. . . if the same judge would so vociferously enforce the Constitution and "protect netizens" if the political parties were reversed, e.g., hypothetical President Hillary's DoJ demanding the weblogs of hypothetical-conservative-site.org.
Yes. Yes he would.
Of course that presumes that Clinton would have made such a request in the first place, which she wouldn't have, because it was extraordinarily inappropriate.
This is not how this goes. Kaspersky is a pretty good AV company. They have sensors and are probably finding NSA malware all on their own without being told about it. They may then get a request to remove certain signatures, though.
Which tells Kaspersky that a certain piece of malware come from the NSA, which then potentially tells Russian Intelligence what systems the NSA is targeting and what information they may have collected.
I still don't see the NSA telling Kaspersky about it's malware.
My one and only accepted story submission turned out to be the launch article for apple.slashdot.org
My little piece of Slashdot history.... otherwise, my comments have been consistently useless for 20 years now.
I never got into story submissions but several years ago/. went through a phase where they would post articles that highlighted specific comments from a previous article. I think one of my comments was in the first such article they posted.
I do credit/. with improving my writing skills, the community and moderation system do a good job of rewarding people who can make a clear but meaningful point, I think/. is the only site I visit for the comments more than the article.
For example, in my own nation (Norway) we have a high rate of gun ownership, but "for protection" is simply not a valid reason to buy a firearm.
The pattern I've noticed in the U.S. is that densely populated areas with relatively fast police response times (a few minutes) generally favor gun control. Sparsely populated areas with slow police response times (15+ minutes) generally favor individual gun ownership. The "you don't own a gun so you call someone with a gun (police) to protect you" argument has very different connotations depending on which type of area you live in.
I'm not sure what sort of solution this suggests, if any. Increased police presence in rural areas (to maintain the same number of cops per square mile and thus the same response time) is probably unfeasible. Just pointing out the pattern I've noticed and why some of the pro/anti gun control arguments which ring true in one location may sound like total nonsense in another.
Possibly, though the urban/rural divide covers more things than gun.
I think another part is that hunting is a lot more feasible in rural areas, and guns may be useful for ranchers to protect livestock. In urban areas they're really only useful for shooting other people.
Urbanites also tend to see more value in communal goods, and the idea of having a lot of guns around doesn't feel very safe in a city.
The fact is, whenever the news of a "active shooter killing spree" comes out the very FIRST thought people have is "Oh, where in the US is it this time??".
Actually it's "what's the ethnicity, religion, and political affiliation of the shooter(s)?"
It's distasteful, but they want to know because it's a really important question.
If the shooter is an Arab Muslim you're going to see a push for more Muslim bans, racial profiling, deportations, not to mention a jump in hate crimes.
If the shooter is a Mexican illegal you're going to see the end of DACA and a bunch of people getting deported from the only country they've ever known.
As it is, the shooter is white, his political affiliation and even religion don't really matter. His tribe, white people, is strong enough that they're at no risk of discrimination in the US. Thankfully we'll be able to spend more time mourning the victims this time around.
Electric cars don't work when the power goes out, ICE powered cars do.
Gas pumps need electricity to pump the gas. If your gas station is out of power then you're not getting any gas.
On the other hand, during an emergency if your charging station does have power then you can charge your car, even if the fuel trucks can't get through.
And you also have the option of charging your car at your house with a generator or solar panels (though that would be pretty inefficient).
Why is snopes considered more trustworthy than any other biased aggregator?
Why are you copping out by throwing your hands in the air and proclaiming "there is no truth"?
Snopes, FactCheck, the NYTimes, the WaPost, and many other "biased liberal" publications are generally very reliable, they have an established record of being much better than the opposing sources you probably favour.
In the unusual instance where there is a major error you're free to point it out.
But if you actually gave a damn about whether the story was correct you wouldn't be discounting reliable resources on the grounds they disagree with you.
Hmm....CDC == Center for Disease Control.....ok, I'm trying to figure out why the CDC would be the organization to study gun violence....I mean, what disease is gun violence caused by?
From their website: CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same.
And: CDC's Role: -Detecting and responding to new and emerging health threats -Tackling the biggest health problems causing death and disability for Americans -Putting science and advanced technology into action to prevent disease -Promoting healthy and safe behaviors, communities and environment -Developing leaders and training the public health workforce, including disease detectives -Taking the health pulse of our nation
The CDC looks at big public health questions, understanding causes of gun violence is something they'd probably be good at for the same reasons they're looking at the Opiod epidemic.
Ok Google, I get it. Us plebs don't deserve good security.
Well, certainly no other account in a company would be worth securing, right? I mean what access would those piss-ant IT SysAdmins have? I mean, it's not like they control the entire server farm...
Is your sysadmin controlling the server farm with their Gmail login? I think you might want a new sysadmin.
Google accounts don't contain technically sensitive information, they contain personally and organizationally sensitive information. The risk is the attacker can compromise an account belonging to someone important (ie, Clinton's campaign manager) and obtains a bunch of sensitive information. Your sysadmin shouldn't have that kind of info in their account.
Now there's an impersonation risk, but unusual requests tend to result in confirmation through other lines of communication,
But is it really? Trolls are deliberately offensive posts with the singular goal of upsetting people. This seems like a very clear list of reasons why many people think Apple has fallen from grace.
Just because a few fans will get upset that their favourite religion is attacked doesn't mean the article is automatically a troll article.
Agreed, troll was the wrong word, but it is flamebait. The main emphasis isn't on the list of reasons, it's on the overbroad conclusion. That's the type of post that tends to attract arguments more than constructive discussion.
The surprising thing is it didn't spawn a lot of Apple defenders, that's not a good thing for Apple.
Oh, and for a concrete example of what I was talking about. I was just using my Apple laptop a couple minutes ago and a popup came up asking me if I wanted to install some updates. I clicked "Install", the popup went away, and nothing happened.
I finally noticed LaunchPad seemed to be doing something in the Dock, something about downloading some little file, it finished, and again nothing happened. I clicked on LaunchPad and it opened but had nothing to do with updates.
Finally, I went searching through the system menus and found App Store showing a pending updated, I clicked, asked it to install the update, and found out I was short of disk space.
So just to be clear, the OS asked me if I wanted to do X, I said Yes, and then it proceeded to either silently fail or silently not even try. That is an awful interface.
But it does reflect something I've noticed with recent generations of Mac OS, the design is quite beautiful but the usability can be terrible.
There's two main areas of trouble I find. First, Apple has a very specific idea for how you're going to use the system, and they simplify as much as possible by removing things unrelated to the tasks they had in mind. But then the moment you do something slightly different you're pretty much out of luck.
Second, they seem to have a thing for buttons or menu options that don't have any feedback or help available. I've had a number of instances where I've clicked/selected something had absolutely zero feedback for 30 seconds. It's not that the system was lagged or anything, it's just that they apparently thought feedback wouldn't be pretty enough.
It's honestly given me some good lessons about what not to do when I'm designing my own applications.
Seriously... Why does every main character *have*to be a minority woman? This liberal SJW crap probably ruined what could have been a great show.
And by "every" you mean "one"?
We don't know what the actual show will be like but the friggin' captain is a white male, I'm guessing he'll be more than an occasional guest star (unless he gets killed off, then there will surely be other white males in the cast).
And how many shows have a main cast that is entirely white male with a token female and a token minority?
Because if one race and gender are being blamed for all evil in the world, that's a very dangerous problem. That has happened before, and it always ends very badly.
That's a completely inaccurate view of the situation.
There is a big difference between women and minorities being given better representation in a TV show and "white males being blamed for all the evil in the world". White males are still extraordinarily privileged in western society, unhinged allusions to some sort of upcoming white male genocide notwithstanding.
If you want to understand what real oppression is then try empathizing with a woman or minority.
That's the problem. They don't seem to realise this.
Is it a problem for them?
The OP is already subscribed to a single streaming service, if they released every show on each streaming service the OP would still be subscribed to a single streaming service.
But by breaking up the market there's a bunch of people who subscribe to more than one streaming service.
It sucks for the consumer but it's great for the industry.
The idea that you develop more rapidly in weakly typed languages (and, implicitly, the importance of maximizing development time) seems to stem from two erroneous assumptions.
The first is that we spend the majority of our time developing. This may be true for hobbyist programmers and possibly even consulting work for small projects. For any effort beyond that, which is the majority of paid programming work and popular open source products, the majority of time is spent fixing bugs.
I wasn't ignoring maintenance costs.
My argument is about complexity, strongly typed languages eliminate a category of bugs at the cost of more complexity. Complexity increases both development and maintenance costs.
The second is that strongly typed languages have to be slower to develop. In almost every domain at almost every level of complexity, I find Scala faster to develop in than Python.
This may be true, I was speaking to my general experience but different languages can change the equation.
For any large scale project, if the IDE can allow you to click through to a definition of a complex type or method definition, this saves oodles and oodles of time because we need to understand what we're calling and reading the code often is faster than reading the manual and deducing where it lied to you. If you're not calling code you didn't write, you're not doing something sufficiently complex as to really be interesting or you're writing something embedded in which case the focus on reducing bugs is even more important. Statically typed languages do a much better job of giving you this reference automatically.
This is one of the reasons I shy away from weakly typed languages on larger projects, the ambiguity starts adding complexity.
For any large scale project, if the IDE can allow you to click through to a definition of a complex type or method definition, this saves oodles and oodles of time because we need to understand what we're calling and reading the code often is faster than reading the manual and deducing where it lied to you. If you're not calling code you didn't write, you're not doing something sufficiently complex as to really be interesting or you're writing something embedded in which case the focus on reducing bugs is even more important. Statically typed languages do a much better job of giving you this reference automatically.
It depends on the task, one thing I really like python for is it's a cheap way to build complimentary programs to a main project. I can build those programs much faster than C/C++ and with fewer bugs. Of course I don't have any experience with Scala, it might be an even better language for those tasks.
Exactly what I was thinking. It isn't just that the end code might have 15% fewer bugs development will be quicker/more confident because a bunch of the stupid little mistakes you make while coding are automatically checked for and swigglies tell you fix them right away.
Except that weakly typed languages, Python, JS, and Perl, tend to more concise and quicker to write than strongly typed languages such as C, C++, and Java.
It really depends on the resources you're willing to invest in the project. If you have a good staff and are willing to invest the time then a strongly typed language can give you something more reliable.
But if you're investing fewer resources than weakly typed might be the way to go, you'll miss some dumb bugs due to the typing but you have less complexity overall, and that will give you a more stable product more quickly.
In fact, his pursuing rigorous legal claims over such a stupid use makes him prone to parody or satire, which opens up fair use even further.
Well played!
From your link: In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an infringement.
Alt-right Pepe memes do not "comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work". They use his work to "comment upon, criticize, or parody" unrelated targets.
I can make a cartoon that parodies The Simpsons, Family Guy has an element of that.
But I can't make a cartoon parodying environmentalists staring Homer Simpson. Fox would sue me out of existence.
The guy seriously doesn't have a fucking clue about AI. I've been studying the field for over 15 years and I've barely scratched the surface. Elon hasn't done shit with AI and can't speak from any experience.
The question isn't whether he's an expert in AI, it's whether he's a expert in strong AI. Which he isn't.
The problem is that you aren't an expert in strong AI either, you can't be because it doesn't exist.
Asking a AI researcher about the threat posed by strong AI is like asking a physicist from 1900 about the possibility of a bomb that could destroy a city.
They could have speculated, but their speculation wouldn't have been much better than that of any other reasonably smart person.
The physics they knew wouldn't of helped them predict Nuclear weapons, and the AI science you doesn't help you understand strong AIs.
I've never taken a loan, what does that poll question even mean? Is the premise that I'm going to be able to borrow a billion dollars, invest it, and retire living off the interest because I'll only have to pay off the principal?
That only 50% of people would give up voting for that kind of power is astounding.
I think there is a serious discussion hidden in there, voting is a social responsibility, not an act for which you derive personal benefit. How much personal cost people are willing to endure in order to exercise that responsibility is an important question. A question that comes up every election when some populations suddenly find they need forms of ID they don't normally acquire, or their district suddenly doesn't have sufficient polling stations. The question of how much cost they're willing to endure can decide elections.
I just find these survey questions to be nonsensical.
seriously unlikely, Russia are more likely to do such an attack in far better locations where they are not going to be a prime suspect. Similar to the Cuban's it makes no sense for the Russians to be the source of the attacks either.
The motive for Russia wouldn't be to spy or harm Americans, the motive would be to sour the relationship between Cuba and the US, so that Cuba remains under Russian influence.
It doesn't make any sense that the Cuban government is doing this.
Yes it does. People have this weird blindspot where they readily accept that their own society has factions, but are far more willing to believe that their adversaries are monolithic. Obama opened up relations with Cuba, and there is opposition to that by hardliners in America. But there is also OPPOSITION IN CUBA, because they have their own hardliners, who see Raul's opening to the imperialists as a betrayal of the ideals of the revolution. Some of those rejectionist hardliners are in powerful positions, and it is likely that they are doing this to sabotage relations between America and Cuba, and possibly even get rid of Raul and the Castro dynasty.
Alternately this was a surveillance operation gone awry, they were trying to spy on the diplomats using some kind of ultrasonic imaging device and screwed up. Either the tech was way more dangerous than they thought or the operators miscalibrated it.
Slashdot Mirror
. . . if the same judge would so vociferously enforce the Constitution and "protect netizens" if the political parties were reversed, e.g., hypothetical President Hillary's DoJ demanding the weblogs of hypothetical-conservative-site.org.
Yes. Yes he would.
Of course that presumes that Clinton would have made such a request in the first place, which she wouldn't have, because it was extraordinarily inappropriate.
This is not how this goes. Kaspersky is a pretty good AV company. They have sensors and are probably finding NSA malware all on their own without being told about it. They may then get a request to remove certain signatures, though.
Which tells Kaspersky that a certain piece of malware come from the NSA, which then potentially tells Russian Intelligence what systems the NSA is targeting and what information they may have collected.
I still don't see the NSA telling Kaspersky about it's malware.
You think the NSA told a Russian Security company with possible ties to the Russian government about its walware?
These are folks who spread f*k* news I know.
You keep using that phrase, I do not think it means what you think it means.
That was the first thing that entered my mind. His laptop HD wasn't encrypted?
How many people here don't do proper backups?
My one and only accepted story submission turned out to be the launch article for apple.slashdot.org
My little piece of Slashdot history .... otherwise, my comments have been consistently useless for 20 years now.
I never got into story submissions but several years ago /. went through a phase where they would post articles that highlighted specific comments from a previous article. I think one of my comments was in the first such article they posted.
I do credit /. with improving my writing skills, the community and moderation system do a good job of rewarding people who can make a clear but meaningful point, I think /. is the only site I visit for the comments more than the article.
Dammit, that didn't make any sense.
I guess it's time to close up shop on my Betteridge's law of headlines auto-responder consultancy.
At least business is booming at my Poe's Law-firm.
The pattern I've noticed in the U.S. is that densely populated areas with relatively fast police response times (a few minutes) generally favor gun control. Sparsely populated areas with slow police response times (15+ minutes) generally favor individual gun ownership. The "you don't own a gun so you call someone with a gun (police) to protect you" argument has very different connotations depending on which type of area you live in.
I'm not sure what sort of solution this suggests, if any. Increased police presence in rural areas (to maintain the same number of cops per square mile and thus the same response time) is probably unfeasible. Just pointing out the pattern I've noticed and why some of the pro/anti gun control arguments which ring true in one location may sound like total nonsense in another.
Possibly, though the urban/rural divide covers more things than gun.
I think another part is that hunting is a lot more feasible in rural areas, and guns may be useful for ranchers to protect livestock. In urban areas they're really only useful for shooting other people.
Urbanites also tend to see more value in communal goods, and the idea of having a lot of guns around doesn't feel very safe in a city.
The fact is, whenever the news of a "active shooter killing spree" comes out the very FIRST thought people have is "Oh, where in the US is it this time??".
Actually it's "what's the ethnicity, religion, and political affiliation of the shooter(s)?"
It's distasteful, but they want to know because it's a really important question.
If the shooter is an Arab Muslim you're going to see a push for more Muslim bans, racial profiling, deportations, not to mention a jump in hate crimes.
If the shooter is a Mexican illegal you're going to see the end of DACA and a bunch of people getting deported from the only country they've ever known.
As it is, the shooter is white, his political affiliation and even religion don't really matter. His tribe, white people, is strong enough that they're at no risk of discrimination in the US. Thankfully we'll be able to spend more time mourning the victims this time around.
Electric cars don't work when the power goes out, ICE powered cars do.
Gas pumps need electricity to pump the gas. If your gas station is out of power then you're not getting any gas.
On the other hand, during an emergency if your charging station does have power then you can charge your car, even if the fuel trucks can't get through.
And you also have the option of charging your car at your house with a generator or solar panels (though that would be pretty inefficient).
Why is snopes considered more trustworthy than any other biased aggregator?
Why are you copping out by throwing your hands in the air and proclaiming "there is no truth"?
Snopes, FactCheck, the NYTimes, the WaPost, and many other "biased liberal" publications are generally very reliable, they have an established record of being much better than the opposing sources you probably favour.
In the unusual instance where there is a major error you're free to point it out.
But if you actually gave a damn about whether the story was correct you wouldn't be discounting reliable resources on the grounds they disagree with you.
Hmm....CDC == Center for Disease Control.....ok, I'm trying to figure out why the CDC would be the organization to study gun violence....I mean, what disease is gun violence caused by?
From their website:
CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same.
And:
CDC's Role:
-Detecting and responding to new and emerging health threats
-Tackling the biggest health problems causing death and disability for Americans
-Putting science and advanced technology into action to prevent disease
-Promoting healthy and safe behaviors, communities and environment
-Developing leaders and training the public health workforce, including disease detectives
-Taking the health pulse of our nation
The CDC looks at big public health questions, understanding causes of gun violence is something they'd probably be good at for the same reasons they're looking at the Opiod epidemic.
Ok Google, I get it. Us plebs don't deserve good security.
Well, certainly no other account in a company would be worth securing, right? I mean what access would those piss-ant IT SysAdmins have? I mean, it's not like they control the entire server farm...
Is your sysadmin controlling the server farm with their Gmail login? I think you might want a new sysadmin.
Google accounts don't contain technically sensitive information, they contain personally and organizationally sensitive information. The risk is the attacker can compromise an account belonging to someone important (ie, Clinton's campaign manager) and obtains a bunch of sensitive information. Your sysadmin shouldn't have that kind of info in their account.
Now there's an impersonation risk, but unusual requests tend to result in confirmation through other lines of communication,
But is it really? Trolls are deliberately offensive posts with the singular goal of upsetting people. This seems like a very clear list of reasons why many people think Apple has fallen from grace.
Just because a few fans will get upset that their favourite religion is attacked doesn't mean the article is automatically a troll article.
Agreed, troll was the wrong word, but it is flamebait. The main emphasis isn't on the list of reasons, it's on the overbroad conclusion. That's the type of post that tends to attract arguments more than constructive discussion.
The surprising thing is it didn't spawn a lot of Apple defenders, that's not a good thing for Apple.
Oh, and for a concrete example of what I was talking about. I was just using my Apple laptop a couple minutes ago and a popup came up asking me if I wanted to install some updates. I clicked "Install", the popup went away, and nothing happened.
I finally noticed LaunchPad seemed to be doing something in the Dock, something about downloading some little file, it finished, and again nothing happened. I clicked on LaunchPad and it opened but had nothing to do with updates.
Finally, I went searching through the system menus and found App Store showing a pending updated, I clicked, asked it to install the update, and found out I was short of disk space.
So just to be clear, the OS asked me if I wanted to do X, I said Yes, and then it proceeded to either silently fail or silently not even try. That is an awful interface.
But it does reflect something I've noticed with recent generations of Mac OS, the design is quite beautiful but the usability can be terrible.
There's two main areas of trouble I find. First, Apple has a very specific idea for how you're going to use the system, and they simplify as much as possible by removing things unrelated to the tasks they had in mind. But then the moment you do something slightly different you're pretty much out of luck.
Second, they seem to have a thing for buttons or menu options that don't have any feedback or help available. I've had a number of instances where I've clicked/selected something had absolutely zero feedback for 30 seconds. It's not that the system was lagged or anything, it's just that they apparently thought feedback wouldn't be pretty enough.
It's honestly given me some good lessons about what not to do when I'm designing my own applications.
Seriously... Why does every main character *have*to be a minority woman? This liberal SJW crap probably ruined what could have been a great show.
And by "every" you mean "one"?
We don't know what the actual show will be like but the friggin' captain is a white male, I'm guessing he'll be more than an occasional guest star (unless he gets killed off, then there will surely be other white males in the cast).
And how many shows have a main cast that is entirely white male with a token female and a token minority?
What does a persons colour matter to you ?
Because if one race and gender are being blamed for all evil in the world, that's a very dangerous problem. That has happened before, and it always ends very badly.
That's a completely inaccurate view of the situation.
There is a big difference between women and minorities being given better representation in a TV show and "white males being blamed for all the evil in the world". White males are still extraordinarily privileged in western society, unhinged allusions to some sort of upcoming white male genocide notwithstanding.
If you want to understand what real oppression is then try empathizing with a woman or minority.
That's the problem. They don't seem to realise this.
Is it a problem for them?
The OP is already subscribed to a single streaming service, if they released every show on each streaming service the OP would still be subscribed to a single streaming service.
But by breaking up the market there's a bunch of people who subscribe to more than one streaming service.
It sucks for the consumer but it's great for the industry.
The idea that you develop more rapidly in weakly typed languages (and, implicitly, the importance of maximizing development time) seems to stem from two erroneous assumptions.
The first is that we spend the majority of our time developing. This may be true for hobbyist programmers and possibly even consulting work for small projects. For any effort beyond that, which is the majority of paid programming work and popular open source products, the majority of time is spent fixing bugs.
I wasn't ignoring maintenance costs.
My argument is about complexity, strongly typed languages eliminate a category of bugs at the cost of more complexity. Complexity increases both development and maintenance costs.
The second is that strongly typed languages have to be slower to develop. In almost every domain at almost every level of complexity, I find Scala faster to develop in than Python.
This may be true, I was speaking to my general experience but different languages can change the equation.
For any large scale project, if the IDE can allow you to click through to a definition of a complex type or method definition, this saves oodles and oodles of time because we need to understand what we're calling and reading the code often is faster than reading the manual and deducing where it lied to you. If you're not calling code you didn't write, you're not doing something sufficiently complex as to really be interesting or you're writing something embedded in which case the focus on reducing bugs is even more important. Statically typed languages do a much better job of giving you this reference automatically.
This is one of the reasons I shy away from weakly typed languages on larger projects, the ambiguity starts adding complexity.
For any large scale project, if the IDE can allow you to click through to a definition of a complex type or method definition, this saves oodles and oodles of time because we need to understand what we're calling and reading the code often is faster than reading the manual and deducing where it lied to you. If you're not calling code you didn't write, you're not doing something sufficiently complex as to really be interesting or you're writing something embedded in which case the focus on reducing bugs is even more important. Statically typed languages do a much better job of giving you this reference automatically.
It depends on the task, one thing I really like python for is it's a cheap way to build complimentary programs to a main project. I can build those programs much faster than C/C++ and with fewer bugs. Of course I don't have any experience with Scala, it might be an even better language for those tasks.
Exactly what I was thinking. It isn't just that the end code might have 15% fewer bugs development will be quicker/more confident because a bunch of the stupid little mistakes you make while coding are automatically checked for and swigglies tell you fix them right away.
Except that weakly typed languages, Python, JS, and Perl, tend to more concise and quicker to write than strongly typed languages such as C, C++, and Java.
It really depends on the resources you're willing to invest in the project. If you have a good staff and are willing to invest the time then a strongly typed language can give you something more reliable.
But if you're investing fewer resources than weakly typed might be the way to go, you'll miss some dumb bugs due to the typing but you have less complexity overall, and that will give you a more stable product more quickly.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/ov...
In fact, his pursuing rigorous legal claims over such a stupid use makes him prone to parody or satire, which opens up fair use even further.
Well played!
From your link:
In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an infringement.
Alt-right Pepe memes do not "comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work". They use his work to "comment upon, criticize, or parody" unrelated targets.
I can make a cartoon that parodies The Simpsons, Family Guy has an element of that.
But I can't make a cartoon parodying environmentalists staring Homer Simpson. Fox would sue me out of existence.
The guy seriously doesn't have a fucking clue about AI. I've been studying the field for over 15 years and I've barely scratched the surface. Elon hasn't done shit with AI and can't speak from any experience.
The question isn't whether he's an expert in AI, it's whether he's a expert in strong AI. Which he isn't.
The problem is that you aren't an expert in strong AI either, you can't be because it doesn't exist.
Asking a AI researcher about the threat posed by strong AI is like asking a physicist from 1900 about the possibility of a bomb that could destroy a city.
They could have speculated, but their speculation wouldn't have been much better than that of any other reasonably smart person.
The physics they knew wouldn't of helped them predict Nuclear weapons, and the AI science you doesn't help you understand strong AIs.
I've never taken a loan, what does that poll question even mean? Is the premise that I'm going to be able to borrow a billion dollars, invest it, and retire living off the interest because I'll only have to pay off the principal?
That only 50% of people would give up voting for that kind of power is astounding.
I think there is a serious discussion hidden in there, voting is a social responsibility, not an act for which you derive personal benefit. How much personal cost people are willing to endure in order to exercise that responsibility is an important question. A question that comes up every election when some populations suddenly find they need forms of ID they don't normally acquire, or their district suddenly doesn't have sufficient polling stations. The question of how much cost they're willing to endure can decide elections.
I just find these survey questions to be nonsensical.
seriously unlikely, Russia are more likely to do such an attack in far better locations where they are not going to be a prime suspect. Similar to the Cuban's it makes no sense for the Russians to be the source of the attacks either.
The motive for Russia wouldn't be to spy or harm Americans, the motive would be to sour the relationship between Cuba and the US, so that Cuba remains under Russian influence.
It doesn't make any sense that the Cuban government is doing this.
Yes it does. People have this weird blindspot where they readily accept that their own society has factions, but are far more willing to believe that their adversaries are monolithic. Obama opened up relations with Cuba, and there is opposition to that by hardliners in America. But there is also OPPOSITION IN CUBA, because they have their own hardliners, who see Raul's opening to the imperialists as a betrayal of the ideals of the revolution. Some of those rejectionist hardliners are in powerful positions, and it is likely that they are doing this to sabotage relations between America and Cuba, and possibly even get rid of Raul and the Castro dynasty.
Alternately this was a surveillance operation gone awry, they were trying to spy on the diplomats using some kind of ultrasonic imaging device and screwed up. Either the tech was way more dangerous than they thought or the operators miscalibrated it.