This wasn't covered in the video, but in the DeepMind Blog about the match, they link to a paper describing a custom network architecture specifically designed to do "micro" during a battle, where each individual unit is acting as its own miniature agent. From the paper:
In this paper, we focus on the problem of
micromanagement
in StarCraft, which refers to the low-level control of individual units’ positioning and attack commands
as they fight enemies. This task is naturally represented as
a multi-agent system, where each StarCraft unit is replaced
by a decentralised controller. We consider several scenarios
with symmetric teams formed of: 3 marines (3m), 5 marines
(5m), 5 wraiths (5w), or 2 dragoons with 3 zealots (2d
3z).
There's no way any human can get their "micro" to the level where they're calculating optimal behavior for individual units on the battlefield.
Once people saw personal computers being used, they "got it".
Once people saw tablet computers being used, they "got it"
Once people saw cell phones, and later, smart phones in use, they "got it"
Wasn't old enough to say for sure re the first one, but re tablets and smart phones, "That's not the way it happened at all."
I bought a Symbian "smartphone" in 2007. Made a good-faith effort to use it. Determined that it probably wasn't really worth it to have a "smart phone". So when the iPhone came out, I didn't buy one. Eventually bought my wife an iPod Touch as an experiment... and within a month she'd upgraded to an iPhone, and within a year I had as well.
People had been trying to make tablets work for decades before the iPad, and they all failed... until the iPad. The same thing can be said of music players before the iPod. (I never owned an iPod or an iPad, BTW, just pointing out patterns I see in the marketplace.)
Cell phones I'll give you. There are some technologies that transfer pretty easily from old to new. Other technologies don't really take off until someone manages to hit the right usability matrix to make it actually useful for the average person; and sometimes that usability matrix isn't possible until technology reaches a certain point. I'm pretty sure the iPhone as it was in 2008 wouldn't have been possible technologically in 2002; and that whatever was possible in 2002 wouldn't have made the impact that the iPhone did.
So: just because IBM hasn't been able to make machine learning accessible, doesn't mean it never will be. Maybe machine learning hasn't advanced enough yet to be ready for widespread usability. Or maybe machine learning is ready, but nobody's hit the right usability matrix yet.
Neat fact: If you're in a wireless only home, it's more likely you are poor. Statistically, higher income homes have a much larger chance of having a land-line versus homes below the poverty line.
Surely that's because higher income homes are almost certainly more likely to have high-speed internet, and a landline is required for DSL, which constitutes a pretty large percentage of highspeed internet? I have a landline at my house now, but I don't know the phone number, and there's no phone plugged in. It was a prerequisite for getting DSL, which is the only internet available in my area. So I'm part of your "higher income home" statistic, in spite of the fact that I don't use or want a landline.
Humans can hit 200ms or less when they are coming on a situation they understand, but watching programmers in StarCraft, reaction times of 500ms upon seeing something slightly different are more normal (or even a second).
But how much of that delay is visual processing the situation (character X is in location Y casting spell Z), and how much of that is mentally processing the situation? It is true that in the game, when the situation changed suddenly (e.g., being ambushed), humans took a second or two to adjust, whereas the AI seemed to react instantaneously. The AI were never caugt "flat-footed".
But would it actually have been any different if the AI had had to interpret pixels instead of getting information from the API? I don't think so. The way the AI do processing, they don't have a context; they aren't "expecting" one thing or another , they never have to deal with shock or regret -- they always think, "Given this exact situation, what is the optimal thing to do next?" That's hardly "cheating", that's just the intrinsic nature of AI
Again, it's been known for a long time that AI can win with faster key presses and response times.
Then why did they lose so completely when they were given sub-optimal heroes? Clearly the strategy of which heroes to chose and how to actually use them is far more important in DotA than faster keypresses.
Computers have none of that and they will always click on you before you can click on them.
If you'd been paying any attention at all, you'd know that the AI's latency was set to 200ms, which is larger than the average human's.
Same as these guys -- their own logic is self-contradictory. Either DOTA is a game mainly about reaction time, in which case the 18-player limit will have almost no effect; or DOTA is a game mainly about strategy and how to use characters together, in which case the direct interface will have little effect. Given the fact that poorly-chosen characters caused the computer to lose decisively, I think the first one is much more likely.
The OpenAI team have stated over and over why they use the direct interface rather than scanning the pixels: Because they know how to get an AI to scan pixels, but they don't know how to get an AI to do strategy. So they're focusing their training time on strategy rather than wasting GPU time scanning pixels.
The question asked was: "Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can't locate the U.S. on a world map. Why do you think this is?" The answer given was...
Yeah, I actually looked her up on Wikipedia before I responded.
First of all, the only good answer anyone who is not actively involved in education research can give on that subject is, "I don't know, I would have to do some research". As such, I agree with someone else in this thread who said it was a trick question.
Secondly, when given the opportunity to answer once she understood the question, she said:
Well personally, my friends and I, we know exactly where the United States is on our map. I don't know anyone else who doesn't. And if the statistics are correct, I believe that there should be more emphasis on geography in our education so people will learn how to read maps better.
That seems like a pretty reasonable answer to me.
But by all means continue to believe her to be dumb as bricks if it makes you feel better.
...believe it or not, there are many of us who have to answer far more difficult questions on the spot on a daily basis.
Dealing with the stress and confusion of answering a question on stage is a learned skill. If you do answer such questions "on a daily basis", you are far better prepared than she was.
Indeed, that was GP's point -- Conservative dogma says that if you work hard you'll succeed, and if you don't succeed it must be because you're lazy. CEO pay proves this false.
People get paid based on the value they produce.
No, people get paid based on the value they can capture.
Try hanging around some business types for a while. You'll find that the good ones worry about two things: 1) "Creating" value -- i.e., doing something that people are willing to pay for 2) "Capturing" value -- actually getting money. Doing #1 isn't always easy, but the trick is that even after you manage to do #1, you then have to do #2 in order to have a sustainable business.
And they have a framework for analyzing how hard or easy it will be for you to capture value -- Porter's Five Forces. Compare a programmer's ability to capture the value she creates versus that of a CEO.
And of course, there's also the fact that in this case it's the perceived value that is being captured -- it's highly doubtful that highly-paid CEOs actually generate anywhere near as much shareholder value as they're being paid.
The vote ID, the vote and the signatures are printed as a paper receipts for the voter and for the vote handling organization, to ensure there is a paper trail that
What you've described is pretty close to what most people actually have now, just the reverse (i.e., now people take a scan-tron and pass it into a scanner, rather than filing out a screen and printing a receipt). The main difference is that your system has the additional possibility of verifying the result of your own vote after the fact. But there's still a lot of paper, and it assumes most people still have to physically show up at a polling station. That's not the "all-electronic" voting that people are decrying.
One thing the summary didn't point out was that game three they didn't let the AI choose their own heroes. The humans basically conceded defeat; so for the third game they were just experimenting: The let the "audience" choose the heroes, and they chose heroes specifically which would be poor at playing the style which the computers had played so far, just to see if it could change its playing style to adapt to the new heroes. And the human team chose exactly the heroes that the AI chose for the first two games. After that draft, the AI's rating of its own chance of winning was 2.3%, based only on the draft. The AI adapted somewhat, but not much; and near the end of the game, the AI seemed to be doing a bunch of fairly sub-optimal things; like, it knew it couldn't really win, so it didn't know what to do except random micro.
So, it was an interesting data point -- particularly the importance of choosing the right set of heroes. But it was certainly not a victory for humans. The AI soundly trounced them except when it was purposely crippled.
Matches, post-game commentary, and other information available on the OpenAI Blog about the match.
When I first signed up for WhatsApp, they had a great way of making money -- 1 year free, subsequent years $1/year. I was so excited when I saw that -- FINALLY, a platform that will just let me pay to use it, rather than trying to spam me with junk and sell my information!
When FB bought the company and cancelled the yearly fee, I knew it was only a matter of time. I'm mostly surprised it took them so long.
Even for-profit media (yes, run by an actual corporation!) is preferable to a bunch of uninformed idiots "just asking questions" without a single shred of proof between them.
Yeah, after I wrote this I realized that this could be taken to mean, "I get my news from memes and random inflammatory posts", which is not what I meant at all. A meme can contain commentary, but certainly not information; only a link to an authoritative source can do that. What I consider my "news" on Facebook generally does come from news organizations (although also from non-profits or other organizations). What I meant was, it's filtered through my friends, rather than an editorial board.
Would be nice if we could collectively be intelligent enough to form our own opinions.
Would be nicer if we could collectively be intelligent enough to not use social media as a source of news and information.
And what's better, corporate-controlled media?
My friends and family represent a very diverse range of people from all walks of life. Getting my news and information from Facebook means that I get exposed to a lot of different angles and ideas; and it's generally filtered by things that I think are important. Naturally that means I have to take things with a grain of salt sometimes, and often get stuff (on both sides) that's inflammatory or just plain wrong. I still think that's better than giving editorial control to some corporation.
Note: that I'm not in the "mainstream media is fake news" camp. Breitbart and Fox are corporations as much as WP and NYT, and the latter do actually care about the truth. But they're still companies with their own biases -- with FB I choose my own newsfeed's bias (or lack thereof).
Worse yet, if you're "guaranteed" a job, can you be fired? If not, then for some people it's the equivalent of basic income, because they can just show up when they want, do what they want, and not worry about the consequences. Worse, because the people who *are* trying to work will be demoralized and understaffed. And if you can be fired, then it's not really guaranteed, is it?
But that's a skill-based game, as opposed to strategy or anything needing intelligence. "Skill" as in reaction time to seeing an opponent and successfully moving clicking the mouse of their head.
First, we noticed that the agents had very fast reaction times and were very accurate taggers, which could explain their performance. However, by artificially reducing this accuracy and reaction time we saw that this was only one factor in their success....Even with human-comparable accuracy and reaction time the performance of our agents is higher than that of humans.
Both the summary and the Verge article seem to have missed the point of this development -- an improvement to the agent design scheme.
Last year, after smashing both go and chess with their self-play-from-zero strategy, they tried the same thing with Starcraft. And they lost spectacularly -- even after millions of games, their self-trained DeepMind agents were unable to beat even the most simplistic "scripted" StarCraft AI -- the ones designed for n00b humans to beat up on. They discovered that while the self-play agents were able to eventually figure out activities like "harvest minerals", they were unable to put those together into higher-level activities like building an army and winning a game.
One of the key refinements they introduce in this paper is to allow the agents to evolve their own internal "rewards", which were sub-steps towards winning. These goals included things like killing an opponent, capturing a flag, recapturing their own flag, avoiding being killed, and so on. The programmers architected in that such rewards were *possible*, but let the learning algorithm define what those rewards actually were and how much the reward was for each one.
They call this architecture 'FTW'. Then they ran their vanilla "self-play from nothing" bots again, and found that just like in StarCraft, the bots never made much progress; but they found that the new bots, which had self-made internal rewards, were able to consistently beat strong humans, even after having their reaction time and visual accuracy reduced below that of measured humans.
One thing though, like Slashdot it keeps asking for permissions over and over no matter how often you decline. GDPR allows you to remember that preference with a cookie. Or just make it less intrusive than a full screen overlay.
More than that, I actually went through the "other options" screen and checked a bunch of boxes (I don't mind adverts, or being remembered; I just don't like being chased around the internet with ads trying to sell me something I just bought) -- and I still get the permission screen.
While they called themselves "communism", they actually fall under fascism in most respects that matter.
First of all, it doesn't matter if they were "really" communist or not, you left them out. They were certainly atheists, so maybe you should have called them "organized atheism".
Second, we could play the same "Are they really X?" game with religion. The people who did the worst atrocities in the Crusades, as with Islam extremists today, often clearly violated the teaching of the leaders in whose name they claim to be acting. So either those people don't count as "organized religion", because they weren't "really" Christians / Muslims / whatever; or, Stalin and Pol Pot and Mao do count as "communists" (and "atheists"), because whatever Marx would have thought of them, they did see themselves as trying to follow his teaching.
You can't have it both ways: You can't tar me with the Crusades without accepting the black mark of the Killing Fields.
This could be misunderstood -- the whole point of the attack is that the attacker changes a non-HTML email into an HTML one. If your mail client doesn't support HTML (or displays the formatting but doesn't fetch anything) then you're fine.
...and only in Thunderbird, Apple Mail, Postbox and Airmail.
This isn't correct.
There are two bugs. One is a sort of braindead one which only affects a small number of clients (including Thunderbird and Apple Mail), and has nothing to do with PGP or SMIME.
The other one is more serious, and does have to do with SMIME and PGP. Basically, if an attacker has a copy of an email which is encrypted but not signed, and knows what some of the plaintext is exactly, she can splice out those bits and put in other bits. And basically all e-mails contain things like Content-type: text/plain. So, an attacker can modify that to Content-type: text/html\n\n <img src=.
Regarding this bug, the website says:
Our analysis shows that EFAIL plaintext exfiltration channels exist for 25 of the 35 tested S/MIME email clients and 10 of the 28 tested OpenPGP email clients.
I agree that it's a bug for MUAs to automatically download external content in encrypted emails. But it's a much more understandable bug to make.
“I thought it was freeware,” Lundgren told the Times. “... The value’s in the license. They didn’t understand that.”
It may be that the value is in the license, but that doesn't change the way the actual laws work. The idea is in the word: "copyright" is a right to make copies. It doesn't matter whether money changed hands: Microsoft has a copyright on those bits, and he copied them without their permission, so legally, he violated their copyright.
Is it a jerk move on Microsoft's part, to prosecute this guy for helping people keep software working which they've already paid for? Sure, and they deserve to be publicly shamed for it.
But there's nothing wrong with this ruling from a legal perspective. Everyone benefits when the law is clear and applied consistently, and in this case it was. Remember that those same laws which allow Microsoft to prosecute a guy for copying "free" bits also allow people who write GPL software to prosecute companies for copying "free" bits without giving back their changes.
Perhaps this is an artifact of the video compression algorithm or the camera itself.
It could also be the effect of increasing brightness, couldn't it? If in the raw footage the light levels are all between 0% and 20%, if you raise the brightness, what used to be 1% will now be 5-10%, at which point there will be a hard cliff down to 0, no?
So saying things like drug abuse or being overweight is unhealthy, or that anchovies are gross, is a violation.
So wait, you go around your open source projects telling the fat people that they're unhealthy? Or worse yet, you go around trying to get people to stop eating anchovies? I definitely don't want you in my project.
(Note saying you don't like anchovies is not a problem; making unwelcome comments about other people's anchovie preferences is.)
This one is a real winner. So you have to ask for permission to *hug* them.
Um, yes? Why do you think you have a right to go around touching people who don't want to be touched?
This is exactly the point -- there are people who want to hug, and people who don't want to be hugged. We have exactly two options:
1. Make "OK to hug unless asked not to" the default, and put the burden of saying 'no' on the person who doesn't want to be touched
2. Make "Not OK to hug unless you're confident the person is OK with it", and put the burden of finding out if touching is OK on the person who wants to do the touching
#2 seems like the obviously right choice to me.
I mean, seriously -- if you want to borrow something from a friend, do you just take it, or do you ask first? With a good friend you might just take it, but you'd better be darn sure they're OK with it before you do so. Why should hugging be any different?
Technically, the iPhone wasn't any more innovative than what Palm had already created.
Whatever. Dude, I owned a Palm back in the 90's. I also, shortly before the iPhone came out, bought my first "smartphone" -- a Symbian device -- which made me conclude that there just wasn't really any use for having a smartphone.
The iPhone completely changed the game for smartphones. They made it actually useful. Just like they did for mp3 players back in the day.
You don't know what you're talking about. Meltdown only applies to normal user processes; it doesn't apply to KVM because you're in a different address space. Google Project Zero's blog clearly says they used "Variant 2" -- one of the Spectre vulnerabilities -- to read host memory from within a KVM guest.
Slashdot Mirror
This wasn't covered in the video, but in the DeepMind Blog about the match, they link to a paper describing a custom network architecture specifically designed to do "micro" during a battle, where each individual unit is acting as its own miniature agent. From the paper:
There's no way any human can get their "micro" to the level where they're calculating optimal behavior for individual units on the battlefield.
Wasn't old enough to say for sure re the first one, but re tablets and smart phones, "That's not the way it happened at all."
I bought a Symbian "smartphone" in 2007. Made a good-faith effort to use it. Determined that it probably wasn't really worth it to have a "smart phone". So when the iPhone came out, I didn't buy one. Eventually bought my wife an iPod Touch as an experiment... and within a month she'd upgraded to an iPhone, and within a year I had as well.
People had been trying to make tablets work for decades before the iPad, and they all failed... until the iPad. The same thing can be said of music players before the iPod. (I never owned an iPod or an iPad, BTW, just pointing out patterns I see in the marketplace.)
Cell phones I'll give you. There are some technologies that transfer pretty easily from old to new. Other technologies don't really take off until someone manages to hit the right usability matrix to make it actually useful for the average person; and sometimes that usability matrix isn't possible until technology reaches a certain point. I'm pretty sure the iPhone as it was in 2008 wouldn't have been possible technologically in 2002; and that whatever was possible in 2002 wouldn't have made the impact that the iPhone did.
So: just because IBM hasn't been able to make machine learning accessible, doesn't mean it never will be. Maybe machine learning hasn't advanced enough yet to be ready for widespread usability. Or maybe machine learning is ready, but nobody's hit the right usability matrix yet.
Surely that's because higher income homes are almost certainly more likely to have high-speed internet, and a landline is required for DSL, which constitutes a pretty large percentage of highspeed internet? I have a landline at my house now, but I don't know the phone number, and there's no phone plugged in. It was a prerequisite for getting DSL, which is the only internet available in my area. So I'm part of your "higher income home" statistic, in spite of the fact that I don't use or want a landline.
But how much of that delay is visual processing the situation (character X is in location Y casting spell Z), and how much of that is mentally processing the situation? It is true that in the game, when the situation changed suddenly (e.g., being ambushed), humans took a second or two to adjust, whereas the AI seemed to react instantaneously. The AI were never caugt "flat-footed".
But would it actually have been any different if the AI had had to interpret pixels instead of getting information from the API? I don't think so. The way the AI do processing, they don't have a context; they aren't "expecting" one thing or another , they never have to deal with shock or regret -- they always think, "Given this exact situation, what is the optimal thing to do next?" That's hardly "cheating", that's just the intrinsic nature of AI
Then why did they lose so completely when they were given sub-optimal heroes? Clearly the strategy of which heroes to chose and how to actually use them is far more important in DotA than faster keypresses.
If you'd been paying any attention at all, you'd know that the AI's latency was set to 200ms, which is larger than the average human's.
Same as these guys -- their own logic is self-contradictory. Either DOTA is a game mainly about reaction time, in which case the 18-player limit will have almost no effect; or DOTA is a game mainly about strategy and how to use characters together, in which case the direct interface will have little effect. Given the fact that poorly-chosen characters caused the computer to lose decisively, I think the first one is much more likely.
The OpenAI team have stated over and over why they use the direct interface rather than scanning the pixels: Because they know how to get an AI to scan pixels, but they don't know how to get an AI to do strategy. So they're focusing their training time on strategy rather than wasting GPU time scanning pixels.
Yeah, I actually looked her up on Wikipedia before I responded.
First of all, the only good answer anyone who is not actively involved in education research can give on that subject is, "I don't know, I would have to do some research". As such, I agree with someone else in this thread who said it was a trick question.
Secondly, when given the opportunity to answer once she understood the question, she said:
That seems like a pretty reasonable answer to me.
But by all means continue to believe her to be dumb as bricks if it makes you feel better.
Dealing with the stress and confusion of answering a question on stage is a learned skill. If you do answer such questions "on a daily basis", you are far better prepared than she was.
Indeed, that was GP's point -- Conservative dogma says that if you work hard you'll succeed, and if you don't succeed it must be because you're lazy. CEO pay proves this false.
No, people get paid based on the value they can capture.
Try hanging around some business types for a while. You'll find that the good ones worry about two things: 1) "Creating" value -- i.e., doing something that people are willing to pay for 2) "Capturing" value -- actually getting money. Doing #1 isn't always easy, but the trick is that even after you manage to do #1, you then have to do #2 in order to have a sustainable business.
And they have a framework for analyzing how hard or easy it will be for you to capture value -- Porter's Five Forces. Compare a programmer's ability to capture the value she creates versus that of a CEO.
And of course, there's also the fact that in this case it's the perceived value that is being captured -- it's highly doubtful that highly-paid CEOs actually generate anywhere near as much shareholder value as they're being paid.
What you've described is pretty close to what most people actually have now, just the reverse (i.e., now people take a scan-tron and pass it into a scanner, rather than filing out a screen and printing a receipt). The main difference is that your system has the additional possibility of verifying the result of your own vote after the fact. But there's still a lot of paper, and it assumes most people still have to physically show up at a polling station. That's not the "all-electronic" voting that people are decrying.
One thing the summary didn't point out was that game three they didn't let the AI choose their own heroes. The humans basically conceded defeat; so for the third game they were just experimenting: The let the "audience" choose the heroes, and they chose heroes specifically which would be poor at playing the style which the computers had played so far, just to see if it could change its playing style to adapt to the new heroes. And the human team chose exactly the heroes that the AI chose for the first two games. After that draft, the AI's rating of its own chance of winning was 2.3%, based only on the draft. The AI adapted somewhat, but not much; and near the end of the game, the AI seemed to be doing a bunch of fairly sub-optimal things; like, it knew it couldn't really win, so it didn't know what to do except random micro.
So, it was an interesting data point -- particularly the importance of choosing the right set of heroes. But it was certainly not a victory for humans. The AI soundly trounced them except when it was purposely crippled.
Matches, post-game commentary, and other information available on the OpenAI Blog about the match.
When I first signed up for WhatsApp, they had a great way of making money -- 1 year free, subsequent years $1/year. I was so excited when I saw that -- FINALLY, a platform that will just let me pay to use it, rather than trying to spam me with junk and sell my information!
When FB bought the company and cancelled the yearly fee, I knew it was only a matter of time. I'm mostly surprised it took them so long.
Yeah, after I wrote this I realized that this could be taken to mean, "I get my news from memes and random inflammatory posts", which is not what I meant at all. A meme can contain commentary, but certainly not information; only a link to an authoritative source can do that. What I consider my "news" on Facebook generally does come from news organizations (although also from non-profits or other organizations). What I meant was, it's filtered through my friends, rather than an editorial board.
And what's better, corporate-controlled media?
My friends and family represent a very diverse range of people from all walks of life. Getting my news and information from Facebook means that I get exposed to a lot of different angles and ideas; and it's generally filtered by things that I think are important. Naturally that means I have to take things with a grain of salt sometimes, and often get stuff (on both sides) that's inflammatory or just plain wrong. I still think that's better than giving editorial control to some corporation.
Note: that I'm not in the "mainstream media is fake news" camp. Breitbart and Fox are corporations as much as WP and NYT, and the latter do actually care about the truth. But they're still companies with their own biases -- with FB I choose my own newsfeed's bias (or lack thereof).
Worse yet, if you're "guaranteed" a job, can you be fired? If not, then for some people it's the equivalent of basic income, because they can just show up when they want, do what they want, and not worry about the consequences. Worse, because the people who *are* trying to work will be demoralized and understaffed. And if you can be fired, then it's not really guaranteed, is it?
Strangely enough, they already thought of that:
Both the summary and the Verge article seem to have missed the point of this development -- an improvement to the agent design scheme.
Last year, after smashing both go and chess with their self-play-from-zero strategy, they tried the same thing with Starcraft. And they lost spectacularly -- even after millions of games, their self-trained DeepMind agents were unable to beat even the most simplistic "scripted" StarCraft AI -- the ones designed for n00b humans to beat up on. They discovered that while the self-play agents were able to eventually figure out activities like "harvest minerals", they were unable to put those together into higher-level activities like building an army and winning a game.
One of the key refinements they introduce in this paper is to allow the agents to evolve their own internal "rewards", which were sub-steps towards winning. These goals included things like killing an opponent, capturing a flag, recapturing their own flag, avoiding being killed, and so on. The programmers architected in that such rewards were *possible*, but let the learning algorithm define what those rewards actually were and how much the reward was for each one.
They call this architecture 'FTW'. Then they ran their vanilla "self-play from nothing" bots again, and found that just like in StarCraft, the bots never made much progress; but they found that the new bots, which had self-made internal rewards, were able to consistently beat strong humans, even after having their reaction time and visual accuracy reduced below that of measured humans.
More than that, I actually went through the "other options" screen and checked a bunch of boxes (I don't mind adverts, or being remembered; I just don't like being chased around the internet with ads trying to sell me something I just bought) -- and I still get the permission screen.
First of all, it doesn't matter if they were "really" communist or not, you left them out. They were certainly atheists, so maybe you should have called them "organized atheism".
Second, we could play the same "Are they really X?" game with religion. The people who did the worst atrocities in the Crusades, as with Islam extremists today, often clearly violated the teaching of the leaders in whose name they claim to be acting. So either those people don't count as "organized religion", because they weren't "really" Christians / Muslims / whatever; or, Stalin and Pol Pot and Mao do count as "communists" (and "atheists"), because whatever Marx would have thought of them, they did see themselves as trying to follow his teaching.
You can't have it both ways: You can't tar me with the Crusades without accepting the black mark of the Killing Fields.
This could be misunderstood -- the whole point of the attack is that the attacker changes a non-HTML email into an HTML one. If your mail client doesn't support HTML (or displays the formatting but doesn't fetch anything) then you're fine.
This isn't correct.
There are two bugs. One is a sort of braindead one which only affects a small number of clients (including Thunderbird and Apple Mail), and has nothing to do with PGP or SMIME.
The other one is more serious, and does have to do with SMIME and PGP. Basically, if an attacker has a copy of an email which is encrypted but not signed, and knows what some of the plaintext is exactly, she can splice out those bits and put in other bits. And basically all e-mails contain things like Content-type: text/plain. So, an attacker can modify that to Content-type: text/html\n\n <img src=.
Regarding this bug, the website says:
I agree that it's a bug for MUAs to automatically download external content in encrypted emails. But it's a much more understandable bug to make.
It may be that the value is in the license, but that doesn't change the way the actual laws work. The idea is in the word: "copyright" is a right to make copies. It doesn't matter whether money changed hands: Microsoft has a copyright on those bits, and he copied them without their permission, so legally, he violated their copyright.
Is it a jerk move on Microsoft's part, to prosecute this guy for helping people keep software working which they've already paid for? Sure, and they deserve to be publicly shamed for it.
But there's nothing wrong with this ruling from a legal perspective. Everyone benefits when the law is clear and applied consistently, and in this case it was. Remember that those same laws which allow Microsoft to prosecute a guy for copying "free" bits also allow people who write GPL software to prosecute companies for copying "free" bits without giving back their changes.
That is, the edge cases kill you, my listeners, and the public.
It could also be the effect of increasing brightness, couldn't it? If in the raw footage the light levels are all between 0% and 20%, if you raise the brightness, what used to be 1% will now be 5-10%, at which point there will be a hard cliff down to 0, no?
1. What the heck is wrong with you
2. How the heck do you have a default '2' score with that obviously trollish attitude
3. You're awfully brave when you're hidden behind the internet, aren't you?
4. Absolutely I hope people like you stay a million miles a way from any project I'm associated with.
So wait, you go around your open source projects telling the fat people that they're unhealthy? Or worse yet, you go around trying to get people to stop eating anchovies? I definitely don't want you in my project.
(Note saying you don't like anchovies is not a problem; making unwelcome comments about other people's anchovie preferences is.)
Um, yes? Why do you think you have a right to go around touching people who don't want to be touched?
This is exactly the point -- there are people who want to hug, and people who don't want to be hugged. We have exactly two options:
#2 seems like the obviously right choice to me.
I mean, seriously -- if you want to borrow something from a friend, do you just take it, or do you ask first? With a good friend you might just take it, but you'd better be darn sure they're OK with it before you do so. Why should hugging be any different?
Whatever. Dude, I owned a Palm back in the 90's. I also, shortly before the iPhone came out, bought my first "smartphone" -- a Symbian device -- which made me conclude that there just wasn't really any use for having a smartphone.
The iPhone completely changed the game for smartphones. They made it actually useful. Just like they did for mp3 players back in the day.
You don't know what you're talking about. Meltdown only applies to normal user processes; it doesn't apply to KVM because you're in a different address space. Google Project Zero's blog clearly says they used "Variant 2" -- one of the Spectre vulnerabilities -- to read host memory from within a KVM guest.