microsoft, even if they hired an orangutan, would have withdrawn from the phone market, because Windows Mobile is junk and you can't even convince illiterate people to get one instead of an Android.
No, the British handed over HK to China in the late 1990s. China promised not to "interfere" with HK until 2047, but are already meddling in massive ways like requiring all elections in HK to only involve candidates China has pre-approved. HK is classified as a SAR (semi-autonomous region) along with places like Macau, part of China's "one-country, two-systems" policy. That means as a HK resident you pay HK taxes and not Chinese taxes. It also means as a HK resident, you follow HK laws and not Chinese laws (an agreement that expires in 2047, and weakened by China's view that anti-secession laws in China still apply to SARs like HK). All that said, HK is not a country, and China's military is stationed in HK. To avoid alarming people, the Chinese military is instructed to dress in a special uniform for HK and not the standard PRC military regalia.
No, it's not the same. Windows already has proper permissions for user directories since Windows NT. The issue is that ransomware runs under the same uid as yourself, so if you can access your own file, then the ransomware program can access those same files. This new feature makes it so that even if the uid has access, you can specify ADDITIONAL restrictions, like which exe is permitted to do so. So some ransomware.exe, even with your uid, will be unable to make changes.
There is no such ability in Linux or *nix, since ACLs are solely based on uid and not the name of the executable with your uid. The closest might be a sudoers file with specific commands for which you're allowed to escalate to root privilege. A *nix ransomware program running with your uid has the exact same privileges as bash or kde or gnome running with your uid and access to all your files.
All that said, there are still ways to circumvent privileges restricting which execs are allowed to access the folder/directory. For instance, if chrome.exe is given access, then any ransomware running as a chrome app will appear to be chrome.exe from Windows' perspective and be given access. This problem exists for any exec that allows running scripts or remote code, like bash or the Windows-equivalent powershell. You either have to deny all powershell execs from access, or grant all powershell execs access. The safest approach would be to not get infected with rogue code with your uid privilege. And if you get infected with rogue code that has Administrator (root) privileges, you're hosed because it can bypass or remove these restrictions altogether.
What about the microphone? There's nothing in physics that can stop a mic from eavesdropping on you.
That's true with partial fingerprints as well.
Apparently not just any 3D scan, but infrared, so it's a thermal image. Even with 2 photos (for the left and right cameras) and a double-sided mirror, you can't fake authentication because paper under infrared doesn't look like a person. Are there any infrared printers?
That's actually cool, I was wondering how it would handle night-time conditions. It also solves my concern about faking authentication easily with any 3D (stereoscopic) photo. I thought maybe you could print them out onto 2 different pieces of paper for the left and right eye, hold a double-sided mirror up between the two cameras, and fake authentication, but most camera-phones can't take infrared photos (yet) and we don't have any infrared printers!
Just as we push for greater automation of tasks, the task of coaching can also be automated (it's called unsupervised learning). Even with unsupervised learning, there is still a fair amount of input sanitizing and scrubbing and sanity-checking because we're at a very crude stage of machine learning. But don't bet your career on humanity getting "coaching" jobs for AI.
I don't really see any need for human labor in the next 100yrs in the same way I see next to no need for horse labor. CGPGrey makes the great analogy between humans and horses, and just because horses moved from battlefields and farm ploughs to cushy city carriage jobs, it doesn't mean all technological progress leads to a better life for horses.
I've had many conversations and people refer to AI as just a "tool". This is completely incorrect. A tool is a device that requires a wielder. A hammer is a tool, on its own it does nothing. A television is a tool, on its own it does nothing. Tools are utterly reliant on human presence. All technological innovation in the past has been on tools: you pick painstakingly pick cotton? Eli Whitney has the cotton gin, but it still requires a human to operate it! Jackhammers, bulldozers, airplanes, these all require human operators to wield the tool. We do not refer to wild dandelions as a tool. Wild dandelions know how to process light and have an entire self-sustaining life-cycle of aggregation, material processing, and recycling that is self-contained without human intervention. Dandelions are NOT tools. Monsanto non-sterile GM crops are not tools. Adjacent farmers have big issues with wild GM crops blowing into their farms and Monsanto suing them. Anything that is devoid of human intervention is NOT a tool. We are rapidly entering into the pure technology age where our technology can no longer be considered tools, but rather end-to-end processes like wild crops. An LCD plasma tv can be the fruit of a fully automated plant, self-running energy plants, self-running mining quarries for rare-earth minerals and other commodities, self-piloting cars and planes for delivery. This is exactly how a mushroom operates, organically growing tendrils to delivery resources to the central site for a mushroom to bloom. We should not consider a mushroom as a tool. What is it? Life? I wouldn't go so far, because moral or philosophical quagmires delay the more pressing issue: how to protect decaying egalitiarianism.
Do we want to live in a society where wild auto-plants are public domain, and we freely walk like Adam and Eve in the garden and pluck a Plasma TV from a tree, like Jean-Luc Picard brewing coffee from the replicator? Or do we want to live in a society where oligarchs own all the auto-plants, patented, copyrighted, trademarked, in perpetuity, with sweet-heart deals and land-giveaways for their auto-plants by states desperate for the tiny tax revenue they think they'll receive?
Neither of those two societies will have jobs, that's a given. If you're curious what a jobless society looks like, we have several today you can examine. Look at Saudi Arabia, they tax their citizens negative $75k/yr. Yes, negative. Their citizens receive $75k/yr for doing nothing. Of course, they're stingy and get huge amounts of slave labor from South Asia and will never make their slaves citizens. But you can study them to see what rich jobless people do. They mostly squander their lives, playing bumper cars with Lamborghinis. We have "trust fund kiddies" in the U.S. as well, jobless and rich. And we have the jobless poor, frustrated and struggling. Money should only have value due to scarcity. Trash has no value (you have to pay others to remove it) because it's abundant. Some trash has value, like glass, or rare-earth metals, and those recycled goods can be sold for profit, but only because those materials and/or the energy to make and transport them are scarce.
The economics of a post-scarcity economy changes things dramatically. Do we want an economy with poor people who canno
Regarding multi-variate / multi-signal modeling, LIGO used the same approach to successfully detect gravitational waves. They used multiple low-SNR signals from different detectors (Washington State and Louisiana) since their noise is highly orthogonal and the signal is highly correlated with the correct phase-shift applied (solve for phase-shift using SSE minimization, then extract a high-SNR signal from the newly aligned signals). Some similar approach with multiple HDDs may work if the noise is less about ambient room noise and more about internal HDD initial-head location, other HDD geometric properties, and OS reporting error due to jiffies and NMIs (these are the sort of noise that should be very non-correlated / orthogonal across multiple HDD/CPU sources).
This is the BlackHat pdf / powerpoint from 2009, by Andrea Barisani and Daniele Bianco, titled "Side Channel Attacks Using Optical Sampling Of Mechanical Energy and Power Line Leakage": https://www.blackhat.com/prese...
It appears it less about predictive modeling regarding cadence of keystrokes and more about the data cable itself being poorly shielded and leaking onto the +5V and GND power cables.
I still think a multivariate model using multiple low-SNR signals can be quite useful even if no univariate model of a single low-SNR signal has enough fidelity to reconstruct conversations or keystrokes. Speaking of which, how orthogonal are the signals from different HDDs in a JBOD? Will signals from 12 HDDs in the room provide sufficient signal strength for a multivariate model? If you're able to sample at 60Hz, speed of sound moves 5 meters in 1/60th of a second, so HDDs separated by 2.5m should provide considerable phase-shift. Even at 1m separation, the signals should be fairly orthogonal, and having 12 HDDs at varying distances from the audio source should give you nearly 10x the sampling frequency.
I would like to apologize on behalf of people with dismissive attitudes. It is a real problem not just with anonymous posts, but even at the workplace, especially among "half-technical" people, who are are smart enough to understand jargon and comment but not enough to understand a reasoned argument. I've seen countless times where someone will quote from stackoverflow or some other source out-of-context, and several times where the source itself they quote from is utterly wrong to begin without even in-context. I might prove something with complex numbers, and they'll just quote someone saying you can't take a square root of negative numbers. Even after I convince them, they'll just laugh saying Intel cpus don't support complex numbers, and I have to show them the Intel cpu spec for hardware acceleration of complex numbers (and even without hardware support, it can be easily emulated in software). I've learned to stop trying, half-technical people are impediments to innovations.
Now, after that apology is done, I would like to bring up some academic research that may relate to your study of signal processing. There was some research done a while back (early 2000s, I think), that found that keyboard keystrokes leaked information on electricity draw. And even though they could not directly tell which key was hit, they were able to apply a model of qwerty keystroke cadence, since people tend to be faster or slower with keystrokes depending on the sequence of keys. Applying that model with a roughly 60Hz electrical tap, they were able to successfully reconstruct full text input at a 90% confidence. Because the model relied heavily on predictive modeling, it is not good for high-entropy signals like 8-character passwords, but it is excellent for low-entropy signals like a legal memo with several paragraphs explaining one point. You also mentioned a study directly applying to low SNR audio, for speech. However, I wonder if the vibrations for keystrokes are enough to disrupt HDD latency, and if so, a bivariate model using both HDD signal and electricity signal may yield a far superior reconstruction than electricity on its own, especially since the two 60Hz signals are likely out-of-phase. My 2 cents.
It's against the law in NYC for prospective employers to ask for, or require, candidate compensation history. The motivation is that women and minorities are often underpaid and when leaving their salary-biased job for a new one, often this bias carries forward with them if they have to report their past salary, which makes the problem of eliminating wage gaps due to gender or race difficult when the new employer can say "hey, I'm not racist, I just paid him what he was making before.. if his last employer was racist, not my problem!". This will mean interviews will be more in-depth and employers are expected to properly assess your skills and value to the company. Employers will still be allowed to do background checks, so if you got fired for watching porn on your office pc, or for incompetence, then new employers will know about it and can decide not to hire you.
Generally, most people who are "fired" aren't really fired. We use words like "fired" and "laid off" but those are not legal terms. The only legal documents a company can file to terminate your position is "involuntary termination with cause" (you were fired), "involuntary termination without cause" (you were laid off), and "voluntary termination" (you quit). In 99% of the cases where you manager "fires" you, the paperwork they file with the government is "involuntary termination without cause" (you were laid off). People think "laid off" is when 100s are let go and "fired" is when a manager singles you out for removal. That is just a misconception and in the U.S. nearly all involuntary terminations are "without cause". This is because "with cause" is very RISKY for the employer. You can sue them if you disagree with the cause of your termination, seek damages, and reinstatement. You have NO recourse if you terminated "without cause". It's similar to "at-fault" divorce and "no-fault" divorce. Even in cases where a spouse cheats on another, they generally file the paperwork of "no-fault" divorce, because "at-fault" requires you to PROVE they were at fault and is a huge hurdle to pass. If you sucked at your job and were fired, 99% odds are that it was a "without cause" involuntary termination, despite your manager yelling "you're FIRED!" in front of the entire kitchen staff. If you stole money from the company, committed fraud, or sexually harassed colleagues, odds are you were fired "with cause" and additionally criminal charges may be filed. No company with any half-competent lawyer on retainer will ever file a "with cause" termination for an employee being mediocre or bottom performing.
In about 100 years, the codebase of most simple appliances will start to resemble the size of the entire genetic material for a small insect. While no human can possibly think about the entire DNA sequence for even a simple creature, we start to think of which alleles can be switched "on" or "off" and cut and paste sections using CRISPR from related codebases. This is the ultimate in "script kiddie" hacking, but that's where we are with complex code like genetics, and that's where we will be with manmade code as well once it reaches hundreds of billions of lines of code.
You might think, "no human can analyze or write that much code!!!", and you would be correct. However, we will start using more and more automated tools. We will have programming interfaces where you can just talk to it and roughly describe what you want and it will spit out a portfolio of possible solutions like a commissioned artist might at their patron's behest. "I want my self-driving car to prioritize skipping potholes over saving running over kittens!". And while those solutions will look polished and smooth, it will be anything but in the underlying code and employ not just hideously complex code but hideously complex data like random forests or gradient-boosted regression trees with tens of thousands of trees and millions of leaf nodes for the simplest of classification questions, "is it a pothole or a kitten?".
It will be akin to those Frontpage and WYSIWYG web editors that spew out hundreds of thousands of lines of HTML code for the simplest of web pages. We will move to an FDA-like deployment process, where no one reviews the code but we just test it in simulation, and then in real life with mice and then monkeys and then humans. It will take 5-7 years to release code because no one will understand what it does or its long-term side-effects like modern pharmaceuticals. The QA-process will just involve large-scale clinical trials and zero code review.
I've seen Hans Rosling talk about how his common-sense ideas were dismissed as obvious in many of his initial presentations, so he switched to first asking the audience what they thought, and then presented his findings, and suddenly everyone thought he had remarkable and ground-breaking insights.
There's not a whole lot that the Y chromosome carries, and there are predictions that it will atrophy into carrying no information in 4.6 million years at the current rate of decay: https://www.quantamagazine.org...
While the X chromosome carries 1,000 or so genes, the Y chromosome currently carries 200 genes and declining: http://gizmodo.com/the-y-chrom...
Most of what people think the "male" chromosome carries is based on unscientific knowledge. Your chest hair, beard, and other male traits, do not come from the Y chromosome, but are instead expressions of the X chromosome under high levels of testosterone. That's why people without the Y chromosome can have sex-change operations and get a beard, chest hair, etc. by taking testosterone supplements. Testosterone also increases aggression and risk-taking, even for individuals without the Y chromosome.
That's not realistic. If Microsoft makes an extension, they can't notify Google every time some little old lady buys or sells some shares from her retirement account. Similarly, if your chrome extension is owned by some Ireland holding company, and it is in turn owned by some Cayman holding company, and it is in turn owned by some, etc., there's no way to know or get reports that every entity that holds any stake has to report when it sells. And you don't even have to own the entity to get its profits. Your holding company in China can have a mere contract with your Cayman holding company for assignment of all profits *without* ownership. You can have another contract with some McKinsey consultant that she has administrative access *without* ownership. Many celebrities contract out their twitter and facebook accounts to professional management teams. Are they the owners of the twitter/facebook account? Like most laws, such a policy trying to "fix" the problem will only affect honest, good people, and have ZERO effect on the dishonest people it's trying to deal with since the dishonest bunch are more than happy to create a Russian nesting doll of legal entities and a labyrinth of contracts and profit assignments that would make a veteran CPA cry into a fetal position.