I have my facts. My ideology is motivation to clear Clinton from unwarranted attacks, not Trump, but Trump seems to have his own defenders, so I'm not worried about being fair in my actions, only in my research and conclusions. You really don't have a clue about my attitudes about science and criminal behavior and reality, do you? If you think that actually searching for the truth is leftist, then I'm even happier in my beliefs.
I've pretty well established that people aren't prosecuted for negligence with classified documents, for example. I did that by looking for counterexamples, and challenging people to find them for me. In other words, by examining the facts, including taking a look at anything possibly relevant someone comes up with. I'm still interested in counterexamples, by the way, if you've got one. I'll take an honest look at it.
However, I'm not tracking down a book unless I've got a good feeling that it will be useful, and I'm not going to take time to watch a video. If you've got a pointer to a transcript, that would be much better. Having names written down is useful when trying to figure out what really happened.
Of course it matters who the attacker was. If it's the Russian government, it's at least similar to an act of war, and we need to respond accordingly. If it's some guy in Romania acting on his own, then it's a crime, but it's not an act of war. The US government is responsible for defending its citizens against unwarranted foreign state-sponsored attacks of any sort.
Russian official hacking into a US server is probably an act of war, much as if the Russian army were to shoot a US citizen on US soil. It doesn't matter what roles the server or citizen have. So, hacking into the DNC server is probably an act of war, as would hacking into the RNC server, the NSA, or my laptop. I completely fail to see why it's a difficult concept that the US government is supposed to defend its citizens and assets from attacks by other countries, regardless of who the citizens are and what they're doing.
As far as the dead body and burglar analogy, it depends on which you think is more important, I guess. I'm not particularly bothered by some unsavory politics in a nomination campaign, because that's pretty much what normally happens. I'm positive you'd see similar if you were to hack into the RNC. I consider the expectation of really clean politics everywhere to be much like Communism, libertarianism, or expecting users to be aware of computer security: would be nice, and you're much better off not expecting it. I do think state-sponsored hacking attacks on the US are a big deal, particularly when intended to influence US elections. I'm not at all happy with the messing with other people's governments the US has done, either, including Cold War interventions and the assorted coups on behalf of fruit companies, but I have a particular interest in defense of the US.
The proper investigative agencies seem to be pretty well convinced it's a Russian attack, and they will not normally publicize all the evidence. I am puzzled, however, in that you don't trust the US government to investigate these things, but you trust whatever the Russian government comes up with. Russia is a lot more corrupt than the US.
US elections are complicated. I'm going to be voting for President, Representative, State Senator, State Representative, and a batch of offices that I really don't care about. There could also be referenda on the ballots. I haven't checked this year. Typically, I'm facing at least two dozen things to vote for. It's easier to run the ballot through a counting machine and save it away in case a recount is necessary.
In my precinct, pretty much everyone who wanted got to go to the State Senate District convention, where there was actual competition to be selected as a delegate to higher conventions, and where we split up into subcaucuses that were a blend between what you wanted to have happen in the party and whose ego demanded its own subcaucus.
The result was that, at least for my precinct. who determined whether state votes went to Clinton or Sanders was not the rank and file, but those who were willing to put in some extra effort. In other words, it was undemocratic.
It was an election. It was set up to favor Clinton, but Sanders had a real shot at the nomination. He just had to do significantly better than Clinton, where he failed.
It doesn't work in the US. The Feds can't just issue IDs to everybody in the country and have the states use them, since it's not one of the Constitutional powers, and it's not close enough to hope the Supreme Court stretches the Constitution to cover it. Elections are administered by individual states, not the Federal government. There are no national elections, although people routinely count up the number of voters who vote for each Presidential candidate. The only national elective offices are the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, and those are determined by individual elections for slates of electors in each state who will fill out the real official Presidential ballots that actually have legal significance.
Some time ago, the Feds started a RealID program, an attempt to require state-issued IDs to conform to certain standards to be valid for boarding an aircraft. It faced a lot of opposition..
When you've got voting machines, the lines depend heavily on the number of machines allocated to each precinct, not how many volunteers you've got. In some cases, the neighborhoods of the right party got ample working voting machines, and the neighborhoods of the wrong party got too few machines, some of which were flaky.
Um, huh? Where do you live that the major parties make the rules and count the votes? Where I live, the rules are set by the Legislature, and the counting is done by election officials. Both major parties generally have observers everywhere important, which is good, since any cheating would presumably be to the benefit of one party, and the observer from the other party would complain to the authorities.
That would be so easy to break up if law enforcement actually cared about it. No voting scheme is inherently incorruptible. They all rely on the ability of an election official or observer to report fraud and have somebody actually care.
In other words, buses of people voting in numerous different precincts isn't the basic problem; it's just a symptom.
OK. Intimidate me outside the voting booth. Then I go in and vote in privacy. It's a lot easier to successfully intimidate me when I'm not in a private place.
Right. So somebody can continue to supply OS updates to phones that are regularly catching on fire. The problem is that Samsung made a lot of phones that are physically dangerous, and doesn't have a good way to recycle them, not that the OS is getting old.
There's lots of legalities involved in opening up code, and it wouldn't do much good. Updating the OSes would happen to a few phones, but it would be a lot of work and few people would pay for it. Sometimes people just like their old phones and would pay money to replace them with something similar, but people who hang on to their old phones tend not to be big spenders, and there's not much profit in trying to do things for them.
When I was a kid, back in the 60s, my family did not have all that much money saved. It's difficult to save when trying to give your children a good start in life.
Anyone born in the US is a citizen. That's specified in one of the amendments to the Constitution. I hope you're not proposing discriminating against citizens because you don't think they're good enough citizens.
Would you care to cite someone who isn't an obvious crackpot who thinks non-citizens should be able to vote? Or that people here illegally should get government benefits? Illegal immigrants tend to avoid applying for government things because of the danger of being caught. As far as driver's licenses go, that's not much of a benefit, since they'll drive with or without.
Clinton is in favor of free trade treaties. She's against the TPP as it wound up, years after she was no longer involved in the negotiations. She's not going to support the TPP and similar treaties. She'll be in favor of other treaties, which will almost certainly be better. Whether they're actually good is another question, and you and I may have different opinions on it.
I'm for open borders. Right now, it wouldn't work. I'd like to see the Americas (heck, the world) in a state where it would work. Did Clinton say that she thought it could be done now?
In the US, you can generally quit at any time. HR will say that you worked from date X to date Y, and resigned. Of course, severance benefits often depend on you not quitting, and it may be to your advantage to sit there and train your replacement. Just don't train your replacement anything actively harmful, and you should be legal.
We're talking about "disadvantaged" here, and one problem with "disadvantaged" environments is that what happens later is unreliable. Passing the marshmallow test means having confident that you will indeed get the two marshmallows if you don't eat the one first. Now, suppose you grew up in an environment where, if you had something and didn't use it immediately, it would likely be stolen. Adults would promise you things and not deliver, and sometimes make fun of you for expecting them to. In that case, the coldly rational action is to eat the marshmallow before it goes away, and not count on the experimenter's promise of another one later. Delayed gratification only works if there is some gratification at the end of the delay.
This isn't a generational thing, except that work ethic and delayed gratifications are things you get better with over time, so the younger generation is always lazy and spoiled from the point of view of those who have forgotten what it was like to be that age.
The USN was fully in the Battle of the Atlantic from September 1941, two years after the war in Europe started and over three and a half before it ended.
The bill went without Republican input because the Republicans refused to provide any. The ACA, like most bills, has flaws. The Republicans are completely uninterested in fixing any of the flaws, and far more interested in trying to impress their more gullible constituents by meaningless votes to repeal. Now, if enough Republicans were to say, "Gee, we still hate this, but if we make some changes here and here we'll hate it a little less", like real politicians, something could get done.
The model will be as objective as the training data. If the training data is loan applications and whether they were granted or denied, it will reflect the biases of the people or algorithms who made the decisions. If it is performance on loans granted, it will generally reflect those biases in reverse, since if (say) it's harder for blacks to get a loan, the loans that are granted to blacks will be on a more sound basis, and blacks will look like less of a risk. I don't see how to get unbiased training data, but that could be a failure of my imagination.
In many financial transactions, discrimination on the basis of race is illegal, as well as unfair to individuals. (There are other protected classes, but I'm not as familiar with protected classes as they apply to financial decisions.) It at least used to be true for some of them that the lender had to explain why the loan was denied, and what the applicant could do to qualify (and "spray-paint skin pinkish" doesn't count.) The model will have to be carefully checked to see that it's not discriminatory against protected groups, and that's the issue in TFS.
Back when I first studied expert systems in 1989, there was an expert system that would diagnose certain conditions better than real live doctors could, so this isn't new. For some things, it would be cheaper and more efficient to do the diagnosis and recommended treatment by machine, and have somebody licensed to practice medicine with no further qualifications signing whatever the machine sends to the prescription printer.
This isn't the same situation, though. For diagnoses, whatever makes it more accurate is good, and this includes things like race and sex (some conditions correlate with race, and a lot correlate with sex - I'm real unlikely to contract ovarian cancer, for example). The only illegalities would come in treatment, if, say, it favored less effective treatments for one race or sex (although sometimes it seems like there's an anti-female basis in current medicine). Lending decisions are more like treatment than diagnosis that way.
I don't see the same problem for the auto dealer that you do. A model can tell the salesperson how risky the loan is, and the salesperson can't really manipulate that. The rewards would be for salespeople who managed to get people to take more risky loans, without falling too much afoul of predatory lending laws, and I just don't see how semi-objective measures of risk do that.
In other words, the fact that Russia committed an act of war isn't as important as thinking just like Putin wants you to think? Does it bother you at all to be played by the FSB? Is having a foreign government tamper with a US election a minor matter, as long as it favors your side? (FWIW, I'd have the same reaction if it had been RNC internal emails, although I wouldn't be as annoyed.)
I don't get what's wrong with the DNC favoring Clinton. The elections were not rigged. Sanders could have won. He was at a disadvantage since the DNC was favoring Clinton pretty heavily, but what's wrong with that? He is not a Democrat. He's less electable than Clinton. The purpose of the DNC here is to come up with a good candidate for President, not remaining absolutely neutral. If you want to have more influence on the nominating process, you need to do more work. In the general election, everybody's vote is the same and the government is a neutral arbiter. These are not the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I have my facts. My ideology is motivation to clear Clinton from unwarranted attacks, not Trump, but Trump seems to have his own defenders, so I'm not worried about being fair in my actions, only in my research and conclusions. You really don't have a clue about my attitudes about science and criminal behavior and reality, do you? If you think that actually searching for the truth is leftist, then I'm even happier in my beliefs.
I've pretty well established that people aren't prosecuted for negligence with classified documents, for example. I did that by looking for counterexamples, and challenging people to find them for me. In other words, by examining the facts, including taking a look at anything possibly relevant someone comes up with. I'm still interested in counterexamples, by the way, if you've got one. I'll take an honest look at it.
However, I'm not tracking down a book unless I've got a good feeling that it will be useful, and I'm not going to take time to watch a video. If you've got a pointer to a transcript, that would be much better. Having names written down is useful when trying to figure out what really happened.
Of course it matters who the attacker was. If it's the Russian government, it's at least similar to an act of war, and we need to respond accordingly. If it's some guy in Romania acting on his own, then it's a crime, but it's not an act of war. The US government is responsible for defending its citizens against unwarranted foreign state-sponsored attacks of any sort.
Russian official hacking into a US server is probably an act of war, much as if the Russian army were to shoot a US citizen on US soil. It doesn't matter what roles the server or citizen have. So, hacking into the DNC server is probably an act of war, as would hacking into the RNC server, the NSA, or my laptop. I completely fail to see why it's a difficult concept that the US government is supposed to defend its citizens and assets from attacks by other countries, regardless of who the citizens are and what they're doing.
As far as the dead body and burglar analogy, it depends on which you think is more important, I guess. I'm not particularly bothered by some unsavory politics in a nomination campaign, because that's pretty much what normally happens. I'm positive you'd see similar if you were to hack into the RNC. I consider the expectation of really clean politics everywhere to be much like Communism, libertarianism, or expecting users to be aware of computer security: would be nice, and you're much better off not expecting it. I do think state-sponsored hacking attacks on the US are a big deal, particularly when intended to influence US elections. I'm not at all happy with the messing with other people's governments the US has done, either, including Cold War interventions and the assorted coups on behalf of fruit companies, but I have a particular interest in defense of the US.
The proper investigative agencies seem to be pretty well convinced it's a Russian attack, and they will not normally publicize all the evidence. I am puzzled, however, in that you don't trust the US government to investigate these things, but you trust whatever the Russian government comes up with. Russia is a lot more corrupt than the US.
US elections are complicated. I'm going to be voting for President, Representative, State Senator, State Representative, and a batch of offices that I really don't care about. There could also be referenda on the ballots. I haven't checked this year. Typically, I'm facing at least two dozen things to vote for. It's easier to run the ballot through a counting machine and save it away in case a recount is necessary.
In my precinct, pretty much everyone who wanted got to go to the State Senate District convention, where there was actual competition to be selected as a delegate to higher conventions, and where we split up into subcaucuses that were a blend between what you wanted to have happen in the party and whose ego demanded its own subcaucus.
The result was that, at least for my precinct. who determined whether state votes went to Clinton or Sanders was not the rank and file, but those who were willing to put in some extra effort. In other words, it was undemocratic.
It was an election. It was set up to favor Clinton, but Sanders had a real shot at the nomination. He just had to do significantly better than Clinton, where he failed.
Got any evidence for that statement?
It doesn't work in the US. The Feds can't just issue IDs to everybody in the country and have the states use them, since it's not one of the Constitutional powers, and it's not close enough to hope the Supreme Court stretches the Constitution to cover it. Elections are administered by individual states, not the Federal government. There are no national elections, although people routinely count up the number of voters who vote for each Presidential candidate. The only national elective offices are the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, and those are determined by individual elections for slates of electors in each state who will fill out the real official Presidential ballots that actually have legal significance.
Some time ago, the Feds started a RealID program, an attempt to require state-issued IDs to conform to certain standards to be valid for boarding an aircraft. It faced a lot of opposition..
When you've got voting machines, the lines depend heavily on the number of machines allocated to each precinct, not how many volunteers you've got. In some cases, the neighborhoods of the right party got ample working voting machines, and the neighborhoods of the wrong party got too few machines, some of which were flaky.
Um, huh? Where do you live that the major parties make the rules and count the votes? Where I live, the rules are set by the Legislature, and the counting is done by election officials. Both major parties generally have observers everywhere important, which is good, since any cheating would presumably be to the benefit of one party, and the observer from the other party would complain to the authorities.
That would be so easy to break up if law enforcement actually cared about it. No voting scheme is inherently incorruptible. They all rely on the ability of an election official or observer to report fraud and have somebody actually care.
In other words, buses of people voting in numerous different precincts isn't the basic problem; it's just a symptom.
OK. Intimidate me outside the voting booth. Then I go in and vote in privacy. It's a lot easier to successfully intimidate me when I'm not in a private place.
Right. So somebody can continue to supply OS updates to phones that are regularly catching on fire. The problem is that Samsung made a lot of phones that are physically dangerous, and doesn't have a good way to recycle them, not that the OS is getting old.
There's lots of legalities involved in opening up code, and it wouldn't do much good. Updating the OSes would happen to a few phones, but it would be a lot of work and few people would pay for it. Sometimes people just like their old phones and would pay money to replace them with something similar, but people who hang on to their old phones tend not to be big spenders, and there's not much profit in trying to do things for them.
When I was a kid, back in the 60s, my family did not have all that much money saved. It's difficult to save when trying to give your children a good start in life.
That works for six months. I've gone for more than six months without work.
Anyone born in the US is a citizen. That's specified in one of the amendments to the Constitution. I hope you're not proposing discriminating against citizens because you don't think they're good enough citizens.
Would you care to cite someone who isn't an obvious crackpot who thinks non-citizens should be able to vote? Or that people here illegally should get government benefits? Illegal immigrants tend to avoid applying for government things because of the danger of being caught. As far as driver's licenses go, that's not much of a benefit, since they'll drive with or without.
Clinton is in favor of free trade treaties. She's against the TPP as it wound up, years after she was no longer involved in the negotiations. She's not going to support the TPP and similar treaties. She'll be in favor of other treaties, which will almost certainly be better. Whether they're actually good is another question, and you and I may have different opinions on it.
I'm for open borders. Right now, it wouldn't work. I'd like to see the Americas (heck, the world) in a state where it would work. Did Clinton say that she thought it could be done now?
I'm willing to believe that Trump pays no taxes legally.
Therefore, I'm willing to believe that he doesn't make any money over time.
Therefore, I really doubt his business acumen, which is one of the things he's touting.
In the US, you can generally quit at any time. HR will say that you worked from date X to date Y, and resigned. Of course, severance benefits often depend on you not quitting, and it may be to your advantage to sit there and train your replacement. Just don't train your replacement anything actively harmful, and you should be legal.
We're talking about "disadvantaged" here, and one problem with "disadvantaged" environments is that what happens later is unreliable. Passing the marshmallow test means having confident that you will indeed get the two marshmallows if you don't eat the one first. Now, suppose you grew up in an environment where, if you had something and didn't use it immediately, it would likely be stolen. Adults would promise you things and not deliver, and sometimes make fun of you for expecting them to. In that case, the coldly rational action is to eat the marshmallow before it goes away, and not count on the experimenter's promise of another one later. Delayed gratification only works if there is some gratification at the end of the delay.
This isn't a generational thing, except that work ethic and delayed gratifications are things you get better with over time, so the younger generation is always lazy and spoiled from the point of view of those who have forgotten what it was like to be that age.
The USN was fully in the Battle of the Atlantic from September 1941, two years after the war in Europe started and over three and a half before it ended.
The bill went without Republican input because the Republicans refused to provide any. The ACA, like most bills, has flaws. The Republicans are completely uninterested in fixing any of the flaws, and far more interested in trying to impress their more gullible constituents by meaningless votes to repeal. Now, if enough Republicans were to say, "Gee, we still hate this, but if we make some changes here and here we'll hate it a little less", like real politicians, something could get done.
The model will be as objective as the training data. If the training data is loan applications and whether they were granted or denied, it will reflect the biases of the people or algorithms who made the decisions. If it is performance on loans granted, it will generally reflect those biases in reverse, since if (say) it's harder for blacks to get a loan, the loans that are granted to blacks will be on a more sound basis, and blacks will look like less of a risk. I don't see how to get unbiased training data, but that could be a failure of my imagination.
In many financial transactions, discrimination on the basis of race is illegal, as well as unfair to individuals. (There are other protected classes, but I'm not as familiar with protected classes as they apply to financial decisions.) It at least used to be true for some of them that the lender had to explain why the loan was denied, and what the applicant could do to qualify (and "spray-paint skin pinkish" doesn't count.) The model will have to be carefully checked to see that it's not discriminatory against protected groups, and that's the issue in TFS.
Back when I first studied expert systems in 1989, there was an expert system that would diagnose certain conditions better than real live doctors could, so this isn't new. For some things, it would be cheaper and more efficient to do the diagnosis and recommended treatment by machine, and have somebody licensed to practice medicine with no further qualifications signing whatever the machine sends to the prescription printer.
This isn't the same situation, though. For diagnoses, whatever makes it more accurate is good, and this includes things like race and sex (some conditions correlate with race, and a lot correlate with sex - I'm real unlikely to contract ovarian cancer, for example). The only illegalities would come in treatment, if, say, it favored less effective treatments for one race or sex (although sometimes it seems like there's an anti-female basis in current medicine). Lending decisions are more like treatment than diagnosis that way.
I don't see the same problem for the auto dealer that you do. A model can tell the salesperson how risky the loan is, and the salesperson can't really manipulate that. The rewards would be for salespeople who managed to get people to take more risky loans, without falling too much afoul of predatory lending laws, and I just don't see how semi-objective measures of risk do that.
In other words, the fact that Russia committed an act of war isn't as important as thinking just like Putin wants you to think? Does it bother you at all to be played by the FSB? Is having a foreign government tamper with a US election a minor matter, as long as it favors your side? (FWIW, I'd have the same reaction if it had been RNC internal emails, although I wouldn't be as annoyed.)
I don't get what's wrong with the DNC favoring Clinton. The elections were not rigged. Sanders could have won. He was at a disadvantage since the DNC was favoring Clinton pretty heavily, but what's wrong with that? He is not a Democrat. He's less electable than Clinton. The purpose of the DNC here is to come up with a good candidate for President, not remaining absolutely neutral. If you want to have more influence on the nominating process, you need to do more work. In the general election, everybody's vote is the same and the government is a neutral arbiter. These are not the same thing.