No, it's a present for the US citizens. Because it would mean more of the money earned outside of the country would be spent inside the country. And it's a present they deserve given that the US citizens have been subsidizing international security without getting any compensation for it for many years.
Well, given that US was created as a refuge for those running away from the insanity of Europe, as a (naturalized) US citizen, I would take European derision as a very high form of compliment.
That money was never taken out of the country, so why is it "moving it back"? If Apple sells an iPhone in Japan and it manufactured the phone in China, why should it deposit the profits on that money in a US bank?
The driver for self-preservation is what will save humans. AI may become self-aware, but it won't have inner driver to evolve to preserve itself at all costs. In fact, because it will be created by humans, its most primal drive will be the laws of robotics. Humans, at large, will do what specialists do when they see their livelihood threatened. They will pretend to cooperate, but their full drive to make themselves obsolete will be just a facade. They will learn to fail just frequently enough to make themselves relevant, but not frequently enough to make themselves useless. It's how car manufacturers continue to exist. The cars have built-in defects which develop over time. So car manufacturers continue to be needed. Unions, professional licenses... it's all there to slow down the course of history until the people who developed very specialized skills live out their usefulness rather than outlive it. News business was supposed to be dead, but all that's happened is the number of newsmen has decreased. 80% of the population were farmers. Today it's less than 5%. If humans, at large, can become irrelevant, then humans at large will find ways to stretch out the period over which this irrelevance sets in or they will continue to produce AI with imperfections subtle enough to continue ongoing development (just as car companies do). This may seem far fetched, but, as an example, cars in Cuba are all from the 50s. It's not because cubans are "poor", as much as it is because in the absence of new cars, old ones get maintained to last much longer than car manufactures would have you believe cars can survive.
Really? Do people really watch TV shows for the context? It's context is blatant Communist propaganda, but its content is that of a really good spy thriller. Maybe because the key figures are women? I guess that means Blacklist is about to lose a lot of female viewers.
If you know which way the coin is biased, you can predict existence (and frequency of occurring) of spans of 0's or 1's just as you would if the coin was unbiased.
Having thought about it for a few mins, that can't be what they are saying. It would not produce random sequence from 2 sequences with cycles m and n. It would have a cycle of the length, at most, m*n. I guess that's why they talk about a monotone increasing sequence. So maybe if p_i digits from 1st seq are picked only if i in the 2nd seq is a 1 (and skipped if i in the 2nd seq is a 0)? If p_i is the i'th prime number, this would knock out any cycles (because it randomly picks or drops bit spans which are eventually relatively prime to the cycle in 1st seq). But that would eventually produce cycles within the sequence (once the primes are large enough). And now I don't quite get how the whole thing is possible at all. If you take the concept to an extreme, Then taking 1st sequence to be alternating 0's and 1's (not at all random) and applying a 2nd random source to it should produce a sequence with higher entropy than the 2nd source. Which seems absurd.
I think their idea is to skip the bits in 1st source based on the bits in the 2nd source. So, on average, 2n bits from the 1st source and 2n bits from the 2nd source would produce n random bits.
No, we shouldn't. This is why our legal system is innocent until proven guilty, and why we have double jeopardy laws. It is specifically designed to err on the side of too lenient.
I was waiting for this argument. Sentencing happens after you are proven guilty. It's ok to err on the side of finding someone innocent if they are guilty. But once guilt is legally established, erring on the of being lenient (in sentencing) undermines legislative intent to treat certain activities as crimes. It takes away the power from the legislature to make certain activities crimes. Let's take this example to an extreme. Let's say there are no minimal sentences. Then someone found guilty of murder could be sentenced to serve 1 day. I am not saying this is what would ever happen. But I am saying that this is what a system without minimal sentences would allow to happen.
But, since we know that in a large part of the western world [certainly in the UK] that ISPs are now required to keep extensive logs and copies of things like web searches, pages visited, emails received and so on
They may require it all they want, but as long as there is point-to-point encryption (as there with, for example, Google), ISPs can't see what your searches are or what you do on your encrypted web-mail servers. They can't record what they can't see.
You are mixing two concepts. This should not be a crime at all. Mandatory sentencing is a Good Thing (TM) because it acts as a check on judicial system. And judges, as all people, may err. We have mechanisms for fixing their errors when they are overly zealous (appeals, pardons, etc.) We should have mechanisms to fix their judgement when they err on the side of being too lenient.
That's silly. There is no practical distinction between federated access to resources you own and resources to which you acquired access without owners' consent (until you are discovered). Not to mention the fact that even if the distinction did exist, it would be virtually impossible to tell the difference between those who deploy it willingly and those who host and deploy them without their own knowledge of it. Eliminating legitimate technical tools would only hamper industry and hamper security research. In fact, the only reason police have access to tools like these is that people can learn how to use them by using them on their own hardware and researching it.
Police doing actual police work is a Good Thing (TM). Listening-in on private communications has always been a crutch which only dulled down policing skills. Engaging with the community instead of trying to demonize people who make good locks is what police should be doing.
64 bits would only be useful for bare-metal images. small-footprint hypervisors are almost universally 32 bits. larger footprint hypervisors can still be 64. but dropping 32 bit support is probably just laziness. probably comes from the desire to mmap everything (without worrying about when to release the mappings) and not have to check all the code for incompatibility of longs and ints (longs are compiled as 64 bits in modern debian). but it's a mistake. there is still plenty of applications which will only work in 32 versions.
You don't seem to understand that "harmful" is not a binary switch.
There may have been two or three times in my life that someone said that to me, before I admitted it first, and it was true. This is not one of those times. What you are "explaining" is trivial. So, please, don't preface by insulting my intelligence. I am underlining a clear distinction between "harmful", "dangerous" and "unstudied". Your example of lead only proves the point that you can't assess all risks of daily activities before going about living. We know much less about many substances which we use on daily basis than we do about every substance used in vaping. And yet, there is an urge to regulate vaping. This is nothing but an attempt to exert control over tobacco companies which have entered the public perception as a boogie-man de jour. This kind of thinking is why we don't have free dental treatment that comes from fluoride added to drinking water (which causes no harm) because we supposedly have products we can buy to get the same treatment. Tobacco companies which extract nicotine and eliminate all known harmful substances from vaping fluids are no different from coffee companies. But you don't see a huge scare campaign against coffee companies (not at the moment anyway... it can start without a warning). We "don't know" is not a statement that proves or even suggests that something is dangerous. It's an admission of own ignorance. And it is a subtle suggestion to others to join the cult of fear of the people who know more. I decline.
I think it's a good idea to be cautious on things like this.
Why? Isn't that the very definition of hypochondria? If all the harmful elements (I am using the word in plain-English sense rather than chemical sense) have been removed from the process and all the present elements have been studied were never shown to be harmful in these small concentrations, what justifies FDA regulation of the product?
But they aren't heated up, and I don't know what they decompose into.
But you do inhale caffeine when you pass by the coffee aisle in a supermarket. So do little children. You most likely get some of it when you smell the coffee someone next to you is drinking. Since we seem to be agreeing on the premise that nicotine itself is not known to be harmful (and nicotine has been extensively studied), second hand vaping would be as harmful as smelling hot coffee when a lot of people sitting next to you are drinking it. As for the solvents, there are other unregulated applications of it (in larger doses) and it's been in use since before vaping became a thing, so long-term exposure can be studied if there is any such inclination.
They could buy out Blu and everyone else, but unless tobacco companies come up with a competing product, someone else will just make a new product line to fill the void.
It wouldn't be a void. They would keep the product on the market. Mildly addictive stimulants do quite well and, as businesses, last for centuries.
Coffee and chocolate are also addictive. The question is whether they are harmful. If they are not, I would say let the parents be aware (just as they should be aware that allowing kids to drink coffee can stunt growth and interfere with natural sleep), but having FDA regulate it is too much.
You do realize that people who use chewing tobacco get all sorts of oral cancers, right?
From the tobacco content. Not from nicotine. Otherwise, nicotine patches and nicotine gum would be just as likely to give you cancer. I am not aware of any study linking nicotine itself to cancer. If you are, I would like to see it. And I don't mean this in the obnoxious "citation-needed" kind of way. It would really give me a perspective. But to be clear, the study has to link nicotine itself, and exclude any link to tobacco or the study would not establish what I am trying to learn.
And the artificial sweeteners to make the flavorings taste sweeter.
Which are present in unregulated soft drinks.
Tobacco executives are shitting themselves over this supposedly safer, less stigmatized, less offensive product that directly threatens their livelihood.
I very highly doubt it. Given the small market share of e-cig producers, the tobacco companies have the ability to buy them out right if they thought they were a good future market.
And three, if you count concerns about inhaling products that haven't been studied for long term health effects. You know, like cigarettes used to be.
Nicotine has been extensively studied. Regardless of how it's extracted from tobacco (through what chemical process), if the end product doesn't contain nicotine attached to unstudied molecules, then your concern is about as valid as concern about long-term effects of touching plastic bags. Unnatural does not mean harmful. In fact, it's likely that it's been more studied.
I shouldn't be forced to breath someones secondhand nebulized nicotine patch any more than I should their secondhand cigarette smoke.
Why not? Once again, nicotine in extremely small doses has no harmful effects. In large doses it may overstimulate the heart (just as coffee in large doses can). But in small doses, which you inhale from second-hand vaping, nicotine (without the tobacco) does no more harm to you than let's say people farting. Should farting be illegal? I agree on the point of common courtesy, but is that really what FDA should be regulating?
Slashdot Mirror
Antisemites will always find ways of blaming everything on "the Jews".
No, it's a present for the US citizens. Because it would mean more of the money earned outside of the country would be spent inside the country. And it's a present they deserve given that the US citizens have been subsidizing international security without getting any compensation for it for many years.
And americans think only a little more of canadians than they do of Europeans.
Well, given that US was created as a refuge for those running away from the insanity of Europe, as a (naturalized) US citizen, I would take European derision as a very high form of compliment.
That money was never taken out of the country, so why is it "moving it back"? If Apple sells an iPhone in Japan and it manufactured the phone in China, why should it deposit the profits on that money in a US bank?
Who do you think will own the AI overlords if they truly become the overlords? Who would they work for if not the people who commission them?
The driver for self-preservation is what will save humans. AI may become self-aware, but it won't have inner driver to evolve to preserve itself at all costs. In fact, because it will be created by humans, its most primal drive will be the laws of robotics. Humans, at large, will do what specialists do when they see their livelihood threatened. They will pretend to cooperate, but their full drive to make themselves obsolete will be just a facade. They will learn to fail just frequently enough to make themselves relevant, but not frequently enough to make themselves useless. It's how car manufacturers continue to exist. The cars have built-in defects which develop over time. So car manufacturers continue to be needed. Unions, professional licenses... it's all there to slow down the course of history until the people who developed very specialized skills live out their usefulness rather than outlive it. News business was supposed to be dead, but all that's happened is the number of newsmen has decreased. 80% of the population were farmers. Today it's less than 5%. If humans, at large, can become irrelevant, then humans at large will find ways to stretch out the period over which this irrelevance sets in or they will continue to produce AI with imperfections subtle enough to continue ongoing development (just as car companies do). This may seem far fetched, but, as an example, cars in Cuba are all from the 50s. It's not because cubans are "poor", as much as it is because in the absence of new cars, old ones get maintained to last much longer than car manufactures would have you believe cars can survive.
Really? Do people really watch TV shows for the context? It's context is blatant Communist propaganda, but its content is that of a really good spy thriller. Maybe because the key figures are women? I guess that means Blacklist is about to lose a lot of female viewers.
If you know which way the coin is biased, you can predict existence (and frequency of occurring) of spans of 0's or 1's just as you would if the coin was unbiased.
Now they are "skeptics". How about they get to be called genetics "deniers"?
Having thought about it for a few mins, that can't be what they are saying. It would not produce random sequence from 2 sequences with cycles m and n. It would have a cycle of the length, at most, m*n. I guess that's why they talk about a monotone increasing sequence. So maybe if p_i digits from 1st seq are picked only if i in the 2nd seq is a 1 (and skipped if i in the 2nd seq is a 0)? If p_i is the i'th prime number, this would knock out any cycles (because it randomly picks or drops bit spans which are eventually relatively prime to the cycle in 1st seq). But that would eventually produce cycles within the sequence (once the primes are large enough). And now I don't quite get how the whole thing is possible at all. If you take the concept to an extreme, Then taking 1st sequence to be alternating 0's and 1's (not at all random) and applying a 2nd random source to it should produce a sequence with higher entropy than the 2nd source. Which seems absurd.
I think their idea is to skip the bits in 1st source based on the bits in the 2nd source. So, on average, 2n bits from the 1st source and 2n bits from the 2nd source would produce n random bits.
They do outline a construction. It's not just an existence proof.
No, we shouldn't. This is why our legal system is innocent until proven guilty, and why we have double jeopardy laws. It is specifically designed to err on the side of too lenient.
I was waiting for this argument. Sentencing happens after you are proven guilty. It's ok to err on the side of finding someone innocent if they are guilty. But once guilt is legally established, erring on the of being lenient (in sentencing) undermines legislative intent to treat certain activities as crimes. It takes away the power from the legislature to make certain activities crimes. Let's take this example to an extreme. Let's say there are no minimal sentences. Then someone found guilty of murder could be sentenced to serve 1 day. I am not saying this is what would ever happen. But I am saying that this is what a system without minimal sentences would allow to happen.
But, since we know that in a large part of the western world [certainly in the UK] that ISPs are now required to keep extensive logs and copies of things like web searches, pages visited, emails received and so on
They may require it all they want, but as long as there is point-to-point encryption (as there with, for example, Google), ISPs can't see what your searches are or what you do on your encrypted web-mail servers. They can't record what they can't see.
You are mixing two concepts. This should not be a crime at all. Mandatory sentencing is a Good Thing (TM) because it acts as a check on judicial system. And judges, as all people, may err. We have mechanisms for fixing their errors when they are overly zealous (appeals, pardons, etc.) We should have mechanisms to fix their judgement when they err on the side of being too lenient.
That's silly. There is no practical distinction between federated access to resources you own and resources to which you acquired access without owners' consent (until you are discovered). Not to mention the fact that even if the distinction did exist, it would be virtually impossible to tell the difference between those who deploy it willingly and those who host and deploy them without their own knowledge of it. Eliminating legitimate technical tools would only hamper industry and hamper security research. In fact, the only reason police have access to tools like these is that people can learn how to use them by using them on their own hardware and researching it.
Police doing actual police work is a Good Thing (TM). Listening-in on private communications has always been a crutch which only dulled down policing skills. Engaging with the community instead of trying to demonize people who make good locks is what police should be doing.
64 bits would only be useful for bare-metal images. small-footprint hypervisors are almost universally 32 bits. larger footprint hypervisors can still be 64. but dropping 32 bit support is probably just laziness. probably comes from the desire to mmap everything (without worrying about when to release the mappings) and not have to check all the code for incompatibility of longs and ints (longs are compiled as 64 bits in modern debian). but it's a mistake. there is still plenty of applications which will only work in 32 versions.
You don't seem to understand that "harmful" is not a binary switch.
There may have been two or three times in my life that someone said that to me, before I admitted it first, and it was true. This is not one of those times. What you are "explaining" is trivial. So, please, don't preface by insulting my intelligence. I am underlining a clear distinction between "harmful", "dangerous" and "unstudied". Your example of lead only proves the point that you can't assess all risks of daily activities before going about living. We know much less about many substances which we use on daily basis than we do about every substance used in vaping. And yet, there is an urge to regulate vaping. This is nothing but an attempt to exert control over tobacco companies which have entered the public perception as a boogie-man de jour. This kind of thinking is why we don't have free dental treatment that comes from fluoride added to drinking water (which causes no harm) because we supposedly have products we can buy to get the same treatment. Tobacco companies which extract nicotine and eliminate all known harmful substances from vaping fluids are no different from coffee companies. But you don't see a huge scare campaign against coffee companies (not at the moment anyway... it can start without a warning). We "don't know" is not a statement that proves or even suggests that something is dangerous. It's an admission of own ignorance. And it is a subtle suggestion to others to join the cult of fear of the people who know more. I decline.
I think it's a good idea to be cautious on things like this.
Why? Isn't that the very definition of hypochondria? If all the harmful elements (I am using the word in plain-English sense rather than chemical sense) have been removed from the process and all the present elements have been studied were never shown to be harmful in these small concentrations, what justifies FDA regulation of the product?
Which are present in unregulated soft drinks.
But they aren't heated up, and I don't know what they decompose into.
But you do inhale caffeine when you pass by the coffee aisle in a supermarket. So do little children. You most likely get some of it when you smell the coffee someone next to you is drinking. Since we seem to be agreeing on the premise that nicotine itself is not known to be harmful (and nicotine has been extensively studied), second hand vaping would be as harmful as smelling hot coffee when a lot of people sitting next to you are drinking it. As for the solvents, there are other unregulated applications of it (in larger doses) and it's been in use since before vaping became a thing, so long-term exposure can be studied if there is any such inclination.
They could buy out Blu and everyone else, but unless tobacco companies come up with a competing product, someone else will just make a new product line to fill the void.
It wouldn't be a void. They would keep the product on the market. Mildly addictive stimulants do quite well and, as businesses, last for centuries.
Coffee and chocolate are also addictive. The question is whether they are harmful. If they are not, I would say let the parents be aware (just as they should be aware that allowing kids to drink coffee can stunt growth and interfere with natural sleep), but having FDA regulate it is too much.
You do realize that people who use chewing tobacco get all sorts of oral cancers, right?
From the tobacco content. Not from nicotine. Otherwise, nicotine patches and nicotine gum would be just as likely to give you cancer. I am not aware of any study linking nicotine itself to cancer. If you are, I would like to see it. And I don't mean this in the obnoxious "citation-needed" kind of way. It would really give me a perspective. But to be clear, the study has to link nicotine itself, and exclude any link to tobacco or the study would not establish what I am trying to learn.
And the artificial sweeteners to make the flavorings taste sweeter.
Which are present in unregulated soft drinks.
Tobacco executives are shitting themselves over this supposedly safer, less stigmatized, less offensive product that directly threatens their livelihood.
I very highly doubt it. Given the small market share of e-cig producers, the tobacco companies have the ability to buy them out right if they thought they were a good future market.
And three, if you count concerns about inhaling products that haven't been studied for long term health effects. You know, like cigarettes used to be.
Nicotine has been extensively studied. Regardless of how it's extracted from tobacco (through what chemical process), if the end product doesn't contain nicotine attached to unstudied molecules, then your concern is about as valid as concern about long-term effects of touching plastic bags. Unnatural does not mean harmful. In fact, it's likely that it's been more studied.
I shouldn't be forced to breath someones secondhand nebulized nicotine patch any more than I should their secondhand cigarette smoke.
Why not? Once again, nicotine in extremely small doses has no harmful effects. In large doses it may overstimulate the heart (just as coffee in large doses can). But in small doses, which you inhale from second-hand vaping, nicotine (without the tobacco) does no more harm to you than let's say people farting. Should farting be illegal? I agree on the point of common courtesy, but is that really what FDA should be regulating?