Look, erasing false myths is hard. If it were easy, it wouldn't be a problem.
Just because the three methods tried all failed does not mean another is possible.
Often these attempts are based on seriously flawed reasoning.
The anti-vax meme is not based on science, yet they attempt to combat it with science. They tried charts and facts. The anti-vax people have already been exposed to a ton of science. If that worked, we would have no problem.
Similarly, mere pictures of sick children do nothing. It can't compete with the many many bullshit lies people tell.
They don't need a chart, or fact, or even a picture of a sick kid. I would try an angry mother sobbing about her dead kid. Or a re-enactment of the scumbag Wakefield's first lie, and how many ways he made money on it. With him laughing at the idiots that fell for it.
You continue to mistake the evidence for the crime.
This law makes it illegal to use the de-anonymizer software, an action not knowledge. The knowledge itself is not a crime, it is merely evidence.
Here is a current law, existing similarlity.
It is the equivalent of making it illegal to use a password cracker, rather than making it illegal to know someone else's password.
There is no difference between this and the identity laws being considered.
The knowledge of the people's identities is merely proof that they used the de-anonymizer. As proof of this, if I gave you an anonymized data about one person, that happens to be me, I have not committed a crime merely by knowing that the data is about me. Nor would you if I told you it was me.
But if you applies a de-anonymizer to the data and said, "HA!, that person is YOU!", then you have committed a crime.
No. Thought crime does not mean what you think it means.
Thought crime refers to the practice of making thoughts themselves illegal, not actions. You are arrested not for protesting but instead for not applauding the dear leader and telling him how great he is.
In this case, if they made it illegal for you to know HOW to de-anonymize, that would be a thought crime. But this law does not do that, it criminalizes acting on those thoughts, something very different.
You have 10 million people as a base, it is not hard to find 1000 honest people willing to volunteer, and everybody has someone else looking over their shoulder.
You have 10,000 people as a base, you can find 1 honest person willing to volunteer and have to hire 3, and all of them are on their own some of the time.
But they WILL get rid of the co-pilot. Aircraft are all about the back up systems, and the human pilot is a good one. That's why they have the co-pilot now. They won't get rid of all people in the cockpit.
Instead they will have one pilot as an emergency back up, with the computer doing the flying 90% of the time.
By your logic, everybody should have AIDS, as it's transfer is similar.
The study made it clear that it requires unsual circumstances to transfer, you are the only person that thinks it said it was transferable from eating any food.
Huge fines for this kind of behavior should have direct legal consequences. If you do this kind of massive fraud, it is clearly illegal. The government should figure out who made the decisions, with the knowledge that deleting records = guilt.
They should figure out who was responsible and jail them for at least a year. Then double the fine if the convict's boss is not fired for cause. Because if he truly didn't know about the crime, then he has demonstrated incompetence. If he did, he should have gone to jail instead.
I am tired of seeing companies write these kinds of things off as the cost of doing business.
We know private valuations are crap. It is too hard to decide how much things like "brand", "Expertise", "Experience", and "Business Secrets" are worth. Enter the stock market.
The US and many other countries employ spies all the time, but never sell the data. Selling it makes you an information broker, merely getting it makes you a spy.
Correlation does not equal causation. Just because all professional NFL players appear to have brain damage, it does not mean that football causes brain damage.
It could also mean that only a brain damaged person would play tackle football.
The "% of people actively looking for work" definition of employment is entirely valid for it's intended audience.
The people that track unemployment don't give a crap about newspaper articles or politicians.
Instead they are trying to tell people how hard much competition there is to find a job. The employers need to know if they are going to get 1,000 applications, or just 1. So do the job seekers.
Just as Mode and Median are perfectly valid types of "Averages", so is the "% looking" valid for unemployment.
Stop misunderstanding what people are saying and then blaming them for your own stupidity.
Pork barrel is when they use government money to fund something that directly benefits a single representative's district, not when you use money to benefit the entire district.
The money comes from 3 sources.
1) The city of Webster as a whole funds most of it ($3.5 out of $5 million). This is not pork barrel, it is the entire city funding something that will benefit the entire city via tourism.
2) Kickstarter. This is charity, not pork barrel.
3) The state of Texas offering $400,000, or approximately 4% using a dollar for dollar match. This could be considered pork barrel, but because a) It is such a small percent of the funding - less than 5%, and b) It is a matching fund that only gets paid if other citizens agree it is worthwhile, then, that means:
This is not a pork barrel project
Compare with the bridge to nowhere pork barrel, about $400 million, all from the federal government, to benefit a single town in Alaska.
These types of agreements are always about the threat rather than the act.
That is, they exist not to actually stop people from reporting, but instead to discourage them. No reasonable judge would let you sue someone for reporting a crime.
But most of the time it is not entirely clear their is enough evidence of a crime going on, not until after the trial has begun.
So when your boss fires you after verbally demanding sex, you will think twice about suing, because you know that if you can't prove it, they might go after you. Honestly, chances are very low they would sue you for speaking out and even less that they would succeed.
But the threat of the law suit is enough to stop you from trying, at least unless you have a smoking gun email. (and now adays it is almost always an email.).
Look, once you got nukes, the purpose of advancing military tech is no longer to attack other super-powers.
Instead, it becomes a combination of two possibilities:
1) Defeat lesser powers, including both non-nuclear nations and terrorists. They can't match our tech, so we do not need to go head to head against them.
2) BANKRUPT your competitor superpowers. The idea is to force other super powers to spend so much on defense that to keep up, that it limits their other options.
We are not trying to shoot down Russia's missiles. Instead we are trying to make it damn expensive for them to match us.
Which is why they are using other means besides their regular army. Ukraine, hacking, etc.
I simply do not understand the people that think making an AI "copy", whether it be programmed or "downloaded" is in any way a copy.
There is older tech that copies the way you look and sound, it is called a MOVIE CAMERA. But a movie of you is not you, even if it looks and sounds like you. Neither is any form of AI, no matter how similar it is to you.
Non compete should have a rule that they can not exceed twice the severance pay period. I.E. If they are giving you 5 months salary, they can give you a non-compete for 10 months. They should also have a geographical range equivalent to their reasonable customer range. If all their clients are in New York, you should be free to do business in Chicago. If all there clients are in America, Canada should be free for you.
As in, companies usually only let you do this if you are a better employee. Higher level office workers and sales jobs are prime examples, not ditch diggers.
In other words, they are selected for the people most likely to earn more and be happier.
True, but you are the rarity, and benefit from that tremendously. 100 years ago, there was a whole class of people that made a living mugging people like you. Now, because it is so rare, their equivalents have moved on to better markets.
100 years ago, there was no such thing as plastic and checks were untrustworthy. To buy most things, you had to carry cash. Worse, banks were not open 24/7, and was inconvenient. Say you go on vacation. A good vacation now a day can easily cost you $1000 a week, plus transportation. Say $2,500 for a two week vacation. Family of four, double that to $5,000.
Would you walk around with $5,000 in your pocket today? If everyone around you KNEW that you are holding that kind of cash? In a warm, tropical country where people could live for a year on that kind of cash?
Before the modern financial methods - credit and checks, walking around with cash WAS dangerous. Very dangerous. That was why travelers checks became popular. Eventually other methods caught up and became just as trusted and accepted. So you don't have to carry a lot of it.
But 100 years ago, walking around with cash was freakin' dangerous. Now, it is pretty darn safe because we carry much less cash, and the potential muggers know it.
I do read what I link to and you interrupted a conversation without knowing jack shit about what we are talking about.
Specifically we were not talking about pure soap, nor did anyone claim that pure soap is an antibiotic.
We made the claim that corporations were selling soap that had been adulterated with triclosan and similar substances. One side claimed they were antibiotics, using a definition found on the internet, the other side claimed that they were antibacterial, not antibiotics, using a medical definition.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, erasing false myths is hard. If it were easy, it wouldn't be a problem.
Just because the three methods tried all failed does not mean another is possible.
Often these attempts are based on seriously flawed reasoning.
The anti-vax meme is not based on science, yet they attempt to combat it with science. They tried charts and facts. The anti-vax people have already been exposed to a ton of science. If that worked, we would have no problem.
Similarly, mere pictures of sick children do nothing. It can't compete with the many many bullshit lies people tell.
They don't need a chart, or fact, or even a picture of a sick kid. I would try an angry mother sobbing about her dead kid. Or a re-enactment of the scumbag Wakefield's first lie, and how many ways he made money on it. With him laughing at the idiots that fell for it.
You continue to mistake the evidence for the crime.
This law makes it illegal to use the de-anonymizer software, an action not knowledge. The knowledge itself is not a crime, it is merely evidence.
Here is a current law, existing similarlity.
It is the equivalent of making it illegal to use a password cracker, rather than making it illegal to know someone else's password.
There is no difference between this and the identity laws being considered.
The knowledge of the people's identities is merely proof that they used the de-anonymizer. As proof of this, if I gave you an anonymized data about one person, that happens to be me, I have not committed a crime merely by knowing that the data is about me. Nor would you if I told you it was me.
But if you applies a de-anonymizer to the data and said, "HA!, that person is YOU!", then you have committed a crime.
But not a thought crime.
No. Thought crime does not mean what you think it means.
Thought crime refers to the practice of making thoughts themselves illegal, not actions. You are arrested not for protesting but instead for not applauding the dear leader and telling him how great he is.
In this case, if they made it illegal for you to know HOW to de-anonymize, that would be a thought crime. But this law does not do that, it criminalizes acting on those thoughts, something very different.
Give me a stencil and some paint, and I can trick YOU by defacing street signs.
The only difference here is that idiots don't need the stencils.
To quote a famous idiot, FAKE NEWS.
General rule of thumb, smaller = more corrupt.
You have 10 million people as a base, it is not hard to find 1000 honest people willing to volunteer, and everybody has someone else looking over their shoulder.
You have 10,000 people as a base, you can find 1 honest person willing to volunteer and have to hire 3, and all of them are on their own some of the time.
But they WILL get rid of the co-pilot. Aircraft are all about the back up systems, and the human pilot is a good one. That's why they have the co-pilot now. They won't get rid of all people in the cockpit.
Instead they will have one pilot as an emergency back up, with the computer doing the flying 90% of the time.
It costs a tenth the price, if it is a tenth as effective, still worth it.
By your logic, everybody should have AIDS, as it's transfer is similar.
The study made it clear that it requires unsual circumstances to transfer, you are the only person that thinks it said it was transferable from eating any food.
Huge fines for this kind of behavior should have direct legal consequences. If you do this kind of massive fraud, it is clearly illegal. The government should figure out who made the decisions, with the knowledge that deleting records = guilt.
They should figure out who was responsible and jail them for at least a year. Then double the fine if the convict's boss is not fired for cause. Because if he truly didn't know about the crime, then he has demonstrated incompetence. If he did, he should have gone to jail instead.
I am tired of seeing companies write these kinds of things off as the cost of doing business.
We know private valuations are crap. It is too hard to decide how much things like "brand", "Expertise", "Experience", and "Business Secrets" are worth. Enter the stock market.
The US and many other countries employ spies all the time, but never sell the data. Selling it makes you an information broker, merely getting it makes you a spy.
Correlation does not equal causation. Just because all professional NFL players appear to have brain damage, it does not mean that football causes brain damage.
It could also mean that only a brain damaged person would play tackle football.
The "% of people actively looking for work" definition of employment is entirely valid for it's intended audience.
The people that track unemployment don't give a crap about newspaper articles or politicians.
Instead they are trying to tell people how hard much competition there is to find a job. The employers need to know if they are going to get 1,000 applications, or just 1. So do the job seekers.
Just as Mode and Median are perfectly valid types of "Averages", so is the "% looking" valid for unemployment.
Stop misunderstanding what people are saying and then blaming them for your own stupidity.
Pork barrel is when they use government money to fund something that directly benefits a single representative's district, not when you use money to benefit the entire district.
The money comes from 3 sources.
1) The city of Webster as a whole funds most of it ($3.5 out of $5 million). This is not pork barrel, it is the entire city funding something that will benefit the entire city via tourism.
2) Kickstarter. This is charity, not pork barrel.
3) The state of Texas offering $400,000, or approximately 4% using a dollar for dollar match. This could be considered pork barrel, but because a) It is such a small percent of the funding - less than 5%, and b) It is a matching fund that only gets paid if other citizens agree it is worthwhile, then, that means:
This is not a pork barrel project
Compare with the bridge to nowhere pork barrel, about $400 million, all from the federal government, to benefit a single town in Alaska.
Whoops, forgot the href. Here is the post:
Actual link to blog describing the email system.
There is currently no way to stop spam. Once an email address has been compromised, you are out of luck. Kill it and start a new one.
If you have pull, try to convince your company to use a self-tagging email system (my blog post describing such a system)
These types of agreements are always about the threat rather than the act.
That is, they exist not to actually stop people from reporting, but instead to discourage them. No reasonable judge would let you sue someone for reporting a crime.
But most of the time it is not entirely clear their is enough evidence of a crime going on, not until after the trial has begun.
So when your boss fires you after verbally demanding sex, you will think twice about suing, because you know that if you can't prove it, they might go after you. Honestly, chances are very low they would sue you for speaking out and even less that they would succeed.
But the threat of the law suit is enough to stop you from trying, at least unless you have a smoking gun email. (and now adays it is almost always an email.).
Look, once you got nukes, the purpose of advancing military tech is no longer to attack other super-powers.
Instead, it becomes a combination of two possibilities:
1) Defeat lesser powers, including both non-nuclear nations and terrorists. They can't match our tech, so we do not need to go head to head against them.
2) BANKRUPT your competitor superpowers. The idea is to force other super powers to spend so much on defense that to keep up, that it limits their other options.
We are not trying to shoot down Russia's missiles. Instead we are trying to make it damn expensive for them to match us.
Which is why they are using other means besides their regular army. Ukraine, hacking, etc.
I simply do not understand the people that think making an AI "copy", whether it be programmed or "downloaded" is in any way a copy.
There is older tech that copies the way you look and sound, it is called a MOVIE CAMERA. But a movie of you is not you, even if it looks and sounds like you. Neither is any form of AI, no matter how similar it is to you.
Unless you also mask the keyboard, an observant, practice person can tell what your password is by looking at your fingers type.
But that is irrelevant. If someone wants to steal your password, the most common techniques are a key-logger and social engineering.
No one shoulder surfs. I
Non compete should have a rule that they can not exceed twice the severance pay period. I.E. If they are giving you 5 months salary, they can give you a non-compete for 10 months. They should also have a geographical range equivalent to their reasonable customer range. If all their clients are in New York, you should be free to do business in Chicago. If all there clients are in America, Canada should be free for you.
As in, companies usually only let you do this if you are a better employee. Higher level office workers and sales jobs are prime examples, not ditch diggers.
In other words, they are selected for the people most likely to earn more and be happier.
True, but you are the rarity, and benefit from that tremendously. 100 years ago, there was a whole class of people that made a living mugging people like you. Now, because it is so rare, their equivalents have moved on to better markets.
Basically, you are benefiting from herd immunity.
100 years ago, there was no such thing as plastic and checks were untrustworthy. To buy most things, you had to carry cash. Worse, banks were not open 24/7, and was inconvenient. Say you go on vacation. A good vacation now a day can easily cost you $1000 a week, plus transportation. Say $2,500 for a two week vacation. Family of four, double that to $5,000.
Would you walk around with $5,000 in your pocket today? If everyone around you KNEW that you are holding that kind of cash? In a warm, tropical country where people could live for a year on that kind of cash?
Before the modern financial methods - credit and checks, walking around with cash WAS dangerous. Very dangerous. That was why travelers checks became popular. Eventually other methods caught up and became just as trusted and accepted. So you don't have to carry a lot of it.
But 100 years ago, walking around with cash was freakin' dangerous. Now, it is pretty darn safe because we carry much less cash, and the potential muggers know it.
I do read what I link to and you interrupted a conversation without knowing jack shit about what we are talking about.
Specifically we were not talking about pure soap, nor did anyone claim that pure soap is an antibiotic.
We made the claim that corporations were selling soap that had been adulterated with triclosan and similar substances. One side claimed they were antibiotics, using a definition found on the internet, the other side claimed that they were antibacterial, not antibiotics, using a medical definition.