Well on the cost front, its expensive to implement all known controls for infection on every person. If you can find a way to use those controls on the riskiest cases, you can save money and money saved can equal lives saved. Also, I know how ML works and you don't have to train the system forever. You can stop with the training data at some point and only revisit it if the metrics start to fail. As to your metric argument, that usually applies to humans who try to game the system. Computers working to a target don't care about games.
The IT work is mostly an upfront cost. The ongoing operations are inexpensive. Also, they tend to care about outcomes, not rainbows and unicorns so you can be sure they are measuring the success rate.
Why? You have no expectation of privacy in public. This is actually covered under the first amendment. This is why anybody can photograph anybody else in public without consent. You just can't use their likeness to market something.
Actually, the US Government has a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers to buy the most cost effective product available for a given problem. Cost effecting meaning a balance of usability for the purpose intended and hard cost.
**Busts out laughing at the absurdity of believing they will ever do this. **
Your definition of "known ties" also means Google has "known ties" to Russia, China, Iran, etc. That just means they abide by legal requests in court cases.
This is exactly the problem actually. You can have a class with a goal of making people think about ethics but you can't teach people to be ethical. That's a decision they will make on their own based on their own calculation of risk versus reward. It's the same way with trying to teach people critical thinking skills. You can tell them how to think critically but whether they do it or not is dependent on them wanting to put in the extra effort.
What part of the email story was fake? The part where she admitted to it in an open televised debate or the part where she was not prosecuted under a statute that two different people have been prosecuted on before and after her case?
This is patently false. We cannot show voter fraud exists because no voter ID laws exist. But we can't enact vote ID laws because people say it will disenfranchise the poor. This has never been shown to be the case in reality. People need to have ID in order to get a job. They also need it to drive. When California started giving out ID's to illegal immigrants who are mostly poor, they lined up around the block to get them.
You can't prove a negative (that fake news had zero or negligible influence). You can only prove a positive like showing a survey of people saying fake news did influence them.
Not all technologies operate on a zero sum game. Your examples do but there are plenty examples that don't. For instance, the Internet itself has almost zero negative externalaties but is extremely disruptive to industries like the post office and paper production.
Special treatment like wage parity? Special treatment like non-hostile workplaces? Special treatment like bodily integrity and autonomy?
Perhaps you mean to say "affirmative action is by definition race-conscious" and "feminism is by definition gender-conscious". If so, say THAT.
Cool strawman arguments. He never said any of those things. Nice job putting words into his mouth though. This is sometimes referred to as "Mansplaining".
You know, assigning motive to some other entity is almost always doomed to fail. Unless you've developed an acute ability for mind reading, you will never know a person's true motive for doing anything and trying to say you do is a waste of time.
Slashdot Mirror
So this is your opinion then? Good luck getting congress to pick up your ideas and create law based on them.
Well on the cost front, its expensive to implement all known controls for infection on every person. If you can find a way to use those controls on the riskiest cases, you can save money and money saved can equal lives saved. Also, I know how ML works and you don't have to train the system forever. You can stop with the training data at some point and only revisit it if the metrics start to fail. As to your metric argument, that usually applies to humans who try to game the system. Computers working to a target don't care about games.
What if I'm wearing snowshoes?
The IT work is mostly an upfront cost. The ongoing operations are inexpensive. Also, they tend to care about outcomes, not rainbows and unicorns so you can be sure they are measuring the success rate.
Then send me a text saying I have a message in my secure inbox (which I already have with my healthcare provider) and instruct me to login to see it.
Don't try to run uphill in an avalanche. Run perpendicular to it.
Why? You have no expectation of privacy in public. This is actually covered under the first amendment. This is why anybody can photograph anybody else in public without consent. You just can't use their likeness to market something.
Slow your roll buddy. This isn't going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
Actually, the US Government has a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers to buy the most cost effective product available for a given problem. Cost effecting meaning a balance of usability for the purpose intended and hard cost.
**Busts out laughing at the absurdity of believing they will ever do this. **
Your definition of "known ties" also means Google has "known ties" to Russia, China, Iran, etc. That just means they abide by legal requests in court cases.
The same NSA employees who turned off Kaspersky protection to install a keygen tool. https://www.theguardian.com/te...
Source?
Bill Gates is building a city in Arizona. https://www.theverge.com/2017/...
In what world do people cooperate out of the goodness of their own heart? You need some sort of enforcement. If not the Government, then who?
> You don't need to teach ethics to CS majors. You need to teach ethics to Business majors.
Such as the founders of Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple, the companies most invading our privacy and lobbying the government to do more?
Several of them still have most of the control of their companies.
Most of them don't have degrees.
This is exactly the problem actually. You can have a class with a goal of making people think about ethics but you can't teach people to be ethical. That's a decision they will make on their own based on their own calculation of risk versus reward. It's the same way with trying to teach people critical thinking skills. You can tell them how to think critically but whether they do it or not is dependent on them wanting to put in the extra effort.
What part of the email story was fake? The part where she admitted to it in an open televised debate or the part where she was not prosecuted under a statute that two different people have been prosecuted on before and after her case?
This is patently false. We cannot show voter fraud exists because no voter ID laws exist. But we can't enact vote ID laws because people say it will disenfranchise the poor. This has never been shown to be the case in reality. People need to have ID in order to get a job. They also need it to drive. When California started giving out ID's to illegal immigrants who are mostly poor, they lined up around the block to get them.
You can't prove a negative (that fake news had zero or negligible influence). You can only prove a positive like showing a survey of people saying fake news did influence them.
Not all technologies operate on a zero sum game. Your examples do but there are plenty examples that don't. For instance, the Internet itself has almost zero negative externalaties but is extremely disruptive to industries like the post office and paper production.
Plus this adds plausible deniability. You can just say you put the phone on the charger and forgot it when you left the house.
Christian fundamentalists build replicas of Noah's Ark in the desert. Islamists do other things. Comparing the two is ridiculous.
Special treatment like wage parity? Special treatment like non-hostile workplaces? Special treatment like bodily integrity and autonomy?
Perhaps you mean to say "affirmative action is by definition race-conscious" and "feminism is by definition gender-conscious". If so, say THAT.
Cool strawman arguments. He never said any of those things. Nice job putting words into his mouth though. This is sometimes referred to as "Mansplaining".
Please tell me more about unintended consequences. I'm sure the DNC would like to hear all about it.
You know, assigning motive to some other entity is almost always doomed to fail. Unless you've developed an acute ability for mind reading, you will never know a person's true motive for doing anything and trying to say you do is a waste of time.