Tracking in general is certainly the reason for me. Binning the actual ads is incidental except for the whole personalised aspect of ads. This is the tracking part in action of course.
What's wrong with simply making the ads subject related rather than that who is looking? What the user is looked for/at at that moment should be more than enough to make a targeted ad without it being personalised.
Obviously he's outright lying. And given their privileged infrastructure positions these companies can hide a lot of their behaviour.
What they're really complaining about though is the limits this now places on being able to quadruple, or more, dip on the traffic charges. They already double dip as it is, on entry and again on exit.
Correct. And the associated money stops being needed also.
The final question then becomes what do the humans in power do with all this automation given they no longer require their fellow humans to keep things running. Can rules be effective when a workforce is irrelevant?
Maybe the ultimate logic of the "Three Laws of Robotics" is for the better after all.
This seems to me to be an obvious first port of call. The weak points become well documented so also become well protected. Couldn't get a better demo of the security obtained.
... giving computers full tactical control of potentially dangerous equipment/systems. The game is changing, no matter what name it's given.
It's not that the equipment is any different, nor that computers are already in the loop, nor even that software can be subverted, but that the job given to the computers is a whole level up in decision making.
We've repeatedly seen what happens to a chat bot that is left to learn on its own. It has no compass and goes bizarre.
"HTC said it was an error, and a fix is underway" - With bullshit lines like that spewing forth every other day, is it any wonder people are fed up with the status quo?
Yep, they all but said they wanted the address for themselves. It is pure and simple bullying for sure.
And I suspect their entire offer to help was also spelt out as telling him what he has to do (Lots of tedious work for him) rather than them actually doing anything for him.
You could call UBI (Universal Basic Income) an allotment system. It doesn't appear to fit in just yet, and maybe that's why. While there is still a need for a workforce and the associated financial trades then UBI can't coexist with money for the moment.
Funnily, in this case, money already acts as a tool for limiting greed of resources. Obviously, if there was such a thing as a "replicator" it would need a lot of resources to materialise our wishes.
The thing is, without a human workforce, money will lose its need. Any straight foreword allotment mechanism will do.
There is a number of other somewhat interrelated considerations too. Population control being one. Military actions being another.
We pay for the human labour that went to building the machine but we don't pay the machine to perform its job. Just the same as we don't pay money for the Sun to evaporate the water and for it to fall back to Earth. When the construction of the machine no longer has human input then it costs nothing to build, and it's produce therefore also costs nothing.
We got a ways to go yet, but that is the path this appears to be leading to.
The real question is: What will we do to each other if the machines can do our bidding and we have no need to depend on one another? Will this be what creates the real "three laws"?
... it pays for cooperation (or in others words, human labour).
Which means that if the machines are performing the work then money has lost it's original usefulness. Which in turn means we stop depending on each other... and that can easily end badly.
Safety and security are independent requirements. An expensive insurance bill or loss of operational trust is not a measure of safety.
In the real world of buildings and machinery security is only occasionally a factor and often clashes with safety. Safety is always number one at the expense of security.
Slashdot Mirror
Me too. Rolled it back immediately.
Tracking in general is certainly the reason for me. Binning the actual ads is incidental except for the whole personalised aspect of ads. This is the tracking part in action of course.
What's wrong with simply making the ads subject related rather than that who is looking? What the user is looked for/at at that moment should be more than enough to make a targeted ad without it being personalised.
Really impressive results with Kaspersky.
all of a sudden. What happened to "I've got nothing to hide."?
problem solved.
Anyone that does more than mindlessly tap vaporous bubbles cares.
Obviously he's outright lying. And given their privileged infrastructure positions these companies can hide a lot of their behaviour.
What they're really complaining about though is the limits this now places on being able to quadruple, or more, dip on the traffic charges. They already double dip as it is, on entry and again on exit.
Correct. And the associated money stops being needed also.
The final question then becomes what do the humans in power do with all this automation given they no longer require their fellow humans to keep things running. Can rules be effective when a workforce is irrelevant?
Maybe the ultimate logic of the "Three Laws of Robotics" is for the better after all.
I'm certainly no health fanatic but I doubt I'm not the only one who reads a medical article and immediately thinks BMI means Body Mass Index.
Fines or not, imposing arbitrary rules is not a free market.
The free market only has one outcome - monopoly, and its resultant abuses. It's the ultimate corrupt system.
Imposing fines for arbitrary rules is not a free market.
The free market only has one outcome - monopoly, and its resultant abuses. It's the ultimate corrupt system.
... indicates it's likely beholden in a similar fashion now.
This seems to me to be an obvious first port of call. The weak points become well documented so also become well protected. Couldn't get a better demo of the security obtained.
... giving computers full tactical control of potentially dangerous equipment/systems. The game is changing, no matter what name it's given.
It's not that the equipment is any different, nor that computers are already in the loop, nor even that software can be subverted, but that the job given to the computers is a whole level up in decision making.
We've repeatedly seen what happens to a chat bot that is left to learn on its own. It has no compass and goes bizarre.
Are they saying that even developers just click without looking?
Something like $10B in loses.
As in, is the app suddenly removed for the installed base as well?
"HTC said it was an error, and a fix is underway" - With bullshit lines like that spewing forth every other day, is it any wonder people are fed up with the status quo?
Yep, they all but said they wanted the address for themselves. It is pure and simple bullying for sure.
And I suspect their entire offer to help was also spelt out as telling him what he has to do (Lots of tedious work for him) rather than them actually doing anything for him.
Typical asshole corporate action.
You could call UBI (Universal Basic Income) an allotment system. It doesn't appear to fit in just yet, and maybe that's why. While there is still a need for a workforce and the associated financial trades then UBI can't coexist with money for the moment.
Funnily, in this case, money already acts as a tool for limiting greed of resources. Obviously, if there was such a thing as a "replicator" it would need a lot of resources to materialise our wishes.
The thing is, without a human workforce, money will lose its need. Any straight foreword allotment mechanism will do.
There is a number of other somewhat interrelated considerations too. Population control being one. Military actions being another.
We pay for the human labour that went to building the machine but we don't pay the machine to perform its job. Just the same as we don't pay money for the Sun to evaporate the water and for it to fall back to Earth. When the construction of the machine no longer has human input then it costs nothing to build, and it's produce therefore also costs nothing.
We got a ways to go yet, but that is the path this appears to be leading to.
The real question is: What will we do to each other if the machines can do our bidding and we have no need to depend on one another? Will this be what creates the real "three laws"?
... it pays for cooperation (or in others words, human labour).
Which means that if the machines are performing the work then money has lost it's original usefulness. Which in turn means we stop depending on each other ... and that can easily end badly.
I think you might have replied to the wrong posting.
Safety and security are independent requirements. An expensive insurance bill or loss of operational trust is not a measure of safety.
In the real world of buildings and machinery security is only occasionally a factor and often clashes with safety. Safety is always number one at the expense of security.