I don't suppose you've got any suggestions, realistic ones, as to how we can change this?
1. Don't shirk jury duty. 2. Vote. 3. When you see injustice, speak up. This can be as simple as posting in your neighborhood forum (nextdoor.com, Yahoo groups, whatever).
I can. Use of new materials that for every conceivable test are stronger or less brittle or less toxic or whatever other safety measure is considered...
Is this hypothetical? Or can you actually cite a real example of this happening?
For all graphics purpose single precision is what you need.
For many graphics applications, half-precision is good enough. FP16 isn't much faster to compute than FP32, but it is a big win for memory bandwidth, which is usually the performance chokepoint for GPUs.
And those same poor people have money for a smart phone how exactly?
By working and getting paid for it. In much of Africa, you can buy a phone capable of financial transactions for less than $20 new, and less than $5 used. It is considered important enough that most households will buy a cellphone before they buy a TV or refrigerator.
It's the same as a credit card
You cannot use a credit card for peer-to-peer transactions, and a CC is much harder for a poor person to get than a cellphone.
while having dependency on some type of connectivity for the Cell.
You must be an American. In much of the rest of the world, cell coverage is ubiquitous.
She deserves a living wage, because if greedy imbeciles don't stop violating the social contract...
If she was making $8.15/hr in SF, she is an idiot. I live in the Bay Area, and we can't even hire no-skill warehouse clerks for less than $15/hr. The SF area is way past full employment, and nearly every company has vacancies that they are struggling to fill.
My impression from skimming TFA is that this was a telecommuting position, which means the pay rate is disconnected from geography, and she is basically competing for wages with people in Mumbai, while living in one of the world's most expensive cities. So what does she expect? If she wants to get paid more, she has to make herself worth more.
It is grammatically correct, but the meaning is different. If you start with 10 lawyers, and you shoot one of them, then you have fewer lawyers. But if you start with 10 lawyers, and you starve them so they lose 20 pounds each, you now have less lawyers.
Personally, I am okay with either shooting them or starving them.
I live in SC, many sysadmins are paid $40,000-$50,000/yr in this area.
Once you add in benefits, pensions, overhead, and management, $50k is $100k. Burdened employment costs tend to be higher for governments, and even higher for public schools.
But the kind of "decompose and integrate" we see here would be rather impressive, like you don't compare "a horse" to other horses. You actually divide it up and say it has a horse's head, a horse's neck, a horse's legs, a horse's overall shape, they're all like voting for whether it's a horse or not
That is actually how convolutional neural networks work. They basically decompose the image into sub-images, and then vote. If a CNN was programmed for this task, and trained on plenty of data, I think it could do well, and very likely surpass human abilities. Just because these researchers were lousy at programming/training their NN, that does not mean NNs are fundamentally bad at it.
I have done a lot of work in computer vision, and when I first used NNs back in the 1980s I was very unimpressed. They were computationally expensive, difficult to train, and produced very bad results. But I started using them again in 2014 and I was astonished at the progress. Today, of course, we have much faster computers, including GPUs that are very effective at running NNs. We also have way more training data, from online image databases. But we also have much better algorithms, like backprop, boosting, dropout, and autoencoders, that work with deep networks. NNs can do pretty well with fuzzy images and partial data. So I am not convinced that they cannot beat humans at the tasks described in this paper.
Easy: actual generation varies according to demand, and demand is highest in the summer.
No. Nukes are expensive to build but cheap to run. The marginal cost of power is very low. So when demand drops, you shut down your gas turbines so you don't have to pay for the fuel, then you shut down coal. If you have spare capacity in your reservoir, you next shut down hydropower. Nukes are the last power source that you shut down, and there is no place the relies exclusively on nukes. Even France, which is 75% nuclear, sells their excess power to Germany and Britain rather that scaling back output.
That thick-legged horse-faced braying ninny sure made a big difference as compared to a male CEO huh?
Most of Yahoo's problems can be traced back to those male CEOs. Marissa has not fixed the problems, but she didn't cause them either. She took some positive steps, like ending the one day per week of "working from home" that most Yahoos referred to as their "day off". My neighbor works for Yahoo, and it is nice that he no longer starts his lawnmower at 9am every Friday. Firing these researchers is also a good step. Yahoo needs to focus on fixing their core products, not pie-in-the-sky long horizon research.
I have a Yahoo email account, and although it is not my primary email, I do check it every few days. Their email web interface has serious bugs that showed up about a month ago. When I delete an email, instead of auto-advancing to the next message in the inbox, it instead shows a random email that was previously deleted. Sometimes when I move an email to a folder, it will move it to the wrong folder, so I have to check after each move to make sure it did what I was expecting. If I check the forums, I can see that many other people are frustrated with the same problem. So what are these 15,000 employees doing all day, if none of them can be spared to fix a serious bug in a core product? Why is there no unit/regression testing to keep bugs like this from being deployed? Yahoo needs to focus on these problems, not "research".
Here is a PDF of the paper, which has more examples.
I don't think it means much. Instead of showing that humans see better than computers, it really just shows that this one researcher is bad at programming computer vision systems. If he took his dataset, and made it a Kaggle Competition, I think someone would design a computer vision system that would do much better than his.
You start paying, they find more targets, make their scam more professional, etc.
That isn't all bad. In the past, insecure systems were hijacked and used as spam-bots, so the cost of the insecurity was borne by others. At least with ransomware the cost is borne directly by the bozos running MS-Windows on their servers.
School administrators have no way of telling a good sysadmin from a bad sysadmin. Either would have a salary+benefits of over $100k/year, which few schools can afford. Schools can get federal grants to buy equipment, but salaries come out of their own budget.
Especially if, as in this case, they are being paid with tax dollars. I can understand an unprincipled individual or private company paying ransomware, but for a government entity to pay off criminals with public funds is vile. If this was legal, we need to change the law. If it was illegal, the decision maker should be prosecuted.
One wonders, though, what an elementary school district needs with 25 servers
There are a lot of federal dollars available for things like "computers in the classroom" and "cops in schools" that don't really make much sense, but, hey, it's free money, and can't be used for anything else. The elementary school that my kid attends has a $250,000 Cisco enterprise system that handles less traffic than the $39 Netgear router that I have at home. A federal grant paid for it, and on top of that, Cisco made a nice donation to the enrichment program, so it was a no-brainer.
They are home. They have as much right to live in NH as you do.
NH is a nice place, and these idiots are trying to change it to their Libertarian Utopia.
Can you be more specific? What are they doing that you object to? They want to repeal laws against pot, which Colorado, Washington, and Alaska have already done with good results. They want to stop persecution of commercial sex workers, which will improve the welfare and safety of the workers and their customers. They want smaller, more efficient, and less intrusive government. Why do you think that is a bad thing?
Take a look at stopfreekeene.com for how us locals feel about them.
Other than calling them "assholes", that website doesn't say anything specific.
Russia is the definition of a totalitarian police state.
Russia is not totalitarian, it is authoritarian. As long as Russians don't challenge the authorities, they are mostly free to go about their lives. They are also free to leave. People in the West may not like Putin, but he was democratically elected in a mostly fair process, and is genuinely popular with the Russian people.
So, women are paying women less for items? Wow, do we need a whole new ism for that?;)
There is nothing new about this 'ism. Talk to any female manager, and most of them will tell you they have more problems with female subordinates than with male subordinates. If you want to see some real conflict, assign a young woman to manage older women. Groups of men/boys will naturally form hierarchies, and they don't have too much trouble fitting a woman into that system. Women/girls naturally form smaller non-hierarchical egalitarian groups, and they tend to resist any alpha-female trying to dominate.
The poor are more likely to be robbed, but the total value of the robbery is much less.
Not true. The rich have assets like financial securities and real estate that are not susceptible to theft. But their steal-able stuff, like TVs, cellphones, etc. are not much different than what a poor person has (if you think poor people don't have big TVs, go visit a trailer park). Poor people are more likely to carry cash. Crime is a much bigger burden on the poor.
The issue is not about whether breach of personal info would harm individuals whose info belong to, it is how much DAMAGE it is.
Another issue is culpability. Sure, these companies should be held responsible. But some of the responsibility should also go onto the financial institutions that created the system where mere knowledge of a CC number or SSN allows a criminal to access accounts. It should be illegal to use SSNs to authenticate identity, and CCs should all have passwords/PINs so the numbers on the card are not sufficient to make a charge. We should fix the underlying problem, rather than just punishing the inevitable breaches. Harsh penalties for breaches encourage more companies to attempt a coverup.
Insurance against theft includes the risk of theft. If you have 100 times as much of something, you sure as fuck are going to have reason to pay more than 100 times as much.
No, this is backwards. The poor are far more likely to be victims of theft than the rich. Where you live is much more important than what you have.
Many of these powerful Chinese business interests are part of the Chinese Leadership.
The Chinese leadership is far from monolithic, and most threats to the current leaders come from within the ruling Chinese Communist Party. In multi-party democracies, there are different parties for different ideologies. But in China, there is only one party, so the CCP has everything from unreformed Maoists to libertarians, all under one tent. Instead of fighting to displace the ruling party, they are competing to control it. Most victims to the current "anti-corruption" campaign have been political rivals to Xi Jinping within the CCP. This latest move is mostly about silencing intra-party debate.
Slashdot Mirror
... with all the shootings going on.
Shootings are at a 30 year low.
Nor can you petition a jury for jury nullification. Its automatic mistrial.
Only in 49 states. Not in New Hampshire.
I don't suppose you've got any suggestions, realistic ones, as to how we can change this?
1. Don't shirk jury duty.
2. Vote.
3. When you see injustice, speak up. This can be as simple as posting in your neighborhood forum (nextdoor.com, Yahoo groups, whatever).
I can. Use of new materials that for every conceivable test are stronger or less brittle or less toxic or whatever other safety measure is considered ...
Is this hypothetical? Or can you actually cite a real example of this happening?
For all graphics purpose single precision is what you need.
For many graphics applications, half-precision is good enough. FP16 isn't much faster to compute than FP32, but it is a big win for memory bandwidth, which is usually the performance chokepoint for GPUs.
And those same poor people have money for a smart phone how exactly?
By working and getting paid for it. In much of Africa, you can buy a phone capable of financial transactions for less than $20 new, and less than $5 used. It is considered important enough that most households will buy a cellphone before they buy a TV or refrigerator.
It's the same as a credit card
You cannot use a credit card for peer-to-peer transactions, and a CC is much harder for a poor person to get than a cellphone.
while having dependency on some type of connectivity for the Cell.
You must be an American. In much of the rest of the world, cell coverage is ubiquitous.
She deserves a living wage, because if greedy imbeciles don't stop violating the social contract ...
If she was making $8.15/hr in SF, she is an idiot. I live in the Bay Area, and we can't even hire no-skill warehouse clerks for less than $15/hr. The SF area is way past full employment, and nearly every company has vacancies that they are struggling to fill.
My impression from skimming TFA is that this was a telecommuting position, which means the pay rate is disconnected from geography, and she is basically competing for wages with people in Mumbai, while living in one of the world's most expensive cities. So what does she expect? If she wants to get paid more, she has to make herself worth more.
Actually, "less lawyers" is grammatically fine.
It is grammatically correct, but the meaning is different. If you start with 10 lawyers, and you shoot one of them, then you have fewer lawyers. But if you start with 10 lawyers, and you starve them so they lose 20 pounds each, you now have less lawyers.
Personally, I am okay with either shooting them or starving them.
I live in SC, many sysadmins are paid $40,000-$50,000/yr in this area.
Once you add in benefits, pensions, overhead, and management, $50k is $100k. Burdened employment costs tend to be higher for governments, and even higher for public schools.
But the kind of "decompose and integrate" we see here would be rather impressive, like you don't compare "a horse" to other horses. You actually divide it up and say it has a horse's head, a horse's neck, a horse's legs, a horse's overall shape, they're all like voting for whether it's a horse or not
That is actually how convolutional neural networks work. They basically decompose the image into sub-images, and then vote. If a CNN was programmed for this task, and trained on plenty of data, I think it could do well, and very likely surpass human abilities. Just because these researchers were lousy at programming/training their NN, that does not mean NNs are fundamentally bad at it.
I have done a lot of work in computer vision, and when I first used NNs back in the 1980s I was very unimpressed. They were computationally expensive, difficult to train, and produced very bad results. But I started using them again in 2014 and I was astonished at the progress. Today, of course, we have much faster computers, including GPUs that are very effective at running NNs. We also have way more training data, from online image databases. But we also have much better algorithms, like backprop, boosting, dropout, and autoencoders, that work with deep networks. NNs can do pretty well with fuzzy images and partial data. So I am not convinced that they cannot beat humans at the tasks described in this paper.
Easy: actual generation varies according to demand, and demand is highest in the summer.
No. Nukes are expensive to build but cheap to run. The marginal cost of power is very low. So when demand drops, you shut down your gas turbines so you don't have to pay for the fuel, then you shut down coal. If you have spare capacity in your reservoir, you next shut down hydropower. Nukes are the last power source that you shut down, and there is no place the relies exclusively on nukes. Even France, which is 75% nuclear, sells their excess power to Germany and Britain rather that scaling back output.
That thick-legged horse-faced braying ninny sure made a big difference as compared to a male CEO huh?
Most of Yahoo's problems can be traced back to those male CEOs. Marissa has not fixed the problems, but she didn't cause them either. She took some positive steps, like ending the one day per week of "working from home" that most Yahoos referred to as their "day off". My neighbor works for Yahoo, and it is nice that he no longer starts his lawnmower at 9am every Friday. Firing these researchers is also a good step. Yahoo needs to focus on fixing their core products, not pie-in-the-sky long horizon research.
I have a Yahoo email account, and although it is not my primary email, I do check it every few days. Their email web interface has serious bugs that showed up about a month ago. When I delete an email, instead of auto-advancing to the next message in the inbox, it instead shows a random email that was previously deleted. Sometimes when I move an email to a folder, it will move it to the wrong folder, so I have to check after each move to make sure it did what I was expecting. If I check the forums, I can see that many other people are frustrated with the same problem. So what are these 15,000 employees doing all day, if none of them can be spared to fix a serious bug in a core product? Why is there no unit/regression testing to keep bugs like this from being deployed? Yahoo needs to focus on these problems, not "research".
Here is a page with some examples.
Here is a PDF of the paper, which has more examples.
I don't think it means much. Instead of showing that humans see better than computers, it really just shows that this one researcher is bad at programming computer vision systems. If he took his dataset, and made it a Kaggle Competition, I think someone would design a computer vision system that would do much better than his.
You start paying, they find more targets, make their scam more professional, etc.
That isn't all bad. In the past, insecure systems were hijacked and used as spam-bots, so the cost of the insecurity was borne by others. At least with ransomware the cost is borne directly by the bozos running MS-Windows on their servers.
$8500 is cheaper than paying a decent SysAdmin.
School administrators have no way of telling a good sysadmin from a bad sysadmin. Either would have a salary+benefits of over $100k/year, which few schools can afford. Schools can get federal grants to buy equipment, but salaries come out of their own budget.
It should be illegal to pay ransomware criminals.
Especially if, as in this case, they are being paid with tax dollars. I can understand an unprincipled individual or private company paying ransomware, but for a government entity to pay off criminals with public funds is vile. If this was legal, we need to change the law. If it was illegal, the decision maker should be prosecuted.
One wonders, though, what an elementary school district needs with 25 servers
There are a lot of federal dollars available for things like "computers in the classroom" and "cops in schools" that don't really make much sense, but, hey, it's free money, and can't be used for anything else. The elementary school that my kid attends has a $250,000 Cisco enterprise system that handles less traffic than the $39 Netgear router that I have at home. A federal grant paid for it, and on top of that, Cisco made a nice donation to the enrichment program, so it was a no-brainer.
As a NH resident I wish they would all stay home.
They are home. They have as much right to live in NH as you do.
NH is a nice place, and these idiots are trying to change it to their Libertarian Utopia.
Can you be more specific? What are they doing that you object to? They want to repeal laws against pot, which Colorado, Washington, and Alaska have already done with good results. They want to stop persecution of commercial sex workers, which will improve the welfare and safety of the workers and their customers. They want smaller, more efficient, and less intrusive government. Why do you think that is a bad thing?
Take a look at stopfreekeene.com for how us locals feel about them.
Other than calling them "assholes", that website doesn't say anything specific.
Russia is the definition of a totalitarian police state.
Russia is not totalitarian, it is authoritarian. As long as Russians don't challenge the authorities, they are mostly free to go about their lives. They are also free to leave. People in the West may not like Putin, but he was democratically elected in a mostly fair process, and is genuinely popular with the Russian people.
Why are we not done with this SJW tripe?
Because it is Friday.
So, women are paying women less for items? Wow, do we need a whole new ism for that? ;)
There is nothing new about this 'ism. Talk to any female manager, and most of them will tell you they have more problems with female subordinates than with male subordinates. If you want to see some real conflict, assign a young woman to manage older women. Groups of men/boys will naturally form hierarchies, and they don't have too much trouble fitting a woman into that system. Women/girls naturally form smaller non-hierarchical egalitarian groups, and they tend to resist any alpha-female trying to dominate.
The poor are more likely to be robbed, but the total value of the robbery is much less.
Not true. The rich have assets like financial securities and real estate that are not susceptible to theft. But their steal-able stuff, like TVs, cellphones, etc. are not much different than what a poor person has (if you think poor people don't have big TVs, go visit a trailer park). Poor people are more likely to carry cash. Crime is a much bigger burden on the poor.
The issue is not about whether breach of personal info would harm individuals whose info belong to, it is how much DAMAGE it is.
Another issue is culpability. Sure, these companies should be held responsible. But some of the responsibility should also go onto the financial institutions that created the system where mere knowledge of a CC number or SSN allows a criminal to access accounts. It should be illegal to use SSNs to authenticate identity, and CCs should all have passwords/PINs so the numbers on the card are not sufficient to make a charge. We should fix the underlying problem, rather than just punishing the inevitable breaches. Harsh penalties for breaches encourage more companies to attempt a coverup.
Insurance against theft includes the risk of theft. If you have 100 times as much of something, you sure as fuck are going to have reason to pay more than 100 times as much.
No, this is backwards. The poor are far more likely to be victims of theft than the rich. Where you live is much more important than what you have.
Many of these powerful Chinese business interests are part of the Chinese Leadership.
The Chinese leadership is far from monolithic, and most threats to the current leaders come from within the ruling Chinese Communist Party. In multi-party democracies, there are different parties for different ideologies. But in China, there is only one party, so the CCP has everything from unreformed Maoists to libertarians, all under one tent. Instead of fighting to displace the ruling party, they are competing to control it. Most victims to the current "anti-corruption" campaign have been political rivals to Xi Jinping within the CCP. This latest move is mostly about silencing intra-party debate.