Yeah, no, sorry, the Internet's form and basic traffic flow rules were shaped in its infancy, when it was a side-effect of government-funded academic R&D programs. Those basic traffic rules of the infant Internet embodied "net neutrality".
As private corporations took over the innards of the Internet, they started coming up with non-neutral ways of monetizing the traffic flow. Government "net neutrality" regulation was intended to take the architecture of the Internet back to closer to its original design and intentions.
Without "allow an actual open internet" regulation, there's a good chance it will degrade toward cable TV (over IP).
as they will be able to do easily in the near future, by understanding the meaning and then paraphrasing it using different sentence construction, that is NOT copyright infringement, since it is not the meaning that copyright applies to, but the specific expression.
Where there's 30 separate competing telephone and cable companies' wires running along the street strung to the same set of poles, wrapped around the 4 separate electricity companies' wires popping and sparking in the humidity? It's not a pretty sight. A ridiculous waste of resources is what it is. One simple law that tells wire providers not to discriminate traffic is a lot more efficient.
Productivity "per worker" is no longer a very useful metric.
We are approaching the limit cases where a few human engineers design the process and a few supervisors tweak it and call in a few maintenance screw-tighteners now and then. Otherwise, the production process operates autonomously, meaning machines, energy input, and materials (delivered by autonomous trucks and trains).
Measures like energy and material efficiency, and configuration-as-product value-add over raw-material value, would seem more relevant as measures of production process productivity.
If I am the supervisor who is technologically enabled to oversee automated production of 100,000 units a day, do I deserve more money than the supervisor who used to supervise humans producing 1000 units per day? Let's assume that the automation makes my workload about the same in both cases.
The real problem is the encrusted/burnt-encrusted (and heavily slimed) pots and pans, which A) might not fit in the dishwasher along with the dishes, and B) the dishwasher doesn't work on anyway so you have to do them by hand, with a lot of scrubbing.
That's why they call it a dishwasher, not a pot and pan scrubber.
I agree that better programming languages with safety features would make a huge difference, if someone can make one that is easy to understand by average or below-average programmers, who write a lot of the software out there. Rust is quite safe, but has a lot of really weird-ass new concepts that many programmers can't be bothered to try to grok. Go is half-decent, but also a moderately weird and finicky programming language.
Safer web-app templating and db access libraries would also help a lot.
Company management wise enough to allow time for up-fron security reviews, tests, and fixes would also help alot. In contrast, most software projects are inherently behind on unrealistic-from-the-get-go schedules.
So Title II: That's the thing that says Internet carriers are "telecommunications carriers". Right?
And by the way they shouldn't set up "highwayman" selective toll stations on their routes, and should just let all the legal traffic through without bias.
Yes this is completely on-topic. Read between the lines.
Having wild red-tape destroying parties that leave your place filthy (coal), with polluted air (more fossil fuels). Also, they crank up the heat, and flood the basement. They rip up the rules of peaceful, just co-habitation. You notice the place being occupied by bling-encrusted gang lords and thugs with guns.
You have to work really hard to kick them out at the first opportunity, before they completely trash the place beyond repair.
Mass of Earth: 5.972 x 10^24 kg Mass of molten mostly-iron core of Earth: 1.97 x 10^24 kg Say 1 millionth part of the core represents the net wobble in the core (total wild-ass guess) So wobbling core mass: 1.97 x 10^18 kg
Mass of SpaceX Falcon 9 FT: 549,054 kg
So number of rocket departures from Earth needed to be roughly, really roughly equivalent to effect on Earth's rotation of wobbly molten core
2.97 x 10^18 / 549,054 =
could be on the order of 3.59 x 10^12 (that is 3.59 trillion) rocket departures (give or take 3 orders of magnitude for shitty assumptions, but you get my general point?)
Number of actual space rocket launches in 2017: 76
So,.... no. It's not rockets, by a long shot (Ba dum Tss!)
You need to distinguish between the past and the future.
The earth's rotation speed is precisely measurable (e.g. relative to distant stars/galaxies) and has been measured precisely for many decades. So regular slow-down, speed-up cycles in Earth's rotation speed in the past would not be speculated but rather measured.
Speculating that such regular cycles will continue into the future would be speculation about cycles, based on either just simple induction or perhaps based on some hypothesis about wobbling iron core and how inertia, elasticity etc is likely to make those wobbles continue.
It's machine learning algorithms being put to use here to filter and rank content.
Eventually, such automated analysis should be based on general algorithms that use principles of: - epistemology - is there sound logical or plausible probabilistic support for the propositions in the content - utterance theory - analysis of the sources (direct and indirect) of the information, their goals, their communication strategies, the purpose behind each utterance in terms of opinion influence or action influence. - Detection of the level of "disinterest" that the utterer has in the content of the utterance and the opinions it will reinforce. The more disinterest (or counter-interest), the more credible is the utterance. "They said this even though it may hurt their interests" implies more likely true. - detection of systemic bias (in the utterance and more generally by the source) - detection of use of rhetorical tricks such as ad hominem attacks and many others. - social psychology theories (deeper into understanding use of techniques of opinion amplification, meme formation, influence principles used by advertisers etc) - Consistency with scientifically well-accepted facts and inferences, and with basic mathematics as applied to the content.
The key is that with sufficient abstraction of rule creation, it should be possible to make all of this independent of censoring a particular country or political faction's content. The "good stuff" or "objectively more plausible and less biased stuff" should get through.
If biased or less credible or "weaponized words" stuff is let through, it should be automatically commented on by the algorithms, which should point out the reasons for the assessment as not very reliable content.
Yes. This sounds an awful lot like browser-based java virtual machine circa 1995. Good to see its time has finally come, in that people are now actually ready for the concept. Back then, arguably, it was mainly Microsoft that killed it by not allowing Sun's technology into Internet Explorer without insisting on mangling it to a non-interoperable version. Good that there are some saner heads prevailing for try number two.
Slashdot Mirror
It means "Write once," and then "run anywhere" but we'll track you down no matter where you run.
Just forms a multi-layer tablecloth that protects the desk from coffee stains.
And the books prop up my monitors to the right height.
"Mad" Mike Hughes is truly the Einstein of the Trump era! (oops, I meant error!).
Yeah, no, sorry, the Internet's form and basic traffic flow rules were shaped in its infancy, when it was a side-effect of government-funded academic R&D programs. Those basic traffic rules of the infant Internet embodied "net neutrality".
As private corporations took over the innards of the Internet, they started coming up with non-neutral ways of monetizing the traffic flow. Government "net neutrality" regulation was intended to take the architecture of the Internet back to closer to its original design and intentions.
Without "allow an actual open internet" regulation, there's a good chance it will degrade toward cable TV (over IP).
as they will be able to do easily in the near future,
by understanding the meaning and then paraphrasing it using different sentence construction,
that is NOT copyright infringement, since it is not the meaning that copyright applies to, but the specific expression.
and offer fiber-to-the-home across the country with the specific marketing pledge of always-guaranteed net neutrality.
Some player that has spoken out about favoring net neutrality, and which already has experience piloting these kind of networks in some cities.
Not naming any names.
Where there's 30 separate competing telephone and cable companies' wires running along the street strung to the same set of poles, wrapped around the 4 separate electricity companies' wires popping and sparking in the humidity? It's not a pretty sight. A ridiculous waste of resources is what it is. One simple law that tells wire providers not to discriminate traffic is a lot more efficient.
bears on the planet agreed that it would be a good idea to send Mr. Trump to the moon.
Polar bears agreed 98.6 % in fact.
from the North Korean strike is on the moon. The dark side of the moon to be specific, where all the cheese is.
Just step into this NASA Force 1 capsule here, Mr. President.
(Well it's not a crime to dream is it?)
Productivity "per worker" is no longer a very useful metric.
We are approaching the limit cases where a few human engineers design the process and a few supervisors tweak it and call in a few maintenance screw-tighteners now and then. Otherwise, the production process operates autonomously, meaning machines, energy input, and materials (delivered by autonomous trucks and trains).
Measures like energy and material efficiency, and configuration-as-product value-add over raw-material value, would seem more relevant as measures of production process productivity.
If I am the supervisor who is technologically enabled to oversee automated production of 100,000 units a day, do I deserve more money than the supervisor who used to supervise humans producing 1000 units per day? Let's assume that the automation makes my workload about the same in both cases.
Ba-dum tsss
Salt Lake one should just change its name to
Salt Lake Comic CONvention
Or smarter AI that can generalize then specialize again.
to go along with the dishwashing robots then.
The real problem is the encrusted/burnt-encrusted (and heavily slimed) pots and pans, which
A) might not fit in the dishwasher along with the dishes, and
B) the dishwasher doesn't work on anyway so you have to do them by hand, with a lot of scrubbing.
That's why they call it a dishwasher, not a pot and pan scrubber.
Russia (government) is vainglorious irrelevant autocracy.
I agree that better programming languages with safety features would make a huge difference, if someone can make one that is easy to understand by average or below-average programmers, who write a lot of the software out there. Rust is quite safe, but has a lot of really weird-ass new concepts that many programmers can't be bothered to try to grok. Go is half-decent, but also a moderately weird and finicky programming language.
Safer web-app templating and db access libraries would also help a lot.
Company management wise enough to allow time for up-fron security reviews, tests, and fixes would also help alot. In contrast, most software projects are inherently behind on unrealistic-from-the-get-go schedules.
So Title II: That's the thing that says Internet carriers are "telecommunications carriers". Right?
And by the way they shouldn't set up "highwayman" selective toll stations on their routes, and should just let all the legal traffic through without bias.
Yes. That sounds horrible. (sarcasm).
Yes this is completely on-topic. Read between the lines.
Having wild red-tape destroying parties that leave your place filthy (coal), with polluted air (more fossil fuels).
Also, they crank up the heat, and flood the basement.
They rip up the rules of peaceful, just co-habitation. You notice the place being occupied by bling-encrusted gang lords and thugs with guns.
You have to work really hard to kick them out at the first opportunity, before they completely trash the place beyond repair.
Mass of Earth: 5.972 x 10^24 kg
Mass of molten mostly-iron core of Earth: 1.97 x 10^24 kg
Say 1 millionth part of the core represents the net wobble in the core (total wild-ass guess)
So wobbling core mass: 1.97 x 10^18 kg
Mass of SpaceX Falcon 9 FT: 549,054 kg
So number of rocket departures from Earth needed to be roughly, really roughly equivalent to effect on Earth's rotation of wobbly molten core
2.97 x 10^18 / 549,054 =
could be on the order of 3.59 x 10^12 (that is 3.59 trillion) rocket departures
(give or take 3 orders of magnitude for shitty assumptions, but you get my general point?)
Number of actual space rocket launches in 2017: 76
So,.... no. It's not rockets, by a long shot (Ba dum Tss!)
About the rocket launches possibly causing it.
If not, please please please try to get QUANTITATIVE ! Don't demonstrate innumeracy.
Hint about how to do this:
Numbers (e.g. about relative masses and movement amounts) do not go like this:
1
10
100
1,000
1,000,000
A shitload
A metric f@ck-tonne
You need to distinguish between the past and the future.
The earth's rotation speed is precisely measurable (e.g. relative to distant stars/galaxies) and has been measured precisely for many decades. So regular slow-down, speed-up cycles in Earth's rotation speed in the past would not be speculated but rather measured.
Speculating that such regular cycles will continue into the future would be speculation about cycles, based on either just simple induction or perhaps based on some hypothesis about wobbling iron core and how inertia, elasticity etc is likely to make those wobbles continue.
It's machine learning algorithms being put to use here to filter and rank content.
Eventually, such automated analysis should be based on general algorithms that use principles of:
- epistemology - is there sound logical or plausible probabilistic support for the propositions in the content
- utterance theory - analysis of the sources (direct and indirect) of the information, their goals, their communication strategies, the purpose behind each utterance in terms of opinion influence or action influence.
- Detection of the level of "disinterest" that the utterer has in the content of the utterance and the opinions it will reinforce. The more disinterest (or counter-interest), the more credible is the utterance. "They said this even though it may hurt their interests" implies more likely true.
- detection of systemic bias (in the utterance and more generally by the source)
- detection of use of rhetorical tricks such as ad hominem attacks and many others.
- social psychology theories (deeper into understanding use of techniques of opinion amplification, meme formation, influence principles used by advertisers etc)
- Consistency with scientifically well-accepted facts and inferences, and with basic mathematics as applied to the content.
The key is that with sufficient abstraction of rule creation, it should be possible to make all of this independent of censoring a particular country or political faction's content. The "good stuff" or "objectively more plausible and less biased stuff" should get through.
If biased or less credible or "weaponized words" stuff is let through, it should be automatically commented on by the algorithms, which should point out the reasons for the assessment as not very reliable content.
Yes. This sounds an awful lot like browser-based java virtual machine circa 1995. Good to see its time has finally come, in that people are now actually ready for the concept.
Back then, arguably, it was mainly Microsoft that killed it by not allowing Sun's technology into Internet Explorer without insisting on mangling it to a non-interoperable version.
Good that there are some saner heads prevailing for try number two.
are responsible for this.
In Soviet Russia, the Internet Tubes You!
Apple's cash reserve is $250 billion or so.
And it probably cost both companies the same amount as the award to litigate this.