Also: "spin" what I said? What? I said something very general, and then you made a general point that there has to be some non-anonymous data, and I agreed, with the proviso that they likely have data to correlate. That's the conversation. There's no politics there, just me elaborating - remember that word? It means using additional information to shed light on previous comments. Look it up sometime.
You're suggesting that there's no possible way to correlate data, but as I said, they have their own large data sets to correlate against. They don't need an exactly parallel data set; if they did, the anonymization "break" wouldn't have worked in the first place. All you need is an heuristic, identifying data - which can be as general as a zip code in many cases - and lots of data. That's the lesson of the anonymization breakage stories this past year.
It is a different case, but it illustrates that anonymizing the data isn't a single activity. The concern is that there are ways to more-or-less violate privacy using this data, particularly if you're, say, a gigantic media company and have your own subscriber data to analyze alongside the other set.
It sounds like you've figured out our evil plans. Expect a team of dark-red-suited Mounties at your door shortly with our special "brainwiper beer, eh".
Are you worried that anyone (other than you, apparently) is going to be confused? Because that, honestly, is not a problem I've run into. Pretty sure most of us understand that "archaism" pretty well, actually.
He's earned his piece, for certain. That doesn't make him one iota less crazy-sounding when he talks about this stuff. And it's not that good crazy that leads to revolutions, it's that bad crazy that makes everyone go "where's my immortality" 50 years down the road and generally makes futurism a bullshit field. And Singularity talk is rapidly entering the mainstream, so it's past time to put some lines down delineating where the Crazy is and where it's not. I'm voting for Kurzweillian futurism being stored in the Pleasant Padded Room section.
When it comes to The Singularity he is Stone Cold Crazy, and doesn't know the meaning of curbing his enthusiasm. As I said somewhere else, he's so good at glossing over issues he should patent his methods and make a killing in the magazine industry.
Not to mention, he completely forgets to mention that Drexler's 92 book was a followup to Engines of Creation, which predates his marked "birth" of nanotechnology by at least 3 years.
I don't think you have a clue what the original book really was. Trying to label the book "pro-fascist" is an awful mischaracterization. It's an excellent exploration of some possible explanations about why militarism brings out the things it does in people. It's a deeply emotional book, and the movie removed 100% of that, which meant that it wasn't at all representative of the work.
Plus, no power armor. I mean, come on.
Every normal person I know seems to believe V for Vendetta was a great movie. Maybe adapting a good book into a good movie, even at the expense of diverging from the original work, isn't all bad.
With several version control systems, you don't need to comment anything at all to get credit for your changes. You just submit a change and it takes on your identity. Funny how that works.
Relativity actually defines, in a sense, the age of an event relative to your own perspective. The "causal" perspective is the only one that really matters. From our causal perspective, the supernova is 140 years old.
In my experience you don't WANT to have to merge into "release" branches. Merging after even a month - sometimes even a week - of development is a huge pain in the ass and doesn't net anything that having independent release branches wouldn't get you. In addition, having independent release branches means that all those internal customers who can't upgrade because of this or that interface to a critical system can still be supported via critical patches directly to their specific release. Trying to do that with a single continuous release branch would be nightmarish.
If you're comparing anything based on beta versions you should just lube up and use your hand instead. It's meaningless until they're in wide usage and breaking things on a global basis.
Of course, if I were willing to pose as a security professional and fake it to this extent, I could get unwarranted access to a bank. So they're kind of damned either way.
Slashdot Mirror
Wake me up when they come up with something for those of us that still use apparently obsolete copper wires.
You mean like this?
I'm beginning to question whether you understand any of the words in use.
Also: "spin" what I said? What? I said something very general, and then you made a general point that there has to be some non-anonymous data, and I agreed, with the proviso that they likely have data to correlate. That's the conversation. There's no politics there, just me elaborating - remember that word? It means using additional information to shed light on previous comments. Look it up sometime.
You're suggesting that there's no possible way to correlate data, but as I said, they have their own large data sets to correlate against. They don't need an exactly parallel data set; if they did, the anonymization "break" wouldn't have worked in the first place. All you need is an heuristic, identifying data - which can be as general as a zip code in many cases - and lots of data. That's the lesson of the anonymization breakage stories this past year.
It is a different case, but it illustrates that anonymizing the data isn't a single activity. The concern is that there are ways to more-or-less violate privacy using this data, particularly if you're, say, a gigantic media company and have your own subscriber data to analyze alongside the other set.
Who needs to win cases when you can receive millions of dollars in data simply by going through discovery proceedings?
You've probably missed this story, I'm guessing. Large enough data sets apparently break anonymizing techniques.
Is...is that a euphemism?
News at 11: Turns out that the fundamental nature of reality isn't a monotonic function.
It sounds like you've figured out our evil plans. Expect a team of dark-red-suited Mounties at your door shortly with our special "brainwiper beer, eh".
Are you worried that anyone (other than you, apparently) is going to be confused? Because that, honestly, is not a problem I've run into. Pretty sure most of us understand that "archaism" pretty well, actually.
He's earned his piece, for certain. That doesn't make him one iota less crazy-sounding when he talks about this stuff. And it's not that good crazy that leads to revolutions, it's that bad crazy that makes everyone go "where's my immortality" 50 years down the road and generally makes futurism a bullshit field. And Singularity talk is rapidly entering the mainstream, so it's past time to put some lines down delineating where the Crazy is and where it's not. I'm voting for Kurzweillian futurism being stored in the Pleasant Padded Room section.
When it comes to The Singularity he is Stone Cold Crazy, and doesn't know the meaning of curbing his enthusiasm. As I said somewhere else, he's so good at glossing over issues he should patent his methods and make a killing in the magazine industry.
Not to mention, he completely forgets to mention that Drexler's 92 book was a followup to Engines of Creation, which predates his marked "birth" of nanotechnology by at least 3 years.
I don't think you have a clue what the original book really was. Trying to label the book "pro-fascist" is an awful mischaracterization. It's an excellent exploration of some possible explanations about why militarism brings out the things it does in people. It's a deeply emotional book, and the movie removed 100% of that, which meant that it wasn't at all representative of the work. Plus, no power armor. I mean, come on.
Every normal person I know seems to believe V for Vendetta was a great movie. Maybe adapting a good book into a good movie, even at the expense of diverging from the original work, isn't all bad.
One of those is against the "M$" users of the world, not Linux.
With several version control systems, you don't need to comment anything at all to get credit for your changes. You just submit a change and it takes on your identity. Funny how that works.
Relativity actually defines, in a sense, the age of an event relative to your own perspective. The "causal" perspective is the only one that really matters. From our causal perspective, the supernova is 140 years old.
In my experience you don't WANT to have to merge into "release" branches. Merging after even a month - sometimes even a week - of development is a huge pain in the ass and doesn't net anything that having independent release branches wouldn't get you. In addition, having independent release branches means that all those internal customers who can't upgrade because of this or that interface to a critical system can still be supported via critical patches directly to their specific release. Trying to do that with a single continuous release branch would be nightmarish.
Are you saying the criticism was unWarranted?
If you're comparing anything based on beta versions you should just lube up and use your hand instead. It's meaningless until they're in wide usage and breaking things on a global basis.
Of course, 2.0.0.1.2 Firefox doesn't pass Acid2 either. So, not so much.
Of course, if I were willing to pose as a security professional and fake it to this extent, I could get unwarranted access to a bank. So they're kind of damned either way.
I'm guessing you could find it on RateMyProof.com