Its only an example of doublespeak if you define 'free' to mean 'free of regulations'.
I don't! For me, 'free' means free for me and others to go about our business. I have that freedom in many regulated public spaces - beaches, piazzas, parks, national forests, streets - and it's usually the regulations that have preserved the public space as one amenable to doing my activity in them.
How can you call it "old news" when, as the article and summary both say, this is the very first time a causal link has been measured and published. That's the very definition of "new news". Maybe you're thinking of "old conjecture"...?
I thought the only 'one thing' that chip was meant to do, is provide a smokescreen justification for the credit companies to change their default assumption of blame from "the fraud wasn't your fault" to "the fraud was your fault".
How about instead we require people to demonstrate empathy and compassion before they're allowed to vote. That seems more important than being informed.
How about we require them to have served in the military before they can vote, like Starship Troopers. Heinlein said that a vote is an act of force, and only those who understand force in its raw form should wield that power. This argument is that being experienced is more important than being informed.
How about we only allow parents to vote. They're the ones with the most vested interest in long term health of the country and society.
How about we only allow the elderly to vote. They have more experience, which is better than just being informed.
These are all straw men. There's nothing axiomatic which says 'informed' is the best metric. Nor any of my other straw men.
If I understand right, the deal is that website developers now do the heavy lifting work of informing Google about every user and user action on their site, in meaningful profile-building ways, and in return Google will help them recognize bots.
Its similar to the deal they made with Google Analytics (inform Google of page visits and in return get traffic analysis) except the new captcha bargain will extract more visitor-profiling than was ever needed before.
See Haidt, J (2012). The righteous mind: why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books.
Yeah, I saw the book reference. I want to read about the actual scientific research that underpins it. I'm not used to seeing research published only in books - normally there are published articles first, and the book follows afterwards as a digest, but doesn't go into the same depth of details about methodology and raw results.
Do you think the book is the only source I can look at for this information?
That's interesting. Is like to learn more. Neither link was to the actual study (methodology, numerical results,...) - only to takeaways. Do you have any idea where to find out about the actual study?
I'm curious because the guy said he asked 2000 "visitors" to fill out his questionnaire. I wonder which visitors? To where?
I'm not sure what your point is. I conjecture you're arguing this: "critique of Obama for using his blackberry came from Fox but not NYT; therefore Fox and not NYT should be the ones critiquing Trump for using his iPhone"? (in which case, are you berating Fox or NYT or both?)
Or are you saying that the NYT and Fox comments about Obama's blackberry touched only on hypothetical attack vectors conjectured by security experts, but this article is about reports of actual and present and successful attacks on Trump, and you're wondering why the difference?
I hope manufacturers will start putting front-facing cameras behind the screen, roughly in the center of the phone or 2/3 of the way up. That way when (1) in video calls we'll be able to look at the people we're speaking with and they'll see our eyes actually looking at them, and (2) when we take selfie photos and are checking out how we look, our eyes will be looking at the camera.
I read about an Apple patent for this back in 2009 but it doesn't look like there's been any development since then. https://appleinsider.com/artic...
Yes, precisely because it's "scary" -- in financial terms. The free market has pretty much definitively said that a financial investment in nuclear power has too low a rate of return. I think that's because the cost to build a plant is so great that it spends too much of its operating lifetime servicing its debt, and then the decommissioning costs are uncertain but large. That's why we've only seen nuclear power used when supported by large government subsidies.
The tricky part is there was no leak. The data was available, but there is no evidence of any unauthorized access. So technically they were not required to report the leak, because there was no leak.
I agree that there is no evidence of any unauthorized access. But your conclusion "there was no leak" doesn't follow.
If there had been a leak, would there have been evidence of a leak? -- no, because they're not gathering the data that would provide evidence. Therefore, the observation "no evidence of a leak" has no ability to justify the statement "there was no leak".
I guess it depends on what the legislation is, what it defines as a leak, and where it puts the burden of knowledge. I haven't read it to find out.
and there is no reason to believe any of them did.
That's a slippery sentence to make. We have no evidence either way, of course. So anyone's belief on this matter must just be based on their personal understanding of industry trends about vulnerability exploitation, extrapolated to this case.
If you'd just said "I have no reason to believe" then that would have been an easy statement to make: that your understanding of industry trends doesn't provide reason for you to believe that the vulnerability was exploited.
But you actually made a startlingly strong assertion that there exists no reason to believe that it was exploited -- in other words, you know the relevant set of background industry trends well, and that extrapolating them will lead everyone to the conclusion that there was no exploitation in this case.
(I respect your other comparisons about what other companies would have to report, but that of course doesn't have bearing on your assertion that I quoted above.)
Just to clarify, what would kind of things would meet the bar for you to count them as evidence today in this case?
A location would be a good start. Other people at the party would also help. If it was a large party then there should be plenty of other people that remember the party. If it was a small party with only 3-5 people then other people should be able to remember Ford and Kavanaugh actually being friends. You don't have a small party with 3-5 strangers and you don't have a large party without a lot of witnesses.
If I understand you right, the things you count as evidence are "more specific details", and also "more corroborating stories from people about the event in question" -- not necessarily witnesses to the event, but people who can corroborate other incidental details of the accusation. In other words you'd want to see more "(s)he-said" to back up the the other details, presumably with the implication that if more people back up other details then you think a judge should believe the central detail.
(and you're specifically not interested in corroborating stories about behaviors/characteristics of the people in general; you're only interested in the particular event).
You had said that (1) energy density doubles every seven years, and (2) prices halve every seven years. That link provides information about claim (2). Can you provide any evidence for claim (1)? I haven't been able to find any myself yet, after 15 minutes on google.
The first citation is 5 years old, 2013. The second one is dated 2018 but it shows a plot that stops before 2000. This is the first hit on google search:...
The link you provided is about prices. Your claim was about energy density as well. I haven't yet found any evidence for your "7 year half life for energy density" claim.
https://www.upsbatterycenter.c... - this graph showed that improvement has flattened out completely. But the graph lacks no vertical axis so I don't even know what it's measuring.
one of those drivers I gave a generous tip, then proceeded to charge me for HIS drive from Santa Ana to Pasadena. I figured it was a mistake. BUT THEN Uber told me, "The driver says he took your girlfriend home, so that was the cause for the extra charge. No refund.
I've had similar experiences - shitty drivers, followed by shitty follow-up from Uber customer service.
Case 1: arrived back to Seatac with just enough time to drive home to say goodnight to my toddlers. I requested a single-passenger (i.e. non-pool) Uber. For some reason it was taking ages in the "cellphone parking lot". Eventually it arrived 10 minutes later than it should. Someone else hopped in the car as well who asked the driver "are you my Lyft driver?" The driver said yes. I got in too. The driver dropped the first passenger off, a long way out of the way. By the time they made it back to my place, I'd missed my kids' bedtime.
I realized part way through the journey that some drivers must "double-dip" both Lyft and Uber. I told the driver I was unhappy with this and would report it. I did report it. The Uber customer service person told me basically that I had taken my trip from the start to the end as reported by the driver. I spelled out for them that the driver had served Lyft at the same time. The Uber customer service just sort of emailed from a script that didn't respond to my complaint.
Case 2: I was at work at requested an Uber home. I could see on the map that the driver was approaching the point I'd marked with a pickup pin on the map. The driver took several wrong turns, went into the wrong street, and waited there for a few minutes. Then the app claimed that I had been picked up, and the app showed me being charged for a ride that the driver made (without me in it) across to the other side of town. I texted the driver to say what the heck, and called him a few minutes later, and eventually he said "okay" and marked in the app that he'd dropped me off.
I complained via my work Uber contact. It got just a generic "The driver carried you to your destination but we see you're unhappy so we'll give you a refund" message.
Case 3: I was at San Jose airport. I requested a (single-passenger, non-pool) Uber to my hotel in Palo Alto. The driver arrived and had a Lyft passenger get in. I saw what was up and refused to get in and told the driver that this was unacceptable and I wanted him to cancel my pickup. He didn't. I saw on the app that the driver had claimed to have picked me up, and claimed to have dropped me off somewhere in Mountain View.
I complained to Uber. Customer service got back to me to say again that the driver had carried me to my destination. I told them I hadn't. Once again they ran through stupid script email responses to each of my emails, never engaging with what I said. Though again they said "I see you're unhappy so we'll give you a refund".
What I think: working in the gig economy is shitty, and it's inevitable that some drivers will try game the system. Fair enough. It's hard to hold that against the drivers given that I have a good salaried job and they're driving for Uber. (That said, every other driver I've chatted with has described these behaviors as despicable because it's unfair on the drivers who follow the rules). But what I didn't like is that Uber customer service was basically just a brick wall, and the mechanisms they've put in place don't make me happy that they're engaged with the problem or with my complaint.
So I've stopped using Uber entirely. Only taxis from airports (since there's a taxi rank), and only Lyft when I want to be picked up elsewhere.
Dear everyone, please no longer make this point unless you (1) acknowledge the telemetry that showed that the large majority of feature requests were for features that already existed
Can you please tell me something significant that current Word can do that Word 97 couldn't do?
Something significant the current Word can do that Word 97 couldn't? -- I already wrote it. The answer is that the current Word makes already-existing features discoverable by the bulk of users. Word97 failed to do that. I think it's hugely significant, and one of probably the top ten features of any piece of software... there's never any point writing software unless users discover and use it.
I'm still on Office 2010. I don't understand the point of these "upgrades" (Google just did the same thing to gmail). Basically all they do is make me re-learn an interface I'm already comfortable and in return they introduce zero useful functionality.
Dear everyone, please no longer make this point unless you (1) acknowledge the telemetry that showed that the large majority of feature requests were for features that already existed, (2) either accept the hypothesis that the product isn't discoverable enough or provide your own explanation for that telemetry, (3) suggest an approach that would benefit the general bulk of users rather than just you specifically.
Or did you mean you could remove the battery? Funny, you claim to be a "Maker" and yet you are afraid to open a phone case to change a battery manually (which you'd only have to do every 2-3 years)?
I like taking spare batteries for my gadgets on adventures (backpacking, sailing, long-distance cycling or swimming). They're more compact than external battery top-up devices, and they mean you can get full charge instantly rather than keeping the two things tethered for hours. This last point can be important depending on your holster/mount for your gadget.
You mean insult women by manipulating them into choosing a career that clearly many of them do not want? I can imagine that and I see clearly that this is what people like you want to do, but I find this utterly unacceptable. For the last time: Women are adults. They can make their own choices and those that chose not to go into engineering will chose so as fully capable adults and the decision will not be because any little things.
[switching topic to 1630 in eastern England, where a large-scale effort was made to drain the marshland by the Bedford Level Corporation and others]
You mean insulting people by manipulating them into setting up homes and farms in an area that clearly many of them don't want to go? I can imagine that and I see clearly that this is what people like the Bedford Level Corporation want to do, but I find this utterly unacceptable. For the last time: people are adults. They can make their own choices and those that chose not to live in fens and marshland will chose so as fully capable adults and the decision will not be because any little things.
(It's not a car analogy. It's a demonstration that there are cases where people don't want to do something in its current form, but if we change the form then more people will want to do it and the results will be beneficial. You believe that engineering isn't one of those cases, but you haven't substantiated why. The analogy indicates that there's a logical step you're missing in your reasoning.)
4% of global annual revenue... what about considering the cost of the damage done? What about considering the cost of implementing sound security policies? No one will do it if the fine is less than the cost of implementation.
Slashdot Mirror
Its only an example of doublespeak if you define 'free' to mean 'free of regulations'.
I don't! For me, 'free' means free for me and others to go about our business. I have that freedom in many regulated public spaces - beaches, piazzas, parks, national forests, streets - and it's usually the regulations that have preserved the public space as one amenable to doing my activity in them.
How can you call it "old news" when, as the article and summary both say, this is the very first time a causal link has been measured and published. That's the very definition of "new news". Maybe you're thinking of "old conjecture"...?
I thought the only 'one thing' that chip was meant to do, is provide a smokescreen justification for the credit companies to change their default assumption of blame from "the fraud wasn't your fault" to "the fraud was your fault".
How about instead we require people to demonstrate empathy and compassion before they're allowed to vote. That seems more important than being informed.
How about we require them to have served in the military before they can vote, like Starship Troopers. Heinlein said that a vote is an act of force, and only those who understand force in its raw form should wield that power. This argument is that being experienced is more important than being informed.
How about we only allow parents to vote. They're the ones with the most vested interest in long term health of the country and society.
How about we only allow the elderly to vote. They have more experience, which is better than just being informed.
These are all straw men. There's nothing axiomatic which says 'informed' is the best metric. Nor any of my other straw men.
If I understand right, the deal is that website developers now do the heavy lifting work of informing Google about every user and user action on their site, in meaningful profile-building ways, and in return Google will help them recognize bots.
Its similar to the deal they made with Google Analytics (inform Google of page visits and in return get traffic analysis) except the new captcha bargain will extract more visitor-profiling than was ever needed before.
I get what you're saying, you don't believe it's true.
I'm not saying that, and I'm not a liberal! I just want to know precisely what was found and what is being claimed.
See Haidt, J (2012). The righteous mind: why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books.
Yeah, I saw the book reference. I want to read about the actual scientific research that underpins it. I'm not used to seeing research published only in books - normally there are published articles first, and the book follows afterwards as a digest, but doesn't go into the same depth of details about methodology and raw results.
Do you think the book is the only source I can look at for this information?
That's interesting. Is like to learn more. Neither link was to the actual study (methodology, numerical results, ...) - only to takeaways. Do you have any idea where to find out about the actual study?
I'm curious because the guy said he asked 2000 "visitors" to fill out his questionnaire. I wonder which visitors? To where?
I don't remember all the sturm und drang from the NY Times when President Obama kept his Blackberry.
I'm not sure what your point is. I conjecture you're arguing this: "critique of Obama for using his blackberry came from Fox but not NYT; therefore Fox and not NYT should be the ones critiquing Trump for using his iPhone"? (in which case, are you berating Fox or NYT or both?)
Or are you saying that the NYT and Fox comments about Obama's blackberry touched only on hypothetical attack vectors conjectured by security experts, but this article is about reports of actual and present and successful attacks on Trump, and you're wondering why the difference?
People are like: "meh, they broke a contract" but if Apple did this, I bet there would be ravenous pearl clutching. The double standard is palpable.
That doesn't make sense. How can something be "palpable" if you merely imagined it?
Honestly, you should save your outrage for things that actually happen, rather than what you imagine some opposing group might do.
I hope manufacturers will start putting front-facing cameras behind the screen, roughly in the center of the phone or 2/3 of the way up. That way when (1) in video calls we'll be able to look at the people we're speaking with and they'll see our eyes actually looking at them, and (2) when we take selfie photos and are checking out how we look, our eyes will be looking at the camera.
I read about an Apple patent for this back in 2009 but it doesn't look like there's been any development since then. https://appleinsider.com/artic...
Because some nuclear waste is "scary"?
Yes, precisely because it's "scary" -- in financial terms. The free market has pretty much definitively said that a financial investment in nuclear power has too low a rate of return. I think that's because the cost to build a plant is so great that it spends too much of its operating lifetime servicing its debt, and then the decommissioning costs are uncertain but large. That's why we've only seen nuclear power used when supported by large government subsidies.
The tricky part is there was no leak. The data was available, but there is no evidence of any unauthorized access. So technically they were not required to report the leak, because there was no leak.
I agree that there is no evidence of any unauthorized access. But your conclusion "there was no leak" doesn't follow.
If there had been a leak, would there have been evidence of a leak? -- no, because they're not gathering the data that would provide evidence. Therefore, the observation "no evidence of a leak" has no ability to justify the statement "there was no leak".
I guess it depends on what the legislation is, what it defines as a leak, and where it puts the burden of knowledge. I haven't read it to find out.
and there is no reason to believe any of them did.
That's a slippery sentence to make. We have no evidence either way, of course. So anyone's belief on this matter must just be based on their personal understanding of industry trends about vulnerability exploitation, extrapolated to this case.
If you'd just said "I have no reason to believe" then that would have been an easy statement to make: that your understanding of industry trends doesn't provide reason for you to believe that the vulnerability was exploited.
But you actually made a startlingly strong assertion that there exists no reason to believe that it was exploited -- in other words, you know the relevant set of background industry trends well, and that extrapolating them will lead everyone to the conclusion that there was no exploitation in this case.
(I respect your other comparisons about what other companies would have to report, but that of course doesn't have bearing on your assertion that I quoted above.)
Just to clarify, what would kind of things would meet the bar for you to count them as evidence today in this case?
A location would be a good start. Other people at the party would also help.
If it was a large party then there should be plenty of other people that remember the party.
If it was a small party with only 3-5 people then other people should be able to remember Ford and Kavanaugh actually being friends.
You don't have a small party with 3-5 strangers and you don't have a large party without a lot of witnesses.
If I understand you right, the things you count as evidence are "more specific details", and also "more corroborating stories from people about the event in question" -- not necessarily witnesses to the event, but people who can corroborate other incidental details of the accusation. In other words you'd want to see more "(s)he-said" to back up the the other details, presumably with the implication that if more people back up other details then you think a judge should believe the central detail.
(and you're specifically not interested in corroborating stories about behaviors/characteristics of the people in general; you're only interested in the particular event).
Is that a fair understanding of your position?
There is zero evidence that it happened.
Just to clarify, what would kind of things would meet the bar for you to count them as evidence today in this case?
Citation provided:https://evobsession.com/tesla-...
You had said that (1) energy density doubles every seven years, and (2) prices halve every seven years. That link provides information about claim (2). Can you provide any evidence for claim (1)? I haven't been able to find any myself yet, after 15 minutes on google.
The first citation is 5 years old, 2013. The second one is dated 2018 but it shows a plot that stops before 2000. This is the first hit on google search: ...
The link you provided is about prices. Your claim was about energy density as well. I haven't yet found any evidence for your "7 year half life for energy density" claim.
Moore' Law for batteries, is a 7 year half life.
Where do you get this? I was interested to see some historical graphs to justify a "7-year" claim but I haven't yet found any.
https://longtailpipe.com/2013/... - I found this article which suggested a 10-year half life
https://www.upsbatterycenter.c... - this graph showed that improvement has flattened out completely. But the graph lacks no vertical axis so I don't even know what it's measuring.
one of those drivers I gave a generous tip, then proceeded to charge me for HIS drive from Santa Ana to Pasadena. I figured it was a mistake. BUT THEN Uber told me, "The driver says he took your girlfriend home, so that was the cause for the extra charge. No refund.
I've had similar experiences - shitty drivers, followed by shitty follow-up from Uber customer service.
Case 1: arrived back to Seatac with just enough time to drive home to say goodnight to my toddlers. I requested a single-passenger (i.e. non-pool) Uber. For some reason it was taking ages in the "cellphone parking lot". Eventually it arrived 10 minutes later than it should. Someone else hopped in the car as well who asked the driver "are you my Lyft driver?" The driver said yes. I got in too. The driver dropped the first passenger off, a long way out of the way. By the time they made it back to my place, I'd missed my kids' bedtime.
I realized part way through the journey that some drivers must "double-dip" both Lyft and Uber. I told the driver I was unhappy with this and would report it. I did report it. The Uber customer service person told me basically that I had taken my trip from the start to the end as reported by the driver. I spelled out for them that the driver had served Lyft at the same time. The Uber customer service just sort of emailed from a script that didn't respond to my complaint.
Case 2: I was at work at requested an Uber home. I could see on the map that the driver was approaching the point I'd marked with a pickup pin on the map. The driver took several wrong turns, went into the wrong street, and waited there for a few minutes. Then the app claimed that I had been picked up, and the app showed me being charged for a ride that the driver made (without me in it) across to the other side of town. I texted the driver to say what the heck, and called him a few minutes later, and eventually he said "okay" and marked in the app that he'd dropped me off.
I complained via my work Uber contact. It got just a generic "The driver carried you to your destination but we see you're unhappy so we'll give you a refund" message.
Case 3: I was at San Jose airport. I requested a (single-passenger, non-pool) Uber to my hotel in Palo Alto. The driver arrived and had a Lyft passenger get in. I saw what was up and refused to get in and told the driver that this was unacceptable and I wanted him to cancel my pickup. He didn't. I saw on the app that the driver had claimed to have picked me up, and claimed to have dropped me off somewhere in Mountain View.
I complained to Uber. Customer service got back to me to say again that the driver had carried me to my destination. I told them I hadn't. Once again they ran through stupid script email responses to each of my emails, never engaging with what I said. Though again they said "I see you're unhappy so we'll give you a refund".
What I think: working in the gig economy is shitty, and it's inevitable that some drivers will try game the system. Fair enough. It's hard to hold that against the drivers given that I have a good salaried job and they're driving for Uber. (That said, every other driver I've chatted with has described these behaviors as despicable because it's unfair on the drivers who follow the rules). But what I didn't like is that Uber customer service was basically just a brick wall, and the mechanisms they've put in place don't make me happy that they're engaged with the problem or with my complaint.
So I've stopped using Uber entirely. Only taxis from airports (since there's a taxi rank), and only Lyft when I want to be picked up elsewhere.
Dear everyone, please no longer make this point unless you (1) acknowledge the telemetry that showed that the large majority of feature requests were for features that already existed
Can you please tell me something significant that current Word can do that Word 97 couldn't do?
Something significant the current Word can do that Word 97 couldn't? -- I already wrote it. The answer is that the current Word makes already-existing features discoverable by the bulk of users. Word97 failed to do that. I think it's hugely significant, and one of probably the top ten features of any piece of software ... there's never any point writing software unless users discover and use it.
I'm still on Office 2010. I don't understand the point of these "upgrades" (Google just did the same thing to gmail). Basically all they do is make me re-learn an interface I'm already comfortable and in return they introduce zero useful functionality.
Dear everyone, please no longer make this point unless you (1) acknowledge the telemetry that showed that the large majority of feature requests were for features that already existed, (2) either accept the hypothesis that the product isn't discoverable enough or provide your own explanation for that telemetry, (3) suggest an approach that would benefit the general bulk of users rather than just you specifically.
Or did you mean you could remove the battery? Funny, you claim to be a "Maker" and yet you are afraid to open a phone case to change a battery manually (which you'd only have to do every 2-3 years)?
I like taking spare batteries for my gadgets on adventures (backpacking, sailing, long-distance cycling or swimming). They're more compact than external battery top-up devices, and they mean you can get full charge instantly rather than keeping the two things tethered for hours. This last point can be important depending on your holster/mount for your gadget.
You mean insult women by manipulating them into choosing a career that clearly many of them do not want? I can imagine that and I see clearly that this is what people like you want to do, but I find this utterly unacceptable. For the last time: Women are adults. They can make their own choices and those that chose not to go into engineering will chose so as fully capable adults and the decision will not be because any little things.
[switching topic to 1630 in eastern England, where a large-scale effort was made to drain the marshland by the Bedford Level Corporation and others]
You mean insulting people by manipulating them into setting up homes and farms in an area that clearly many of them don't want to go? I can imagine that and I see clearly that this is what people like the Bedford Level Corporation want to do, but I find this utterly unacceptable. For the last time: people are adults. They can make their own choices and those that chose not to live in fens and marshland will chose so as fully capable adults and the decision will not be because any little things.
(It's not a car analogy. It's a demonstration that there are cases where people don't want to do something in its current form, but if we change the form then more people will want to do it and the results will be beneficial. You believe that engineering isn't one of those cases, but you haven't substantiated why. The analogy indicates that there's a logical step you're missing in your reasoning.)
4% of global annual revenue... what about considering the cost of the damage done? What about considering the cost of implementing sound security policies? No one will do it if the fine is less than the cost of implementation.
4% of global annual revenue would be $124m.