Not an easy question, and I'm hardly an expert on legal or ethical matters. But it seems to me that it's unfair to discriminate on traits where there is only an indirect correlation with undesirable outcomes. If men die earlier than women because of physiological traits, then perhaps it's ok to charge them more for life insurance (though insurers and goverments might not do or allow that for other reasons). But what if black people die earlier? Statistically speaking that's probably the case, but there is no direct correlation between being black and dying earlier; a white guy in the same situation probably faces the same odds. Certain groups are generaly poorer and more likely to eat bad foods as a result, more likely to be in gangs, etc... but that has little to do with race and more with their average economic position. So charge them more for life insurance if they are actually in a gang, or eat crappy food, in other words for the stuff that has a direct impact on their life expectancy, but not for skin color.
That has me worried too. Apple seem to be dropping the ball a lot lately, not on bugs but on what they used to be really good at: taking new-ish technology and presenting it in an easy to use, attractive and reliable package. Like the fingerprint scanner in the iPhone, and in fact the iPhone itself is an embodiment of that idea. But where is Apple these days? Take HomeKit: home automation is a field that cries out to be improved in terms of ease of use, security and interoperability. Apple entered that market with... something that we had years ago: remote control of lights from our phones, using WiFi, a protocol ridiculously unsuitable for large scale home automation. They lag behind in maps, voice assistants, and their new smart speaker has little to be exited about. With $250 billion in the bank, you'd think they have the funds and manpower to bring some of that old Apple innovative spirit into new areas and improve on good ideas of others, but no. I still prefer my iPhone over Android ones, but I'm afraid Apple are on their way to become irrelevant.
That's kind of the problem with these algorithms: they are simply applying statistical facts without bothering about causation. Humans tend to do that too, but we've decided that in certain cases its not OK to assume that statistically significant traits of certain groups apply to any individual belonging to that group. It may be true that people of whatever race are statistically more likely to be involved in crime, but it's not OK to deny an individual a loan on that basis, for instance.
But when you use an 'AI' algorithm, can you still tell which criteria were used to reach a decision, and if those criteria were based on the individual, or on superficial (but statistically significant) traits of a group that the individual belongs to? The obvious way to check is then to simply apply statistics to all decisions made by the algorithm... where you will find without a doubt that the 'AI' is 'racist', because that's how statistics work. If you aggregate multiple outcomes that each were reached based on a fair assessment of the individuals in question, you'll still find those bona fide trends that break along racial or sexual lines. And of course the obvious solution is then to apply a racial bias to the algorithm to compensate for 'undesirable' statistical outcomes. In other words: positive action, automated.
If you think that the ability to levy an extra $10 for services they are already supposed to deliver will encourage ISPs to invest in their infrastructure, you're sorely mistaken. Especially in the 'American model' where there is very little competition between ISPs. All of that will just go towards higher profits. And towards buying competitors so that they can take even more advantage of their monopoly.
Healthy competition is key. Over here we used to have a healthy rate of fiber rollout, until one of the telcos bought the fiber company and basically stopped further rollout of fiber. They know they own most of the phone line based internet infra, and compete only against internet over TV cable which is just as crappy, so they decided to not invest in fiber anymore for as long as they can continue to cram data over existing lines. Being allowed to charge extra for faster access to certain services would only postpone the day they run out of bandwidth.
Thankfully there still is some competition so prices are still decent. €40/month gets you 60-100Mb/s over phone or coax, and that generally includes basic cable TV and a phone line. I pay €70/month or so for 500Mb/s on fiber. The infrastructure for that came about on a free market with healthy competition and decent oversight. A nice bonus: the 'commie' EU recently told ISPs that consumers have to be allowed (and enabled) to connect their own equipment to the line, and shouldn't be forced to rent and use the typical shitty ISP routers. Our minister is now working on local laws to put that rule into effect.
Lowering the price of education through the use of computers is a good thing. It doesn't only have to mean we can have more students per teacher, but it can also mean we can make learning material available to people who don't have it. Students in developing countries are teaching themselves all manner of skills, where before they didn't have access to a teacher let alone the right books. And its not basic education (many of them do have that), but advanced subjects and vocational training.
Reaching the reluctant student remains a challenge; computers offer some means like gamification to help challenge them, but I agree that we don't really have a strong success rate on that yet. The one line I heard most when I worked in education innovation is: "the classroom sucks", yes, we all know it does. But when it comes to hard-to-motivate students, I don't think we've come up with anything better. In a classroom at least we can prevent them from running off and being distracted, and hopefully bore them into learning something.
On the web, everyone can be a student, but they also get to be an author or even a teacher if they want. And many people do. In those 15 or 20 seconds, I can find information on programming Arduinos, basic car maintenance, language courses, carpentry, machine learning, keeping an aquarium, astronomy, and first aid for cats. And much of that material has been put there by enthusiasts with no other motivation than a desire to teach. That's real progress. Plato was a remarkable system and ahead of its time, but we've moved on.
Of course they said that and of course they were wrong. Nobody knows exactly when the bubble will burst, otherwise they'd be milking it for all it's worth. Though maybe a good many speculators are actually realistic about the long term prospects of BTC and are in fact just milking it while the going's good. Just keep in mind: when the crash comes, don't think you can unload gradually on the way down. When it comes, it will be extremely hard to get rid of your coins at any price...
Having no net neutrality might be crap for the big guys because they will be first to be forced to pay for access to the fast lane. But this also ensures that they will have an important edge over any upstart newcomer. In the long run, NN repeal is good for them, as it protects the incumbents, albeit at a price. Without net neutrality it will be that much harder to fight the big players.
It's not about the smartness... electronic locks probably don't make much sense in your home, but in a hotel they are a godsent compared to old fashioned locks. But you might want to run the key management software (along with climate control, bookkeeping software and so on) on a separate workstation that is isolated from the Internet.
Who the hell is Kyle Katarn? No, seriously, I know who he is. Though I did like the SW video games, I’m not into that ‘expanded universe’ crap and I don’t consider those games part of the canon. The SW movie series needs to be (somewhat) consistent, the ‘SW story’ movies tie into that, and that’s it. Let the games stand on their own.
Soo what about Kylo Ren, described in TFS as "the most magnetic and unpredictable antagonist since Heath Ledger's Dark Knight Joke". Because I thought Ren was a terrible (as in lame) villain in The Force Awakens. Almost as bad as young Anakin in eps 1-3
Force Awakens at least had that old Star Warsy feeling about it in its appearance. Compared to eps 1-3 which where overdone CGI-fests with Lucas throwing around improbable scenery and digital Muppets.
Meh, I'd rather see a continuation of the existing universe than more reboots and rehashes of the same material. And let's face it: The Force Awakens was rather similar to A New Hope in so many ways as to almost be a reboot. I understand why Disney elected to de-canonize, but I don't understand why they elected to do it the way they did.
On the other hand, Rogue One was a promising start of an alternate approach: stand alone "background" stories set in the same universe, but only passingly involving the main characters or storyline. This gives writers a lot more room to play with the material, while having enough overlap to interest fans and make it a true 'Star Wars story', without having to upset the existing universe too much.
Sure. Let's have some more guys "probing our infrastructure", by going door to door looking for weak or unlocked doors, then drawing our attention to security vulnerabilities by entering our homes and defecating on the bedsheets, and publishing a list of vulnerable locks and how to break them for other providers of this "public service"
No thanks. No, the only "unpleasant figure" in this story is this criminal.
Not saying it doesn't happen at all, but it doesn't seem to have the impact the author claims it has. And people got conned into marches before, by shady action committees or organisations. Even the mainstream ones aren't above spreading fake news to further their cause (see: Greenpeace & Brent Spar). Did social media really make things that much worse? I highly doubt it.
Social media didn't do that, the Internet did. And along with the pieces of shit, the Internet has also brought me little gems in the form of well thought out opinions, novel ideas and viewpoints, and a rather close look at the train of thought and reasoning of people hitherto only known to me as "left", "right", "progressive" or whatever. And a great deal of all that somehow never made it into print media or TV programming.
I also think Palihapitiya is overestimating the effect on society. The effect isn't zero, but going by my friends, colleagues and family, the 'negative' interaction on social media isn't really all that new, it's just more accessible and more widespread. And I've yet to meet a single person who got ruined by social media, or got the wrong ideas based on misinformation. I'm sure there are a few, but society remains unripped on the face of it.
Unless you want a watch that looks at least a little bit like a proper watch. The Samsung watch comes close and looks like soemthing I might wear every day. The Apple watch? Looks really cheap unless you spring for the seriously expensive one with a metal case, and that one only looks slightly less crap.
I own an Apple watch and in terms of functionality it isn't bad. It just looks terrible.
"Walls" actually work pretty well against illegal immigration, whether it's an actual wall, a moat, patrolling guards, coast guard, or something else. They just don't work 100%. This is the same kind of argument people use against improving highways because "the traffic jam will just move a couple of kilometers down the road". By that logic, you could just open up the border and let everyone in.
"Walls don't work" is a meaningless slogan. Instead assess how big an issue Latino immigration actually is, and what impact Trump's wall will actually make compared to what's currently on the border. Not a lot, probably.
Good ones. Though I know several competent developers who have stayed with the same company for 10 or 20 years. They have kept up with their profession and are a far cry from mediocre; they just like to stay in their comfort zone. Problem is: many others in the company assumes they are mediocre because they haven't advanced. A great way to stall their IT career... but it's a career they may not have wanted in the first place. That's not a red flag for mediocrity, these could be excellent hires in their current expertise. Just don't expect future management material amongst them.
TFA glosses over the value of networking, but I think social skills really are an underappreciated asset in tech careers. And yes, social skills are a skill, which you can learn and practice if it doesn't come to you naturally. As an introvert I had to work hard at improving my social skills... and I started later than I should have. But it has paid off in every single assignment I have held since.
If you're really worried, get a decent RF detector (around $100 or so). They work like those bug detectors in the movies, you sweep the room with them to find sources of RF in certain bands. Also, some cameras (pocket photo cams or smart phone cameras) are sensitive to IR, you can test that with a TV remote. If you have such a camera, turn off the lights and use it to find IR sources.
Lastly, most consumer grade hidden cameras are in the form of motion detectors or smoke detectors. Or nanny cams in pluche toys. A closer look at one of these will quickly reveal the fact that it's a camera.
Slashdot Mirror
Not an easy question, and I'm hardly an expert on legal or ethical matters. But it seems to me that it's unfair to discriminate on traits where there is only an indirect correlation with undesirable outcomes. If men die earlier than women because of physiological traits, then perhaps it's ok to charge them more for life insurance (though insurers and goverments might not do or allow that for other reasons). But what if black people die earlier? Statistically speaking that's probably the case, but there is no direct correlation between being black and dying earlier; a white guy in the same situation probably faces the same odds. Certain groups are generaly poorer and more likely to eat bad foods as a result, more likely to be in gangs, etc... but that has little to do with race and more with their average economic position. So charge them more for life insurance if they are actually in a gang, or eat crappy food, in other words for the stuff that has a direct impact on their life expectancy, but not for skin color.
That has me worried too. Apple seem to be dropping the ball a lot lately, not on bugs but on what they used to be really good at: taking new-ish technology and presenting it in an easy to use, attractive and reliable package. Like the fingerprint scanner in the iPhone, and in fact the iPhone itself is an embodiment of that idea. But where is Apple these days? Take HomeKit: home automation is a field that cries out to be improved in terms of ease of use, security and interoperability. Apple entered that market with... something that we had years ago: remote control of lights from our phones, using WiFi, a protocol ridiculously unsuitable for large scale home automation. They lag behind in maps, voice assistants, and their new smart speaker has little to be exited about. With $250 billion in the bank, you'd think they have the funds and manpower to bring some of that old Apple innovative spirit into new areas and improve on good ideas of others, but no. I still prefer my iPhone over Android ones, but I'm afraid Apple are on their way to become irrelevant.
That's kind of the problem with these algorithms: they are simply applying statistical facts without bothering about causation. Humans tend to do that too, but we've decided that in certain cases its not OK to assume that statistically significant traits of certain groups apply to any individual belonging to that group. It may be true that people of whatever race are statistically more likely to be involved in crime, but it's not OK to deny an individual a loan on that basis, for instance.
But when you use an 'AI' algorithm, can you still tell which criteria were used to reach a decision, and if those criteria were based on the individual, or on superficial (but statistically significant) traits of a group that the individual belongs to? The obvious way to check is then to simply apply statistics to all decisions made by the algorithm... where you will find without a doubt that the 'AI' is 'racist', because that's how statistics work. If you aggregate multiple outcomes that each were reached based on a fair assessment of the individuals in question, you'll still find those bona fide trends that break along racial or sexual lines. And of course the obvious solution is then to apply a racial bias to the algorithm to compensate for 'undesirable' statistical outcomes. In other words: positive action, automated.
Those can be useful too.
FB: Someone uploaded this picture of you.
You: That's not me.
FB: Someone uploaded this picture of you.
You: [ silence ].
FB: Thank youuuu.
If you think that the ability to levy an extra $10 for services they are already supposed to deliver will encourage ISPs to invest in their infrastructure, you're sorely mistaken. Especially in the 'American model' where there is very little competition between ISPs. All of that will just go towards higher profits. And towards buying competitors so that they can take even more advantage of their monopoly.
Healthy competition is key. Over here we used to have a healthy rate of fiber rollout, until one of the telcos bought the fiber company and basically stopped further rollout of fiber. They know they own most of the phone line based internet infra, and compete only against internet over TV cable which is just as crappy, so they decided to not invest in fiber anymore for as long as they can continue to cram data over existing lines. Being allowed to charge extra for faster access to certain services would only postpone the day they run out of bandwidth.
Thankfully there still is some competition so prices are still decent. €40/month gets you 60-100Mb/s over phone or coax, and that generally includes basic cable TV and a phone line. I pay €70/month or so for 500Mb/s on fiber. The infrastructure for that came about on a free market with healthy competition and decent oversight. A nice bonus: the 'commie' EU recently told ISPs that consumers have to be allowed (and enabled) to connect their own equipment to the line, and shouldn't be forced to rent and use the typical shitty ISP routers. Our minister is now working on local laws to put that rule into effect.
Lowering the price of education through the use of computers is a good thing. It doesn't only have to mean we can have more students per teacher, but it can also mean we can make learning material available to people who don't have it. Students in developing countries are teaching themselves all manner of skills, where before they didn't have access to a teacher let alone the right books. And its not basic education (many of them do have that), but advanced subjects and vocational training.
Reaching the reluctant student remains a challenge; computers offer some means like gamification to help challenge them, but I agree that we don't really have a strong success rate on that yet. The one line I heard most when I worked in education innovation is: "the classroom sucks", yes, we all know it does. But when it comes to hard-to-motivate students, I don't think we've come up with anything better. In a classroom at least we can prevent them from running off and being distracted, and hopefully bore them into learning something.
On the web, everyone can be a student, but they also get to be an author or even a teacher if they want. And many people do. In those 15 or 20 seconds, I can find information on programming Arduinos, basic car maintenance, language courses, carpentry, machine learning, keeping an aquarium, astronomy, and first aid for cats. And much of that material has been put there by enthusiasts with no other motivation than a desire to teach. That's real progress. Plato was a remarkable system and ahead of its time, but we've moved on.
Of course they said that and of course they were wrong. Nobody knows exactly when the bubble will burst, otherwise they'd be milking it for all it's worth. Though maybe a good many speculators are actually realistic about the long term prospects of BTC and are in fact just milking it while the going's good. Just keep in mind: when the crash comes, don't think you can unload gradually on the way down. When it comes, it will be extremely hard to get rid of your coins at any price...
Having no net neutrality might be crap for the big guys because they will be first to be forced to pay for access to the fast lane. But this also ensures that they will have an important edge over any upstart newcomer. In the long run, NN repeal is good for them, as it protects the incumbents, albeit at a price. Without net neutrality it will be that much harder to fight the big players.
It's not about the smartness... electronic locks probably don't make much sense in your home, but in a hotel they are a godsent compared to old fashioned locks. But you might want to run the key management software (along with climate control, bookkeeping software and so on) on a separate workstation that is isolated from the Internet.
ICO = buying them from the founders. Well, technically from the company they founded. Same difference.
Buy them from the founders, I suppose.
Who the hell is Kyle Katarn? No, seriously, I know who he is. Though I did like the SW video games, I’m not into that ‘expanded universe’ crap and I don’t consider those games part of the canon. The SW movie series needs to be (somewhat) consistent, the ‘SW story’ movies tie into that, and that’s it. Let the games stand on their own.
Dystopian would be hiring ED209 for the job, not some thing covered in kitty pictures. "You have 10 seconds to comply"
Soo what about Kylo Ren, described in TFS as "the most magnetic and unpredictable antagonist since Heath Ledger's Dark Knight Joke". Because I thought Ren was a terrible (as in lame) villain in The Force Awakens. Almost as bad as young Anakin in eps 1-3
Force Awakens at least had that old Star Warsy feeling about it in its appearance. Compared to eps 1-3 which where overdone CGI-fests with Lucas throwing around improbable scenery and digital Muppets.
Meh, I'd rather see a continuation of the existing universe than more reboots and rehashes of the same material. And let's face it: The Force Awakens was rather similar to A New Hope in so many ways as to almost be a reboot. I understand why Disney elected to de-canonize, but I don't understand why they elected to do it the way they did.
On the other hand, Rogue One was a promising start of an alternate approach: stand alone "background" stories set in the same universe, but only passingly involving the main characters or storyline. This gives writers a lot more room to play with the material, while having enough overlap to interest fans and make it a true 'Star Wars story', without having to upset the existing universe too much.
I thought Return of the Jedi was worthy as well, it has everything a good SW story needs... could have done without the damn Ewoks though.
Sure. Let's have some more guys "probing our infrastructure", by going door to door looking for weak or unlocked doors, then drawing our attention to security vulnerabilities by entering our homes and defecating on the bedsheets, and publishing a list of vulnerable locks and how to break them for other providers of this "public service"
No thanks. No, the only "unpleasant figure" in this story is this criminal.
Not saying it doesn't happen at all, but it doesn't seem to have the impact the author claims it has. And people got conned into marches before, by shady action committees or organisations. Even the mainstream ones aren't above spreading fake news to further their cause (see: Greenpeace & Brent Spar). Did social media really make things that much worse? I highly doubt it.
Social media didn't do that, the Internet did. And along with the pieces of shit, the Internet has also brought me little gems in the form of well thought out opinions, novel ideas and viewpoints, and a rather close look at the train of thought and reasoning of people hitherto only known to me as "left", "right", "progressive" or whatever. And a great deal of all that somehow never made it into print media or TV programming.
I also think Palihapitiya is overestimating the effect on society. The effect isn't zero, but going by my friends, colleagues and family, the 'negative' interaction on social media isn't really all that new, it's just more accessible and more widespread. And I've yet to meet a single person who got ruined by social media, or got the wrong ideas based on misinformation. I'm sure there are a few, but society remains unripped on the face of it.
Unless you want a watch that looks at least a little bit like a proper watch. The Samsung watch comes close and looks like soemthing I might wear every day. The Apple watch? Looks really cheap unless you spring for the seriously expensive one with a metal case, and that one only looks slightly less crap.
I own an Apple watch and in terms of functionality it isn't bad. It just looks terrible.
"Walls" actually work pretty well against illegal immigration, whether it's an actual wall, a moat, patrolling guards, coast guard, or something else. They just don't work 100%. This is the same kind of argument people use against improving highways because "the traffic jam will just move a couple of kilometers down the road". By that logic, you could just open up the border and let everyone in.
"Walls don't work" is a meaningless slogan. Instead assess how big an issue Latino immigration actually is, and what impact Trump's wall will actually make compared to what's currently on the border. Not a lot, probably.
Good ones. Though I know several competent developers who have stayed with the same company for 10 or 20 years. They have kept up with their profession and are a far cry from mediocre; they just like to stay in their comfort zone. Problem is: many others in the company assumes they are mediocre because they haven't advanced. A great way to stall their IT career... but it's a career they may not have wanted in the first place. That's not a red flag for mediocrity, these could be excellent hires in their current expertise. Just don't expect future management material amongst them.
TFA glosses over the value of networking, but I think social skills really are an underappreciated asset in tech careers. And yes, social skills are a skill, which you can learn and practice if it doesn't come to you naturally. As an introvert I had to work hard at improving my social skills... and I started later than I should have. But it has paid off in every single assignment I have held since.
If you're really worried, get a decent RF detector (around $100 or so). They work like those bug detectors in the movies, you sweep the room with them to find sources of RF in certain bands. Also, some cameras (pocket photo cams or smart phone cameras) are sensitive to IR, you can test that with a TV remote. If you have such a camera, turn off the lights and use it to find IR sources.
Lastly, most consumer grade hidden cameras are in the form of motion detectors or smoke detectors. Or nanny cams in pluche toys. A closer look at one of these will quickly reveal the fact that it's a camera.