Does Britain actually have problems with terrorism?
Or is this just a power grab?
Mostly a power grab by an increasingly deranged government, with the (mostly empty) threat of terrorism used as a spurious justification.
Actually, though, I'm not overly worried. Any such bill would be strongly resisted in the House of Commons, and most probably rejected by the House of Lords (like the 42-day detention vote).
Furthermore, the current government will almost certainly suffer a heavy defeat at the next General Election, and be replaced by a party which, while far from perfect, does at least seem to value privacy and a minimal state.
Or, you know, thinking up some open space game to play that is well known like truth or dare, alphabet games, association games, etc?
Surely a better approach would be to invent a game of which the machine can have no prior knowledge. Then you would have to teach it, and I imagine this is where the AI would come unstuck pretty quickly.
It should be possible to come up with some simple sets of rules where it's pretty hard to fake an understanding.
One of the linked articles states that the police are not allowed within a certain distance of polling stations during an American election - is this correct?
Here in the UK it's the opposite - there is usually a (discreet) police presence at polling stations, presumably to prevent any sort of intimidation or foul play. Traditionally, the winning candidate begins his/her acceptance speech by thanking the police and officials for ensuring an orderly election.
I can see both sides, but I think on balance I would rather have the police there than not.
"Train derailments were of disputable effectiveness as throughout the occupation the Germans managed to repair the tracks fairly quickly. Following the invasions of Normandy and Provence in 1944, however, the sabotage of rail transportation became much more frequent and was effective in preventing German troop deployments to the front and in hindering their retreat later on.[138] It was also preferred as it caused less collateral damage and civilian casualties than Allied bombing"
Your blanket 'despicable' statement fails to capture the nuances of the subject. There is a big difference between a largely self-coordinating civilian resistance movement and a military command which uses civilians as human shields.
You realize that you could have just pointed out the example that I showed of the American Revolution
I'll point out whatever examples I choose, thanks for asking.
My point is simply that calling combatants hiding amongst civilians "despicable" is a silly statement, because it entirely depends which side you are on.
Presumably if the Nazis had won, history would have painted the various underground resistance movements of WWII as 'despicable terrorists' or some such. Whereas now we rightly regard them as heroes.
For starters, could you explain your solution to the Mach 5 problem? (No, I know you don't know what that is
I googled "mach 5 problem" and I could only find ONE relevant reference to this subject. So I'm not sure this really proves anything.
For the record, it seems to concern slowing a manned craft down sufficiently to land on Mars, whereas the GP's statement was about "Technologies allowing us to leave the planet". Which isn't the same thing at all. So what's your point, exactly?
If the batteries in these cars last as long as my laptop batteries have, the owners are in for some serious disappointment.
This would be my main reservation, rather than the practicality arguments. Does anyone have a concrete projection for expected battery life?
Even in the most optimistic case I can't imagine it coming close to an ICE for longevity. Modern petrol engines can last 200,000 miles with regular maintenance, diesels even more.
Anyone buying one of these had better hope that the $60,000 battery cost has significantly reduced by the time it needs replacing. (No doubt the cost will come down, but how fast?)
At the level of populations, where a lot of evolution occurs
Natural selection doesn't occur 'at the level of populations', at least not in the direct manner which you seem to imply. In fact, some would argue that the only valid unit of selection is the gene itself.
Interestingly, this BBC article suggests that they didn't include 3G support due to battery life:
Greg Joswiak, head of marketing for the iPhone, denied that the phone had sacrificed function over form by choosing 2G.
"We wanted to make sure that we had a very small device and good battery life. You can't do that today with 3G."
I always assumed it was because the phone was primarily designed for use in the US where 3G doesn't really exist.
But, I gotta ask...how the hell do you go shopping for things like groceries over there, if you don't have a car??
This is probably getting off-topic, but...
All the big supermarkets offer online grocery shopping with home delivery - e.g. Ocado, Tesco, Sainsbury's - so quite a few people use that.
Alternatively, you can shop more frequently than once a week. Although I have a car, I sometimes stop off on the way home from work (I'm within walking distance) and pick up some pizza, beer etc. when I can't be bothered to cook a proper meal.
Also, you can always order a taxi to take you and your shopping home, though this only really makes economic sense in a town/city.
When I was at college and had no car, I used to cycle to the supermarket with a large backpack and fill that up. You can get quite a lot of groceries in a 60-litre rucksack.
Then there were the preps. They dressed like the wiggers (because that Nike and sports stuff was expensive and the preps had to flaunt money) and usually listened to rap/hip-hop/etc but at least they didn't usually come up to you and call you G or tell you they were a blood or crypt.
Er, sorry if that was an intentional joke, but do you mean Crip?
It's not new to you because of where you live. In the US, it's still something of a big deal to have a car with nav
I'm surprised by this. As the GP suggested, satnav is rapidly becoming ubiquitous in this part of the world (I'm in the UK), either in the form of built-in units on newer cars or as portable devices like Tom-Toms. I'd be really interested to know why it hasn't taken off in the same way in the US. Is it because the road systems are generally simpler, or what?
When you say a 'fashion phone', what do you mean? Isn't that like calling a Macbook Pro a 'fashion laptop'?
From the little I've seen of this, it looks like possibly the first smartphone ever made where the designers actually gave a shit about design. It makes the SPV m3100 I bought last month look about as smart as a pocket calculator.
I can live without a physical keyboard if the touchscreen is good, but having no 3G really is a bit crap. Is there some other standard for high-speed data in the US?
Before we let a random person into our country, we need to verify his identity to make sure he's not a criminal or terrorist.
OK. I show up at the border, and someone takes my fingerprints. So what? How does that enable them to 'verify [my] identity'? What are they going to compare the prints against?
I've never been fingerprinted before, in any country, so there's no record for comparison. I don't have a biometric passport. Can you please clarify exactly what they are checking?
Just out of interest, I presume you would be happy for the same logic to be applied reciprocally to Americans visiting my country (the UK)? And then have the UK authorities share those prints with the FBI / your local police department?
Why didn't you purchase a music player/camera that handles files as it should; as a mass storage device?
Because I wanted an iPod more than I wanted a Linux desktop, I guess.
Also, there is another interoperability pressure - you can get lots of third-party iPod-compatible accessories, which may not be available for other players. For example, lots of car stereos now have iPod interfaces, so you can control the player from the dashboard/steering wheel. So either you get an MP3 player which doesn't work with your Linux desktop*, or you get one which doesn't work in your car.
I do appreciate your point, though. Maybe I should be a more militant consumer.
* OK, so you can get it to work, but not out of the box
The difficulty of desktop Linux is really a myth these days
Yeah, bollocks is it.
It's a myth until you want to use an iPod or a digital camera, surely two of the most popular consumer devices today after mobile phones. I have tried and failed to get both working on my desktop Linux system. If I can't do it, there's no way my Mum could. In the end I just bought a MacBook, and put my Linux machine in a cupboard.
Yes, I know that both of these things can be made to work, but honestly, most people just don't have the time or inclination to invest.
Neither of these problems with device interoperability is the fault of the Linux community, but it's hard to deny that they are problems. Especially as the number of such consumer devices can only increase.
It most certainly does not refer to a woman's vulva nor vagina.
I'm afraid you are utterly, utterly wrong. In large parts of the UK that is precisely what it means.
Assuming you are male, I challenge you to try slipping a comment like 'my fanny is a bit sore today' into the conversation next time you are in a British pub. It should be obvious from the reaction just how wrong you are.
If that happens, and if all the investitors has access to such software, my bet is that the whole point of investing on market will flop
Not at all. Every major player in the market already uses some kind of computer modelling, for risk analysis, pricing, arbitrage or whatever. There is basically a perpetual arms race as different investors come up with new strategies or better ways of modelling a particular part of the market. The result is a more efficient market - fewer things are mispriced.
The sad thing about capitalism is that there's always a fixed amount of money on the market, so to win somebody else has to loose.
You clearly just don't understand how markets work. The purpose of any investment market is to bring together lenders of money (investors) with borrowers of money (companies, governments etc). It is not a zero-sum game. If use of computer modelling allows investors to make better decisions, in the end it benefits everyone.
Several months later a virus hits the company and the phone system, which includes all sales offices, dies.
Everyone in a company has an agenda, and frequently it's not aligned with the interests of the company.
Take your CFO. For all I know it could be sheer ignorance which made him say something so silly. But even if he had rigorously examined the security tradeoffs, he might still have said the same thing. Why? Because to a CFO, every 'investment' is an expense, and even if a killer virus takes out the whole sales department for a month, he can just point the finger at the IT department and say 'nothing to do with me'. His job's probably still secure.
Sarbanes-Oxley might not be a bad thing, but ultimately the best regulator is a well-informed market where decision-making is transparent. If the consequences of decisions aren't ultimately borne by the executives who make them, organisations will never operate efficiently.
Slashdot Mirror
Does Britain actually have problems with terrorism?
Or is this just a power grab?
Mostly a power grab by an increasingly deranged government, with the (mostly empty) threat of terrorism used as a spurious justification.
Actually, though, I'm not overly worried. Any such bill would be strongly resisted in the House of Commons, and most probably rejected by the House of Lords (like the 42-day detention vote).
Furthermore, the current government will almost certainly suffer a heavy defeat at the next General Election, and be replaced by a party which, while far from perfect, does at least seem to value privacy and a minimal state.
Or, you know, thinking up some open space game to play that is well known like truth or dare, alphabet games, association games, etc?
Surely a better approach would be to invent a game of which the machine can have no prior knowledge. Then you would have to teach it, and I imagine this is where the AI would come unstuck pretty quickly.
It should be possible to come up with some simple sets of rules where it's pretty hard to fake an understanding.
One of the linked articles states that the police are not allowed within a certain distance of polling stations during an American election - is this correct?
Here in the UK it's the opposite - there is usually a (discreet) police presence at polling stations, presumably to prevent any sort of intimidation or foul play. Traditionally, the winning candidate begins his/her acceptance speech by thanking the police and officials for ensuring an orderly election.
I can see both sides, but I think on balance I would rather have the police there than not.
No. It is still despicable. It puts innocent civilians in the line of fire (more than they already would be).
Really? Including the good old French?
"Train derailments were of disputable effectiveness as throughout the occupation the Germans managed to repair the tracks fairly quickly. Following the invasions of Normandy and Provence in 1944, however, the sabotage of rail transportation became much more frequent and was effective in preventing German troop deployments to the front and in hindering their retreat later on.[138] It was also preferred as it caused less collateral damage and civilian casualties than Allied bombing"
Your blanket 'despicable' statement fails to capture the nuances of the subject. There is a big difference between a largely self-coordinating civilian resistance movement and a military command which uses civilians as human shields.
You realize that you could have just pointed out the example that I showed of the American Revolution
I'll point out whatever examples I choose, thanks for asking.
My point is simply that calling combatants hiding amongst civilians "despicable" is a silly statement, because it entirely depends which side you are on.
Presumably if the Nazis had won, history would have painted the various underground resistance movements of WWII as 'despicable terrorists' or some such. Whereas now we rightly regard them as heroes.
Unlawful combatants hiding in civilian populaces is despicable
Such as (to pick just one example) the French Resistance during WWII?
For starters, could you explain your solution to the Mach 5 problem? (No, I know you don't know what that is
I googled "mach 5 problem" and I could only find ONE relevant reference to this subject. So I'm not sure this really proves anything.
For the record, it seems to concern slowing a manned craft down sufficiently to land on Mars, whereas the GP's statement was about "Technologies allowing us to leave the planet". Which isn't the same thing at all. So what's your point, exactly?
If the batteries in these cars last as long as my laptop batteries have, the owners are in for some serious disappointment.
This would be my main reservation, rather than the practicality arguments. Does anyone have a concrete projection for expected battery life?
Even in the most optimistic case I can't imagine it coming close to an ICE for longevity. Modern petrol engines can last 200,000 miles with regular maintenance, diesels even more.
Anyone buying one of these had better hope that the $60,000 battery cost has significantly reduced by the time it needs replacing. (No doubt the cost will come down, but how fast?)
At the level of populations, where a lot of evolution occurs
Natural selection doesn't occur 'at the level of populations', at least not in the direct manner which you seem to imply. In fact, some would argue that the only valid unit of selection is the gene itself.
Greg Joswiak, head of marketing for the iPhone, denied that the phone had sacrificed function over form by choosing 2G. "We wanted to make sure that we had a very small device and good battery life. You can't do that today with 3G."
I always assumed it was because the phone was primarily designed for use in the US where 3G doesn't really exist.
It looks like a great product, but the lack of 3G is a show-stopper for me. Hopefully this will be included in the next generation.
But, I gotta ask...how the hell do you go shopping for things like groceries over there, if you don't have a car??
This is probably getting off-topic, but...
All the big supermarkets offer online grocery shopping with home delivery - e.g. Ocado, Tesco, Sainsbury's - so quite a few people use that.
Alternatively, you can shop more frequently than once a week. Although I have a car, I sometimes stop off on the way home from work (I'm within walking distance) and pick up some pizza, beer etc. when I can't be bothered to cook a proper meal.
Also, you can always order a taxi to take you and your shopping home, though this only really makes economic sense in a town/city.
When I was at college and had no car, I used to cycle to the supermarket with a large backpack and fill that up. You can get quite a lot of groceries in a 60-litre rucksack.
Then there were the preps. They dressed like the wiggers (because that Nike and sports stuff was expensive and the preps had to flaunt money) and usually listened to rap/hip-hop/etc but at least they didn't usually come up to you and call you G or tell you they were a blood or crypt.
Er, sorry if that was an intentional joke, but do you mean Crip?
Tony Blair, his ministers and probably everyone in the Home Office should subscribe to Cryptogram. In particular, they should read this article.
It's not new to you because of where you live. In the US, it's still something of a big deal to have a car with nav
I'm surprised by this. As the GP suggested, satnav is rapidly becoming ubiquitous in this part of the world (I'm in the UK), either in the form of built-in units on newer cars or as portable devices like Tom-Toms. I'd be really interested to know why it hasn't taken off in the same way in the US. Is it because the road systems are generally simpler, or what?
When you say a 'fashion phone', what do you mean? Isn't that like calling a Macbook Pro a 'fashion laptop'?
From the little I've seen of this, it looks like possibly the first smartphone ever made where the designers actually gave a shit about design. It makes the SPV m3100 I bought last month look about as smart as a pocket calculator.
Even if it doesn't have 3G.
1.) No 3G.
Are you serious? Bollocks.
I can live without a physical keyboard if the touchscreen is good, but having no 3G really is a bit crap. Is there some other standard for high-speed data in the US?
International (Interpol?) criminal databases? If you're not in those DB's, then you likely won't have a problem.
Right, so all the terrorists have to do is recruit operatives with no previous international criminal record. I can't imagine that will be too hard.
Before we let a random person into our country, we need to verify his identity to make sure he's not a criminal or terrorist.
OK. I show up at the border, and someone takes my fingerprints. So what? How does that enable them to 'verify [my] identity'? What are they going to compare the prints against?
I've never been fingerprinted before, in any country, so there's no record for comparison. I don't have a biometric passport. Can you please clarify exactly what they are checking?
Just out of interest, I presume you would be happy for the same logic to be applied reciprocally to Americans visiting my country (the UK)? And then have the UK authorities share those prints with the FBI / your local police department?
Why didn't you purchase a music player/camera that handles files as it should; as a mass storage device?
Because I wanted an iPod more than I wanted a Linux desktop, I guess.
Also, there is another interoperability pressure - you can get lots of third-party iPod-compatible accessories, which may not be available for other players. For example, lots of car stereos now have iPod interfaces, so you can control the player from the dashboard/steering wheel. So either you get an MP3 player which doesn't work with your Linux desktop*, or you get one which doesn't work in your car.
I do appreciate your point, though. Maybe I should be a more militant consumer.
* OK, so you can get it to work, but not out of the box
The difficulty of desktop Linux is really a myth these days
Yeah, bollocks is it.
It's a myth until you want to use an iPod or a digital camera, surely two of the most popular consumer devices today after mobile phones. I have tried and failed to get both working on my desktop Linux system. If I can't do it, there's no way my Mum could. In the end I just bought a MacBook, and put my Linux machine in a cupboard.
Yes, I know that both of these things can be made to work, but honestly, most people just don't have the time or inclination to invest.
Neither of these problems with device interoperability is the fault of the Linux community, but it's hard to deny that they are problems. Especially as the number of such consumer devices can only increase.
It most certainly does not refer to a woman's vulva nor vagina.
I'm afraid you are utterly, utterly wrong. In large parts of the UK that is precisely what it means.
Assuming you are male, I challenge you to try slipping a comment like 'my fanny is a bit sore today' into the conversation next time you are in a British pub. It should be obvious from the reaction just how wrong you are.
Looks like you need to do some homework.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC
You do know that Hong Kong was a British colony from 1842-1997, right?
If that happens, and if all the investitors has access to such software, my bet is that the whole point of investing on market will flop
Not at all. Every major player in the market already uses some kind of computer modelling, for risk analysis, pricing, arbitrage or whatever. There is basically a perpetual arms race as different investors come up with new strategies or better ways of modelling a particular part of the market. The result is a more efficient market - fewer things are mispriced.
The sad thing about capitalism is that there's always a fixed amount of money on the market, so to win somebody else has to loose.
You clearly just don't understand how markets work. The purpose of any investment market is to bring together lenders of money (investors) with borrowers of money (companies, governments etc). It is not a zero-sum game. If use of computer modelling allows investors to make better decisions, in the end it benefits everyone.
Several months later a virus hits the company and the phone system, which includes all sales offices, dies.
Everyone in a company has an agenda, and frequently it's not aligned with the interests of the company.
Take your CFO. For all I know it could be sheer ignorance which made him say something so silly. But even if he had rigorously examined the security tradeoffs, he might still have said the same thing. Why? Because to a CFO, every 'investment' is an expense, and even if a killer virus takes out the whole sales department for a month, he can just point the finger at the IT department and say 'nothing to do with me'. His job's probably still secure.
Sarbanes-Oxley might not be a bad thing, but ultimately the best regulator is a well-informed market where decision-making is transparent. If the consequences of decisions aren't ultimately borne by the executives who make them, organisations will never operate efficiently.