Wikipedia doesn't seem to agree with you:
"Although neodymium is classed as a rare earth, it is a fairly common element, no rarer than cobalt, nickel, or copper, and is widely distributed in the Earth's crust."
There does seem to be illegal mining going on in China, but that's not a problem with the element, per se. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I really like my chromebooks - some run ChromeOS (with full Linux via crouton), and some even run Windows 10 - but I buy them for less than 200$, and I see them as kind of disposable, which is great for my use case.
But what's the point of these expensive ChromeBooks? The super duper expensive Pixel books I can kind of understand - it's just Google showing of how nice things could be.
But these 500$ ones?
E-voting is such an interesting case of "the client doesn't know what he wants" - basically all people with a little more than passing IT competence know it is a bad idea, for many reasons. Sure - you could in theory add blockchains or whatever to it to make it a bit more sensible, but why bother? Never touch a working (paper voting) system!
But people that do not grok IT, out of ignorance or malice, really love the idea of e-voting, and are surprisingly hard to convince of their error.
|But, the way science works is that whatever the best theory we have at the moment has to be our working hypothesis.
Sure, climate science by the very nature of what is being studied is overly complex and chaotic, and will probably never approach 'real' physics levels of certainty.
But if the best theory we have at this time says we are fucked, then we should dedicate a lot of brainpower and resources to slightly unfuck ourselves.
Sure! Also give some resources to people investigating if we really are as fucked as the prevailing theories predict, just in case.
But unless someone comes up with better, more consistent models of climate fuckery, we should believe the 'mainstream' science, and take it as truth.
While I admire the fact that Telegram really seems to be standing their ground, I'd recommend switching to Signal, which is open source through-and through, and thus slightly less probable to be hacked or coerced by governments.
And on Android you could just download and update from a website, if a government would force Google to remove it from the Play Store, or block security updates.
I, for one, am happy that most stuff is done in a browser nowadays. My Chromebook convinced me (even though I obviously also have full fledged Linux running on it)
Now, It is way easier to recommend Linux or even tablets to companies, because most things will simply just work. No hassles with permissions, interoperability and cross-platform-ness.
HTML5, and IE's deserved demise makes it completely acceptable to simply require Firefox or Chrome/Chromium (or maybe Safari), and send other people away to get with the program.
Sure - for some big applications, a 'real' executable is still prefereble. But As Chromebooks popularity show, 99% of stuff,a nd light office work, can be done in a browser.
Can anyone explain how arbitration clauses work? How can a company limit an employee's rights to proceed legally against a company in case of criminal conduct?
That doesn't seem to make sense?
As far as I can tell, this "self destruct" feature simply sends a link to a webpage to the recipient. This webpage will be able to be taken down. This wouldn't prevent anyone from taking screenshots, and can already be easily done. But in essence: if someone can read it on their screen, it can be archived on the receiver's side. And probably somehow crypto-signed to prove that you didn't make it up later.
Governments obviously have to (or should) comply with certain IT record keeping standards - similar to what big companies have to do for compliance regulations. IIRC, even Google Suites offers outgoing and incoming email archiving.
Just a friendly reminder that Go was basically considered unplayable by my AI and ML professors just 15 years ago. The advancements are really astonishing.
Regarding the Rogue One thing: someone simply used one of these recently developed "deep fake" apps, and gave it a shot. The result is arguably better than what the ILM wizards were able to do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpk7ocOc2ho
I don't know about cancer, but just for the sake of your eyes, get F.lux!
It automatically dials down the blue component of your screen at night (with a gradual transition). At the very beginning, it takes a minute or so to get used to, and might look weird.
BUT! After using it for a couple of hours at night, I dare you to vidit a webpage with a white background, and turn it off for a second. Your eyes will hurt, and you will notice that looking at a monitor is like staring into a lightbulb at night. It's really painful.
But why, though?
The record labels used to provide a complex and valuable service to artists (studios, physical distribution, promotion)
All of these seem way easier to do for small companies, or even the artists themselves, thanks to the advancements in technology and communications.
So why are the record labels still skimming so mucho money of the top? Why hasn't a fairer smaller label disrupted the market yet? Why don't more artists self-publish or self-distribute?
I kind of understand his point, to be honest.
The old system of the police getting a warrant from a judge in order to wiretap a reasonably suspicious person's telephone, in order to make sure that he's actually a bad guy made sense. There was control and oversight, a reasonable expectation of privacy for the rest of us, and the police could use this tool to catch some bad guys (always with judge oversight).
Nowadays everyone only has to follow some short tutorials to get secure communication channels that world powers would have salivated over just a couple of decades back. This has obviously changed everything.
But that Pandora's Box has been opened, and can't be closed again, at all. Even if Google and Apple would play ball, there will always be open source tools that guarantee secure encrypted channels.
I would actually like the police to have the same capabilities as they had before - but I know that including backdoors, prohibiting encryption and other shenanigans simply wont work. And I have no idea what the law enforcement system could do to face this challenge.
It really don't like Zuckerberg, but in this case, the questions seemed very unfair, or at least uninformed.
So Facebook has those like-buttons everywhere, and there is a legitimate use for those. They will obviously save standard log information of the people that retrieve those buttons. Those buttons are often Javascript and/or an iframe. So Facebook can also gather rather standard things like screen size, browser headers, etc.
Just with that information, they can start doing fingerprinting of these anonymous users. I would quite frankly do this in a heartbeat if I had code of mine everywhere.
They can also use this for security purposes, and user modelling ("hmm...what can we gather about people that don't use our services? Why won't they? What can we do to appeal to them?").
But calling it 'shadow profiles' seems very misleading.
According to the FAQ, beep has to be installed as setuid root for this to work.
Why the heck would beep need root? I'm guessing in order to access the hardware, but that's what we are supposed to have HALs for?
Anyone who has every looked at Facebook's Graph API knows that when you build a "Facebook App", you have the option to ask for more detailed access to the user's information (basic public profile information which you could screen-scrape anyhow is included).
The user gets a quite clear pop-up where he has to allow access to this information.
Once in a while, Facebook even tells the user "Hey! You might wanna go through your enabled Apps and disable some!"
So I don't understand the outrage? User permits developer access to his data. Developer is bound by Facebook API's ToS (which are often ignored, I guess).
After having dismissed the Clone Wars and Rebels animated series for looking very childish, I have finally come around to binge-watching them, and I think they are great!
The Star Wars universe lends itself beautifully to TV series, because there are a gadzillion of little back-stories to tell and flesh out. It really makes the universe come alive even more.
That being said, the animation style takes some getting used to, but I didn't even notice it after a couple of episodes in. But something that does constantly cross my mind is "I bet they couldn't have done this battle sequence, or space combat sequence if it were live-action, so lucky us that they decided to do it in animation!"
So, a live-action tv-series will have to cut back on effects and complexity quite a lot. I would prefer them to go animated, again.
Is there any obvious reason I am missing why Samsung would go through the trouble of using two distinct CPUs for different markets? What's the point of that?
Here's a rather scary video from Computerphile about the implications of robots adjusting their behaviour in order to accomplish the pre-programmed goal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TYT1QfdfsM
May I point out that there's a cryptocurrency that doesn't waste all that precious computing power that is currently simply used as a glorified heater?
After hundreds of years of engineering speakers, why haven't we come up with an almost eprfect speaker?
There seems to have been some progress - those 10$ little chinese bluetooth speakers sound way better than most medium range speakers I heard when I was growing up, IMHO - but how come that there's still innovation happening regarding how you route some air pressure waves through a box?
The current AI algorithms seem quite good at automatically solving some well defined problem, given enough input and learning cycles.
Is it really such a stretch of the imagination that we will come up with a more automated way, a sort of meta AI, which will detect if a given problem hasn't been defined yet, and how it may be defined, in order to afterwards pass it on to the learning-through-simulation subsystem?
One DeepMind guy said that AlphaGo would have utterly failed, if they would have modified the board by adding an extra column, whereas a human would still probably do okay-ish. So I am guessing that some meta-algorithm will be developed to detect such a modification, and then adjust the underlying subsystems accordingly.
Same with all the stated situations that self-driving cars seem to suck at currently (snow, construction sites, Tesla crashes). Right now, it seems that researches have to explicitly add the programming for these unforseen situations. But I bet this part will be automated, too: when the Tesla crashed into that trailer it didn't 'see', it should automatically detect that it messed up (crash is bad), and re-evaluate all previous sensor data to come up with a solution that would not have ended with a crash, and adjust its NN weights accordingly. This doesn't seem too much of a stretch in light of AlphaZero, and might very well lead to exponential AI 'cleverness'.
Slashdot Mirror
Aha! <dl> , <dt> and <dd> ! Neat!
You should win a price for the best formatted slashdot comment EVER! How did you get those nice indents and to show? Testing..
Wikipedia doesn't seem to agree with you:
"Although neodymium is classed as a rare earth, it is a fairly common element, no rarer than cobalt, nickel, or copper, and is widely distributed in the Earth's crust."
There does seem to be illegal mining going on in China, but that's not a problem with the element, per se.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I really like my chromebooks - some run ChromeOS (with full Linux via crouton), and some even run Windows 10 - but I buy them for less than 200$, and I see them as kind of disposable, which is great for my use case.
But what's the point of these expensive ChromeBooks? The super duper expensive Pixel books I can kind of understand - it's just Google showing of how nice things could be.
But these 500$ ones?
E-voting is such an interesting case of "the client doesn't know what he wants" - basically all people with a little more than passing IT competence know it is a bad idea, for many reasons. Sure - you could in theory add blockchains or whatever to it to make it a bit more sensible, but why bother? Never touch a working (paper voting) system!
But people that do not grok IT, out of ignorance or malice, really love the idea of e-voting, and are surprisingly hard to convince of their error.
|But, the way science works is that whatever the best theory we have at the moment has to be our working hypothesis.
Sure, climate science by the very nature of what is being studied is overly complex and chaotic, and will probably never approach 'real' physics levels of certainty.
But if the best theory we have at this time says we are fucked, then we should dedicate a lot of brainpower and resources to slightly unfuck ourselves.
Sure! Also give some resources to people investigating if we really are as fucked as the prevailing theories predict, just in case.
But unless someone comes up with better, more consistent models of climate fuckery, we should believe the 'mainstream' science, and take it as truth.
While I admire the fact that Telegram really seems to be standing their ground, I'd recommend switching to Signal, which is open source through-and through, and thus slightly less probable to be hacked or coerced by governments.
And on Android you could just download and update from a website, if a government would force Google to remove it from the Play Store, or block security updates.
I, for one, am happy that most stuff is done in a browser nowadays. My Chromebook convinced me (even though I obviously also have full fledged Linux running on it)
Now, It is way easier to recommend Linux or even tablets to companies, because most things will simply just work. No hassles with permissions, interoperability and cross-platform-ness.
HTML5, and IE's deserved demise makes it completely acceptable to simply require Firefox or Chrome/Chromium (or maybe Safari), and send other people away to get with the program.
Sure - for some big applications, a 'real' executable is still prefereble. But As Chromebooks popularity show, 99% of stuff,a nd light office work, can be done in a browser.
Can anyone explain how arbitration clauses work? How can a company limit an employee's rights to proceed legally against a company in case of criminal conduct?
That doesn't seem to make sense?
This seems like uninformed nonsense.
As far as I can tell, this "self destruct" feature simply sends a link to a webpage to the recipient. This webpage will be able to be taken down. This wouldn't prevent anyone from taking screenshots, and can already be easily done. But in essence: if someone can read it on their screen, it can be archived on the receiver's side. And probably somehow crypto-signed to prove that you didn't make it up later.
Governments obviously have to (or should) comply with certain IT record keeping standards - similar to what big companies have to do for compliance regulations. IIRC, even Google Suites offers outgoing and incoming email archiving.
Just a friendly reminder that Go was basically considered unplayable by my AI and ML professors just 15 years ago. The advancements are really astonishing.
Regarding the Rogue One thing: someone simply used one of these recently developed "deep fake" apps, and gave it a shot. The result is arguably better than what the ILM wizards were able to do:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpk7ocOc2ho
Some Facebook employee is going through the watchmen's pictures as we speak, probably! :-)
I don't know about cancer, but just for the sake of your eyes, get F.lux!
It automatically dials down the blue component of your screen at night (with a gradual transition). At the very beginning, it takes a minute or so to get used to, and might look weird.
BUT! After using it for a couple of hours at night, I dare you to vidit a webpage with a white background, and turn it off for a second. Your eyes will hurt, and you will notice that looking at a monitor is like staring into a lightbulb at night. It's really painful.
Please, just get F.lux!
But why, though?
The record labels used to provide a complex and valuable service to artists (studios, physical distribution, promotion)
All of these seem way easier to do for small companies, or even the artists themselves, thanks to the advancements in technology and communications.
So why are the record labels still skimming so mucho money of the top? Why hasn't a fairer smaller label disrupted the market yet? Why don't more artists self-publish or self-distribute?
I kind of understand his point, to be honest.
The old system of the police getting a warrant from a judge in order to wiretap a reasonably suspicious person's telephone, in order to make sure that he's actually a bad guy made sense. There was control and oversight, a reasonable expectation of privacy for the rest of us, and the police could use this tool to catch some bad guys (always with judge oversight).
Nowadays everyone only has to follow some short tutorials to get secure communication channels that world powers would have salivated over just a couple of decades back. This has obviously changed everything.
But that Pandora's Box has been opened, and can't be closed again, at all. Even if Google and Apple would play ball, there will always be open source tools that guarantee secure encrypted channels.
I would actually like the police to have the same capabilities as they had before - but I know that including backdoors, prohibiting encryption and other shenanigans simply wont work. And I have no idea what the law enforcement system could do to face this challenge.
It really don't like Zuckerberg, but in this case, the questions seemed very unfair, or at least uninformed.
So Facebook has those like-buttons everywhere, and there is a legitimate use for those. They will obviously save standard log information of the people that retrieve those buttons. Those buttons are often Javascript and/or an iframe. So Facebook can also gather rather standard things like screen size, browser headers, etc.
Just with that information, they can start doing fingerprinting of these anonymous users. I would quite frankly do this in a heartbeat if I had code of mine everywhere.
They can also use this for security purposes, and user modelling ("hmm...what can we gather about people that don't use our services? Why won't they? What can we do to appeal to them?").
But calling it 'shadow profiles' seems very misleading.
According to the FAQ, beep has to be installed as setuid root for this to work.
Why the heck would beep need root? I'm guessing in order to access the hardware, but that's what we are supposed to have HALs for?
Anyone who has every looked at Facebook's Graph API knows that when you build a "Facebook App", you have the option to ask for more detailed access to the user's information (basic public profile information which you could screen-scrape anyhow is included).
The user gets a quite clear pop-up where he has to allow access to this information.
Once in a while, Facebook even tells the user "Hey! You might wanna go through your enabled Apps and disable some!"
So I don't understand the outrage? User permits developer access to his data. Developer is bound by Facebook API's ToS (which are often ignored, I guess).
After having dismissed the Clone Wars and Rebels animated series for looking very childish, I have finally come around to binge-watching them, and I think they are great!
The Star Wars universe lends itself beautifully to TV series, because there are a gadzillion of little back-stories to tell and flesh out. It really makes the universe come alive even more.
That being said, the animation style takes some getting used to, but I didn't even notice it after a couple of episodes in. But something that does constantly cross my mind is "I bet they couldn't have done this battle sequence, or space combat sequence if it were live-action, so lucky us that they decided to do it in animation!"
So, a live-action tv-series will have to cut back on effects and complexity quite a lot. I would prefer them to go animated, again.
Is there any obvious reason I am missing why Samsung would go through the trouble of using two distinct CPUs for different markets? What's the point of that?
Here's a rather scary video from Computerphile about the implications of robots adjusting their behaviour in order to accomplish the pre-programmed goal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TYT1QfdfsM
May I point out that there's a cryptocurrency that doesn't waste all that precious computing power that is currently simply used as a glorified heater?
https://www.gridcoin.us/
It runs on top of the BOINC platform, so you can choose different proyects you want to contribute to
After hundreds of years of engineering speakers, why haven't we come up with an almost eprfect speaker?
There seems to have been some progress - those 10$ little chinese bluetooth speakers sound way better than most medium range speakers I heard when I was growing up, IMHO - but how come that there's still innovation happening regarding how you route some air pressure waves through a box?
The current AI algorithms seem quite good at automatically solving some well defined problem, given enough input and learning cycles.
Is it really such a stretch of the imagination that we will come up with a more automated way, a sort of meta AI, which will detect if a given problem hasn't been defined yet, and how it may be defined, in order to afterwards pass it on to the learning-through-simulation subsystem?
One DeepMind guy said that AlphaGo would have utterly failed, if they would have modified the board by adding an extra column, whereas a human would still probably do okay-ish. So I am guessing that some meta-algorithm will be developed to detect such a modification, and then adjust the underlying subsystems accordingly.
Same with all the stated situations that self-driving cars seem to suck at currently (snow, construction sites, Tesla crashes). Right now, it seems that researches have to explicitly add the programming for these unforseen situations. But I bet this part will be automated, too: when the Tesla crashed into that trailer it didn't 'see', it should automatically detect that it messed up (crash is bad), and re-evaluate all previous sensor data to come up with a solution that would not have ended with a crash, and adjust its NN weights accordingly. This doesn't seem too much of a stretch in light of AlphaZero, and might very well lead to exponential AI 'cleverness'.