Supposedly the right and left loves of the brain control the left and right limbs, respectively. Thus left handers are rightminded. That is what you meant by leftists, right?
Next up based on your brainwave evidence you will be arrested for drug evasion. I'm looking at you thx1138, you dumb threep.
Many people don't know that so-called acid washed jeans are often made by washing them with an abbrasive like pummice. There are sections of new mexico where they have removed entire hills to sell to the Acid washed jean market. They become dust bowls and rutted lands.
They could dig up this reef and have a near infinite supply for the acid wash jean market.
The ISPs will just set up partner relationship with local companies that will preferred for govt bussiness, such as the carve outs for supporting local, small, minority or women owned bussness many cogt have. Those shell companies will not violate net neutrality but their only customers will be the local govt. They will only have one peer and that will be verizon or whomever.
problem soved for ISP, and govt' gets to claim success too.
To try to answer your ridicule patiently imagine the following. A program running in a sandbox without data base access handles the requests and then sends messages to other processes in each of the other sandboxes for the various sub tasks.
*The customer database verification * Backend accounts/card processing interface to process and record sales etc..
the verification is only permitted to set a semiphore (true false) to comunicate the varification back to the master process.
And so on. Every process is given limited resource access and very limited communication access to another process. As much as possible the communications are handled through single duplex deadrops (like a semaphore).
this would massively cut down the ways to exploit a defect in one subsystem.
it's analgous to validating your inputs but much better because the program litterally lacks the resources to perform most invalid actions even if the input validation fails.
Why don't developers just write code that doesn't have security holes in it?
Presumably because they can't. It's time we started programing computer resource sandboxes into every application by default.
Linux and Mac, and Windows all have things for this. Macs have a dtrace based sandbox that can be per application or per process.
sandboxes can specify what a process and all child processes can do at the computer resource level. Can they get on the network? Can they access the file system? what files can they access? do they have write permission? how much memory can they use? how much cpu? and so on.
If we always launched processes with these clamped down a lot of security holes would not be exploitable. Why is it these are largely unused?
No need to delete, they arent' sending you a copy of your data, it's the data itself. they send you the very same electrons you sent it to them with right back to you.
My question is, who wins, the face swap detecting algorithm or the face swap detecting algorithm trying to create the perfect face swap?
The face swap algorithm wins, it is the only one with a winning state.
At some point it will reach a quality where the output quality is equivalent with what it would have been in a non-faked video, at that point the competition ends.
While your logic is on track it omits a crucial ground truth. It's like saying all crypto can be cracked. It's not the same as saying it can be cracked cheaply. If the detection is cheaper to implement than the synthesis then there will be a resource cap in the arms race that favors the detection.
Yes but they are not really great ones yet. They are not hitting efficiency and cost marks. Hydro storage has very restricted places it can work, and it often causes evaporation.
Here are some citations that contradict you and support my claims
"Germany’s carbon emissions haven’t declined for nearly a decade and the German Environment Agency calculated that Germany emitted 906 million tons of CO2 in 2016 — the highest in Europe — compared to 902 million in 2015. And 2017’s interim numbers suggest emissions are going to tick up again this year.
Germany is now in serious danger of hitting neither its 2020 nor its 2030 emissions targets, the very benchmarks that it browbeat other nations into adopting at previous climate conferences. Leading German think tanks agree that Germany can’t, at its current rate, slash emissions enough in the next two years to reduce its carbon output by 40 percent (compared to its 1990 levels) or 55 percent by 2030. "
Even as Germany adds lots of wind and solar power to the electric grid, the country’s carbon emissions are rising. Will the rest of the world learn from its lesson?"
Natural gas is not merely cheap, it also has a relatively low time to spool up for on-demand loads. Coal has a much harder time. Solar and wind have both problems with intermittency and peak loads. While grids can smooth that a bit there's no solution for that in the power source itself. Someday we will have flow batteries to handle surges and bridge short intermittencies, but even when those become technologically mature it's not likely they will have capacities in the giga-joule hour range. So that means some sort of base production with reasonably fast spin up times.
Germany perversely solves this problem by burning coal (cause it's cheaper there than gas, and nukes are out). They solve the spin up time problem by just running the plants all the time whether power is needed or not, then selling the power they don't need to their neighbors over the grid. Sometimes they even sell at a loss. It makes sense to sell at a loss since some money is better than no money if you were going to produce the power anyhow. So ironically the more they deploy solar the more coal they burn.
But if we do have things like flow batteries working for us, it's not just good for solar. It's also good for nuclear power too. These have slower spin up times than gas, but they may be cheaper (depending on how you factor in the externalities of waste and CO2 pollution and mining and fracking). So having stored energy like a battery also helps these become a reliable power source too.
Thus it seems like the future ideal power mix is Nuke+Solar/wind+battery and some off line gas plants for emergencies.
It's absurd to earmark money from one source for another. All money should go into general revenues and then be spent in whatever is the most valuable way. It's the usual rubbish where people say we should have a state lottery. People disapprove. SO they then say, "we'll have a state lottery and the profits will go to the schools". The people approve. and then the legislature just reduces direct school funding because the state lottery pays. So the end is, there is a state lottery and the net funds go into the general revenue and people are fooled and you now can't undo it because it would defund the schools.
The only exception to that rule is when politicians just can't be trusted to do the right thing and simultaneously stability of a funding source requires such an endowment or earmark.
SO if general basic income is a good idea you need to just fund it directly out of general revenues. Don't come up with some misdirection about an endowment or carbon tax. In the end those are feel good hoaxes. In the end if it's costs are a drag on the economy then it's exactly the same cost no matter which pipe the funds flow through. This is not to say it's a bad idea to have UBI. It might or might not be what we want as a society. It might or might not harm productivity. those are different questions. I'm just saying don't come up with this imaginary funding scheme. those don't exist. it's sort of like conservation of energy as a law.
Slashdot Mirror
Supposedly the right and left loves of the brain control the left and right limbs, respectively. Thus left handers are rightminded. That is what you meant by leftists, right?
Next up based on your brainwave evidence you will be arrested for drug evasion. I'm looking at you thx1138, you dumb threep.
Many people don't know that so-called acid washed jeans are often made by washing them with an abbrasive like pummice. There are sections of new mexico where they have removed entire hills to sell to the Acid washed jean market. They become dust bowls and rutted lands.
They could dig up this reef and have a near infinite supply for the acid wash jean market.
It shows that it prevents infection which is different than killing an existing infection.
The graphic with it's action lines reminds me of a book read to me as a child called Go Dog, Go
https://images.gr-assets.com/b...
The ISPs will just set up partner relationship with local companies that will preferred for govt bussiness, such as the carve outs for supporting local, small, minority or women owned bussness many cogt have. Those shell companies will not violate net neutrality but their only customers will be the local govt. They will only have one peer and that will be verizon or whomever.
problem soved for ISP, and govt' gets to claim success too.
I've wondered the same. I think it's because to make 2 day shipping useful it has to be paired with quick handling times which also cost money.
it's the iphone's smart quotes
SpaceX had to raise prices for NASA,
I decided to post rather than parent down.
To try to answer your ridicule patiently imagine the following. A program running in a sandbox without data base access handles the requests and then sends messages to other processes in each of the other sandboxes for the various sub tasks.
*The customer database verification
* Backend accounts/card processing interface to process and record sales
etc..
the verification is only permitted to set a semiphore (true false) to comunicate the varification back to the master process.
And so on. Every process is given limited resource access and very limited communication access to another process. As much as possible the communications are handled through single duplex deadrops (like a semaphore).
this would massively cut down the ways to exploit a defect in one subsystem.
it's analgous to validating your inputs but much better because the program litterally lacks the resources to perform most invalid actions even if the input validation fails.
Why don't developers just write code that doesn't have security holes in it?
Presumably because they can't. It's time we started programing computer resource sandboxes into every application by default.
Linux and Mac, and Windows all have things for this. Macs have a dtrace based sandbox that can be per application or per process.
sandboxes can specify what a process and all child processes can do at the computer resource level. Can they get on the network? Can they access the file system? what files can they access? do they have write permission? how much memory can they use? how much cpu? and so on.
If we always launched processes with these clamped down a lot of security holes would not be exploitable. Why is it these are largely unused?
Did you try "sudo make me a sandwich"?
Perhaps we can import a word used from another language as a way to have a ready made set of new words?
Sadly when I google for the translation of hacker in another language all I get back is Hacker!
No need to delete, they arent' sending you a copy of your data, it's the data itself. they send you the very same electrons you sent it to them with right back to you.
My question is, who wins, the face swap detecting algorithm or the face swap detecting algorithm trying to create the perfect face swap?
The face swap algorithm wins, it is the only one with a winning state.
At some point it will reach a quality where the output quality is equivalent with what it would have been in a non-faked video, at that point the competition ends.
While your logic is on track it omits a crucial ground truth. It's like saying all crypto can be cracked. It's not the same as saying it can be cracked cheaply. If the detection is cheaper to implement than the synthesis then there will be a resource cap in the arms race that favors the detection.
But then wouldn't the face swap detection algorithm also be getting better via adversarial learning at spotting face swaps?
My question is, who wins, the face swap detecting algorithm or the face swap detecting algorithm trying to create the perfect face swap?
Either the egg or the chicken wins. It's called the optional stopping problem in statistics.
Yes! that's what the whole principle of adversarial learning is based on.
In a self driving Uber.
the martian spy adventure dream.
Is he trying to send us a secret message about the amazon clouds evil plans?
Yes but they are not really great ones yet. They are not hitting efficiency and cost marks. Hydro storage has very restricted places it can work, and it often causes evaporation.
Here are some citations that contradict you and support my claims
"Germany’s carbon emissions haven’t declined for nearly a decade and the German Environment Agency calculated that Germany emitted 906 million tons of CO2 in 2016 — the highest in Europe — compared to 902 million in 2015. And 2017’s interim numbers suggest emissions are going to tick up again this year.
Germany is now in serious danger of hitting neither its 2020 nor its 2030 emissions targets, the very benchmarks that it browbeat other nations into adopting at previous climate conferences. Leading German think tanks agree that Germany can’t, at its current rate, slash emissions enough in the next two years to reduce its carbon output by 40 percent (compared to its 1990 levels) or 55 percent by 2030. "
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/...
MIT review:
"Germany Runs Up Against the Limits of Renewables
Even as Germany adds lots of wind and solar power to the electric grid, the country’s carbon emissions are rising. Will the rest of the world learn from its lesson?"
https://www.technologyreview.c...
Natural gas is not merely cheap, it also has a relatively low time to spool up for on-demand loads. Coal has a much harder time. Solar and wind have both problems with intermittency and peak loads. While grids can smooth that a bit there's no solution for that in the power source itself. Someday we will have flow batteries to handle surges and bridge short intermittencies, but even when those become technologically mature it's not likely they will have capacities in the giga-joule hour range. So that means some sort of base production with reasonably fast spin up times.
Germany perversely solves this problem by burning coal (cause it's cheaper there than gas, and nukes are out). They solve the spin up time problem by just running the plants all the time whether power is needed or not, then selling the power they don't need to their neighbors over the grid. Sometimes they even sell at a loss. It makes sense to sell at a loss since some money is better than no money if you were going to produce the power anyhow. So ironically the more they deploy solar the more coal they burn.
But if we do have things like flow batteries working for us, it's not just good for solar. It's also good for nuclear power too. These have slower spin up times than gas, but they may be cheaper (depending on how you factor in the externalities of waste and CO2 pollution and mining and fracking). So having stored energy like a battery also helps these become a reliable power source too.
Thus it seems like the future ideal power mix is Nuke+Solar/wind+battery and some off line gas plants for emergencies.
Welcome to soviet Pottersville. Mr. Potter buys up the assets for penny on the dollar.
It's absurd to earmark money from one source for another. All money should go into general revenues and then be spent in whatever is the most valuable way. It's the usual rubbish where people say we should have a state lottery. People disapprove. SO they then say, "we'll have a state lottery and the profits will go to the schools". The people approve. and then the legislature just reduces direct school funding because the state lottery pays. So the end is, there is a state lottery and the net funds go into the general revenue and people are fooled and you now can't undo it because it would defund the schools.
The only exception to that rule is when politicians just can't be trusted to do the right thing and simultaneously stability of a funding source requires such an endowment or earmark.
SO if general basic income is a good idea you need to just fund it directly out of general revenues. Don't come up with some misdirection about an endowment or carbon tax. In the end those are feel good hoaxes. In the end if it's costs are a drag on the economy then it's exactly the same cost no matter which pipe the funds flow through. This is not to say it's a bad idea to have UBI. It might or might not be what we want as a society. It might or might not harm productivity. those are different questions. I'm just saying don't come up with this imaginary funding scheme. those don't exist. it's sort of like conservation of energy as a law.