Nicolas Bourbaki asks me to tell you that he is not impressed.
Really, how does it matter? What matters is how true and relevant what they wrote is. Knowing who they are may shed some light about that, especially when financial gain is involved, but it is only a proxy.
At some point, people and society will need to realize that a deep change in our way of apprehending riches will be needed. AI is only the latest step. The change that came progressively is the increase of productivity: in the past, we needed every body working all day, or we would starve. Now, one person alone can produce enough for several people, and if everybody works, then we produce too much to consume it all.
Yet, society uses work (and capital, but that is another question) to distribute the produced riches. Therefore, everybody needs a job, and thus we invent bullshit jobs, like putting groceries in bags.
Therefore, society must adapt to consider it is normal that not all people work. Let them make art, science, culture instead. Or be couch potatoes, if they want.
But we need to invent a way of distributing riches that is not entirely related to work.
Alternate formulation of the conclusion: now that they can observe the world more easily, American teenagers start to realize how crappy the world really is, completely unlike the imagined perfect America they have been fed all their lives like their parents and their parents' parents, and therefore no longer feel the same entitlement and superiority towards the rest of the world.
And now they see how crappy the world is, maybe they will try to change it.
In other countries, with far lower medical costs than America, when you "go to the doctor" you are much more likely to actually be seeing a nurse or PA.
I am pretty sure you are quite mistaken. For France, I know you are.
In France, the official fee is 25€, minus 16.50€ reimbursed by the Sécurité sociale. I do not find on the web stastics on how many doctors follow the official fee (“conventionnés secteur 1”), but partial statistics seems to indicate they are the huge majority of general practitioners. At least I can say that I had no trouble finding several of them in my neighborhood.
And they are actual medical doctors, not nurses or anything else. And most of those I visited spend time with their patients, they do not expedite them to make a living.
I think you need browse some more to know why the medical costs are so high in the United States of America. You can probably start with the “Adam Ruins the Hospital” episode of “Adam Ruins Everything”, I remember it covered that topic.
And by the way, the nameless country between Canada and Mexico is not the whole of America.;-
Something that has been published cannot, in all generality, be “unpublished”, be it a Facebook post, a tweet or a column in a high school newspaper. If you are high-profile enough to warrant the efforts, people will manage to dig dirt.
But the article says: “Over multiple years, we all change. Things we said in 2011 may or may not represent us today.” And another point: people make mistakes, people should not be judged on their mistakes but on how they react to them.
The public needs to understand that, more than a “right to be forgotten” or a “start over” button: people's lives and careers should not be broken because of something they said ten years ago (provided they do not still say the same today) or a message they retracted after a few minutes.
What a surprise! Anybody who keeps informed has known for a long time that “IQ” was meaningless, and that IQ tests only evaluated the ability to succeed at IQ tests, nothing related to any kind of intelligence whatsoever.
“Nice” (i.e. commercial) websites have become immensely complex in design. Not because their needs has grown immensely complex; they have grown complex, but not that much. Because they are poorly designed in their workings. Developers in the same company cannot be bothered to make reusable libraries, and when they can, they mess the API stability and require several versions of the same library within a single project. Requests are resolved using queries to caches to proxies to No wonder the output of even a single request cannot be decided before examining the whole universe and its neighbourhood.
It seems to me this feature is just another step in that direction: make things a little more complex for an immediate gain, and let the future take care of itself. Slowly.
If I try this with the calculator on my Android phone, I get “+ Error: Too Few Arguments" as soon as I hit the first +. Guess what is my favourite calculator app.
One of the problems in this story is that the patent offices are not responsible for the patents. If they grant a patent, they cash a yearly fee. If a patent is overthrown in justice, they keep the fees. They have no incentive to screen the applications properly.
One of the first measures to fix the issues would be to make them responsible: if a parent they granted gets overthrown in justice, they should refund all the fees, plus the cost of the prior art research that was obviously botched. That would give them the incentive to do their work.
Do not forget the infamous “zero-hour conracts”, where the person has, technically, a job, but not actually an income. It looks like there are almost a million of these in Maggie's country.
the proxy server, or that guy in sitting next to me at Starbucks.
Which is exactly what I said in my first message: for public access like Starbucks, it makes a little sense. For home access, where the only people in between are network operators, the likelihood of a MitM is tiny.
No, the CA is chosen by the server. The only choice for the client is to either trust or not trust. They cannot decide to use another CA with more guarantees.
defining that a server belongs to a domain that it claims
Which is all but useless, and exactly the source of the present thread.
This story shows the fundamental flaw of the TLS CA infrastructure: it only certifies that the connection is established with the reported DNS domain name. That is not utterly useless, but not far from it.
The protection against man-in-the-middle attack is relevant only in a handful of cases. With home Internet access, MitM can more or less only be performed by network operators, who have a lot to lose if they are caught playing these games. It is more of an issue with public access, but still rather minor.
What would be really useful would be CA that certify the honesty of the sites. “If you see our green padlock, that means this site is reliable. If they scam you, we will refund you.”
I am convinced that most people are inherently honest and would gladly pay for what they watch, if given the chance. And I remember a TED talk by Amanda Palmer saying the same thing.
But what do they ask us to pay for? Exclusive rights wars, clumsy proprietary players, limited play periods.
If the studios and distributors had any brains at all, they would acknowledge that limiting the spread of the files is a lost war, they would give easy access to them and a wide variety of payment methods, including an open “I have watched something from you for free (I will not tell you if it was legally or not), I would like to give back” donate form. And they would actually charge for extra features such as earlier access.
I even suspect a lot of pirates would respect that and not compete with the paying extra features.
At this time, as far as I know, only Crunchyroll gets it almost right.
The answer to the question is visible by just observing the world. What are the best pieces of software out there? Linux, *BSD, PostgreSQL, Vim, FFmpeg (sorry for the shameless plug), Zsh, etc.
Then look at the kind of team that did produce these awesome pieces of software.
Malware is a problem when people try to execute it. Malware laying in “cloud repositories” (what does that even mean?) is doing no harm except waste place. Why waste even more energy trying to scan it? Or even study it?
Actually, you are slightly wrong. The three options you suggest apply before you are in a situation of copyright violation: when you are considering distributing your project, you have to do one of these things.
But after the copyright violation, it is too late. If you steal something, get caught and give it back, you still go to prison. The same applies to any kind of wrongdoing: undoing it after getting caught does not avoid the punishment.
The GPL has an explicit provision for violations: (emphasis mine) “Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.”
In other words, if someone violates the terms of the GPL and gets caught, they lose all right to the software, and have to beg the copyright holders to get them back. The copyright holders may be satisfied with simple compliance, but they may require extra good will proofs.
Of course, if the infringer does not want to comply, the only option becomes to sue them. And the judge would not order compliance, only damages.
If I were to design a protocol of this kind, one of the first measures I would take, in the protocol itself if relevant and in any implementation, would be to check that peer-provided source addresses match the routing system, making spoofing impossible. I cannot fathom that the people who designed this particular protocol did not do the same from the beginning, and even more so that they did not fix it since then.
This is exactly wanting to have the cake and eat it. Or even more appropriately, the French version: he wants the butter and keep the butter money.
As a side note, since trademarks are associated with a particular kind of products, he could sell McAfee sandwiches or open the MacAfee massage salon and be ok.
Slashdot Mirror
Nicolas Bourbaki asks me to tell you that he is not impressed.
Really, how does it matter? What matters is how true and relevant what they wrote is. Knowing who they are may shed some light about that, especially when financial gain is involved, but it is only a proxy.
This article seems quite positive about the CLOUD act.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has quite a different take: The CLOUD Act: A Dangerous Expansion of Police Snooping on Cross-Border Data.
Is /. written for the benefit of law enforcement and big tech business or for nerds?
At some point, people and society will need to realize that a deep change in our way of apprehending riches will be needed. AI is only the latest step. The change that came progressively is the increase of productivity: in the past, we needed every body working all day, or we would starve. Now, one person alone can produce enough for several people, and if everybody works, then we produce too much to consume it all.
Yet, society uses work (and capital, but that is another question) to distribute the produced riches. Therefore, everybody needs a job, and thus we invent bullshit jobs, like putting groceries in bags.
Therefore, society must adapt to consider it is normal that not all people work. Let them make art, science, culture instead. Or be couch potatoes, if they want.
But we need to invent a way of distributing riches that is not entirely related to work.
Alternate formulation of the conclusion: now that they can observe the world more easily, American teenagers start to realize how crappy the world really is, completely unlike the imagined perfect America they have been fed all their lives like their parents and their parents' parents, and therefore no longer feel the same entitlement and superiority towards the rest of the world.
And now they see how crappy the world is, maybe they will try to change it.
In other countries, with far lower medical costs than America, when you "go to the doctor" you are much more likely to actually be seeing a nurse or PA.
I am pretty sure you are quite mistaken. For France, I know you are.
In France, the official fee is 25€, minus 16.50€ reimbursed by the Sécurité sociale. I do not find on the web stastics on how many doctors follow the official fee (“conventionnés secteur 1”), but partial statistics seems to indicate they are the huge majority of general practitioners. At least I can say that I had no trouble finding several of them in my neighborhood.
And they are actual medical doctors, not nurses or anything else. And most of those I visited spend time with their patients, they do not expedite them to make a living.
I think you need browse some more to know why the medical costs are so high in the United States of America. You can probably start with the “Adam Ruins the Hospital” episode of “Adam Ruins Everything”, I remember it covered that topic.
And by the way, the nameless country between Canada and Mexico is not the whole of America. ;-
Something that has been published cannot, in all generality, be “unpublished”, be it a Facebook post, a tweet or a column in a high school newspaper. If you are high-profile enough to warrant the efforts, people will manage to dig dirt.
But the article says: “Over multiple years, we all change. Things we said in 2011 may or may not represent us today.” And another point: people make mistakes, people should not be judged on their mistakes but on how they react to them.
The public needs to understand that, more than a “right to be forgotten” or a “start over” button: people's lives and careers should not be broken because of something they said ten years ago (provided they do not still say the same today) or a message they retracted after a few minutes.
What a surprise! Anybody who keeps informed has known for a long time that “IQ” was meaningless, and that IQ tests only evaluated the ability to succeed at IQ tests, nothing related to any kind of intelligence whatsoever.
“Nice” (i.e. commercial) websites have become immensely complex in design. Not because their needs has grown immensely complex; they have grown complex, but not that much. Because they are poorly designed in their workings. Developers in the same company cannot be bothered to make reusable libraries, and when they can, they mess the API stability and require several versions of the same library within a single project. Requests are resolved using queries to caches to proxies to No wonder the output of even a single request cannot be decided before examining the whole universe and its neighbourhood.
It seems to me this feature is just another step in that direction: make things a little more complex for an immediate gain, and let the future take care of itself. Slowly.
If I try this with the calculator on my Android phone, I get “+ Error: Too Few Arguments" as soon as I hit the first +. Guess what is my favourite calculator app.
Indeed, I was about to post that this was a typical “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy, but you beat me to it.
In this particular instance, there is an obvious common cause: being open to artificial stimulations of the mind.
One of the problems in this story is that the patent offices are not responsible for the patents. If they grant a patent, they cash a yearly fee. If a patent is overthrown in justice, they keep the fees. They have no incentive to screen the applications properly.
One of the first measures to fix the issues would be to make them responsible: if a parent they granted gets overthrown in justice, they should refund all the fees, plus the cost of the prior art research that was obviously botched. That would give them the incentive to do their work.
Do not forget the infamous “zero-hour conracts”, where the person has, technically, a job, but not actually an income. It looks like there are almost a million of these in Maggie's country.
the proxy server, or that guy in sitting next to me at Starbucks.
Which is exactly what I said in my first message: for public access like Starbucks, it makes a little sense. For home access, where the only people in between are network operators, the likelihood of a MitM is tiny.
The CA IS chosen by the client.
No, the CA is chosen by the server. The only choice for the client is to either trust or not trust. They cannot decide to use another CA with more guarantees.
defining that a server belongs to a domain that it claims
Which is all but useless, and exactly the source of the present thread.
They cannot work the way I evoke when the CA is chosen by the server and not the client.
Answering to this and the others:
If you install malware on the target's computer, that is not a man-in-the-middle, and certificate will be of little protection anyway.
This story shows the fundamental flaw of the TLS CA infrastructure: it only certifies that the connection is established with the reported DNS domain name. That is not utterly useless, but not far from it.
The protection against man-in-the-middle attack is relevant only in a handful of cases. With home Internet access, MitM can more or less only be performed by network operators, who have a lot to lose if they are caught playing these games. It is more of an issue with public access, but still rather minor.
What would be really useful would be CA that certify the honesty of the sites. “If you see our green padlock, that means this site is reliable. If they scam you, we will refund you.”
I will not hold my breath.
Hear, hear!
I am convinced that most people are inherently honest and would gladly pay for what they watch, if given the chance. And I remember a TED talk by Amanda Palmer saying the same thing.
But what do they ask us to pay for? Exclusive rights wars, clumsy proprietary players, limited play periods.
If the studios and distributors had any brains at all, they would acknowledge that limiting the spread of the files is a lost war, they would give easy access to them and a wide variety of payment methods, including an open “I have watched something from you for free (I will not tell you if it was legally or not), I would like to give back” donate form. And they would actually charge for extra features such as earlier access.
I even suspect a lot of pirates would respect that and not compete with the paying extra features.
At this time, as far as I know, only Crunchyroll gets it almost right.
The answer to the question is visible by just observing the world. What are the best pieces of software out there? Linux, *BSD, PostgreSQL, Vim, FFmpeg (sorry for the shameless plug), Zsh, etc.
Then look at the kind of team that did produce these awesome pieces of software.
Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this. The next phase is to have babies so big that the mother needs to step to a parallel world to give birth.
Your analogy is flawed in two ways.
First, “cloud repositories” are not used just to distribute malware. But that is not the most important.
Second, if someone shoots me with a gun, I die, I do not have any choice. If someone hands me malware, I ignore it and move to something else.
Malware is a non-issue. The real issue is the abysmal security of consumer devices and software.
Malware is a problem when people try to execute it. Malware laying in “cloud repositories” (what does that even mean?) is doing no harm except waste place. Why waste even more energy trying to scan it? Or even study it?
Actually, you are slightly wrong. The three options you suggest apply before you are in a situation of copyright violation: when you are considering distributing your project, you have to do one of these things.
But after the copyright violation, it is too late. If you steal something, get caught and give it back, you still go to prison. The same applies to any kind of wrongdoing: undoing it after getting caught does not avoid the punishment.
The GPL has an explicit provision for violations: (emphasis mine) “Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.”
In other words, if someone violates the terms of the GPL and gets caught, they lose all right to the software, and have to beg the copyright holders to get them back. The copyright holders may be satisfied with simple compliance, but they may require extra good will proofs.
Of course, if the infringer does not want to comply, the only option becomes to sue them. And the judge would not order compliance, only damages.
Why is it possible in the first place?
If I were to design a protocol of this kind, one of the first measures I would take, in the protocol itself if relevant and in any implementation, would be to check that peer-provided source addresses match the routing system, making spoofing impossible. I cannot fathom that the people who designed this particular protocol did not do the same from the beginning, and even more so that they did not fix it since then.
Hear, hear.
This is exactly wanting to have the cake and eat it. Or even more appropriately, the French version: he wants the butter and keep the butter money.
As a side note, since trademarks are associated with a particular kind of products, he could sell McAfee sandwiches or open the MacAfee massage salon and be ok.