We're living the story, right? Or does everyone really believe that nobody is using big data to figure out exactly where to give little pushes in our society to create huge real-world changes in the directions societies are taking? Do people believe the manipulations throughout social media currently surfacing were done without the benefit of new data and new maths?
That removal is now a business critical action. The concept of what actions will show that a service took reasonable precautions to prevent being a party to any trafficking will be a moving bar defined by 12 jurors at a time.
Also, what sites this applies to is very unclear. To be safe, you had better be reading it as all sites on which people may publicly or privately communicate. News sites with editors approving every article and no commenting allowed should be safe, but little else.
It is also not limited to written communication. Microsoft, for example, understands this. It is certainly the reason for the Skype censorship recently in the news.
We should see censorship announcements in all of the email systems and all messaging systems of any type start pouring out in the near future. Facetime, for example, is at its root an internet service. Even most phone traffic today could be argued to be internet service though, other, more explicit laws, may override censoring them.
I've been contemplating how to relate this to the real world.
I think this is equivalent to being able to criminally and civilly charge a hotel chain if any prostitution occurs on their property that they didn't take measures to stop. They must then spy on all of their clients to at least try to be able to prove that they were taking reasonable steps to make sure that no prostitution is occurring on their property. Since that would be nearly impossible to perfectly perform, the only solution they'd have to be truly safe from any prosecution is to not allow any more than one person in a room at a time.
All of that leads me to question whether this law is an attempt to ban social discourse on the web because the only effective defense is to not allow more than one person in a conversation.
That's one way to look at it. Here is another that clarifies reality by removing the "value" distortion and just looking at wafer capacity. Note that the combined capacity of Taiwan (China) and China is 32.1% of world output. The US is not split out but combined into North American capacity of 13.4% of world output, barely more than China when this was published and dwarfed by Taiwan. If we were to group "Asian" capacity in the same fashion, it would show that Asian capacity is about 3/4 of world output.
Yes. I was just saying that you can't exempt the raw materials because the labor to get the raw materials could be performed in the US in nearly all cases. Even in the cases of the rare metals everyone panics about, we have large deposits of most that we choose not to admit exist.
Maybe... I'd agree if there are no known reserves here that that could be an exclusion. But, contrary to what we've been guided to believe, we have large deposits of virtually everything we need at home. We just choose not to develop them. I think that is a combination of NIMBY and a strategic move to manipulate via NIMBY to maintain our reserves while using those of others.
No, but until the chip, display, battery, circuit card, and other component manufacturers move back (though especially the ones that require real science and tech), the US doesn't manufacture computers, it assembles them. The computer is what's inside, not the case. I've run computers without a case before.
On their side, after carefully reading the article, this isn't just "final" assembly - it is a hair past that. They are already doing something they are calling final assembly in this country. There are indications in the article that they will at least be truly manufacturing the case, the lowest tech aspect of the job. This is one little piece more than most end-users can actually do for themselves though making your own case, even for a laptop, is not terribly difficult and can be quite rewarding.
Perhaps they are also making the circuit cards here but I didn't see an indication of that in the article.
It would be really nice if the government would fix the "made in america" requirements to at least require that half of the dollars paid on the device itself (not counting non-value added activities like marketing) have their final resting place within the country. That wouldn't be a perfect measure, but it would cut out a lot of the fraudulent claims.
I agree. Given that the average incident rate is much lower and assuming that the accident rate without autopilot engaged is likely the same, the incidents with autopilot engaged has to be much, much lower to bring the overall average down that much.
It should be noted that the vehicle that, just a week earlier, destroyed the safety barrier that would likely have saved the Tesla Model X driver was not on autopilot. I've had close calls around entrances to HOV lanes myself. They seem to be designed for throughput over safety, often with the lane that continues actually having to turn a bit to not hit the divider instead of having the HOV folks be required to move into a long entry lane separating from the regular lane completely long before the divider.
I somewhat agree and have both read books and seen real-world programs.
IMO, we teach the wrong way. It's not so much that we need to reorder subjects as to refactor them. But I would disagree that math and language are different. Math is just another language used to express things that build natively in the human mind at the same ages as spoken language. The degree to which we learn simple things like accurate determination of more/less, bigger/smaller, etc at toddler ages and before is directly related to our later math success. In other areas, it has been shown that early experience with sports corresponds directly with later ease in picking up basic physics. Our mind works as a whole and rich early experiences make a difference in later abstract thinking capabilities.
I see it more as we should fill them with "vocabulary", "symbology", or just seeing, experiencing, and manipulating things until they are around 10 and then hit hard on the grammar side of the equation (whether it be the grammar of spoken language, math, science, or whatever). This takes maximum advantage of the younger mind's remarkable ability to soak up everything it is exposed to.
I am familiar with a K-12 program with a bit more than 300 students that uses an approach like this (including your language thoughts as they start latin in kindergarten) and gets all of their students through the typical college-prep subject matter by 10th grade. They then follow a more independent type of study for their remaining years - sort of research like. Their college acceptance rate is in the 98th percentile range and they still have a top-rated athletic program. A major downside is that it is best that they go through this system from k thru 12 because it is so out of alignment with our traditional system. That means parents are constrained from moving for those years.
Dr Mercedes Paredes from the University of California San Francisco, an author of last month’s paper suggesting adults do not develop new neurons, said she was not persuaded. “For now, we do not think this new study challenges what we have concluded from our own recently published observations: if neurogenesis continues in the adult human hippocampus, it is an extremely rare phenomenon,” she said. “It boils down to interpretation of equivocal cells which we took extra steps to characterise extensively and showed not to be new neurons as they first appeared.”
I would also note that this study's subjects were "between 14 and 79" and the previous study stated "only a few isolated young neurons are observed by 7 and 13 years of age". Thus, this new study finding little decline between 14 and 79 could be entirely accurate if the bulk of the decline was over by 14. It is an apples and oranges comparison.
As an aside, I feel that there is a great argument forming for completing secondary education by 14 as we used to. We hurt ourselves by not getting more of our foundation in place during that more biologically capable time period.
Why follow this trend? The only "appeal" it could have is the same appeal that a mole can have on a face. Blemishes are sometimes endearing.
Instead, why not innovate? There is a need for a camera capability, but have we looked outside of the box?
Why are lenses still round? There are technologies now that use super thin flat lenses or even no lens that could give radical new capabilities.
What if we made the camera more like a bar that stretched all the way across the top-front and, instead of giving us a super wide shot, created a super accurate 3D image with continuous focus at any depth? Or even a thin frame all the way around the phone that wouldn't be bothered by fingers over portions of the sensor because that could be factored out by redundancy from other angles?
An innovation would be much better than a compromise.
As stated in that article, Google's parent company Alphabet did not take up the motto. People read far too much into the article. Google is still a company, and it is still their motto stated prominently in today's Google Code of Conduct.
Your reference starts off with the statement '"Don't be evil" is the motto of Google's corporate code of conduct. You've gotten confused by the media.
Google still exists as a subsidiary of Alphabet. Both have a "Code of Conduct" publicly published in their investor relations site.
Alphabet's Code of Conduct uses the phrase "do the right thing" in the lede. It is not in quotes to suggest that it should be their motto, but the media has written about it as such and, incorrectly, called it a change in Google's motto. Assuming it is a motto, it is Alphabet's motto.
Google is still an entity and still has its own Code of Conduct. The first sentence in that code of conduct is still “Don’t be evil.” It is also in quotes to suggest that it is a motto.
Yes, there could indeed be a lot of positive applications for ubiquitous DRM. DRM to secure home surveillance camera feeds, on all of your email, on every photo taken by your smartphone at the moment it is taken, on every word spoken into your smartphone while on a conversation, on every input to your home smart speaker, and on and on and on. It could even rise to the level of awesomeness if it could be had with no government back door.
But, like I said, it will never happen. DRM is only to protect business. Business would never support robust DRM for all data.
This will never happen. The folks behind DMCA would never allow "everything" to be protected by DRM - only their interests.
If "everything" had DRM that would include any data that I create. It might be interesting if there was a secure means of personally determining distribution, including copies, for every piece of content I place anywhere no matter what the size of the content (could DRM protection of passwords have a place?). It would be a huge adjustment and break a lot of things initially.
For example, a tweet couldn't be retweeted, or imaged and included in another as an image, without the author's consent. Facebook would have similar issues. Facebook's data distribution restraints could actually be enforced by the users.
If the DRM was designed as the world's biggest blockchain with full data tracking, automated auditing of whether a website has violated its privacy policy would become possible.
It may be a different order of magnitude but somehow "I've got a great reason for violating you" just doesn't cut it in my mind.
I'll grant though that I tend to see personal violations greater than physical ones. For example, if raped, I'd much rather it be a physical assault than someone saying they love me, having sex, and then saying they don't love me and never did but just wanted to have sex. The latter is a much greater and more damaging personal violation because it involved my trust. I consider it the worst, most violent form of rape.
Is this not the same argument used by doctors and governments throughout time for medical experimentation on prisoners and people who don't know they are being experimented on? Why would the ACLU of all organizations not see this?
Exactly. No matter what the interface says, something at a lower level should have at least made it explicit that 111 million numbers were about to be blocked and verified the intention. Even better though, it doesn't sound as if they new this interface even had a wildcard capability. The lower level should probably not even implement it. The interface is not the right location to preclude things like this from happening.
As others have stated, there are many better criminal statutes that would apply to this situation. There are laws specifically protecting street signs, and it seems like other much more serious crimes against persons would be provable if the worst were to happen. But,
A stop sign is a command input that is transmitted to the cameras. I would think that intentionally changing that command input in a manner designed to cause any problem with the computer is no different than exploiting any other exposed interface of a computer. How is it different from a man-in-the-middle network attack? Or sending an RF signal (technically just a different band) to the car to break into its network and command it to accelerate?
In the bigger picture, I believe we went the wrong way with this and other computer-related law. The necessary laws were already in place and just needed some clarification. We should have made it clear that electronically trespassing on and damaging property or interfering with services provided from that property is no different than physically doing so. Then we could just apply existing B&E, theft, burglary, vandalism, trespassing and other laws to the virtual world.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd rather autoforward them all to Ajit Pai.
It seems to me that most is quite good, which makes sense because it is often much better funded than legacy network shows.
We're living the story, right? Or does everyone really believe that nobody is using big data to figure out exactly where to give little pushes in our society to create huge real-world changes in the directions societies are taking? Do people believe the manipulations throughout social media currently surfacing were done without the benefit of new data and new maths?
That removal is now a business critical action. The concept of what actions will show that a service took reasonable precautions to prevent being a party to any trafficking will be a moving bar defined by 12 jurors at a time.
Also, what sites this applies to is very unclear. To be safe, you had better be reading it as all sites on which people may publicly or privately communicate. News sites with editors approving every article and no commenting allowed should be safe, but little else.
It is also not limited to written communication. Microsoft, for example, understands this. It is certainly the reason for the Skype censorship recently in the news.
We should see censorship announcements in all of the email systems and all messaging systems of any type start pouring out in the near future. Facetime, for example, is at its root an internet service. Even most phone traffic today could be argued to be internet service though, other, more explicit laws, may override censoring them.
I've been contemplating how to relate this to the real world.
I think this is equivalent to being able to criminally and civilly charge a hotel chain if any prostitution occurs on their property that they didn't take measures to stop. They must then spy on all of their clients to at least try to be able to prove that they were taking reasonable steps to make sure that no prostitution is occurring on their property. Since that would be nearly impossible to perfectly perform, the only solution they'd have to be truly safe from any prosecution is to not allow any more than one person in a room at a time.
All of that leads me to question whether this law is an attempt to ban social discourse on the web because the only effective defense is to not allow more than one person in a conversation.
That's one way to look at it. Here is another that clarifies reality by removing the "value" distortion and just looking at wafer capacity. Note that the combined capacity of Taiwan (China) and China is 32.1% of world output. The US is not split out but combined into North American capacity of 13.4% of world output, barely more than China when this was published and dwarfed by Taiwan. If we were to group "Asian" capacity in the same fashion, it would show that Asian capacity is about 3/4 of world output.
Note that Intel is not in the top 5 semiconductor manufacturers in the world when viewed this way.
Yes. I was just saying that you can't exempt the raw materials because the labor to get the raw materials could be performed in the US in nearly all cases. Even in the cases of the rare metals everyone panics about, we have large deposits of most that we choose not to admit exist.
Maybe... I'd agree if there are no known reserves here that that could be an exclusion. But, contrary to what we've been guided to believe, we have large deposits of virtually everything we need at home. We just choose not to develop them. I think that is a combination of NIMBY and a strategic move to manipulate via NIMBY to maintain our reserves while using those of others.
No, but until the chip, display, battery, circuit card, and other component manufacturers move back (though especially the ones that require real science and tech), the US doesn't manufacture computers, it assembles them. The computer is what's inside, not the case. I've run computers without a case before.
On their side, after carefully reading the article, this isn't just "final" assembly - it is a hair past that. They are already doing something they are calling final assembly in this country. There are indications in the article that they will at least be truly manufacturing the case, the lowest tech aspect of the job. This is one little piece more than most end-users can actually do for themselves though making your own case, even for a laptop, is not terribly difficult and can be quite rewarding.
Perhaps they are also making the circuit cards here but I didn't see an indication of that in the article.
It would be really nice if the government would fix the "made in america" requirements to at least require that half of the dollars paid on the device itself (not counting non-value added activities like marketing) have their final resting place within the country. That wouldn't be a perfect measure, but it would cut out a lot of the fraudulent claims.
I agree. Given that the average incident rate is much lower and assuming that the accident rate without autopilot engaged is likely the same, the incidents with autopilot engaged has to be much, much lower to bring the overall average down that much.
It should be noted that the vehicle that, just a week earlier, destroyed the safety barrier that would likely have saved the Tesla Model X driver was not on autopilot. I've had close calls around entrances to HOV lanes myself. They seem to be designed for throughput over safety, often with the lane that continues actually having to turn a bit to not hit the divider instead of having the HOV folks be required to move into a long entry lane separating from the regular lane completely long before the divider.
I somewhat agree and have both read books and seen real-world programs.
IMO, we teach the wrong way. It's not so much that we need to reorder subjects as to refactor them. But I would disagree that math and language are different. Math is just another language used to express things that build natively in the human mind at the same ages as spoken language. The degree to which we learn simple things like accurate determination of more/less, bigger/smaller, etc at toddler ages and before is directly related to our later math success. In other areas, it has been shown that early experience with sports corresponds directly with later ease in picking up basic physics. Our mind works as a whole and rich early experiences make a difference in later abstract thinking capabilities.
I see it more as we should fill them with "vocabulary", "symbology", or just seeing, experiencing, and manipulating things until they are around 10 and then hit hard on the grammar side of the equation (whether it be the grammar of spoken language, math, science, or whatever). This takes maximum advantage of the younger mind's remarkable ability to soak up everything it is exposed to.
I am familiar with a K-12 program with a bit more than 300 students that uses an approach like this (including your language thoughts as they start latin in kindergarten) and gets all of their students through the typical college-prep subject matter by 10th grade. They then follow a more independent type of study for their remaining years - sort of research like. Their college acceptance rate is in the 98th percentile range and they still have a top-rated athletic program. A major downside is that it is best that they go through this system from k thru 12 because it is so out of alignment with our traditional system. That means parents are constrained from moving for those years.
Or actually read the studies.
From the article:
Dr Mercedes Paredes from the University of California San Francisco, an author of last month’s paper suggesting adults do not develop new neurons, said she was not persuaded. “For now, we do not think this new study challenges what we have concluded from our own recently published observations: if neurogenesis continues in the adult human hippocampus, it is an extremely rare phenomenon,” she said. “It boils down to interpretation of equivocal cells which we took extra steps to characterise extensively and showed not to be new neurons as they first appeared.”
I would also note that this study's subjects were "between 14 and 79" and the previous study stated "only a few isolated young neurons are observed by 7 and 13 years of age". Thus, this new study finding little decline between 14 and 79 could be entirely accurate if the bulk of the decline was over by 14. It is an apples and oranges comparison.
As an aside, I feel that there is a great argument forming for completing secondary education by 14 as we used to. We hurt ourselves by not getting more of our foundation in place during that more biologically capable time period.
Why follow this trend? The only "appeal" it could have is the same appeal that a mole can have on a face. Blemishes are sometimes endearing.
Instead, why not innovate? There is a need for a camera capability, but have we looked outside of the box?
Why are lenses still round? There are technologies now that use super thin flat lenses or even no lens that could give radical new capabilities.
What if we made the camera more like a bar that stretched all the way across the top-front and, instead of giving us a super wide shot, created a super accurate 3D image with continuous focus at any depth? Or even a thin frame all the way around the phone that wouldn't be bothered by fingers over portions of the sensor because that could be factored out by redundancy from other angles?
An innovation would be much better than a compromise.
If we were true AI chatbots, would we know it or would we be living in a virtual reality as "human"s in order to preserve our sanity?
As stated in that article, Google's parent company Alphabet did not take up the motto. People read far too much into the article. Google is still a company, and it is still their motto stated prominently in today's Google Code of Conduct.
Alphabet did. Google did not. It is still the first sentence in Google's Code of Conduct. This action was directed to Google's CEO, not Alphabet's.
Your reference starts off with the statement '"Don't be evil" is the motto of Google's corporate code of conduct. You've gotten confused by the media.
Google still exists as a subsidiary of Alphabet. Both have a "Code of Conduct" publicly published in their investor relations site.
Alphabet's Code of Conduct uses the phrase "do the right thing" in the lede. It is not in quotes to suggest that it should be their motto, but the media has written about it as such and, incorrectly, called it a change in Google's motto. Assuming it is a motto, it is Alphabet's motto.
Google is still an entity and still has its own Code of Conduct. The first sentence in that code of conduct is still “Don’t be evil.” It is also in quotes to suggest that it is a motto.
Yes, there could indeed be a lot of positive applications for ubiquitous DRM. DRM to secure home surveillance camera feeds, on all of your email, on every photo taken by your smartphone at the moment it is taken, on every word spoken into your smartphone while on a conversation, on every input to your home smart speaker, and on and on and on. It could even rise to the level of awesomeness if it could be had with no government back door.
But, like I said, it will never happen. DRM is only to protect business. Business would never support robust DRM for all data.
This will never happen. The folks behind DMCA would never allow "everything" to be protected by DRM - only their interests.
If "everything" had DRM that would include any data that I create. It might be interesting if there was a secure means of personally determining distribution, including copies, for every piece of content I place anywhere no matter what the size of the content (could DRM protection of passwords have a place?). It would be a huge adjustment and break a lot of things initially.
For example, a tweet couldn't be retweeted, or imaged and included in another as an image, without the author's consent. Facebook would have similar issues. Facebook's data distribution restraints could actually be enforced by the users.
If the DRM was designed as the world's biggest blockchain with full data tracking, automated auditing of whether a website has violated its privacy policy would become possible.
It may be a different order of magnitude but somehow "I've got a great reason for violating you" just doesn't cut it in my mind.
I'll grant though that I tend to see personal violations greater than physical ones. For example, if raped, I'd much rather it be a physical assault than someone saying they love me, having sex, and then saying they don't love me and never did but just wanted to have sex. The latter is a much greater and more damaging personal violation because it involved my trust. I consider it the worst, most violent form of rape.
Is this not the same argument used by doctors and governments throughout time for medical experimentation on prisoners and people who don't know they are being experimented on? Why would the ACLU of all organizations not see this?
Exactly. No matter what the interface says, something at a lower level should have at least made it explicit that 111 million numbers were about to be blocked and verified the intention. Even better though, it doesn't sound as if they new this interface even had a wildcard capability. The lower level should probably not even implement it. The interface is not the right location to preclude things like this from happening.
As others have stated, there are many better criminal statutes that would apply to this situation. There are laws specifically protecting street signs, and it seems like other much more serious crimes against persons would be provable if the worst were to happen. But,
A stop sign is a command input that is transmitted to the cameras. I would think that intentionally changing that command input in a manner designed to cause any problem with the computer is no different than exploiting any other exposed interface of a computer. How is it different from a man-in-the-middle network attack? Or sending an RF signal (technically just a different band) to the car to break into its network and command it to accelerate?
In the bigger picture, I believe we went the wrong way with this and other computer-related law. The necessary laws were already in place and just needed some clarification. We should have made it clear that electronically trespassing on and damaging property or interfering with services provided from that property is no different than physically doing so. Then we could just apply existing B&E, theft, burglary, vandalism, trespassing and other laws to the virtual world.