Not sure a 'game' type approach is what we want here. Seems there are two undesirable/unintended possibilities:
1. The 'competing' AIs treat this as a game and use game-style methods to win, where they are rewarded for 'winning' rather than actually proving their proposition.
2. How long before competing AIs are sufficiently smart that a human judge could not actually, reliably, tell which had proved their proposition ?
Good post and interesting numbers but of course they only reflect extradition requests that were actually made and therefore appearing in the statistics. I wonder how many times an extradition request was never submitted because it was for perhaps a US citizen for example and considered very unlikely to succeed (for reasons of attitude of the US government rather than strength of case etc. and based on experience of previous, failed, extradition requests from previous years...) ?
The controversy surrounding UK-US Extradition particularly is explained with some background and links here.
Regarding this and other similar Computer Abuse and Fraud Act cases it does appear that the US justice system is more concerned with revenge than what most people would agree was 'justice'.
The Blackphone 2 uses a Qualcomm Snapdragon chip. The maintainers (Silent Circle) released a patch a week ago that 'updates to the latest Qualcomm config files' but it's unclear if that fixes this specific vulnerability.
Nope, it doesn't. Still one out of four isn't bad:( (just vulnerable to: CVE-2016-5340) This will be a test of the promise to be the fastest at fixing/patching issues.....
To the casual (and admittedly distant) observer of Obama's Presidency it looks as if he has finally had to admit that he will be unable to change things as he initially wished and that ultimately he did not fully comprehend the 'complexities' of the office.
Cynics would say that he was naive in believing that he could effect any fundamental change in areas such as government transparency but we need more people that believe they can or we might as well all pack up and head for that island (away from potential cyclones of course...)
I don't think the question is stupid. Dismissing it out of hand seems more so.
1. Asking questions such as this, where we have limited information, often spawns interesting approaches to solving them
2. Any method for detecting 'unwanted visitors' may also be effective in detecting unintelligent (but still unwanted) visitors like significant lumps of fast moving rock which if unencumbered may cause an extinction event
3. It is an opportunity to involve people across national, political, tribal and ethnic divides in pursuit of something important to all of us.
(I'm sure there are many more advantages to at least contemplating what our civilisation could do in this 'hypothetical' situation but this lot should do for demonstrating that the question is at least worth asking...)
I'm in the UK and used to use Zen as my ISP. I found their tech support very helpful in spotting dodgy activity emanating from my home network and advising me on ways to investigate and correct my problems. They did warn that I should take immediate action or they would have to consider suspending my connection. I found this a sensible, helpful and mature approach to the situation.
If done properly involvement of the ISP in identifying and helping resolve infected PCs should be welcomed I would have thought...
When it comes to channels of communication, like Twitter, we get worried when a company takes it over because we worry that censorship or other pernicious activities may commence.
The fact remains that if/when this happens another channel of communication opens up. So why bother about the commercial greed of the less than ideological founders of the latest trendy comms vehicle ?
I would basically agree with this sentiment. I was a highly skilled contract worker for 15 years. However in some markets the 'high skill' being paid for by the employer is something that isn't 'development' as the poster's skills obviously are. Someone who can swan about doing basically what they like providing they supply a usable product in a certain timeframe. It might be technical support or problem solving which the employer might genuinely need at odd times, therefore introducing the idea of 'overtime'.
Surely this whole discussion is a sad waste of time.
The proponent is clearly a techno-weenie. The 'broader issues' he raises as an adjunct to this stupid idea may deserve wider discussion....(which already tends to happen on sites such as this)
Perhaps if he was to lurk here for a while he might make any announcements on similar matters less obviously flawed/miopic/overtly partisan ?
I'm sorry, I think you're confusing 'standards' with 'monopoly' and 'proprietary'.
I also remember the halcyon days of the 70s and 80s, in fact the late 80s when NeXT introduced a completely Object-Oriented OS (admittedly on a hideously expensive machine...) but were unable to get a foothold in the marketplace because of the power of MS. At the time we had reached the giddy technological heights of Windows 2.0.
Standards in computing have taken (are taking?) a long time to achieve useful levels of acceptance but they are clearly the way forward and not the dominance of a single corporate (aka profit-making) entity that imposes APIs.
Oh, and with the car analogy, does that mean we should all drive Fords ?
Don't worry about me not appreciating your 'sarcasm', worry about the significant number that really do take your words at face value. Including those on Slashdot. They're the ones that worry me.
I'm sorry, why is this post mod'd up to '4' 'Interesting' ???
The possible problems with this idea are many and varied. We must trust our government to both record the data properly and use it wisely.
Who has not had some simple error made by our devoted public servants cause them hassle ? It may only be a minor problem regarding non-payment of some local government bill, or perhaps some misunderstanding over refuse collection. Once such sensitive information as DNA is regarded as 'routine' it will be treated as such by the very same people which we may regard as 'well meaning' but perhaps 'misguided' when it doesn't actually mean too much.
My problem with this 'idea' is that it pre-supposes, as many similar concepts do, that government is intrinsically benevolent, and all facets of government are also intrinsically benevolent. Sadly I do not really subscribe to this point of view.
Legislation is the last chance saloon for the innocent when beaurocracy has run amok or conditions have conspired against an individual and we must be ultra careful/vigilant before we effectively remove recourse from that individual, when he is faced with the power of the state.
There is also the point of view that says much of the anti-social or illegal behaviour which we see now, and which prompts widespread discussion of such draconian measures as this can be approached in less indiscriminate ways. Investigate social issues and attack them individually rather than legislate in some broad, 'catch-all' fashion.
For those that say that almost any infringement on civil liberties is OK because if you're innocent you have nothing to fear this just leads naturally on to the 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' scenario. We will (almost) all do something in our lives which our government may find objectionable. We will hope that our transgressions are viewed with maturity and common sense. However if we allow laws to be passed that narrow the responses available to the authorities, then we will eventually reap the rewards for this.
Perhaps I am a natural optimist, but I think we should begin from a basis of believing that the person we meet on the street is our friend and not someone that must be finger-printed and DNA analysed before he can become part of our society.
(Oh, and by the way I live in London, one of the biggest cities on earth and I am neither naive nor an idiot, although some amongst you may disagree...and we in the UK are already observed almost from the moment we step outside our homes. Fancy that do you ???)
I agree, nothing does last forever. To my mind Bill Gates knew some time ago that MS needed to 'diversify' at a minimum away from simply providing desktop software. His activities acquiring rights to art of varying sorts, and net-aware businesses in general, hinted that he believed the future of MS lay in content provision on the net.
Whether the way MS finally becomes irrelevant in terms of software production is web apps (which they seem unwilling to attempt), the all-consuming adoption of Linux and open source software in the new economies of Africa, India and China or something else it seems inevitable that the older MS model of controlling the corporate software inventory is doomed. When most computers, globally, use Linux and the highly skilled Indian/Chinese techies establish global support companies for this same software why would Western businesses need to pay top dollar for MS ?
With so much money MS have opportunities to move into whatever type or style of business they want to, but for that they need to be able to relinquish (at least partially) their philosophy that has made them so powerful. This proved hard for IBM in the 70s/80s and may prove just as hard for MS. Many of the people in positions of influence within MS have arived since they became a huge company and do not necessarily have the fresh ideas necessary to significantly change direction, despite the very fluid nature of high tech business.
Although my personal favourite to knock MS from its position in control of global software is the rise of the new economies based on Linux I'm prepared to be proved wrong...I just don't think I'll be proved wrong by MS maintaining its position.
This is absolutely spot on. I'm sure there must be a rapidly growing number of people in the UK, despite being known for our relaxed attitude to problems and adversity, that are thoroughly fed up with this continuous 'knee-jerk' reaction from our Government to draft bad laws (badly !?) while treating any/all criticism with the same supercilious disdain, or perhaps even worse earnest superiority.
The sad thing is that these people really do not understand that to anyone that knows the subject they appear crass and deeply ignorant. The unfortunate fact is that even if they do realise they clearly don't (need to) care because they are the people in power and we are (largely) power-less to prevent ill-conceived measure after ill-conceived measure being introduced in the name of 'our safety'.
As I sit frustrated typing words that will probably end up on some professional snoopers database somewhere (we're extremely good at that in the UK, even the NSA & CIA learn from these guys) I actually worry more for my children and their children because by the time I'm outta here at the present rate of progress Big Brother's even Bigger Brother will be in every part of our lives.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure a 'game' type approach is what we want here. Seems there are two undesirable/unintended possibilities:
1. The 'competing' AIs treat this as a game and use game-style methods to win, where they are rewarded for 'winning' rather than actually proving their proposition.
2. How long before competing AIs are sufficiently smart that a human judge could not actually, reliably, tell which had proved their proposition ?
Good post and interesting numbers but of course they only reflect extradition requests that were actually made and therefore appearing in the statistics. I wonder how many times an extradition request was never submitted because it was for perhaps a US citizen for example and considered very unlikely to succeed (for reasons of attitude of the US government rather than strength of case etc. and based on experience of previous, failed, extradition requests from previous years...) ?
The controversy surrounding UK-US Extradition particularly is explained with some background and links here .
Regarding this and other similar Computer Abuse and Fraud Act cases it does appear that the US justice system is more concerned with revenge than what most people would agree was 'justice'.
Great fun and very satisfying.
Absolutely true. Utter b*llocks.
..isn't this just an almost inevitable consequence of Capitalism, Free Trade and Globalisation in the real world ?
...so if he'd paid $20 a month he'd be ok ? (Or you'd be outraged?)
The Blackphone 2 uses a Qualcomm Snapdragon chip. The maintainers (Silent Circle) released a patch a week ago that 'updates to the latest Qualcomm config files' but it's unclear if that fixes this specific vulnerability.
Nope, it doesn't. Still one out of four isn't bad :( (just vulnerable to: CVE-2016-5340) This will be a test of the promise to be the fastest at fixing/patching issues.....
To the casual (and admittedly distant) observer of Obama's Presidency it looks as if he has finally had to admit that he will be unable to change things as he initially wished and that ultimately he did not fully comprehend the 'complexities' of the office.
Cynics would say that he was naive in believing that he could effect any fundamental change in areas such as government transparency but we need more people that believe they can or we might as well all pack up and head for that island (away from potential cyclones of course...)
I don't think the question is stupid. Dismissing it out of hand seems more so.
1. Asking questions such as this, where we have limited information, often spawns interesting approaches to solving them
2. Any method for detecting 'unwanted visitors' may also be effective in detecting unintelligent (but still unwanted) visitors like significant lumps of fast moving rock which if unencumbered may cause an extinction event
3. It is an opportunity to involve people across national, political, tribal and ethnic divides in pursuit of something important to all of us.
(I'm sure there are many more advantages to at least contemplating what our civilisation could do in this 'hypothetical' situation but this lot should do for demonstrating that the question is at least worth asking...)
Gotta love a BXLE or perhaps a CDS for those special occasions? Or what about a MVO? (You know who you are)
...keep your friends close and your enemies closer, perhaps.
Why would a device such as a pacemaker, with what seems to be a simple and bounded function, require the facility to communicate with anything?
Corollary: Don't use MS Word.
(simples...)
I'm in the UK and used to use Zen as my ISP. I found their tech support very helpful in spotting dodgy activity emanating from my home network and advising me on ways to investigate and correct my problems. They did warn that I should take immediate action or they would have to consider suspending my connection. I found this a sensible, helpful and mature approach to the situation.
If done properly involvement of the ISP in identifying and helping resolve infected PCs should be welcomed I would have thought...
Of course they will, it'll be as fair and even handed as the extradition treaties.
When it comes to channels of communication, like Twitter, we get worried when a company takes it over because we worry that censorship or other pernicious activities may commence.
The fact remains that if/when this happens another channel of communication opens up. So why bother about the commercial greed of the less than ideological founders of the latest trendy comms vehicle ?
I would basically agree with this sentiment. I was a highly skilled contract worker for 15 years. However in some markets the 'high skill' being paid for by the employer is something that isn't 'development' as the poster's skills obviously are. Someone who can swan about doing basically what they like providing they supply a usable product in a certain timeframe. It might be technical support or problem solving which the employer might genuinely need at odd times, therefore introducing the idea of 'overtime'.
The proponent is clearly a techno-weenie. The 'broader issues' he raises as an adjunct to this stupid idea may deserve wider discussion....(which already tends to happen on sites such as this)
Perhaps if he was to lurk here for a while he might make any announcements on similar matters less obviously flawed/miopic/overtly partisan ?
(couldn't hurt...)
I'm sorry, I think you're confusing 'standards' with 'monopoly' and 'proprietary'.
I also remember the halcyon days of the 70s and 80s, in fact the late 80s when NeXT introduced a completely Object-Oriented OS (admittedly on a hideously expensive machine...) but were unable to get a foothold in the marketplace because of the power of MS. At the time we had reached the giddy technological heights of Windows 2.0.
Standards in computing have taken (are taking?) a long time to achieve useful levels of acceptance but they are clearly the way forward and not the dominance of a single corporate (aka profit-making) entity that imposes APIs.
Oh, and with the car analogy, does that mean we should all drive Fords ?
Don't worry about me not appreciating your 'sarcasm', worry about the significant number that really do take your words at face value. Including those on Slashdot. They're the ones that worry me.
The possible problems with this idea are many and varied. We must trust our government to both record the data properly and use it wisely.
Who has not had some simple error made by our devoted public servants cause them hassle ? It may only be a minor problem regarding non-payment of some local government bill, or perhaps some misunderstanding over refuse collection. Once such sensitive information as DNA is regarded as 'routine' it will be treated as such by the very same people which we may regard as 'well meaning' but perhaps 'misguided' when it doesn't actually mean too much.
My problem with this 'idea' is that it pre-supposes, as many similar concepts do, that government is intrinsically benevolent, and all facets of government are also intrinsically benevolent. Sadly I do not really subscribe to this point of view.
Legislation is the last chance saloon for the innocent when beaurocracy has run amok or conditions have conspired against an individual and we must be ultra careful/vigilant before we effectively remove recourse from that individual, when he is faced with the power of the state.
There is also the point of view that says much of the anti-social or illegal behaviour which we see now, and which prompts widespread discussion of such draconian measures as this can be approached in less indiscriminate ways. Investigate social issues and attack them individually rather than legislate in some broad, 'catch-all' fashion.
For those that say that almost any infringement on civil liberties is OK because if you're innocent you have nothing to fear this just leads naturally on to the 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' scenario. We will (almost) all do something in our lives which our government may find objectionable. We will hope that our transgressions are viewed with maturity and common sense. However if we allow laws to be passed that narrow the responses available to the authorities, then we will eventually reap the rewards for this.
Perhaps I am a natural optimist, but I think we should begin from a basis of believing that the person we meet on the street is our friend and not someone that must be finger-printed and DNA analysed before he can become part of our society.
(Oh, and by the way I live in London, one of the biggest cities on earth and I am neither naive nor an idiot, although some amongst you may disagree...and we in the UK are already observed almost from the moment we step outside our homes. Fancy that do you ???)
I agree, nothing does last forever. To my mind Bill Gates knew some time ago that MS needed to 'diversify' at a minimum away from simply providing desktop software. His activities acquiring rights to art of varying sorts, and net-aware businesses in general, hinted that he believed the future of MS lay in content provision on the net.
Whether the way MS finally becomes irrelevant in terms of software production is web apps (which they seem unwilling to attempt), the all-consuming adoption of Linux and open source software in the new economies of Africa, India and China or something else it seems inevitable that the older MS model of controlling the corporate software inventory is doomed. When most computers, globally, use Linux and the highly skilled Indian/Chinese techies establish global support companies for this same software why would Western businesses need to pay top dollar for MS ?
With so much money MS have opportunities to move into whatever type or style of business they want to, but for that they need to be able to relinquish (at least partially) their philosophy that has made them so powerful. This proved hard for IBM in the 70s/80s and may prove just as hard for MS. Many of the people in positions of influence within MS have arived since they became a huge company and do not necessarily have the fresh ideas necessary to significantly change direction, despite the very fluid nature of high tech business.
Although my personal favourite to knock MS from its position in control of global software is the rise of the new economies based on Linux I'm prepared to be proved wrong...I just don't think I'll be proved wrong by MS maintaining its position.
This is absolutely spot on. I'm sure there must be a rapidly growing number of people in the UK, despite being known for our relaxed attitude to problems and adversity, that are thoroughly fed up with this continuous 'knee-jerk' reaction from our Government to draft bad laws (badly !?) while treating any/all criticism with the same supercilious disdain, or perhaps even worse earnest superiority.
The sad thing is that these people really do not understand that to anyone that knows the subject they appear crass and deeply ignorant. The unfortunate fact is that even if they do realise they clearly don't (need to) care because they are the people in power and we are (largely) power-less to prevent ill-conceived measure after ill-conceived measure being introduced in the name of 'our safety'.
As I sit frustrated typing words that will probably end up on some professional snoopers database somewhere (we're extremely good at that in the UK, even the NSA & CIA learn from these guys) I actually worry more for my children and their children because by the time I'm outta here at the present rate of progress Big Brother's even Bigger Brother will be in every part of our lives.
Of course you realise you'd then have people putting the car into P(ark) at 90mph (sigh)