To play devil's advocate, it's the experts who f'ed it up.
Personally, I see a lot of problems with administration and comparatively few with curriculum. My experience isn't anywhere near a statistical sample though, so we don't need to dwell on that.
In the end, he needs to make a persuasive point. I see a lot of rhetoric, but I see no data. Child and developmental psych have data; neuroscientists have data. Behavioral and cognitive psychologists have all kids of research and therapeutic experience. There is plenty of data outside of education if, for some reason, you choose not to trust educational experts.
Human learning was originally part of psychology. Eventually, graduate educational programs took off as a sort of "applied learning". Even discounting those programs, there is a huge body of knowledge regarding human cognition. The author indicates minimal familiarity with it, and he looks like a snobby armchair quarterback as a result.
Neither the author nor anyone he cites has a background in child psychology, development psychology, neuroscience, or education. He also fails to cite any research supporting his claims. He does cite a few tangential pieces of philosophy, but that doesn't demonstrate any facts in support of his argument.
While he seems to have some credentials relevant to political philosophy, he sadly lacks any discernible expertise relevant to the topic of the article.
This is just another scarcely-informed opinion piece. We've got quite enough of those already. This is almost pointless: weak signal, mostly noise.
A niche product that is very appealing for a specific use case is successful when that use case is common enough to be profitable.
The overall sentiment from the reviews looks like it's good as a secondary/convenience device. It's relatively affordable, and tablets are the clear winner for comfortable casual use on beds, couches, etc.
It should be a good entertainment device which can support basic productivity apps.
I honestly don't know why anyone tried running Photoshop on it; with 8 GB and 16 GB options, it's clearly not intended for serious editing. In combination with eMMC storage, I could tell you that Photoshop would run like crap without wasting time on a benchmark. It's simply not built for that.
If you look at this as a simple tablet to compete with Android primarily for casual/leisure use, it's fairly good. If you compare it to the rest of the Surface products, it's going to be an obvious step down.
What happens if (or, when) Tesla realizes they need to make a significant change to their code?
Automated driving and AI are both hot research areas. I wouldn't take a bet that there won't be big changes in the near future.
This smells like an unholy combination of two things: a development team getting burnt by premature optimization, with just a hint of "painting oneself into a corner".
Between this and the omission of lidar, I'm not enthusiastic about Tesla's self-driving capability. My pessimism applies across the board---to its timeliness, reliability, and safety. I really liked it when Tesla delivered premium electric vehicles instead of the same hideous abominations that everyone else made. If I bought a Tesla, however, it would be in spite of their self-driving tech.
Volvo is putting a lot of effort into developing the tech safely before marketing it, and, most importantly, before putting it into consumer goods. At this point, I'd expect to feel safe enabling self-drive on a Volvo way before I'd do it on a Tesla. An OTA update doesn't reattach my head.
Most working class people cannot afford to throw $200+ toward a complaint that might help them deal with a big business---if there is a legal basis for intervention, which, of course, they have no way of knowing without consulting a lawyer.
A decent chunk of people couldn't throw $200+ toward a complaint even if it would definitely result in action.
If the FCC is supposed to oversee the telecom industry in the interest of the public, then this is a great way to slough off one of its fundamental responsibilities. Removing consumer protections often provokes outrage, so apparently the new plan is to simply render the protections meaningless or difficult to invoke.
Has anyone started a pool on how much Pai gets paid by Verizon when he's hired after stepping down from the FCC? I want in on that action.
Baidu's voice input system... would activate... whenever the user opened any application... that allows the user to input text
So, looking at the technical underpinning, it functions like the native keyboard app, which loads on demand for applications which support its input.
I can't reach the article, so here is the real question: Is there evidence of nefarious activity, particularly the suspicious caching or transmission of data?
Because a camera/mic activating on its own isn't necessarily doing much of anything. It certainly merits investigation, but the headline is not justified by the content of the summary.
After all, if it's "not-so-secretly" doing bad things, there should be plentiful, clear evidence of bad things happening. If there are hours of audio/video being recorded or transmitted by some phone, why not mention that?
Any bug can be fixed after discovery because all eyes will be on it. (Or, at least, the eyes of most of the experts for that particular system.)
A huge part of security is being proactive throughout development---in design, code submission, review, and auditing.
Private companies can hire people to fill these roles as needed, but most open source projects rely on the security consciousness of individual contributors. Since security is often boring or counterproductive to the development of new features, I can easily see security being less of a priority for some developers.
Good security requires many eyes throughout the development process. It needs ongoing oversight to ensure that every module and code submission is consistent with the security model for the project.
BSD has one seriously security-conscious leader, but that is not typical. Maybe Red Hat will pay someone to oversee the security of the Linux kernel or audit its code, but most projects won't have that kind of backing. They'll rely on luck of the draw---maybe you attract someone with security expertise, or maybe you don't.
Without a dedicated security focus, projects should go through hardening phases where they deliberately welcome security experts and design/redesign as necessary for security. Even if it means a slowdown or moratorium on new features. Security takes time and effort, and the only solution is to put more eyes on it.
Most cybersecurity professionals are half-witted hacks, so changing a "secure" process is often a difficult fight.
If the company already has a "secure" process for generating, storing, and using its signing keys then I would expect that process to endure for quite some time.
I'd agree that HSMs should be part of the process, but key ceremonies often involve several layers of management and oversight. As a result, changes need universal buy-in throughout the organization. Upper management won't understand the security implications and will look to their flock of subordinates before approving the change, so the organization can be beholden to its most stubborn employee---if his opinion is respected higher up.
But it really isn't special in the technical sense. Every password stealer targets those applications.
A boring, common threat isn't special. It may be a serious threat to users of infected systems, but it isn't novel.
We've known for years that storing credentials in those applications is a bad idea, so both the threat vector and the implementation aren't really new. So yes, I agree that it "isn't anything special".
The article says Europe will be using smartphone searches to vet and possibly deport refugees. The claim that some refugees lie on their asylum applications is a pretty good justification for the searches.
It shouldn't matter if someone is a refugee, migrant, permanent immigrant, or the holder of some obscure visa---if you lie to the host state, you should be kicked out.
I see some potential for confusion because European media uses "migrants" where US media would normally use "refugees", but the Slashdot summary is clear and consistent with its primarily American audience.
Not really. They cannot vote in federal elections at all per 18 USC 611. (I'd link it at uscode.house.gov, but Slashdot apparently doesn't like the URL. I trust you can find it.)
This is assuming that there is a chemical imbalance in the brain
Wrong. They did this on healthy people to see if it worked.
Criminality and the reasons people commit crimes are far more complex
True, but irrelevant.
Even complex decisions can be changed by simple methods. Increasing the perceived "wrongness" of a violent act won't stop all violence, but it will stop some. If this is effective, then it makes sense to use it---even if cannot be 100% effective due to the underlying complexities.
Ultimately, a motivated decision is made under the influence of many competing desires. If we can manipulate each of those subordinate desires, we can determine the larger moral decisions. This research is simply focused on one facet of the larger reasoning process.
There is no law of nature that prevents us from understanding other decision-making factors in the same way. Or finding better ways of manipulating this particular factor.
How exactly is the sample biased? Generally speaking, if you're trying to prove an effect is real then you use a normal population; targeting specific populations happens later. The sample size is fine, as generally you can get significant results with 50-100 participants.
Once you prove the effect, you can run more specific experiments later. E.g., a test on criminals to demonstrate whether the treatment is effective on that particular population.
One notable limitation of this study is that there is no data on the duration of the effect. If this lasts less than a week or two, it would require an implanted device in practice, kind of like a pacemaker for the brain. With the safety checks associated with medical devices, it would take a decade or more for such a device to be approved.
we can extend this to the general population
In your dreams, tyrant.
Even if this treatment were completely safe with no side effects (neither of which has been shown), it would be a disastrously bad precedent to allow the government to manipulate the thought processes of healthy citizens.
It depends on whether you're willing to spend money for additional security.
Personal authentication is less secure, but you don't need anything besides the router.
Enterprise authentication is more secure but requires additional infrastructure. E.g., the 802.1X authentication for WPA2 Enterprise requires a RADIUS server or equivalent to authenticate users. Since enterprise authentication is unique for each user, you can assign network access with per-user profiles with more equipment (e.g., Cisco ISE).
AMD CPUs have many of the same features---TLBs, speculative execution, hyperthreading---without sharing all of the same vulnerabilities. There is enough overlap to suggest there are some unavoidable risks with performance-enhancing features.
It appears Intel was particularly blind to those risks, but bear in mind that some of those vulnerabilities are present on AMD as well.
Since Intel alone was called out on this, I assume AMD's hyperthreading design is safe---for now. Since both hyperthreading designs show similar performance gains, I'm not sure Intel got a performance boost from this defect at all.
Perhaps they saved a few transistors or were able to clock higher, though, so it's not entirely clear there was no benefit.
You can't "layoff the CAPEX assets" because employees are OPEX.
Reducing CAPEX assets after an acquisition is still a loss. Part of the acquired company's value is its usable capital; eliminating those assets after acquisition is essentially writing off part of the value that you just payed for.
Sure, eliminating unnecessary capital can avoid the OPEX associated with tracking, maintaining, and operating it. But acquiring and then eliminating redundant assets isn't advantageous from a CAPEX perspective. Again, you lose value by buying something and then throwing it away.
The combined company may expect lower CAPEX in the future, and this is a common reason for mergers/acquisitions. However, the removal/reduction/disposal of capital assets does not create value---quite the opposite.
They were filing bankruptcy in the wake of the initial sanctions. The problem is not only being shut out of their 2nd-largest market. Sanctions also prohibit US companies from selling to ZTE, which restricts their ability to acquire components.
Maybe ZTE could survive, but that is far from certain. They have strong domestic competitors in Huawei and Xiaomi, and both of those companies enjoy full access to Western suppliers and markets.
If someone needs a phone and doesn't get it from ZTE, they will simply buy another brand. And since every phone has a SoC, the number of SoCs sold will remain about the same.
There is no reason at all to support ZTE. They flout US laws, and there are many, many competitors who will be happy to make phones for us while following US law.
Slashdot Mirror
To play devil's advocate, it's the experts who f'ed it up.
Personally, I see a lot of problems with administration and comparatively few with curriculum. My experience isn't anywhere near a statistical sample though, so we don't need to dwell on that.
In the end, he needs to make a persuasive point. I see a lot of rhetoric, but I see no data. Child and developmental psych have data; neuroscientists have data. Behavioral and cognitive psychologists have all kids of research and therapeutic experience. There is plenty of data outside of education if, for some reason, you choose not to trust educational experts.
Human learning was originally part of psychology. Eventually, graduate educational programs took off as a sort of "applied learning". Even discounting those programs, there is a huge body of knowledge regarding human cognition. The author indicates minimal familiarity with it, and he looks like a snobby armchair quarterback as a result.
Neither the author nor anyone he cites has a background in child psychology, development psychology, neuroscience, or education. He also fails to cite any research supporting his claims. He does cite a few tangential pieces of philosophy, but that doesn't demonstrate any facts in support of his argument.
While he seems to have some credentials relevant to political philosophy, he sadly lacks any discernible expertise relevant to the topic of the article.
This is just another scarcely-informed opinion piece. We've got quite enough of those already. This is almost pointless: weak signal, mostly noise.
A niche product that is very appealing for a specific use case is successful when that use case is common enough to be profitable.
The overall sentiment from the reviews looks like it's good as a secondary/convenience device. It's relatively affordable, and tablets are the clear winner for comfortable casual use on beds, couches, etc.
It should be a good entertainment device which can support basic productivity apps.
I honestly don't know why anyone tried running Photoshop on it; with 8 GB and 16 GB options, it's clearly not intended for serious editing. In combination with eMMC storage, I could tell you that Photoshop would run like crap without wasting time on a benchmark. It's simply not built for that.
If you look at this as a simple tablet to compete with Android primarily for casual/leisure use, it's fairly good. If you compare it to the rest of the Surface products, it's going to be an obvious step down.
What happens if (or, when) Tesla realizes they need to make a significant change to their code?
Automated driving and AI are both hot research areas. I wouldn't take a bet that there won't be big changes in the near future.
This smells like an unholy combination of two things: a development team getting burnt by premature optimization, with just a hint of "painting oneself into a corner".
Between this and the omission of lidar, I'm not enthusiastic about Tesla's self-driving capability. My pessimism applies across the board---to its timeliness, reliability, and safety. I really liked it when Tesla delivered premium electric vehicles instead of the same hideous abominations that everyone else made. If I bought a Tesla, however, it would be in spite of their self-driving tech.
Volvo is putting a lot of effort into developing the tech safely before marketing it, and, most importantly, before putting it into consumer goods. At this point, I'd expect to feel safe enabling self-drive on a Volvo way before I'd do it on a Tesla. An OTA update doesn't reattach my head.
I would imagine that my PC would weigh just the same no matter what version of Notepad I was using.
Well, that depends on how many 1s are in their binaries. Everybody knows it's the 1s that add weight.
This would hold universities accountable for result$ in the real world. They won't like it and fight that tooth and nail.
Except Purdue started doing it two years ago.
Don't let facts distract you from your anti-intellectual rant though.
I'm not even sure this is a good idea, but a few schools are trying it. I can respect them for taking a chance and giving students more options.
Especially since student loans are a really bad option, at least in the US.
Most working class people cannot afford to throw $200+ toward a complaint that might help them deal with a big business---if there is a legal basis for intervention, which, of course, they have no way of knowing without consulting a lawyer.
A decent chunk of people couldn't throw $200+ toward a complaint even if it would definitely result in action.
If the FCC is supposed to oversee the telecom industry in the interest of the public, then this is a great way to slough off one of its fundamental responsibilities. Removing consumer protections often provokes outrage, so apparently the new plan is to simply render the protections meaningless or difficult to invoke.
Has anyone started a pool on how much Pai gets paid by Verizon when he's hired after stepping down from the FCC? I want in on that action.
Baidu's voice input system... would activate... whenever the user opened any application... that allows the user to input text
So, looking at the technical underpinning, it functions like the native keyboard app, which loads on demand for applications which support its input.
I can't reach the article, so here is the real question: Is there evidence of nefarious activity, particularly the suspicious caching or transmission of data?
Because a camera/mic activating on its own isn't necessarily doing much of anything. It certainly merits investigation, but the headline is not justified by the content of the summary.
After all, if it's "not-so-secretly" doing bad things, there should be plentiful, clear evidence of bad things happening. If there are hours of audio/video being recorded or transmitted by some phone, why not mention that?
Any bug can be fixed after discovery because all eyes will be on it. (Or, at least, the eyes of most of the experts for that particular system.)
A huge part of security is being proactive throughout development---in design, code submission, review, and auditing.
Private companies can hire people to fill these roles as needed, but most open source projects rely on the security consciousness of individual contributors. Since security is often boring or counterproductive to the development of new features, I can easily see security being less of a priority for some developers.
Good security requires many eyes throughout the development process. It needs ongoing oversight to ensure that every module and code submission is consistent with the security model for the project.
BSD has one seriously security-conscious leader, but that is not typical. Maybe Red Hat will pay someone to oversee the security of the Linux kernel or audit its code, but most projects won't have that kind of backing. They'll rely on luck of the draw---maybe you attract someone with security expertise, or maybe you don't.
Without a dedicated security focus, projects should go through hardening phases where they deliberately welcome security experts and design/redesign as necessary for security. Even if it means a slowdown or moratorium on new features. Security takes time and effort, and the only solution is to put more eyes on it.
Most cybersecurity professionals are half-witted hacks, so changing a "secure" process is often a difficult fight.
If the company already has a "secure" process for generating, storing, and using its signing keys then I would expect that process to endure for quite some time.
I'd agree that HSMs should be part of the process, but key ceremonies often involve several layers of management and oversight. As a result, changes need universal buy-in throughout the organization. Upper management won't understand the security implications and will look to their flock of subordinates before approving the change, so the organization can be beholden to its most stubborn employee---if his opinion is respected higher up.
But it really isn't special in the technical sense. Every password stealer targets those applications.
A boring, common threat isn't special. It may be a serious threat to users of infected systems, but it isn't novel.
We've known for years that storing credentials in those applications is a bad idea, so both the threat vector and the implementation aren't really new. So yes, I agree that it "isn't anything special".
To conflate it all is disingenuous.
I don't see anything being conflated at all.
The article says Europe will be using smartphone searches to vet and possibly deport refugees. The claim that some refugees lie on their asylum applications is a pretty good justification for the searches.
It shouldn't matter if someone is a refugee, migrant, permanent immigrant, or the holder of some obscure visa---if you lie to the host state, you should be kicked out.
I see some potential for confusion because European media uses "migrants" where US media would normally use "refugees", but the Slashdot summary is clear and consistent with its primarily American audience.
Found the political bullshitter with an agenda!
Non-citizens can apparently vote
Not really. They cannot vote in federal elections at all per 18 USC 611. (I'd link it at uscode.house.gov, but Slashdot apparently doesn't like the URL. I trust you can find it.)
Since you mentioned CA in particular, I'll note that they can't vote there at all. Only US citizens can vote in CA, according the California Secretary of State.
As far as I know, every state requires US citizenship in order to vote. Certainly everywhere I've lived.
It's OK if you're afraid of immigrants, but it's not OK to lie about how things work in the real world.
This is assuming that there is a chemical imbalance in the brain
Wrong. They did this on healthy people to see if it worked.
Criminality and the reasons people commit crimes are far more complex
True, but irrelevant.
Even complex decisions can be changed by simple methods. Increasing the perceived "wrongness" of a violent act won't stop all violence, but it will stop some. If this is effective, then it makes sense to use it---even if cannot be 100% effective due to the underlying complexities.
Ultimately, a motivated decision is made under the influence of many competing desires. If we can manipulate each of those subordinate desires, we can determine the larger moral decisions. This research is simply focused on one facet of the larger reasoning process.
There is no law of nature that prevents us from understanding other decision-making factors in the same way. Or finding better ways of manipulating this particular factor.
My suspicion if the tDCS proves out is that we'll have tough on crime politicians trying to either ban it or insisting on prison as well.
It makes sense for use on parolees, or as a condition of probation (for suspended sentences on 1st-time or minor offenses).
Part of the purpose of prison is as a deterrent/punishment, so I don't see it being replaced anytime soon.
The sample is too small and too biased.
How exactly is the sample biased? Generally speaking, if you're trying to prove an effect is real then you use a normal population; targeting specific populations happens later. The sample size is fine, as generally you can get significant results with 50-100 participants.
Once you prove the effect, you can run more specific experiments later. E.g., a test on criminals to demonstrate whether the treatment is effective on that particular population.
One notable limitation of this study is that there is no data on the duration of the effect. If this lasts less than a week or two, it would require an implanted device in practice, kind of like a pacemaker for the brain. With the safety checks associated with medical devices, it would take a decade or more for such a device to be approved.
we can extend this to the general population
In your dreams, tyrant.
Even if this treatment were completely safe with no side effects (neither of which has been shown), it would be a disastrously bad precedent to allow the government to manipulate the thought processes of healthy citizens.
It depends on whether you're willing to spend money for additional security.
Personal authentication is less secure, but you don't need anything besides the router.
Enterprise authentication is more secure but requires additional infrastructure. E.g., the 802.1X authentication for WPA2 Enterprise requires a RADIUS server or equivalent to authenticate users. Since enterprise authentication is unique for each user, you can assign network access with per-user profiles with more equipment (e.g., Cisco ISE).
AMD CPUs have many of the same features---TLBs, speculative execution, hyperthreading---without sharing all of the same vulnerabilities. There is enough overlap to suggest there are some unavoidable risks with performance-enhancing features.
It appears Intel was particularly blind to those risks, but bear in mind that some of those vulnerabilities are present on AMD as well.
Since Intel alone was called out on this, I assume AMD's hyperthreading design is safe---for now. Since both hyperthreading designs show similar performance gains, I'm not sure Intel got a performance boost from this defect at all.
Perhaps they saved a few transistors or were able to clock higher, though, so it's not entirely clear there was no benefit.
Your comment makes no sense.
You can't "layoff the CAPEX assets" because employees are OPEX.
Reducing CAPEX assets after an acquisition is still a loss. Part of the acquired company's value is its usable capital; eliminating those assets after acquisition is essentially writing off part of the value that you just payed for.
Sure, eliminating unnecessary capital can avoid the OPEX associated with tracking, maintaining, and operating it. But acquiring and then eliminating redundant assets isn't advantageous from a CAPEX perspective. Again, you lose value by buying something and then throwing it away.
The combined company may expect lower CAPEX in the future, and this is a common reason for mergers/acquisitions. However, the removal/reduction/disposal of capital assets does not create value---quite the opposite.
This is a good thing. This is an attempt to break mass surveillance.
No, it's stupid.
Doing SMTP over TLS was effective. If TLS support isn't widespread, that is what should be fixed.
Why are we wasting time implementing an optional standard that is weaker---and completely vulnerable to MITM attacks?
Qualcomm sold legally to ZTE. There was no problem with selling parts to ZTE before the sanctions.
ZTE broke the law by selling to Iran and North Korea. While the sanctions are in place, Qualcomm cannot sell to ZTE.
Why does Trump about jobs at a Chinese company that broke the law? There is some speculation of bribery, but there has been no investigation thus far.
In the US, "reasonable accommodations" are expected for people with disabilities.
If gaming disorder is a diagnosable mental illness, what accommodations can disabled persons request?
I don't really want to know the answer. I just want to watch the debate.
If there were ever a product that was defective and incapable of working in its intended capacity, this is it.
How rubbish is a justice system if it can't slap the everloving crap out of this company?
They were filing bankruptcy in the wake of the initial sanctions. The problem is not only being shut out of their 2nd-largest market. Sanctions also prohibit US companies from selling to ZTE, which restricts their ability to acquire components.
Maybe ZTE could survive, but that is far from certain. They have strong domestic competitors in Huawei and Xiaomi, and both of those companies enjoy full access to Western suppliers and markets.
Wow, that is wrong.
If someone needs a phone and doesn't get it from ZTE, they will simply buy another brand. And since every phone has a SoC, the number of SoCs sold will remain about the same.
There is no reason at all to support ZTE. They flout US laws, and there are many, many competitors who will be happy to make phones for us while following US law.