Biometrics make horrible passwords. They are way too easy to steal and copy. Two factor makes more sense, but it is still a password. I suggest a many-factor system.
What we do in real life is use a combination of multiple different methods. It's not just the way your face looks, but the location, clothing, and voice.
A complex system that combines multiple methods, assigns a percent sure of identity might work. It could include a simple password (six characters), that must be typed on live video (increasing both the time it takes to enter a password and allowing verification of keyboard and typing pattern along with your hands and video file is hashed and saved to be sure it isn't reused), along with a check for an existing cookie on the PC, with a verification for usual browser, usual source IP address, etc.
Such a system would be set up to allow for changes, but not all at once. I.E. If you just change your keyboard, that doesn't trigger a violation, but if you replace your computer then you better have the same router source IP address or expect a phone call/email/letter.
Science is about discovery not invention. Technology is about invention, not science, but it has other limits.
That means we can't decide to use science to solve problems - I can't decide to discover FTL travel, I can just investigate promising quantum physics and pray that I will stumble upon something that will be helpful in that direction. But I am honestly just as likely to discover a new source of power.
Technology is about invention - I decide to build the best dating app and get one that actually lets you exclude people that own cats because I am allergic (Seriously, why don't the existing dating apps already do this????)
But technology is limited by two factors - 1) proven science and 2) the inventor's experience derived creativity. Most technologists solve problems they experience. It is hard enough to do that ; solving problems you have never experienced is much harder.
If you truly want people to solve the problems of the poor than you need more scientists that grew up poor.
Don't blame the mostly middle class scientists for not fixing the problem of the poor. Blame the governments and educational organizations for not educating the poor.
China's ruling political party has no competition, so they never felt the need to directly contradict progressive ideas. They have admitted the existence of global warming (sorry GOP, I will not use the term you invented "climate change") and are actively fighting against it.
The USA's ruling party is currently the GOP, it holds the Presidency and a majority in Supreme Court, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.
But the GOP got there in part by fighting against the Democrat party, which had put itself on the side of Progress. That includes the progressive idea of global warming.
So the GOP denied global warming and put pro pollution people in charge. They refuse to put funding into clean energy and that explains it.
Rotten Tomatoes is one of the few movie rating systems that does not suffer from "paid creep".
Most movie rating systems are corrupted by the film makers that hate when they get a 1 star review. So the worst film gets a 3, the best gets a 5 star and most get a 4. That makes them worthless.
Graphs of their rating look like a single mountain at the end of plain.
Not true of Rotten Tomatoes, they give a full spectrum 1-5. Their graph looks like a normal curve
It's not really about the 'money'. It's about politics.
The GOP has developed a myth that somehow military technology spending works, while civilian does not. This despite the fact that military is FAMOUS for horrendously overspending on stupid crap that doesn't work.
For this reason they refuse to spend money on non-military technology.
The scientist counter this by re-framing all grant request as military in nature. US government funded medical research is huge - but only because they convinced the military to paying for it. Surely General, you care about your soldiers, right? You want them to have the best medical care, right? So fund our research.
It's medical research. We have the money for it and the political will. It should be funded by the Department of Health and Human Services.
But the GOP has political objections to admitting that the US government works - except the military - so we have to do this silly work around.
1) Despite the general belief, driverless has NOTHING to do with all electric. Yes, there will be a competition.
2) Eventually, the computing power and sensor tech will improve power efficiency, allowing both in the same car. Expect that to happen 5-10 years after the first one becomes ubiquitous.
3) I bet they are underestimating how much power they will save by getting humans out of the loop.
4) You can probably decided to turn the AI off to drive long distances, thereby saving battery life.
I am not an expert, but below is a first draft of how I would attempt to explain it to someone that does not have a physics education at all.
Electromagnetism is the force that includes both electricity and magnetism. The weak force is responsible for radioactivity and fission.
Interesting, at very high energy levels, the weak force and electromagnetism appear to be the same thing.
The electroweak force is that single force. Electromagnetism being in effect a diffuse form of the electroweak force. that occupies an area larger than the nucleus of an atom.
Conversely the weak force could be considered an example of electromagnetism focused down to into the single particle size level. smaller than a single nuetron.
1) It allows to you discuss things with the immense level of accuracy needed for discussing complex topics. Business talk about 'enterprises' so as to include both corporations and non-profit organizations.
2) When talking to other experts, it demonstrates familiarity and knowledge, proving expertise. When talking to other computer experts, if you mention SaaS (Software as a Service) they know you are technical, while if you say Cloud, you are more likely corporate.
3) When talking to non-experts it makes them think you are an expert - irregardless of whether you are one or not. Con men and smarmy types love to abuse it in this way. But if they run into a real expert they get laughed at.
Wikipedia is supposed to be for the general population, not an expert. As such, using jargon (and math) is excessive. It should be limited, or at least placed after a full non-technical explanation.
Bullshit. People have the right to engage in online social life that is SEPARATE from their other life.
All you are doing is blaming the victim.
The real problem is a lack of laws regulating the wild west of the new frontier - the internet.
We need laws that allow you to limit how people can collect data on you. Perhaps a legal right to eliminate all data a company has on you. Full delete except for records of financial transactions you have done with them, and your name/address.
We could pay for service via bitcoin mining instead of privacy invasion.
We also need the right to NOT tell them information they don't need to know. Facebook etc. should not have the right to demand your zip code, gender and birthday before giving you an account.
Yes they want that information, but many people do not want to share that information but still want to use their services.
Google does not respect your privacy. Integreation does give minor benefits to the consumer, but it ensures massive information benefits for the company
Many people take to the internet because they are surrounded by people that despise their personal views. The reasonable people tend to not engage the extremists - on both sides.
In fact, most Americans,have an excessively trusting view of the legal system, especially considering the fact that many judges are elected. Yes, that makes them politicians, and they are as corrupt as say Tim Murphy (claimed to be pro-life but pushed his lover to get an abortion).
That said, it is a different story among the extreme right and left. Both think the Judges can not be trusted for different reasons.
What we have here is a case of people not knowing how to make good blades, so instead they made pretty ones.
Once they figured out how to make GOOD blades, they found them so useful that it no longer made sense to pretty them up. Instead they made a ton of the new, improved technology, but did not have time to make beautiful works of art.
That is what the term slander (spoken) and libel (anything besides spoken) mean.
Also, free speech only means the government can't interfere with you saying something as long as it is not defamatory or recklessly endangering people's lives (shouting fire in a crowded room)
It does not mean: 1) Companies refusing to help you publish something. 2) People refusing to listen/obey you. 3) Refusing to pay taxes or otherwise refuse to abide by general government rules that are not targeted at your free speech. But the government can not treat you different from other people that do the same thing for other reasons.
ID has two steps: 1)Username and 2) proof of identity. Biometrics make for a great username/login. You always have them and they take no effort to 'remember'. They make for a horrible proof/password:
1) They can't be changed if someone gets a hold of yours.
2) You leave copies all over the place (fingerprints, DNA samples, pictures of your eyes).
Utility is something that happens AFTER the product is created.
A truly original product has unknown utility. We didn't know what you are going to use the internet for before we invented it.
When someone claims both utility and originality before the product is created and sold it is a key symptom of a scam artist. They are claiming that they personally created a unique, wonderful project with tons of use - and that everyone else was a moron for not thinking of it's obvious uses before them.
You can discover massive utility for a slight innovation, or you can discover a huge innovation with unknown utility. But when people talk about both, they are most likely a scam artist.
Slashdot Mirror
Biometrics make horrible passwords. They are way too easy to steal and copy. Two factor makes more sense, but it is still a password. I suggest a many-factor system.
What we do in real life is use a combination of multiple different methods. It's not just the way your face looks, but the location, clothing, and voice.
A complex system that combines multiple methods, assigns a percent sure of identity might work. It could include a simple password (six characters), that must be typed on live video (increasing both the time it takes to enter a password and allowing verification of keyboard and typing pattern along with your hands and video file is hashed and saved to be sure it isn't reused), along with a check for an existing cookie on the PC, with a verification for usual browser, usual source IP address, etc.
Such a system would be set up to allow for changes, but not all at once. I.E. If you just change your keyboard, that doesn't trigger a violation, but if you replace your computer then you better have the same router source IP address or expect a phone call/email/letter.
But if they ALSO = advertise, track you, and do not warn you, that is Fraud.
If you don't work for a tech company, you are a blue collar worker not a white collar worker.
Even if you do work for a tech company, if you are not a manager or a high level designer, you are a blue collar worker.
Basically, we are more like plumbers than doctors.
We really should unionize.
This guy has no idea what he is talking about.
Science is about discovery not invention. Technology is about invention, not science, but it has other limits.
That means we can't decide to use science to solve problems - I can't decide to discover FTL travel, I can just investigate promising quantum physics and pray that I will stumble upon something that will be helpful in that direction. But I am honestly just as likely to discover a new source of power.
Technology is about invention - I decide to build the best dating app and get one that actually lets you exclude people that own cats because I am allergic (Seriously, why don't the existing dating apps already do this????)
But technology is limited by two factors - 1) proven science and 2) the inventor's experience derived creativity. Most technologists solve problems they experience. It is hard enough to do that ; solving problems you have never experienced is much harder.
If you truly want people to solve the problems of the poor than you need more scientists that grew up poor.
Don't blame the mostly middle class scientists for not fixing the problem of the poor. Blame the governments and educational organizations for not educating the poor.
I used to spend over $200 bucks a month on data.
Now I spend $20 for Republic phone, $40 for internet, and $10 on Hulu.
Smartest decision I ever made.
China's ruling political party has no competition, so they never felt the need to directly contradict progressive ideas. They have admitted the existence of global warming (sorry GOP, I will not use the term you invented "climate change") and are actively fighting against it.
The USA's ruling party is currently the GOP, it holds the Presidency and a majority in Supreme Court, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.
But the GOP got there in part by fighting against the Democrat party, which had put itself on the side of Progress. That includes the progressive idea of global warming.
So the GOP denied global warming and put pro pollution people in charge. They refuse to put funding into clean energy and that explains it.
Rotten Tomatoes is one of the few movie rating systems that does not suffer from "paid creep".
Most movie rating systems are corrupted by the film makers that hate when they get a 1 star review. So the worst film gets a 3, the best gets a 5 star and most get a 4. That makes them worthless.
Graphs of their rating look like a single mountain at the end of plain.
Not true of Rotten Tomatoes, they give a full spectrum 1-5. Their graph looks like a normal curve
It's not really about the 'money'. It's about politics.
The GOP has developed a myth that somehow military technology spending works, while civilian does not. This despite the fact that military is FAMOUS for horrendously overspending on stupid crap that doesn't work.
For this reason they refuse to spend money on non-military technology.
The scientist counter this by re-framing all grant request as military in nature. US government funded medical research is huge - but only because they convinced the military to paying for it. Surely General, you care about your soldiers, right? You want them to have the best medical care, right? So fund our research.
It's medical research. We have the money for it and the political will. It should be funded by the Department of Health and Human Services.
But the GOP has political objections to admitting that the US government works - except the military - so we have to do this silly work around.
I do refuse to go to movies with low scores, and more importantly, I use it to discover movies with a high score that I was unaware of.
It's how I find Indie films to watch.
Maybe I'm part of the elite.
Or maybe the shmucks that dislike rotten tomatoes have no idea what they are talking about.
1) Despite the general belief, driverless has NOTHING to do with all electric. Yes, there will be a competition.
2) Eventually, the computing power and sensor tech will improve power efficiency, allowing both in the same car. Expect that to happen 5-10 years after the first one becomes ubiquitous.
3) I bet they are underestimating how much power they will save by getting humans out of the loop.
4) You can probably decided to turn the AI off to drive long distances, thereby saving battery life.
90% of programmers use google to fix coding problems. Try to do it in Spanish.
Then come back and talk to me.
Is it impossible to learn to code without first learning English? No.
But note that most coders can at least read and write English.
I am not an expert, but below is a first draft of how I would attempt to explain it to someone that does not have a physics education at all.
Electromagnetism is the force that includes both electricity and magnetism. The weak force is responsible for radioactivity and fission.
Interesting, at very high energy levels, the weak force and electromagnetism appear to be the same thing.
The electroweak force is that single force. Electromagnetism being in effect a diffuse form of the electroweak force. that occupies an area larger than the nucleus of an atom.
Conversely the weak force could be considered an example of electromagnetism focused down to into the single particle size level. smaller than a single nuetron.
What you think the following words were 'universal'?
If
Then
Until
While
else
It's written left to right, the non-letter characters are also from english.
You want to learn to code? Learn English first.
Jargon has a definite place in the world.
1) It allows to you discuss things with the immense level of accuracy needed for discussing complex topics. Business talk about 'enterprises' so as to include both corporations and non-profit organizations.
2) When talking to other experts, it demonstrates familiarity and knowledge, proving expertise. When talking to other computer experts, if you mention SaaS (Software as a Service) they know you are technical, while if you say Cloud, you are more likely corporate.
3) When talking to non-experts it makes them think you are an expert - irregardless of whether you are one or not. Con men and smarmy types love to abuse it in this way. But if they run into a real expert they get laughed at.
Wikipedia is supposed to be for the general population, not an expert. As such, using jargon (and math) is excessive. It should be limited, or at least placed after a full non-technical explanation.
Bullshit. People have the right to engage in online social life that is SEPARATE from their other life.
All you are doing is blaming the victim.
The real problem is a lack of laws regulating the wild west of the new frontier - the internet.
We need laws that allow you to limit how people can collect data on you. Perhaps a legal right to eliminate all data a company has on you. Full delete except for records of financial transactions you have done with them, and your name/address.
We could pay for service via bitcoin mining instead of privacy invasion.
We also need the right to NOT tell them information they don't need to know. Facebook etc. should not have the right to demand your zip code, gender and birthday before giving you an account.
Yes they want that information, but many people do not want to share that information but still want to use their services.
Google does not respect your privacy. Integreation does give minor benefits to the consumer, but it ensures massive information benefits for the company
The internet is skewing your view.
Many people take to the internet because they are surrounded by people that despise their personal views. The reasonable people tend to not engage the extremists - on both sides.
In fact, most Americans,have an excessively trusting view of the legal system, especially considering the fact that many judges are elected. Yes, that makes them politicians, and they are as corrupt as say Tim Murphy (claimed to be pro-life but pushed his lover to get an abortion).
That said, it is a different story among the extreme right and left. Both think the Judges can not be trusted for different reasons.
Many people with mental issues self-medicate to varying degrees of success.
It wasn't skilled, it was beautiful.
What we have here is a case of people not knowing how to make good blades, so instead they made pretty ones.
Once they figured out how to make GOOD blades, they found them so useful that it no longer made sense to pretty them up. Instead they made a ton of the new, improved technology, but did not have time to make beautiful works of art.
Philip K Dick was a certifiable genius, but he was also certifiably insane.
Trying to comprehend his world is a lot of fun, but trying to understand his naming convention is to a certain extent an exercise in futility.
That is what the term slander (spoken) and libel (anything besides spoken) mean.
Also, free speech only means the government can't interfere with you saying something as long as it is not defamatory or recklessly endangering people's lives (shouting fire in a crowded room)
It does not mean:
1) Companies refusing to help you publish something.
2) People refusing to listen/obey you.
3) Refusing to pay taxes or otherwise refuse to abide by general government rules that are not targeted at your free speech. But the government can not treat you different from other people that do the same thing for other reasons.
ID has two steps: 1)Username and 2) proof of identity. Biometrics make for a great username/login. You always have them and they take no effort to 'remember'. They make for a horrible proof/password:
1) They can't be changed if someone gets a hold of yours.
2) You leave copies all over the place (fingerprints, DNA samples, pictures of your eyes).
3) It is pretty easy to fake them.
Not the best idea. You need arms to get around in space.
People that are just missing legs might make sense.
That is, they always speak of what the CEO wishes was true, rather than what is already true.
So Google really truly honestly wishes it were not evil.
But not enough to actually take action.
Utility is something that happens AFTER the product is created.
A truly original product has unknown utility. We didn't know what you are going to use the internet for before we invented it.
When someone claims both utility and originality before the product is created and sold it is a key symptom of a scam artist. They are claiming that they personally created a unique, wonderful project with tons of use - and that everyone else was a moron for not thinking of it's obvious uses before them.
You can discover massive utility for a slight innovation, or you can discover a huge innovation with unknown utility. But when people talk about both, they are most likely a scam artist.