What if spam comes in the form of discussion board members who make relevant posts, otherwise indistinguishable from human posters (but are really computer programs), then form friendships with you, and only inject their spam payload via occasional, bizarre suggestions that you should try out some flaky product (which is otherwise out of character for such an intelligent poster)?
I think that's what IBM has in mind... or at least, would be a serious, creepy way of implementing what they describe.
Fortunately, we already have countermeasures for this kind of thing.
Sorry, just going by CarrierIQ's own self-pimping about how many phones have their rootkits. Simple pigeonhole principle says that if they have their crap on umpteen million phones, then even if all of Sprint and AT&Fee's phones have it, some of Verizon's must as well.
Oh yeah, I'm totally sure Verizon made sure OEMs kept CarrierIQ off all their phones and, where that wasn't possible, deleted all such information as it arrived, since they would never use data that could be sold at a tremendous profit or alert them to network problems.
What are you talking about? Responsible use of a cell phone while driving is not an "example out of left field". It's exactly the sort of thing people worry about when someone wants to ban cell phone driving.
They don't make any exception for brief calls, or for conditions that require minimal driver attention. No sirree, the moment you decide to use a cell phone while driving, you are automatically a bad driver, and if you think you can do it safely, you MUST be suffering from Dunning Kruger effects, because EVERYONE overestimates their ability.
When I start seeing caveats that eliminate such absurditiese from the claims, then I can get on board with them. But as it stands, we just have morons making ridiculous claims, and people like you dismissing any example of safe cell phone driving as beside the point.
No, all the fallacies are on your end, I'm afraid.
The OP said that talking on a cell phone while you drive necessarily makes you a bad driver. This is ridiculous hyperbole. I just showed one example, which suffices to make that point.
And yes, I do, on rare occasion, talk on my cell phone while driving. However, I only do it in those cases (such as in my example) where conditions do not warrant extraordinary attention. So I've been able to do it safely, and likewise have a pristine record -- insurance companies make a *bundle* on safe drivers like me.
Yes, some drivers do know how to use a cell phone judiciously while driving. I'm one of them, and I can quite justifiably say so.
And true, a lot of people (most) can't, because they simply don't bother to think about the safety of other drivers.
But here's the kicker: if they're not *already* making sure to limit their cell phone driving to cases where it is safe, they sure as fuck won't do it because of a law. The problem is more fundamental: them not giving a shit about driving safely.
If it's not a cell phone that's distracting them, they'll let the radio, or makeup, or head-banging, or chatting, or eating do the job. The cell phone is just one more way for them to fuck up, out of the zillions of options they already have.
The answer is to punish inattentive and unsafe driving, whatever the cause. If someone is drifting between lanes or otherwise not cooperating with other traffic and making themselves a nuisance, then ticket the bitch or bastard, regardless of whether it's a hamburger or a cell phone (or their senility) that's hoarding their attention.
And if you spot a driver like that while on the road, give 'em a sharp *honk* to remind them of just how insufficiently they're paying attention. Maybe they'll get a clue... if they can be saved at all.
The US government is spying on Iran's nuclear ambitions. We (Americans and Iranians) know about the spying. And they know that we know. But we make-believe that we don't know, and they make-believe that they believe that we don't know, but know that we know.
Van drivers can install concave mirrors on their side mirrors that give them a better view. And they certainly can see out the *driver* side.
Cars do have a blind spot, at least if your mirrors haven't been quite optimized. Safe drivers check them when changing lanes. Yes, even when it might not be 100% necessary. Because they're, like, responsible and stuff.
You can put your cell phone in your car while driving, and nobody will target it. But if you talk on your cell phone while driving, you are a bad driver,
*drives for 12 years without an accident*
*drives on flat straight country road in the middle of nowhere*
*picks up cellphone while driving, presses talk button twice*
"Hi honey. Yeah, I'm on my way, I've got an ETA of about 6 pm. Love you too. Bye."
*hangs up*
*has magically transformed into a bad driver that put innocent schoolchildren at risk*
Everybody that uses social networks have connections to somebody that gone broke, or made bad comments on the past. That fictional bank wouldn't be able to lend money. Thus wouldn't generate any revenue.
I wouldn't go that far, but this definitely seems vulnerable to Goodhart's Law- type effects. That is, currently, people choose their social network friends based on some variant of "do I know this person?" -- and that allows for significant variation in exactly what the relationship is.
But the moment your (internet) social network has significant impact on something you care about -- how good an interest rate you can get on loans -- then you fundamentally change your method for deciding who you Friend on Facebook. Most likely, you start to require that everyone in your friends list is someone you know AND whom you expect to have good credit.
So at that point, your Friend list is no longer truly representative of your friends (nor of the influences on your financial behavior), and so is no longer informative about your creditworthiness -- since you've cherry-picked it for friends that would make you look good by their (formerly useful) metrics.
It's the same basic thing you'd expect if your "credit check" consisted of you listing all your past history that you want to share rather than sampling the full space of credit transactions you made. You'll pick the stuff that makes you look good, not the full picture, warts and all.
Where are you getting that? Yes, patents have been abused like that before -- where someone claims ownership of *any* means of accomplishing a goal. (*cough* amazon one-click)
But what is your evidence that this specific patent entitles Google to exclusive ownership of all methods of achieving autonomous driving cars?
Because you can't suck out an amount of value equal to the output of several large US states or countries via cyber attacks that no one really notices.
So how do you detect movement of photons across a scene?
Well, you assume the photons expand out radially from the source, and therefore, watching the light propagate from left to right across your field of vision, you assume that the photos that hit your detector (such as your eyes), are roughly coplanar with the (majority of) photons that aren't hitting your detector.
You know, like what happens when you look at the beam coming out of a flashlight from the side.
(Remember: to make inferences, you must make assumptions. Your visual system makes inferences.)
It's just that, with fine-grained enough snapshots, you can see what the beam looks like before it has propagated across your entire field of vision.
Yes, quantum behavior of photons is complicated, but sometimes we overcomplicate it.
Slashdot Mirror
What if spam comes in the form of discussion board members who make relevant posts, otherwise indistinguishable from human posters (but are really computer programs), then form friendships with you, and only inject their spam payload via occasional, bizarre suggestions that you should try out some flaky product (which is otherwise out of character for such an intelligent poster)?
I think that's what IBM has in mind ... or at least, would be a serious, creepy way of implementing what they describe.
Fortunately, we already have countermeasures for this kind of thing.
In te rand of the brind, te one eye man is keen.
So you leave it vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks?
Two words: chess.
He meant different with respect to rights infringement, not cost, jizz-squirt.
Sorry, just going by CarrierIQ's own self-pimping about how many phones have their rootkits. Simple pigeonhole principle says that if they have their crap on umpteen million phones, then even if all of Sprint and AT&Fee's phones have it, some of Verizon's must as well.
Oh yeah, I'm totally sure Verizon made sure OEMs kept CarrierIQ off all their phones and, where that wasn't possible, deleted all such information as it arrived, since they would never use data that could be sold at a tremendous profit or alert them to network problems.
*jerk-off gesture*
What are you talking about? Responsible use of a cell phone while driving is not an "example out of left field". It's exactly the sort of thing people worry about when someone wants to ban cell phone driving.
They don't make any exception for brief calls, or for conditions that require minimal driver attention. No sirree, the moment you decide to use a cell phone while driving, you are automatically a bad driver, and if you think you can do it safely, you MUST be suffering from Dunning Kruger effects, because EVERYONE overestimates their ability.
When I start seeing caveats that eliminate such absurditiese from the claims, then I can get on board with them. But as it stands, we just have morons making ridiculous claims, and people like you dismissing any example of safe cell phone driving as beside the point.
No, all the fallacies are on your end, I'm afraid.
The OP said that talking on a cell phone while you drive necessarily makes you a bad driver. This is ridiculous hyperbole. I just showed one example, which suffices to make that point.
And yes, I do, on rare occasion, talk on my cell phone while driving. However, I only do it in those cases (such as in my example) where conditions do not warrant extraordinary attention. So I've been able to do it safely, and likewise have a pristine record -- insurance companies make a *bundle* on safe drivers like me.
Yes, some drivers do know how to use a cell phone judiciously while driving. I'm one of them, and I can quite justifiably say so.
And true, a lot of people (most) can't, because they simply don't bother to think about the safety of other drivers.
But here's the kicker: if they're not *already* making sure to limit their cell phone driving to cases where it is safe, they sure as fuck won't do it because of a law. The problem is more fundamental: them not giving a shit about driving safely.
If it's not a cell phone that's distracting them, they'll let the radio, or makeup, or head-banging, or chatting, or eating do the job. The cell phone is just one more way for them to fuck up, out of the zillions of options they already have.
The answer is to punish inattentive and unsafe driving, whatever the cause. If someone is drifting between lanes or otherwise not cooperating with other traffic and making themselves a nuisance, then ticket the bitch or bastard, regardless of whether it's a hamburger or a cell phone (or their senility) that's hoarding their attention.
And if you spot a driver like that while on the road, give 'em a sharp *honk* to remind them of just how insufficiently they're paying attention. Maybe they'll get a clue ... if they can be saved at all.
With apologies to Under Siege 2:
The US government is spying on Iran's nuclear ambitions. We (Americans and Iranians) know about the spying. And they know that we know. But we make-believe that we don't know, and they make-believe that they believe that we don't know, but know that we know.
Everybody knows.
Van drivers can install concave mirrors on their side mirrors that give them a better view. And they certainly can see out the *driver* side.
Cars do have a blind spot, at least if your mirrors haven't been quite optimized. Safe drivers check them when changing lanes. Yes, even when it might not be 100% necessary. Because they're, like, responsible and stuff.
*new concept*
You can put your cell phone in your car while driving, and nobody will target it. But if you talk on your cell phone while driving, you are a bad driver,
*drives for 12 years without an accident*
*drives on flat straight country road in the middle of nowhere*
*picks up cellphone while driving, presses talk button twice*
"Hi honey. Yeah, I'm on my way, I've got an ETA of about 6 pm. Love you too. Bye."
*hangs up*
*has magically transformed into a bad driver that put innocent schoolchildren at risk*
As someone who drives safely at the cost of inconvenient neck exercise, please check your blind spots before changing lanes.
Turn signals are cool too.
As is the ability to hear someone honking at you when you're unknowningly merging into them.
Everybody that uses social networks have connections to somebody that gone broke, or made bad comments on the past. That fictional bank wouldn't be able to lend money. Thus wouldn't generate any revenue.
I wouldn't go that far, but this definitely seems vulnerable to Goodhart's Law- type effects. That is, currently, people choose their social network friends based on some variant of "do I know this person?" -- and that allows for significant variation in exactly what the relationship is.
But the moment your (internet) social network has significant impact on something you care about -- how good an interest rate you can get on loans -- then you fundamentally change your method for deciding who you Friend on Facebook. Most likely, you start to require that everyone in your friends list is someone you know AND whom you expect to have good credit.
So at that point, your Friend list is no longer truly representative of your friends (nor of the influences on your financial behavior), and so is no longer informative about your creditworthiness -- since you've cherry-picked it for friends that would make you look good by their (formerly useful) metrics.
It's the same basic thing you'd expect if your "credit check" consisted of you listing all your past history that you want to share rather than sampling the full space of credit transactions you made. You'll pick the stuff that makes you look good, not the full picture, warts and all.
So this new metric rapidly defeats itself.
Where are you getting that? Yes, patents have been abused like that before -- where someone claims ownership of *any* means of accomplishing a goal. (*cough* amazon one-click)
But what is your evidence that this specific patent entitles Google to exclusive ownership of all methods of achieving autonomous driving cars?
Aww ... that's so adorable! Another genius that thinks he's the hottest thing because he can make a "stocks vs flow" argument!
It still doesn't change the fact that 3% of one year's entire GDP is way too high, it just means the supposed assets came from different times.
Because you can't suck out an amount of value equal to the output of several large US states or countries via cyber attacks that no one really notices.
Oops, you're right. The source said $15 Trillion. Still, that would make it 3% of GDP, and still way too high to be plausible.
Stole informational assets worth $500 billion over the past year? Um, does anyone bother to do basic reality checks?
$500 billion is about 1/3 of the US's GDP for all of 2010.
So ... no, just ... just no.
Unless you just really like its pre-installed single-player game, I think there's a Step 2 where you have to connect it to the telecom network.
Redundant? What the fuck? Where are the other, earlier comments about implications for Bitcoin mining?
But the question everyone wants to know is, will this allow programmers to write even better software for Bitcoin miners using AMD GPUs?
(By "everyone", I mean the community of Bitcoin minors.)
And carnivorous bats.
I can see it in the next Batman movie:
Bad guy: "hahahaha! I am invisible, oh caped one! And if you can see me, neither can you attack me!"
Batman: "You forgot one thing: I'm a bat." *turns on sonar vision with slick eye effects*
(Meh. The scene from Forever was probably better.)
Right, dude. Just how when you smell something, you consume molecules from it through your nose.
Therefore, you never smell the same molecule twice.
Therefore, you destroy every rose you smell.
Er ... yeah, maybe we need to not get ahead of ourselves.
So how do you detect movement of photons across a scene?
Well, you assume the photons expand out radially from the source, and therefore, watching the light propagate from left to right across your field of vision, you assume that the photos that hit your detector (such as your eyes), are roughly coplanar with the (majority of) photons that aren't hitting your detector.
You know, like what happens when you look at the beam coming out of a flashlight from the side.
(Remember: to make inferences, you must make assumptions. Your visual system makes inferences.)
It's just that, with fine-grained enough snapshots, you can see what the beam looks like before it has propagated across your entire field of vision.
Yes, quantum behavior of photons is complicated, but sometimes we overcomplicate it.