start translating some Croatian profanities into English.
I have heard that Hungarian has some wonderful profanity.
I can speak some Mandarin Chinese, which also has some great profanity, but alas, I never get the tones right, and listeners end up confused rather than offended. So I understand enough to tell when I am being insulted, but not enough to retaliate in kind.
So? What is your point? This is also true of EVERY CRIME IMAGINABLE. We are never going to catch and convict 100% of offenders for anything. Yet only for revenge porn are people arguing that this is reason to do nothing.
You would need to get every digital camera to issue a digital key...
Absolute nonsense. Did you read TFA? In every single instance the VICTIM identified the photo. Law enforcement does not need to go out and monitor every camera. They can just deal with complaints. Do you think that the police catch pickpockets by putting GPS tracking devices in everyone's wallet?
you could just be pro-active and not send nudz
Many of these photos and videos were made without the knowledge or consent of the victim.
How is showing a video of someone else who cannot consent considered free speech?
It is speech, since it includes audio. I doubt if it would be legal anywhere. But the ACs point is that there should be NO restrictions. So if you think that child rape recordings should be banned, then you agree with me that some things should be censored, and disagree with the AC.
Btw, the revenge porn described in TFA is also distributed without consent, and sometimes recorded without consent. So you seem to think that "consent" is a lot more important than many others here.
But just because cubicles may work for a CEO, that doesn't mean they work for programmers. The jobs are very different. There is nothing a CEO does that is analogous to tracking down a race condition in a 10,000 line threaded real-time application written by an intern three summers ago.
it's absolutely batshit crazy to think you somehow have the right to stop someone elses communications.
Thought experiment: A man breaks into your six year old's daughter's bedroom, rapes her, violates her with a broken coke bottle, and records the act with a 4K UHD video. He is caught, convicted, and sent to prison. But he is wealthy, so he arranges to install a 40 foot video billboard across the street from the playground at your daughter's school, where the video is played in a loop, with audio, 24/7.
Do you really think that free speech is absolute, and stopping this would be "batshit crazy"?
That's exactly the true argument people are having, they just don't realize it.
Bullcrap. The argument is whether or not posting explicit photos without permission should be illegal. Whether it is "avoidable" or not is irrelevant. We don't refuse to prosecute theft or rape because the victim could have "avoided it".
can we please stop trying to disguise fuck as f___?
No. The WHOLE POINT of profanity is its ability to shock and offend people. If it is used openly and casually, it loses that ability. This has already happened with "damn" and "hell" which used to be perfectly good swear words, and "shit" is less and less effective. If we give up on "fuck", then we have almost nothing left. Maybe "cunt", but that is used as more of an insult than as general profanity.
I once worked for a company that did this. Why? Thermostats. The women were constantly pushing them higher, while the men were pushing them lower, leading to many arguments. The CEO finally got fed up and put the "hot" people in one room and the "cold" people in the other. This led to mostly segregation by gender, although there were some scrawny guys that went to the warm area, and a few "big" women preferred the cooler section.
I don't think so. There is evidence that open offices are bad for productivity. Some people like to work in a bullpen, but even for those people their productivity may go down more than they realize. Other people hate open offices, and refuse to work in them. These are often the best people, who have plenty of other employment options. Open offices are false economy. The cost of providing a real office is negligible compared to a typical tech salary in Cupertino.
My company has some open office space, and I work there sometimes. But I also have an office with real walls where I can sit and focus. It is small, about 8 ft by 10 ft, but that is enough for two chairs, a desk, and a bookshelf.
I will not accept any job that requires me to work in a cubicle or open office, although I did work that way when I was young and desperate.
TFA claims that there are already 14 trillion cameras. That is 2000 cameras for every person on earth. That is wildly implausible. I think someone has "trillion" and "billion" confused. I can believe an average of 2.
I think I have 10: 2 on my primary cellphone. One on my burner phone. One on my laptop. On on my external monitor. 2 in my car (dashcam + back-up camera), and 4 security cameras around my house.
Many of the photos were taken without permission. Even if permission were given to take a picture, that should not automatically include permission to distribute it. In some cases, the photos were copied by technicians from laptops or phones that were being serviced.
You may feel that women "deserve" abuse if they are not sufficiently chaste, but you may feel different if it is your GF, sister, or daughter.
The failure of the law to deal with this issue invites vigilante action. In my neighborhood a young man posted explicit pictures of his ex-girlfriend, and was hospitalized after a severe beating by an unknown assailant. His GF's four older brothers denied involvement.
I believe it was a Nobel Winning Physicist who said, "if your data doesn't agree with your theory, it's your theory that is wrong, not the data. " (paraphrased)
1. Models are not "data". If the model is wrong, that means the model is wrong. But it doesn't disprove the underlying theory. 2. It was Richard Feynman.
The main alternative to WIMPs are MACHOs, and black holes have long been candidates for dark matter. The problem is that they would need to have five times more mass than all the "ordinary" matter in the universe, and there is little evidence for that. For instance the amount of gravitational lensing that is observed is way less than would be expected. Dark matter appears to be more evenly distributed in galaxies and not just in the "halo". Yet we don't observe that many black holes passing through gas and dust clouds or interacting with regular stars.
TFA says that there may be 100 million black holes in our galaxy, and that may sound like a lot, but it is actually nowhere near enough to account for all the dark matter. Even if they had 10 solar masses each (unlikely), that would still be less than 1% of the mass of the galaxy's "ordinary matter", when it should be 500%.
If they did then Canadian Provences would be States and they would no longer have Universal Healthcare.
Actually, America might get UHC if they annexed Canada. In polls, the majority in every province but Alberta prefered Hillary over Donald. Canadian annexation would shift the American's political center-of-gravity significantly to the left.
Those are NOT the only alternatives. Here are some other options, that while unpleasant, are short of war:
1. Apply secondary sanctions against countries that violate the primary sanctions against NK. This will mainly be China, which has millions of jobs dependent on trade with America. Even a quiet but credible threat to apply secondary sanctions may get them to shut down trade across the Yalu.
2. Naval blockade. No ships in or out of NK ports. Not even fishing vessels.
3. No fly zone over NK. Any missile launched will be immediately shot down. This will take away their ability to do further testing, while giving America excellent target practice.
You may think #2 and #3 will lead directly to war, but I don't think so. Kim knows darn well that he would lose a full scale conflict. He may try proportionate retaliation, but that doesn't need to lead to a full war.
SDCs do use a database. They also look for signs. If they don't see a stop sign where one is expected, or see one where it is not expected, they will stop. They will also report the discrepancy.
I believe the merits of the paper lie in demonstrating this as a theoretical concern
But that is important, because without this research, the teams of professional engineers designing SDCs would have never even considered that a traffic sign could be smudged or obscured by a tree branch.
Deface a sign enough and it fails inspection as a sign. Now the intersection has no stop sign as far as the computer's concerned.
Nonsense. SDCs are not designed with a single point of failure. When approaching an intersection they do all of the following:
1. Look for a sign or light. 2. Access map data, which shows it is an intersection... and also says it requires a stop. 3. Access historical data for the intersection that shows other SDCs recently stopped there. 4. Look at the road markings and tire markings that indicate cross traffic. If these data contradict each other, the SDC will do the safe thing and stop. It will also report the missing and defaced sign. A human is more likely to drive through the intersection than an SDC.
The actual paper is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08945v3 They did NOT "trick" any SDCs, nor did they even try. They just defeated an algorithm that they assumed is similar to what SDCs use for #1 in the list above.
Slashdot Mirror
start translating some Croatian profanities into English.
I have heard that Hungarian has some wonderful profanity.
I can speak some Mandarin Chinese, which also has some great profanity, but alas, I never get the tones right, and listeners end up confused rather than offended. So I understand enough to tell when I am being insulted, but not enough to retaliate in kind.
you're still not going to shut them all down
So? What is your point? This is also true of EVERY CRIME IMAGINABLE. We are never going to catch and convict 100% of offenders for anything. Yet only for revenge porn are people arguing that this is reason to do nothing.
You would need to get every digital camera to issue a digital key ...
Absolute nonsense. Did you read TFA? In every single instance the VICTIM identified the photo. Law enforcement does not need to go out and monitor every camera. They can just deal with complaints. Do you think that the police catch pickpockets by putting GPS tracking devices in everyone's wallet?
you could just be pro-active and not send nudz
Many of these photos and videos were made without the knowledge or consent of the victim.
How is showing a video of someone else who cannot consent considered free speech?
It is speech, since it includes audio. I doubt if it would be legal anywhere. But the ACs point is that there should be NO restrictions. So if you think that child rape recordings should be banned, then you agree with me that some things should be censored, and disagree with the AC.
Btw, the revenge porn described in TFA is also distributed without consent, and sometimes recorded without consent. So you seem to think that "consent" is a lot more important than many others here.
Are you sure you didn't mean 16 year old, because if you didn't then your rapist is also publishing child pornography.
If free speech is absolute, and limiting communication in any way whatsoever is "batshit crazy" then why should child porn be illegal?
If you agree with existing child porn laws, or ANY restrictions on child porn, then you can't also agree with the AC I was replying to.
Intel is another company where everyone works in a cubicle, even the CEO.
There are more: CEOs who work from cubicles.
But just because cubicles may work for a CEO, that doesn't mean they work for programmers. The jobs are very different. There is nothing a CEO does that is analogous to tracking down a race condition in a 10,000 line threaded real-time application written by an intern three summers ago.
it's absolutely batshit crazy to think you somehow have the right to stop someone elses communications.
Thought experiment: A man breaks into your six year old's daughter's bedroom, rapes her, violates her with a broken coke bottle, and records the act with a 4K UHD video. He is caught, convicted, and sent to prison. But he is wealthy, so he arranges to install a 40 foot video billboard across the street from the playground at your daughter's school, where the video is played in a loop, with audio, 24/7.
Do you really think that free speech is absolute, and stopping this would be "batshit crazy"?
That's exactly the true argument people are having, they just don't realize it.
Bullcrap. The argument is whether or not posting explicit photos without permission should be illegal. Whether it is "avoidable" or not is irrelevant. We don't refuse to prosecute theft or rape because the victim could have "avoided it".
can we please stop trying to disguise fuck as f___?
No. The WHOLE POINT of profanity is its ability to shock and offend people. If it is used openly and casually, it loses that ability. This has already happened with "damn" and "hell" which used to be perfectly good swear words, and "shit" is less and less effective. If we give up on "fuck", then we have almost nothing left. Maybe "cunt", but that is used as more of an insult than as general profanity.
I once worked for a company that did this. Why? Thermostats. The women were constantly pushing them higher, while the men were pushing them lower, leading to many arguments. The CEO finally got fed up and put the "hot" people in one room and the "cold" people in the other. This led to mostly segregation by gender, although there were some scrawny guys that went to the warm area, and a few "big" women preferred the cooler section.
apple is right everyone else is wrong.
I don't think so. There is evidence that open offices are bad for productivity. Some people like to work in a bullpen, but even for those people their productivity may go down more than they realize. Other people hate open offices, and refuse to work in them. These are often the best people, who have plenty of other employment options. Open offices are false economy. The cost of providing a real office is negligible compared to a typical tech salary in Cupertino.
My company has some open office space, and I work there sometimes. But I also have an office with real walls where I can sit and focus. It is small, about 8 ft by 10 ft, but that is enough for two chairs, a desk, and a bookshelf.
I will not accept any job that requires me to work in a cubicle or open office, although I did work that way when I was young and desperate.
44 trillions camera over 5 years is 25 millions a day.
Did you flunk 3rd grade math?
You are off by a factor of a thousand.
TFA claims that there are already 14 trillion cameras. That is 2000 cameras for every person on earth. That is wildly implausible. I think someone has "trillion" and "billion" confused. I can believe an average of 2.
I think I have 10: 2 on my primary cellphone. One on my burner phone. One on my laptop. On on my external monitor. 2 in my car (dashcam + back-up camera), and 4 security cameras around my house.
Nobody should have the expectation that the recipient/holder of the photos is, or will remain, altruistic and friendly.
Nobody should have the expectation that an unattended wallet won't be stolen. But that doesn't mean that stealing wallets should be legal.
Many of the photos were taken without permission. Even if permission were given to take a picture, that should not automatically include permission to distribute it. In some cases, the photos were copied by technicians from laptops or phones that were being serviced.
You may feel that women "deserve" abuse if they are not sufficiently chaste, but you may feel different if it is your GF, sister, or daughter.
The failure of the law to deal with this issue invites vigilante action. In my neighborhood a young man posted explicit pictures of his ex-girlfriend, and was hospitalized after a severe beating by an unknown assailant. His GF's four older brothers denied involvement.
I believe it was a Nobel Winning Physicist who said, "if your data doesn't agree with your theory, it's your theory that is wrong, not the data. " (paraphrased)
1. Models are not "data". If the model is wrong, that means the model is wrong. But it doesn't disprove the underlying theory.
2. It was Richard Feynman.
ALL THE MODELS ARE WRONG
THAT MEANS THE THEORY IS WRONG
This is known as an Argument from Fallacy, and it is illogical. You should try to learn the basics of critical thinking.
The main alternative to WIMPs are MACHOs, and black holes have long been candidates for dark matter. The problem is that they would need to have five times more mass than all the "ordinary" matter in the universe, and there is little evidence for that. For instance the amount of gravitational lensing that is observed is way less than would be expected. Dark matter appears to be more evenly distributed in galaxies and not just in the "halo". Yet we don't observe that many black holes passing through gas and dust clouds or interacting with regular stars.
TFA says that there may be 100 million black holes in our galaxy, and that may sound like a lot, but it is actually nowhere near enough to account for all the dark matter. Even if they had 10 solar masses each (unlikely), that would still be less than 1% of the mass of the galaxy's "ordinary matter", when it should be 500%.
Absent proof of man's forcing of warming - we're left with only one conclusion: it's natural.
Nonsense. Lack of proof for X does not mean "not X" must be true. It just means that X is unproven.
Also, outside of mathematics, there is no such thing as "proof". Just evidence.
If they did then Canadian Provences would be States and they would no longer have Universal Healthcare.
Actually, America might get UHC if they annexed Canada. In polls, the majority in every province but Alberta prefered Hillary over Donald. Canadian annexation would shift the American's political center-of-gravity significantly to the left.
The alternative is war now or war later.
Those are NOT the only alternatives.
Here are some other options, that while unpleasant, are short of war:
1. Apply secondary sanctions against countries that violate the primary sanctions against NK. This will mainly be China, which has millions of jobs dependent on trade with America. Even a quiet but credible threat to apply secondary sanctions may get them to shut down trade across the Yalu.
2. Naval blockade. No ships in or out of NK ports. Not even fishing vessels.
3. No fly zone over NK. Any missile launched will be immediately shot down. This will take away their ability to do further testing, while giving America excellent target practice.
You may think #2 and #3 will lead directly to war, but I don't think so. Kim knows darn well that he would lose a full scale conflict. He may try proportionate retaliation, but that doesn't need to lead to a full war.
getting them there is going to take a lot of time and money.
Traffic accidents cost $870 BILLION per year in America alone, so this is certainly something worth spending a lot of time and money on.
SDCs do use a database. They also look for signs. If they don't see a stop sign where one is expected, or see one where it is not expected, they will stop. They will also report the discrepancy.
I believe the merits of the paper lie in demonstrating this as a theoretical concern
But that is important, because without this research, the teams of professional engineers designing SDCs would have never even considered that a traffic sign could be smudged or obscured by a tree branch.
we're not going to pay monthly fees for 10 different companies
With Amazon you just pay for each movie. Youtube also has a la carte movies with no recurring membership fee. These new services could do the same.
Deface a sign enough and it fails inspection as a sign. Now the intersection has no stop sign as far as the computer's concerned.
Nonsense. SDCs are not designed with a single point of failure. When approaching an intersection they do all of the following:
1. Look for a sign or light. ... and also says it requires a stop.
2. Access map data, which shows it is an intersection
3. Access historical data for the intersection that shows other SDCs recently stopped there.
4. Look at the road markings and tire markings that indicate cross traffic.
If these data contradict each other, the SDC will do the safe thing and stop. It will also report the missing and defaced sign.
A human is more likely to drive through the intersection than an SDC.
The actual paper is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08945v3
They did NOT "trick" any SDCs, nor did they even try. They just defeated an algorithm that they assumed is similar to what SDCs use for #1 in the list above.