We all have had cases where technology was used to catch criminals. I'd love to find a way to do that without giving companies, governments, or individuals inappropriate powers. I remember working for a company that decided to push a custom update to their app to find a laptop that was stolen out of the office. That was kinda shady, but cool.
Suppose the Spanish Football League went to the police, and got a warrant to capture the data, made the pap change temporarily, and sent the data to a responsible agency. Then they deleted the irrelevant data and reverted the code change. That might not see so awful. It is a slippery slope though, since they could leave it in. And when an app like Facebook did it, or Android, then we essentially enabled a surveillance state.
Surely there is a reasonable way to make this possible?
Instead, it uses excess electricity to pump water into the underground shale rock found in new wells dug for the purpose or in abandoned oil-and-gas wells. After water fills up tiny cracks in the rock, forcing more in creates pressure, which compresses shale like a spring.
I known nothing about this at all, but... won't the water come back contaminated with oil? Will that contaminated water get dumped into a lake or river? This doesn't sound like a good idea. Can someone explain?
While having a poka-yoke connector is good, what made USB 1 so successful was that it was simpler and cheaper than the competitors. The Apple dock connector had 30 pins, including dedicated pins for audio, video, power, media control, serial, usb, and firewire. RS232 had 9 and had no error correction, no metadata, no power, and was slow. Firewire with a lean 6-pins allowed for bidirectional communications and was essentially a peer-to-peer network. USB had a mere 4 pins, was unidirectional, and didn't require the devices to know how to talk to each other (hence the need for a hub). It was technically inferior, but won because of price. USB2 merely improve the speed and power of USB1, so it was a no brainer to win in the market.
USB 3 abandoned the simplicity that made USB 1 and 2 successful. It took the kitchen sink model, and it is flailing the same way it's predecessors did when they took that approach.
Agile may be a fine software development methodology. But the contemptuous attitude that business needs don't matter isn't a successful strategy for making it work in the real world.
Imagine sitting in a meeting with an executive who says "We have $5 million to spend next year. What should I spend it on?" The manager of team W says "We did a market analysis and if we created product W and it has this feature and that feature, then we estimate a revenue of $3 million over the first 2 years, with $1 million over the following 3. We think we can launch 18 months from now at a cost of $2 million per year." Then the CEO turns to the manager of team A who says "Nobody's estimates are ever right, requirements can't be locked down, and products launch when they are done. Development is a creative process that can't be quantified, and exceptions always happen. I can have a working product in 2 weeks, but I can't tell you what will be in it."
Team W will get the development budget, not team A. I've literally sat in meetings where a very expensive Agile contractor tried to explain to a C-level executive why timelines and dollars aren't meaningful, and they had to "just trust that the team was executing as efficiently as possible."
Agile is a software process, but don't deny that business really does need to know how long it takes to get from A to B. They need that estimate of traffic accidents and construction work, and they will need to track it because when that big bag of money runs out, if the product isn't there then everyone involved loses their job.
Why is your UI designer and DBA not part of the team? Agile doesn't work outside of software. But UI and DBA are part of software.
To me "external groups" is the finance group who wants to know how much it will cost and over what period of time before they even start the project. It means the marketing team who needs to know the full feature set to decide if the product is viable and how much to spend on it. But the worst is engineers: they want to lock-down the hardware specifications 3 months ahead-of-time and order the parts in quantity of 5000. That's fundamentally incompatible with the agile process that promotes constantly changing requirements.
Thank you! I've always wondered this. As I wrote my post, I was thinking "Hey, reading the Martian didn't I learn that Hydrazine is just pure, hydrogen and something else...?" So going back to dgatwood's scenario, we would be using solar power or window power to create hydrazine from the atmosphere? Can I get a car that runs on hydrazine?
I suppose sequestering CO2 into gasoline might become feasible. Then again, if we get to that point, we won't need this technique
The reason you might need this technique is because carbon-based fuels may still be useful in niche areas. Suppose we get everything on the planet running from solar except, for example, jet engines. Then we sequester carbon into jet fuel.
Personally, I think this is very likely. Rockets are really really unlikely to ever run on anything else.
If the plane really *is* spiraling out of control, then the pilot could just keep looping a feed of the plane flying straight and level while saying "Just a little bit of turbulence folks, nothing to be concerned about."
Facebook confirmed this week that it struck data partnerships with at least four Chinese electronics firms, including Huawei...partnerships are among the roughly 60...
So Facebook is making lots of deals, Huawei is one. Got it.
As of Tuesday, more than half of those partnerships have been wound down
Wait, are they making deals or ending deals? Oh, maybe the deals ended Tuesday and they are making new deals?
The social-media company said it plans to wind down its data-sharing partnership with Huawei
This confirm that they are ending deals, not making them.
At this point, I have no idea what this summary is saying. The article is paywalled so that doesn't help. The little bit I can read says that the phone manufacturers want your Facebook contacts and stuff. But they already know your phone contacts and location information. What do they want Facebook data on? And why on earth would someone agree to that?
To keep consistent with Microsofts other product names, they should call it "File server." Like how they have "Sql server" as the name for their sql server, and "office" as the name of their office suite, and "Disk Operating System" is the name of their first disk operating system.
Media outlets keep reporting on this cover-up, but nothing will happen until congress starts an investigation on it. Now is really a good time for that, since congress is looking to overturn the network neutrality regulation and there are already investigations going on into FCC staffer behavior.
The precise underlying reason for ANY contract is to voluntarily waive rights in return for something.
Certainly that is true.
Its nonsense to think that your "right to arms" is on some holy pedestal, it is a generic right that can be traded away as freely as you trade a popsicle.
This might be the kind of right that we should consider putting contract restrictions on. There are limitations on the legal scope of a contract, especially since we are really talking about a EULA not a "real" contract. Fortunately, US law has plenty of examples where contract terms are illegal so there is precedent for doing this.
I apologize, I didn't mean to imply that these problems only applied to HTML5. These problems still apply to pre-5 HTML as well. Really, this has been a problem since JavaScript's inception.
Much of that is inconsistency with HTML5 events: both in terms of the spec but also the implementation. For example, some controls have "click" events that are really "focus" events. Some have "click" events and "changed" events and others have both. This is why something might work with a mouse but not with a keyboard, or with a mouse but not a touch screen, or in one browser but not another.
Thing is, it's his _job_ to know what that number is.
There is no single magical number. Certainly we need competition. Is it 2? or 3? or 5? The article is fearmongering, look:
Bill Baer, a former head of the antitrust division, had told the New York Times in 2014: “It’s going to be hard for someone to make a persuasive case that reducing four firms to three is actually going to improve competition for the benefit of American consumers.”
Delrahim didn't say the number was 3, or that he was going to reduce the number at all. Attack these people when they do say stupid things, but this isn't one of them. This is crying wolf.
It seems like EULAs can do pretty much anything these days. The idea that an app that runs on your phone can state that you can or cannot carry a firearm seems a bit of an overreach. Now, I suppose a company can put whatever they want in their terms of service, but in this world with overreaching EULAs this seems like a questionable one. If someone gets a concealed carry license, I'm not sure that a contract should be able to take that right away. I wonder what would happen if a lot of apps started putting things in their EULAs like "You can only use this app while Salsa dancing" or "You must vote for the XXX party to use this app."
Dan East's comments made me think otherwise. I can't tell from the linked article, and I don't see them giving it any novel inputs. Many versions of Montezuma's Revenge reset all the object positions when you exit and come back into the room, so you get a free "reset" each time.
The implication of the headline, given the current administration, is that this guy backs monopolies. But he really made a completely reasonable statement, and it is being presented in such a way as to fan the flames of those who are afraid of Trump. There is no story here.
While I agree, the problem is that lots and lots of people *do* go to Facebook for news. And the people who use Facebook for news, are the least discerning news readers, so they share the stupidest most flamebaitish "fake" news, which causes a recursive singularity of stupidity, and is why Facebook is in so much trouble. But since sooo many people like to log in and share news, and that gets them so much attention and ad revenue, they aren't going to take that feature away.
It's not the same though. Animals don't make random spazmodic movements until it matches the desired output. Instead, they build a mental model correlating their actions to desired outputs. That is entirely different, and it is why this approach is not AI at all. I was very excited.:-(
The real test is this: Create a new screen in Montezuma's Revenge, and let a human player and an AI player both play that new screen. It sounds like this "AI" would simply stand there since it did not have any input on what to do.
Alternatively, move one of the keys 25 pixels to the left or right. The human players will probably complete the level just the same and maybe not even notice. The AI will probably jump where the key used to be, then try to walk through the locked door over and over because it doesn't have the key. The AI didn't learn that keys open doors.
Slashdot Mirror
We all have had cases where technology was used to catch criminals. I'd love to find a way to do that without giving companies, governments, or individuals inappropriate powers. I remember working for a company that decided to push a custom update to their app to find a laptop that was stolen out of the office. That was kinda shady, but cool.
Suppose the Spanish Football League went to the police, and got a warrant to capture the data, made the pap change temporarily, and sent the data to a responsible agency. Then they deleted the irrelevant data and reverted the code change. That might not see so awful. It is a slippery slope though, since they could leave it in. And when an app like Facebook did it, or Android, then we essentially enabled a surveillance state.
Surely there is a reasonable way to make this possible?
agreed.
This doesn't sound like a good idea to me:
Instead, it uses excess electricity to pump water into the underground shale rock found in new wells dug for the purpose or in abandoned oil-and-gas wells. After water fills up tiny cracks in the rock, forcing more in creates pressure, which compresses shale like a spring.
I known nothing about this at all, but... won't the water come back contaminated with oil? Will that contaminated water get dumped into a lake or river? This doesn't sound like a good idea. Can someone explain?
While having a poka-yoke connector is good, what made USB 1 so successful was that it was simpler and cheaper than the competitors. The Apple dock connector had 30 pins, including dedicated pins for audio, video, power, media control, serial, usb, and firewire. RS232 had 9 and had no error correction, no metadata, no power, and was slow. Firewire with a lean 6-pins allowed for bidirectional communications and was essentially a peer-to-peer network. USB had a mere 4 pins, was unidirectional, and didn't require the devices to know how to talk to each other (hence the need for a hub). It was technically inferior, but won because of price. USB2 merely improve the speed and power of USB1, so it was a no brainer to win in the market.
USB 3 abandoned the simplicity that made USB 1 and 2 successful. It took the kitchen sink model, and it is flailing the same way it's predecessors did when they took that approach.
Agile may be a fine software development methodology. But the contemptuous attitude that business needs don't matter isn't a successful strategy for making it work in the real world.
Imagine sitting in a meeting with an executive who says "We have $5 million to spend next year. What should I spend it on?" The manager of team W says "We did a market analysis and if we created product W and it has this feature and that feature, then we estimate a revenue of $3 million over the first 2 years, with $1 million over the following 3. We think we can launch 18 months from now at a cost of $2 million per year." Then the CEO turns to the manager of team A who says "Nobody's estimates are ever right, requirements can't be locked down, and products launch when they are done. Development is a creative process that can't be quantified, and exceptions always happen. I can have a working product in 2 weeks, but I can't tell you what will be in it."
Team W will get the development budget, not team A. I've literally sat in meetings where a very expensive Agile contractor tried to explain to a C-level executive why timelines and dollars aren't meaningful, and they had to "just trust that the team was executing as efficiently as possible."
Agile is a software process, but don't deny that business really does need to know how long it takes to get from A to B. They need that estimate of traffic accidents and construction work, and they will need to track it because when that big bag of money runs out, if the product isn't there then everyone involved loses their job.
Why is your UI designer and DBA not part of the team? Agile doesn't work outside of software. But UI and DBA are part of software.
To me "external groups" is the finance group who wants to know how much it will cost and over what period of time before they even start the project. It means the marketing team who needs to know the full feature set to decide if the product is viable and how much to spend on it. But the worst is engineers: they want to lock-down the hardware specifications 3 months ahead-of-time and order the parts in quantity of 5000. That's fundamentally incompatible with the agile process that promotes constantly changing requirements.
Thank you! I've always wondered this. As I wrote my post, I was thinking "Hey, reading the Martian didn't I learn that Hydrazine is just pure, hydrogen and something else...?" So going back to dgatwood's scenario, we would be using solar power or window power to create hydrazine from the atmosphere? Can I get a car that runs on hydrazine?
I suppose sequestering CO2 into gasoline might become feasible. Then again, if we get to that point, we won't need this technique
The reason you might need this technique is because carbon-based fuels may still be useful in niche areas. Suppose we get everything on the planet running from solar except, for example, jet engines. Then we sequester carbon into jet fuel.
Personally, I think this is very likely. Rockets are really really unlikely to ever run on anything else.
Is there a way to determine someone's age over the internet?
But consider the possibilities of hacking the camera feed to the virtual windows:
Facebook confirmed this week that it struck data partnerships with at least four Chinese electronics firms, including Huawei...partnerships are among the roughly 60...
So Facebook is making lots of deals, Huawei is one. Got it.
As of Tuesday, more than half of those partnerships have been wound down
Wait, are they making deals or ending deals? Oh, maybe the deals ended Tuesday and they are making new deals?
The social-media company said it plans to wind down its data-sharing partnership with Huawei
This confirm that they are ending deals, not making them.
At this point, I have no idea what this summary is saying. The article is paywalled so that doesn't help. The little bit I can read says that the phone manufacturers want your Facebook contacts and stuff. But they already know your phone contacts and location information. What do they want Facebook data on? And why on earth would someone agree to that?
What the heck is going on?
To keep consistent with Microsofts other product names, they should call it "File server." Like how they have "Sql server" as the name for their sql server, and "office" as the name of their office suite, and "Disk Operating System" is the name of their first disk operating system.
Media outlets keep reporting on this cover-up, but nothing will happen until congress starts an investigation on it. Now is really a good time for that, since congress is looking to overturn the network neutrality regulation and there are already investigations going on into FCC staffer behavior.
The precise underlying reason for ANY contract is to voluntarily waive rights in return for something.
Certainly that is true.
Its nonsense to think that your "right to arms" is on some holy pedestal, it is a generic right that can be traded away as freely as you trade a popsicle.
This might be the kind of right that we should consider putting contract restrictions on. There are limitations on the legal scope of a contract, especially since we are really talking about a EULA not a "real" contract. Fortunately, US law has plenty of examples where contract terms are illegal so there is precedent for doing this.
I apologize, I didn't mean to imply that these problems only applied to HTML5. These problems still apply to pre-5 HTML as well. Really, this has been a problem since JavaScript's inception.
Much of that is inconsistency with HTML5 events: both in terms of the spec but also the implementation. For example, some controls have "click" events that are really "focus" events. Some have "click" events and "changed" events and others have both. This is why something might work with a mouse but not with a keyboard, or with a mouse but not a touch screen, or in one browser but not another.
Thing is, it's his _job_ to know what that number is.
There is no single magical number. Certainly we need competition. Is it 2? or 3? or 5? The article is fearmongering, look:
Bill Baer, a former head of the antitrust division, had told the New York Times in 2014: “It’s going to be hard for someone to make a persuasive case that reducing four firms to three is actually going to improve competition for the benefit of American consumers.”
Delrahim didn't say the number was 3, or that he was going to reduce the number at all. Attack these people when they do say stupid things, but this isn't one of them. This is crying wolf.
It seems like EULAs can do pretty much anything these days. The idea that an app that runs on your phone can state that you can or cannot carry a firearm seems a bit of an overreach. Now, I suppose a company can put whatever they want in their terms of service, but in this world with overreaching EULAs this seems like a questionable one. If someone gets a concealed carry license, I'm not sure that a contract should be able to take that right away. I wonder what would happen if a lot of apps started putting things in their EULAs like "You can only use this app while Salsa dancing" or "You must vote for the XXX party to use this app."
Dan East's comments made me think otherwise. I can't tell from the linked article, and I don't see them giving it any novel inputs. Many versions of Montezuma's Revenge reset all the object positions when you exit and come back into the room, so you get a free "reset" each time.
The implication of the headline, given the current administration, is that this guy backs monopolies. But he really made a completely reasonable statement, and it is being presented in such a way as to fan the flames of those who are afraid of Trump. There is no story here.
While I agree, the problem is that lots and lots of people *do* go to Facebook for news. And the people who use Facebook for news, are the least discerning news readers, so they share the stupidest most flamebaitish "fake" news, which causes a recursive singularity of stupidity, and is why Facebook is in so much trouble. But since sooo many people like to log in and share news, and that gets them so much attention and ad revenue, they aren't going to take that feature away.
It's not the same though. Animals don't make random spazmodic movements until it matches the desired output. Instead, they build a mental model correlating their actions to desired outputs. That is entirely different, and it is why this approach is not AI at all. I was very excited. :-(
The real test is this: Create a new screen in Montezuma's Revenge, and let a human player and an AI player both play that new screen. It sounds like this "AI" would simply stand there since it did not have any input on what to do.
Alternatively, move one of the keys 25 pixels to the left or right. The human players will probably complete the level just the same and maybe not even notice. The AI will probably jump where the key used to be, then try to walk through the locked door over and over because it doesn't have the key. The AI didn't learn that keys open doors.
Actually, many states went from one year, to two year, and now many don't require the stickers anymore at all.
Whoops, thank you!
Sorry! Reading comprehension fail!