Get used to it. More and more things you consider "yours" are tethered to its maker. And only work as long as its master (and that's not you) allows them to.
It amazes me how many people seem used to that already and accept it as normal.
If you want to increase services, vote for Elizabeth Warren. If you want to decrease taxes, vote for Trump or anyone from the tea party. If you want both, vote for Nancy Pelosi or George Bush.
Nah. I meant if you architect it with security in mind, if people write their queries with that in mind, you have a hope of having secure software. But if you don't build it like that, you're going to have an unending flow of security bugs.
My sense is that Obama started out fine with the security/spy people, but after a while got sick of them lying to him and by the end of his second term didn't trust them. The turning point seemed to be the Syria "red line" event, where the CIA was pushing him one way, and Obama went the other.
You just made that up, you are imagining things. If you actually looked to see what people in the 80s were thinking about AI you almost certainly would have come across Searle's Chinese Room paper. Next time do a Google search.
Do you doubt it or not? You don't need to doubt, you can actually look at the articles and see how it's being used. Here's an example from tech crunch, that has diagnosed a computer as a psychopath. Whether the author believed it or not, that is how the term AI was used: https://techcrunch.com/2018/06...
AI has come to be used in the tech press and mainstream press to mean "machine learning and related statistical techniques".
It really doesn't. Reporters mostly don't understand the difference between "machine learning" and "strong AI." They also don't understand the difference between "machine learning" and "statistical techniques."
Read articles carefully: often the researcher/company will be saying one thing, and the reporter will hear "strong AI." Then we get that followed with "AI is a danger to humanity." In its current form it's not, and it will take a lot before AI is anywhere near capable of overtaking humanity. And sometimes the researchers encourage the confusion.
I don't blame voters. What alternative do they have?
The voters vote. Any politician that votes to increase taxes gets voted out. Any politician who votes to decrease benefits gets voted out.
That's why Democrats voted to keep the Bush tax cuts, and why Republicans couldn't get rid of Obamacare when they finally had the opportunity.
We've had politicians who made balanced budgets a major issue of their campaign, but it wasn't a very effective campaign strategy. People don't want that.
The researchers say that Spoiler improves Rowhammer attacks and cache attacks that reverse-engineer virtual-to-physical address mapping. Using Spoiler, they show the leakage can be used to speed up reverse-engineering by a factor of 256. It also can speed up JavaScript attacks in the browser.
It's not clear that this vuln allows you to attack anything by itself, but being able to speed up Rowhammer shows why you need to take vulnerabilities seriously, even if you can't figure out how to exploit them.
AI used to mean "machines that think like a human" (or at least close enough to be in Searle's Chinese room). After a while, AI turned out to be harder than everyone thought, so some people redefined AI to mean, "stuff we found while looking for AI." The original meaning of AI got renamed to "strong AI." That's in academia.
In the outside world, the press and the media and popular culture, AI retains its original meaning: "machines that think like a human." Which is confusing for a lot of people when they hear scientists talking about AI, because strong AI has not been invented, and we have no idea even how to do it. We're missing some fairly important pieces.
"Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood."
Kind of pathetic that with 40 years of research on global warming, we haven't made much progress in understanding this.
Slashdot Mirror
Get used to it. More and more things you consider "yours" are tethered to its maker. And only work as long as its master (and that's not you) allows them to.
It amazes me how many people seem used to that already and accept it as normal.
Another one I thought of is Planned Parenthood. Republicans have been trying to kill that for a while.
will begin to de-Stalinize the federal government.
What does that even mean?
when Republicans try to execute one.
They tried pretty hard with Solyndra. At least, they danced on its grave.
If you want to increase services, vote for Elizabeth Warren. If you want to decrease taxes, vote for Trump or anyone from the tea party. If you want both, vote for Nancy Pelosi or George Bush.
Nah. I meant if you architect it with security in mind, if people write their queries with that in mind, you have a hope of having secure software. But if you don't build it like that, you're going to have an unending flow of security bugs.
My sense is that Obama started out fine with the security/spy people, but after a while got sick of them lying to him and by the end of his second term didn't trust them. The turning point seemed to be the Syria "red line" event, where the CIA was pushing him one way, and Obama went the other.
You just made that up, you are imagining things. If you actually looked to see what people in the 80s were thinking about AI you almost certainly would have come across Searle's Chinese Room paper. Next time do a Google search.
Do you doubt it or not? You don't need to doubt, you can actually look at the articles and see how it's being used. Here's an example from tech crunch, that has diagnosed a computer as a psychopath. Whether the author believed it or not, that is how the term AI was used: https://techcrunch.com/2018/06...
How pattern recognition is not part of AI?
It's most likely part of the solution to "how the human brain works," but it is far from the entire solution of general AI. That is why.
The problem with Javascript is that every day you allow complete strangers to run their javascript on your computer.
Most people don't want to use no-script, but even if you don't, then it is imperative to use adblock. There is too much malware in ads otherwise.
AI has come to be used in the tech press and mainstream press to mean "machine learning and related statistical techniques".
It really doesn't. Reporters mostly don't understand the difference between "machine learning" and "strong AI." They also don't understand the difference between "machine learning" and "statistical techniques."
Read articles carefully: often the researcher/company will be saying one thing, and the reporter will hear "strong AI." Then we get that followed with "AI is a danger to humanity." In its current form it's not, and it will take a lot before AI is anywhere near capable of overtaking humanity. And sometimes the researchers encourage the confusion.
I don't blame voters. What alternative do they have?
The voters vote. Any politician that votes to increase taxes gets voted out. Any politician who votes to decrease benefits gets voted out. That's why Democrats voted to keep the Bush tax cuts, and why Republicans couldn't get rid of Obamacare when they finally had the opportunity.
We've had politicians who made balanced budgets a major issue of their campaign, but it wasn't a very effective campaign strategy. People don't want that.
The researchers say that Spoiler improves Rowhammer attacks and cache attacks that reverse-engineer virtual-to-physical address mapping. Using Spoiler, they show the leakage can be used to speed up reverse-engineering by a factor of 256. It also can speed up JavaScript attacks in the browser.
It's not clear that this vuln allows you to attack anything by itself, but being able to speed up Rowhammer shows why you need to take vulnerabilities seriously, even if you can't figure out how to exploit them.
AI used to mean "machines that think like a human" (or at least close enough to be in Searle's Chinese room). After a while, AI turned out to be harder than everyone thought, so some people redefined AI to mean, "stuff we found while looking for AI." The original meaning of AI got renamed to "strong AI." That's in academia.
In the outside world, the press and the media and popular culture, AI retains its original meaning: "machines that think like a human." Which is confusing for a lot of people when they hear scientists talking about AI, because strong AI has not been invented, and we have no idea even how to do it. We're missing some fairly important pieces.
Trump doesn't seem to like the NSA or FBI very much. That could theoretically be a false flag, but I think they actually just don't like each other.
Security has to be built from the ground up. You can't bolt it on afterwards. All the programmers need to be aware of it.
I used to blame politicians, but now I blame voters. They get what they want.
Or I could do something orders of magnitude easier
If you're computer illiterate, I guess it is orders of magnitude easier.
My own personal strategy is to never click on any link I get in email.
"Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood."
Kind of pathetic that with 40 years of research on global warming, we haven't made much progress in understanding this.
Most countries recognize that having ever climbing deficits is a bad thing.
I'm....not sure that's true. The only time anyone complains about deficits is when the other party wants to spend.
I'm sure they won't just add that 3 % back to the costs of their services in France
So.....advertisers will pay more? Tell me, where is the drawback again?
[Paying shill for the CPAP industry] .....NOT!!!
ftfy
Are you drunk? Your comment is not clear and focused.