This is what I tell a lot of my non-tech friends. This new wave AI that companies are building will do things that seem smart but cannot be interpreted. The machine can't explain itself and we can't explain the machine. This is part of what some people are talking about when they mention the dangers of AI. It doesn't have to turn into an skynet in order to have the potential for bad things to happen, it can be a lot more subtle.
"evidence that firms such as Exxon knew of the impact of climate change for decades, only to downplay and even deny this in public"
That's pretty much it. If they knew that their product was doing damage and they worked to suppress this information then that's what they are culpable for. Actually mining and delivery a product that we demanded and paid for... that's not the kind of thing you sue someone for. But if you sell me something and lie to me in the process, it's the lie that gets you in trouble.
Making sure companies don't lie to the FCC and consumers in general is hardly something to be celebrated as ground breaking. Companies will happily get around this by declining to promise any kind of net neutrality. They'll even be able to make a promise, then go back on it, and so long as they actually make enough public noise about it there would be no avenue to punish them. I can't see the likes of Comcast giving the slightest hoot if customers don't like their policies on traffic shaping, they'll just admit to it openly.
Stop thinking of these guys as "older" an "on their way to retirement". These classifications are a combination of useless stereotypes and assumptions. It doesn't matter. The bottom line is that you have people who need to be trained with new skills to do their job. If you think you have to treat them differently from younger staff members then you're approaching it the wrong way. They will respond to training and taking on of new tasks just the same as anyone else would and if they don't then you can handle it when it happens, not assume it's going to be a problem before you try. Just work out what skills they need and provide them with the resources and training to get them there. As "I.T. Manager" that's a fundamental part of your job and if I was your boss and saw this question I'd be a bit concerned as to why you have to ask slashdot how to do that.
It sounds a bit like you're trying to explain your own particular interpretation of copyright. I think you need to instead allow that if you present him with all the facts and make the case as simple and unbiased as possible, he might just come to a different conclusion than you. We can't make our kids think a particular way and part of being a teenager is learning to think and decide things for themselves. Maybe step back a bit from trying to justify your own habits and instead just support him in finding out what he needs in order to work it out for himself. That might still mean you can present some challenging information and questions, but at the end of the day that's all they'll end up being: questions. You might ask him what he thinks is "fair" and "right" and "the best thing for everyone". Find some different angles from which to approach the same issue and see if he can come up with good answers. But ultimately you're going to have to let him make up his own mind and be prepared that he might still think what you've done isn't OK.
Computers are complex. Maybe over time we've come to take that for granted, we're so used to them. But there are many layers of technology underlying any system that's in use these days. It only takes one vulnerability in one of those layers for a hacker to take advantage. Sit back for a moment and truly consider how many lines of code (yes, machine code too) are required to enable even just the display of this web page. Drill down into every element, every piece of hardware, every layer of software. It's complex as f*c&. Making sure that every single one of those layers, every single line of code is completely unbreakable... it's really not as simple as it might first seem.
It's like building anything... there will always be a point of weakness. The strongest steel in the world can still be broken if you apply enough force or if the manufacturing process allows a flaw to creep in. Nothing you make is ever completely and utterly unbreakable, and that goes equally so (if not more) for IT systems that are build on platforms that other people develop before you. Apply that across your multiple layers of hardware and software and there are probably an unlimited number of ways in which a system can fail.
For me the question is fundamentally wrong. I would ask: "Why don't we all understand that security vulnerabilities can never be eliminated?"
Or do what Hilliary did and set up their own server. For all of the fuss that was made about it, she was never actually hacked and most of the emails were eventually released by the state department to anyone who wanted to see them. Goes to show that using government servers doesn't guarantee anything, and that's not even considering people like Snowden.
Trump would turn out to be mostly a non-issue. The party will force him to tone down most of what he has "promised" to do, then he'll find a hostile congress that won't pass even a portion of what's left. The rest will be hopelessly impractical or pointless, like the Mexican border wall or screening of immigrants to see if they'll casually volunteer their hatred for America during an interview. The vast majority of the stuff he's talked about is either total nonsense, already not a real issue or is just so far out there that when it doesn't ultimately get put into practice people will actually be fine with it.
The bottom line with Trump and his supporters is that this is really all about talk. They just want to open their mouths and say whatever they like. And they enjoy the fact that they have some goon in a suit with lots of money who can echo back to them the same crazy stuff that goes on in their head. They don't really care about actually doing anything, they just want to be able to vent. They know that most of what he says, or what they say in support if him, is never going to materialise into anything real, they just like that it can be said out loud. And it's great for Trump because ultimately he can always blame someone else for when nothing actually happens.
So you're absolutely right. The person with real power and influence here is Clinton. She is actually far more dangerous because she'll get things done, and much of that could result in poorly executed foreign policy. She'll get it done because she knows how. Trump will just prance around like an idiot for 4 years, saying random stuff that most of the world will politely ignore, and then go back to being rich.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what I tell a lot of my non-tech friends. This new wave AI that companies are building will do things that seem smart but cannot be interpreted. The machine can't explain itself and we can't explain the machine. This is part of what some people are talking about when they mention the dangers of AI. It doesn't have to turn into an skynet in order to have the potential for bad things to happen, it can be a lot more subtle.
"evidence that firms such as Exxon knew of the impact of climate change for decades, only to downplay and even deny this in public" That's pretty much it. If they knew that their product was doing damage and they worked to suppress this information then that's what they are culpable for. Actually mining and delivery a product that we demanded and paid for ... that's not the kind of thing you sue someone for. But if you sell me something and lie to me in the process, it's the lie that gets you in trouble.
Making sure companies don't lie to the FCC and consumers in general is hardly something to be celebrated as ground breaking. Companies will happily get around this by declining to promise any kind of net neutrality. They'll even be able to make a promise, then go back on it, and so long as they actually make enough public noise about it there would be no avenue to punish them. I can't see the likes of Comcast giving the slightest hoot if customers don't like their policies on traffic shaping, they'll just admit to it openly.
Stop thinking of these guys as "older" an "on their way to retirement". These classifications are a combination of useless stereotypes and assumptions. It doesn't matter. The bottom line is that you have people who need to be trained with new skills to do their job. If you think you have to treat them differently from younger staff members then you're approaching it the wrong way. They will respond to training and taking on of new tasks just the same as anyone else would and if they don't then you can handle it when it happens, not assume it's going to be a problem before you try. Just work out what skills they need and provide them with the resources and training to get them there. As "I.T. Manager" that's a fundamental part of your job and if I was your boss and saw this question I'd be a bit concerned as to why you have to ask slashdot how to do that.
It sounds a bit like you're trying to explain your own particular interpretation of copyright. I think you need to instead allow that if you present him with all the facts and make the case as simple and unbiased as possible, he might just come to a different conclusion than you. We can't make our kids think a particular way and part of being a teenager is learning to think and decide things for themselves. Maybe step back a bit from trying to justify your own habits and instead just support him in finding out what he needs in order to work it out for himself. That might still mean you can present some challenging information and questions, but at the end of the day that's all they'll end up being: questions. You might ask him what he thinks is "fair" and "right" and "the best thing for everyone". Find some different angles from which to approach the same issue and see if he can come up with good answers. But ultimately you're going to have to let him make up his own mind and be prepared that he might still think what you've done isn't OK.
Computers are complex. Maybe over time we've come to take that for granted, we're so used to them. But there are many layers of technology underlying any system that's in use these days. It only takes one vulnerability in one of those layers for a hacker to take advantage. Sit back for a moment and truly consider how many lines of code (yes, machine code too) are required to enable even just the display of this web page. Drill down into every element, every piece of hardware, every layer of software. It's complex as f*c&. Making sure that every single one of those layers, every single line of code is completely unbreakable ... it's really not as simple as it might first seem.
It's like building anything ... there will always be a point of weakness. The strongest steel in the world can still be broken if you apply enough force or if the manufacturing process allows a flaw to creep in. Nothing you make is ever completely and utterly unbreakable, and that goes equally so (if not more) for IT systems that are build on platforms that other people develop before you. Apply that across your multiple layers of hardware and software and there are probably an unlimited number of ways in which a system can fail.
For me the question is fundamentally wrong. I would ask: "Why don't we all understand that security vulnerabilities can never be eliminated?"
Or do what Hilliary did and set up their own server. For all of the fuss that was made about it, she was never actually hacked and most of the emails were eventually released by the state department to anyone who wanted to see them. Goes to show that using government servers doesn't guarantee anything, and that's not even considering people like Snowden.
Trump would turn out to be mostly a non-issue. The party will force him to tone down most of what he has "promised" to do, then he'll find a hostile congress that won't pass even a portion of what's left. The rest will be hopelessly impractical or pointless, like the Mexican border wall or screening of immigrants to see if they'll casually volunteer their hatred for America during an interview. The vast majority of the stuff he's talked about is either total nonsense, already not a real issue or is just so far out there that when it doesn't ultimately get put into practice people will actually be fine with it. The bottom line with Trump and his supporters is that this is really all about talk. They just want to open their mouths and say whatever they like. And they enjoy the fact that they have some goon in a suit with lots of money who can echo back to them the same crazy stuff that goes on in their head. They don't really care about actually doing anything, they just want to be able to vent. They know that most of what he says, or what they say in support if him, is never going to materialise into anything real, they just like that it can be said out loud. And it's great for Trump because ultimately he can always blame someone else for when nothing actually happens. So you're absolutely right. The person with real power and influence here is Clinton. She is actually far more dangerous because she'll get things done, and much of that could result in poorly executed foreign policy. She'll get it done because she knows how. Trump will just prance around like an idiot for 4 years, saying random stuff that most of the world will politely ignore, and then go back to being rich.