"So even with the bad old nuclear designs from the 50s to 70s that we currently use are better than any other energy source. " = HORSESHIT, moron! Falling off a roof is NOT A RESULT OF ANY POWER SOURCE yet is tabulated as one?
You are dumber than you ought to be given what you've invested time to know halfway. NOBODY DIED AS A RESULT OF SOLAR OR WIND POWER TECHNOLOGIES. They threaten nobody ongoing! Nuclear can't say that.
When dishonest faggots like you try to pretend the likelihood of morons falling off their roof proves industry-investment-dying nuclear power is somehow "safer" than anything else, you know you've hit rock bottom of the slag pool.
To date, 440 workers have died installing solar panels. 150 have died installing wind turbines on windmills. Do you ever get tired of being wrong? And since those sources provide fuck all worth of power, when you divide to calculate deaths by terawatt hour you get that solar kills several times more people than nuclear. But yea, do go on and give us your completely uninformed opinion and continue to insist your guesses are equal to data and years of experience in the field.
Years from now, after nuclear finally gets us off of fossil fuels, how do you think your children or grandchildren will think of environmentalists from now? I bet that years from now, historians will lump you in with anti-vaxers (pro-plaguers), flat earthers and Trumpers. All of those groups deny basic data and facts and do so in the fact of that information for years. All of those groups have leaders who know that they are wrong and only care about that sweet, sweet donation money. Do you think the folks that run environmental lobbying groups actually want a solution to climate change? Don't get in the way of that money train dear.
There is very little point arguing about Nuclear power from an idealistic viewpoint. To idealize that nuclear power is perfect and requires no improvements means that the nuclear industry cannot evolve legal requirements for new processes. This, according to the official report into the Fukushima accident, is the main reason the disaster occurred.
Nuclear engineers want to build newer and safer designs. Nobody says nuclear doesn't need improvement. The problem is two fold: 1) newer designs need new regulations, 2) no politician wants to be on the hook for being the person to change nuclear regulations. Also, the standard for nuclear is perfection from the public's viewpoint. It shouldn't be, that's a dangerous and spurious standard as it will cause 10,000s of deaths (at least) making up for that power some other way that causes more harm (even if its workers falling from roofs or windmills).
Yeh, damn NIMBY's causing Fukushima with their pseudo-regulatory barriers.
Solar's also dangerous! What if a solar panel fell and landed on a bird, it could chop the bird in two!...
NIMBY's kill birds!
Ok, let's look at the facts. Lets just start with the total deaths per energy produced. So even with the bad old nuclear designs from the 50s to 70s that we currently use are better than any other energy source. Even with that very few people want to build more BWR or RBMK's. Most scientists and engineers want to build MSRs but to build a nuclear plant you have to follow regulations that written for LWRs and BWRs. For instance, you have to have a Boron system in your nuclear plant by regulation. The Boron system is used to prevent water from splitting into H2 and O2 gasses in a high radiation environment. If too much gas builds up it explodes. So its a good regulation. Except MSRs don't use water for a coolant so there is no Boron system in an MSR. So technically, a MSR plant which can't meltdown and doesn't require external power isn't legal in the US. So an elected official(s) needs to change the regulations but nobody is willing to be the person who changes nuclear regulation due to the NIMBYs. So we have a design that we have been able to build for 60 years, can't meltdown and by any measure is far safer than the LWR and BWRs we are still building. Do you see any MSRs being built?
Consider this, have any of you ever seen an engineering situation where making something a political issue causes better decisions to be made? I doubt it, I never have and you probably haven't either. Making energy production a political issue is just the same as getting the VP of Marketing to choose which web framework you use. We've had a solution that works for decades and instead we delay and promise unicorns which never exist. Your arguments are largely out of ignorance. You probably know about your chosen profession but you clearly don't work in energy. You are expressing your largely uninformed opinions about a subject you haven't spent time researching deeply. And that causes you to believe things that just aren't so and often violate basic principles of physics. But energy production is about physics and physics alone and doesn't give a shit about what you wish was so. Perhaps it would be better to leave these topics to experts but as long as this is a political issue, I don't expect any progress.
Or complexity has a cost. So if you want a good desktop that works on lots of hardware with few bugs you make the entire stack simpler or provide more dev and QA resources. How hard is that? Adding yet another package manager, nope. Adding some weird gesture features nobody uses, nope. Making the desktop more configurable, nope. Testing and bug fixing yes. Refactoring yes. Removing unnecessarily complex libraries and abstractions yes.
Windows is FAR buggier than any Linux distro I have ever used.
Agreed.
The type of driver issue you're making up is a joke.
And this is why it doesn't seem to matter because you blame the user first. Yes PEBKAC is a real thing. This issue is also a real thing and has been for a long time. Your tribalism is showing...
It's been a good 10 years since you explored Linux, right? I've had none of these troubles with Debian, Ubuntu, or their many flavors.
And I disagree with Linus. The strength of linux is the different flavors. If you want an easy to use disro, there are many out there. If you want one where you have more control, there are some out there as well.
All the examples I gave were from the last year on an older but still maintained Ubuntu distro.
But you understand that most distros' users use *precompiled* drivers, desktop environments, programs? Right?
No. You are wrong. It depends on the driver. Many drivers release source code that is compiled dynamically against the newly installed kernel headers. Nvidia among others does this. Also, often the binary only drivers you reference break quite often. Finding workarounds by writing kernel patches against changing kernel code which isn't moving in lockstep with you is time consuming and difficult. And the hardware vendors often do nothing to help and release shit docs that can easily be out of date with whatever hardware your users have. Its much harder than you seem to think. And I haven't even mentioned keeping all your Python code that ties together the desktop itself with all those applications which are rev'ing to yet another release cycle that has nothing to do with the kernel's or your release cycle. Oh, and there was another security flaw due to Intel that now means we have hurry the release. All of that adds up to a lot of developer (and QA) time. And the limited amount of dev and QA time is the problem in the first place. Being more economical with dev time will produce better results...not sure we are doing much towards that goal though.
... again (the guy is just an computer nerd: he's views on the real life are, mostly, laughable)
Yes, because the average user wants their desktop to break when they update their OS because their nvidia driver didn't compile correctly because someone thought it was a good idea to rev the GCC version and they GCC folks thought it would be a good idea to enable some weird compiler check from 1997 that nobody in the C/C++ world knows about because this the first time it was implemented. Sigh, any little amount of customization on your desktop and you likely run into a bunch of weird problems that pop up because nobody tested this specific set of of hardware and software configurations. Standards help with those issues but nothing can fix everything and these are all just patched for the core problem. Most distros just don't have the (QA) resources to test and maintain a complex software stack in a modern OS. And when some dumb 25 yro kid decides the problem is in how packages are installed (clearly indicating that they know nothing about the core problems caused by complexity) all they do is increase the workload of the developers. The core problem is that there isn't enough developer time put into bug fixing and testing. Thus the solution only makes the problem worse.
Your comment illustrates the core problem here. You seem to think you have some sort of insight into the problem when there is no real reason for you to believe this. You so overestimate your understanding as to propose and implement "solutions" that do nothing to fix the problem (in this case even making it worse) but you got to put that you work on an opensource project on your CV so who cares. The fact that the world would be a better place without your efforts never enters your mind. Either help out (by learning about how hard it is to keep a distro working it the face of a shifting set software projects that are rarely working together) or fuck off. Linus has likely done more to help others in the last 24 hours than you will do in your entire life and your sad little attempt to tear him down says more about you than Linus.
The complexity of autonomous vehicles is immense, especially since the general public and regulators are expecting them to be better at making decisions and safer than human drivers.
While the complexity is immense, it wouldn't surprise me at all if autonomous vehicles are already safer than human drivers. There are two problems, though: (1) there are still many bad human drivers on the road, and (2) the general public and regulators aren't just expecting the autonomous vehicles to be safer than humans, they're unrealistically expecting them to be perfect drivers while being forced to share the road with human drivers.
That's kinda what I meant. It's more about perception than reality. It wouldn't surprise me either if they were already safer. But the perception is that unless they're perfect, they're not safer.
The insurance companies will disagree and they will get their way. They have lobbyists, you don't. As long as it lowers the accident rate (and more importantly the total amount of claims), the technology will get pushed.
Could you code a computer to avoid a child running in the road?
Its called Computer Vision. You just need to make sure these types of hazards are in the training set. And then you need to make the system works better (has a lower error rate) than a human could in the same situation.
Could you code a computer to stay in it's lane during a blizzard when the lane lines are obscured?
Its called radar. Its better than your eyes. There is also lidar but that doesn't work as well in the snow.
Could you code a computer to steer out of a skid on black ice?
Can you? I would bet even Uber's shitty system could do it better than most humans. And again, that's the standard, not perfection.
Could you code a computer to drive in pea soup fog when the sensors are blinded?
Again, its called radar. And the car would do it better than a human in such a situation. Also, clearly you don't understand how these systems are constructed. Its not a bunch of biz logic deployed in your shitty web framework, its a sophisticated ML and computer vision system. Just because you can code a website doesn't mean you understand how these types of AI systems work.
I have a "math issue" that has stumped most of my professors and online math forums. Linear regression typically uses the "least squares" algorithm. However, the power of 2 seems arbitrary to me, and possibly over-emphasizes outliers.
One professor at first said that the power of 2 makes the "best fit" in an objective sense, but later admitted that he doesn't really know, and couldn't find an answer before the end of the semester.
While it is true that the power of 2 may simplify the computation process*, that doesn't necessarily means it produces a better result in terms of line or curve fitting. Now that we have computers to do the number crunching, perhaps it's time to embrace arbitrary or different powers (superscripts).
(Disclaimer, I'm not a math expert.)
* In other words, power-of-2 produces the simplest known algorithm. But my question revolves around best data fit, not computational resources nor algorithm or formula brevity. Note that when using other powers, one may have to add an absolute value function because power-of-2 automatically provides the equivalent. I actually did a simulation that tested different powers; "blurring" known datasets and seeing which power best matched the original. I couldn't find any significant difference, but probably didn't try enough samples. I tested with fractional powers also, such as 1.5, 2.5, etc.
Those other exponents probably also work. That term is just to help estimate the slope but any exponent > 1 would likely work there. Its just that its impractical for a variety of reasons including the fact that linear regression is just too simple a model for anything but the simplest use cases. Other techniques which aren't built upon linear regression are used instead so nobody studies this. You very well might be right about outliers for some use cases but it doesn't matter as other techniques are already much better than your minor improvement to a model that's rarely used in practice due to its extreme simplicity.
The messed up notation by Newton is not used and instead the much saner stuff from Riemann is used. Newton was smart, but a hack and a crank. And he tried to suppress Riemann notation. Mathematics would probably have done better without Newton.
Riemann lived 2 centuries after Newton. And your conclusions aren't correct, they aren't even wrong!!!
When I visited the US the first time, 2 years ago, it reminded me of traveling back to the 80ies. It seriously felt as if nothing changed after that. I thought it was cute and quaint.
Everything pointed to the fact that it was done for the companies and the business and nothing for the people by the people.
What you were seeing is that all US cities have some buildings and infrastructure that is still standing from before 1945. EU cities by and large don't have those. If they have old buildings, its because it was the rare thing not destroyed in the war and usually is turned into a tourist attraction somehow. Same with telephone poles and wired communications. The rest of the world built theirs later and hence it works better. Also, almost all the technology (and money) used to rebuild those European cities came from the US. So don't be shitty because we could have told you to go fuck yourself after the war and rebuilt our own cities and infrastructure instead. But since we knew you would just devolve into another war if we did that, and this time one of your counties might actually be able to build a nuke; we thought better of it.
Human agency and oversight: "AI systems should enable equitable societies by supporting human agency and fundamental rights, and not decrease, limit or misguide human autonomy."
This seems to be a weird EU version of don't decrease human liberty. Whether a specific AI system obeys this is something you can never get everyone to agree upon. To some, self-driving cars without steering wheels violate this principle. Not sure I agree with that but some will see it that way.
Robustness and safety: "Trustworthy AI requires algorithms to be secure, reliable and robust enough to deal with errors or inconsistencies during all life cycle phases of AI systems."
Most software systems don't do this for predictable deterministic tasks. All ML algorithms have a built in error rate. Its part of the math. Hell, most humans aren't capable of this when performing many AI tasks.
Privacy and data governance: "Citizens should have full control over their own data, while data concerning them will not be used to harm or discriminate against them."
Would be nice. Needs open standards to work. Won't happen because politicians, lawyers and CEOs don't understand software.
Transparency: "The traceability of AI systems should be ensured."
No ML or RL algorithm in common use does this.
Diversity, non-discrimination and fairness: "AI systems should consider the whole range of human abilities, skills and requirements, and ensure accessibility."
If the dataset is biased, then the prediction will be biased. Its math. Don't blame AI when its just reflecting human society. And AI can't fix human society either, that's our job. Quit blaming technology for human failings.
Societal and environmental well-being: "AI systems should be used to enhance positive social change and enhance sustainability and ecological responsibility."
Eh, so no use of AI for companies in finance. I'm sure that will have a positive effect on your banks in the global financial markets.
Accountability: "Mechanisms should be put in place to ensure responsibility and accountability for AI systems and their outcomes."
Finally, a good one. But it should be extended to anyone who sells or rents software is responsible for the quality of the software and for losses that incur for its problems. That's a better one...
This entire framework judges AI incorrectly. The standard isn't perfection. Its better than the humans hired to do the job can do. It would be better if the same standards applied to AI computer systems and humans. That reaches the EU's goal with fewer lawyers.
At least these schemes solve solars problem of storage. (maybe no idea how these schemes will deal with being operated intermittently)
No, no they don't. All those schemes are based on nuclear but they just don't tell you that. The only way any of these technologies doesn't produce CO2 is if they use nuclear. Solar and wind are far far far to energy sparse (ie not energy dense) to provide enough heat to power these processes. If you were to try to use wind or solar you would create more CO2 moving and heating the water or air than if you just used natural gas to power the process. Not to mention the land you would have to clear for the wind and solar plants (you can't just use solar cells, you would need a solar concentrator like Ivanpah). If you used fossil fuels, that would be self defeating as you would use more fuel than you produce. These systems are about what you can do with nuclear. Without nuclear they are interesting curiosities with no use. That's why nothing has been done with them even though we've be able to do these types of chemical processes for decades in some cases.
My TED Talk would be about literally how easy it would be for the US and Canada to meet and exceed the Paris Accords, achieving 100 percent Renewable Power for electricity by 2025, removing all fossil fuel infrastructure depreciation, deductions, and exclusions, and literally MAKE MONEY and save US and Canadian taxpayers money by doing it.
Step by step.
I'd like to thank Capilano University and the University of Washington for the scientific, business, and economic education that made that possible, of course. And another alumnus for getting me started on this path when she made me realize why paper recycling programs weren't doing well - by bringing it back to supply and demand, and allowing me to see a lot of what drives this is literally capital formation and assumptions of risk by the public for actions that cause damage to us.
I'm burning mod points to post this but I just can't let this go by. A huge part of the problem with security is IT itself. We have learned that long passwords are good and use of weird characters (numbers, capital letters, punct, etc) are bad. Plus most users shouldn't be required to know more than 2 passwords (normal and maybe an elevated one). But many IT personal keep with the same broken password policies from the past that we now know are bad. If you still use these outdated and problematic password policies, you can't blame the users, IT is still at fault...
Australia, NZ, Argentina, Chile are all decent places to live and have over 30 paid days of time off per year by law. This isn't only in Europe -- this is most of the non-US world. Not everyone wants to "take over the world". Some of us just want to live comfortably and have some fun while we're here.
You clearly don't know the history of Argentina or Chile then. And Nordic countries with large nationalized oil funds to pay for expansive social programs are nice if you can get them but unless your country is lucky enough to have those properties, its likely that their policies won't work for you like you (all of us really) wish they might.
If you said "I'll tell people the bridge is defective unless you pay up", that would be extortion.
Which is why I didn't say that. The bug information will get out. Its already in the hands of an independent entity. And that's the nature of information with financial value. The casino is paying for knowing earlier and before potential attackers. They didn't pay up. What do you expect to happen next?
Here's the federal statute, 18 U.S. Code $â875 (d)
--... any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee
First, the researchers had already given the information to the casino, the casino was reneging on payment. The casino was a deadbeat who wasn't paying up. The researchers said, well we know about a bunch of other stuff and won't tell you before we release publicly since you are a deadbeat who doesn't pay their bills. And since you are a deadbeat who has exhausted their credit, we'll tell everyone else and nobody will tell you anything. That's not a threat, that's normal business practices. No pay, no play. A threat would be we'll steal all your money. Releasing publicly is the responsible behavior for security researchers. That this will open up the casino to every hacker on the planet is immaterial. And pointing that out isn't a threat. Pointing out that poking Mike Tyson in the chest while insulting his mother is likely to result in bodily harm isn't a threat. I think you are still confused as to what a threat is. The researchers have to release publicly, that's the responsible thing. If the casino doesn't pay all their security guards how long till they get robbed? Pointing that out isn't a threat. A threat is if you don't pay me, I'll rob you. Anything else is a gross twisting of the meaning of a threat.
While it's good that they can intercept ICBMs, I suspect the only thing this will accomplish is spurring the development of anti-interception ICBMs. Naturally, development on anti-anti-interception ICMBs. The perpetual development of intercept and anti-intercept technology will continue back and forth ad nauseam.
Did you maybe mean grandeur? I am not aware of any genocidal ambition on the part of Putin. Its not hard to believe he might hold some idea of racial superiority but I don't see him engaging in ethnic cleansing etc.
Let me introduce you to the Georgia-Russia War. A quick and nasty little bit of Russian military intervention. They are currently preparing the war crimes trials from this very short 5-day war. That's a bit quick for war crimes unless you really wanted to get rid of parts of the civilian population as a general principle. Then there is Russian takeover of Crimea and their intervention in Ukraine. I'm not sure many of the citizens of those places would agree with you. Ethnic tensions and playing on them is a major part of politics in that area of the world and Russia is no different.
With current Falcon 9 launch costs, orbital power is actually cost competitive. But it's new and unknown, so no one's going to take the risk until launch costs fall further or natural gas stops being so very cheap.
If you missed the Slashdot article a couple years back, PG&E actually worked up a serious proposal for orbital power to avoid NIMBY issues, but ultimately abandoned it because of NIMBY issues.
Citation you can see from space needed. I doubt PG&E abandoned it due to NIMBY unless it was concerns about the giant space death ray that the design calls for. PG&E only builds what the regulators tell them to build (or buy). And utilities like reliability and predictability and I'm not sure such a exotic scheme qualifies in the near future. Space is expensive (and dangerous) and there are lots of losses in harnessing energy (the second law of thermodynamics is a bitch). Its hard to see how orbital solar can compete but I haven't crunched the numbers on it yet. And finally, PG&E has been burned hard by just about every flash in the pan energy technology and I doubt that they are eager to try again right now.
Threatening to release it unless they pay you is extortion, a felony. At the federal level it carries a prison sentence of up to three years.
No, no it fucking isn't. If what you say was true, there would be no way to expose an employer who was putting their workers at risk as then you would be extorting your employer for better treatment. Blackmail is when I know you are fucking your neighbors dog and unless you pay me I will post pictures of the act. This is more like an engineer knowing a bridge is defective and telling people not to use it. The fact that that same action also makes the casino more likely to be hacked is irrelevant because they could be hacked by someone else anyway and its unlikely that this researcher is the only one who knows about a specific type of flaw. Also, the bug bounty program is a contract and the casino failed to live up to their own contract. And the real world corrective action will be taken anyway. Now that the black hats know this specific security system is defective, how long till all the casinos that use this specific system get hacked? I'm guessing inside the year.
I can't see how labor laws would enter into it, since the person has no employment relationship with the company. On the other hand, 'pay me or I'll make this information public' is almost the definition of blackmail. I feel like in any bug bounty situation, there should be a contract between the person and company before things go too far, to avoid situations like in the article. I'm not sure how to propose or negotiate such a contract while avoiding implications of blackmail.
That's not blackmail. Blackmail is I know you did something wrong and I will tell unless you pay me. This is more like a whistle-blower where you need their expertise to fix the problem. The researchers telling the public about the flaw is more akin to warning people that a bridge is defective. Also, there is an easy fix to this problem and somehow I think it will get used quite quickly against this casino. What idiots....
Slashdot Mirror
"So even with the bad old nuclear designs from the 50s to 70s that we currently use are better than any other energy source. " = HORSESHIT, moron! Falling off a roof is NOT A RESULT OF ANY POWER SOURCE yet is tabulated as one?
You are dumber than you ought to be given what you've invested time to know halfway. NOBODY DIED AS A RESULT OF SOLAR OR WIND POWER TECHNOLOGIES. They threaten nobody ongoing! Nuclear can't say that.
When dishonest faggots like you try to pretend the likelihood of morons falling off their roof proves industry-investment-dying nuclear power is somehow "safer" than anything else, you know you've hit rock bottom of the slag pool.
To date, 440 workers have died installing solar panels. 150 have died installing wind turbines on windmills. Do you ever get tired of being wrong? And since those sources provide fuck all worth of power, when you divide to calculate deaths by terawatt hour you get that solar kills several times more people than nuclear. But yea, do go on and give us your completely uninformed opinion and continue to insist your guesses are equal to data and years of experience in the field.
Years from now, after nuclear finally gets us off of fossil fuels, how do you think your children or grandchildren will think of environmentalists from now? I bet that years from now, historians will lump you in with anti-vaxers (pro-plaguers), flat earthers and Trumpers. All of those groups deny basic data and facts and do so in the fact of that information for years. All of those groups have leaders who know that they are wrong and only care about that sweet, sweet donation money. Do you think the folks that run environmental lobbying groups actually want a solution to climate change? Don't get in the way of that money train dear.
There is very little point arguing about Nuclear power from an idealistic viewpoint. To idealize that nuclear power is perfect and requires no improvements means that the nuclear industry cannot evolve legal requirements for new processes. This, according to the official report into the Fukushima accident, is the main reason the disaster occurred.
Nuclear engineers want to build newer and safer designs. Nobody says nuclear doesn't need improvement. The problem is two fold: 1) newer designs need new regulations, 2) no politician wants to be on the hook for being the person to change nuclear regulations. Also, the standard for nuclear is perfection from the public's viewpoint. It shouldn't be, that's a dangerous and spurious standard as it will cause 10,000s of deaths (at least) making up for that power some other way that causes more harm (even if its workers falling from roofs or windmills).
Yeh, damn NIMBY's causing Fukushima with their pseudo-regulatory barriers. Solar's also dangerous! What if a solar panel fell and landed on a bird, it could chop the bird in two!...
NIMBY's kill birds!
Ok, let's look at the facts. Lets just start with the total deaths per energy produced. So even with the bad old nuclear designs from the 50s to 70s that we currently use are better than any other energy source. Even with that very few people want to build more BWR or RBMK's. Most scientists and engineers want to build MSRs but to build a nuclear plant you have to follow regulations that written for LWRs and BWRs. For instance, you have to have a Boron system in your nuclear plant by regulation. The Boron system is used to prevent water from splitting into H2 and O2 gasses in a high radiation environment. If too much gas builds up it explodes. So its a good regulation. Except MSRs don't use water for a coolant so there is no Boron system in an MSR. So technically, a MSR plant which can't meltdown and doesn't require external power isn't legal in the US. So an elected official(s) needs to change the regulations but nobody is willing to be the person who changes nuclear regulation due to the NIMBYs. So we have a design that we have been able to build for 60 years, can't meltdown and by any measure is far safer than the LWR and BWRs we are still building. Do you see any MSRs being built?
Consider this, have any of you ever seen an engineering situation where making something a political issue causes better decisions to be made? I doubt it, I never have and you probably haven't either. Making energy production a political issue is just the same as getting the VP of Marketing to choose which web framework you use. We've had a solution that works for decades and instead we delay and promise unicorns which never exist. Your arguments are largely out of ignorance. You probably know about your chosen profession but you clearly don't work in energy. You are expressing your largely uninformed opinions about a subject you haven't spent time researching deeply. And that causes you to believe things that just aren't so and often violate basic principles of physics. But energy production is about physics and physics alone and doesn't give a shit about what you wish was so. Perhaps it would be better to leave these topics to experts but as long as this is a political issue, I don't expect any progress.
To sum up... simplifying makes things simpler. ok
Or complexity has a cost. So if you want a good desktop that works on lots of hardware with few bugs you make the entire stack simpler or provide more dev and QA resources. How hard is that? Adding yet another package manager, nope. Adding some weird gesture features nobody uses, nope. Making the desktop more configurable, nope. Testing and bug fixing yes. Refactoring yes. Removing unnecessarily complex libraries and abstractions yes.
Windows is FAR buggier than any Linux distro I have ever used.
Agreed.
The type of driver issue you're making up is a joke.
And this is why it doesn't seem to matter because you blame the user first. Yes PEBKAC is a real thing. This issue is also a real thing and has been for a long time. Your tribalism is showing...
It's been a good 10 years since you explored Linux, right? I've had none of these troubles with Debian, Ubuntu, or their many flavors.
And I disagree with Linus. The strength of linux is the different flavors. If you want an easy to use disro, there are many out there. If you want one where you have more control, there are some out there as well.
All the examples I gave were from the last year on an older but still maintained Ubuntu distro.
But you understand that most distros' users use *precompiled* drivers, desktop environments, programs? Right?
No. You are wrong. It depends on the driver. Many drivers release source code that is compiled dynamically against the newly installed kernel headers. Nvidia among others does this. Also, often the binary only drivers you reference break quite often. Finding workarounds by writing kernel patches against changing kernel code which isn't moving in lockstep with you is time consuming and difficult. And the hardware vendors often do nothing to help and release shit docs that can easily be out of date with whatever hardware your users have. Its much harder than you seem to think. And I haven't even mentioned keeping all your Python code that ties together the desktop itself with all those applications which are rev'ing to yet another release cycle that has nothing to do with the kernel's or your release cycle. Oh, and there was another security flaw due to Intel that now means we have hurry the release. All of that adds up to a lot of developer (and QA) time. And the limited amount of dev and QA time is the problem in the first place. Being more economical with dev time will produce better results...not sure we are doing much towards that goal though.
... again (the guy is just an computer nerd: he's views on the real life are, mostly, laughable)
Yes, because the average user wants their desktop to break when they update their OS because their nvidia driver didn't compile correctly because someone thought it was a good idea to rev the GCC version and they GCC folks thought it would be a good idea to enable some weird compiler check from 1997 that nobody in the C/C++ world knows about because this the first time it was implemented. Sigh, any little amount of customization on your desktop and you likely run into a bunch of weird problems that pop up because nobody tested this specific set of of hardware and software configurations. Standards help with those issues but nothing can fix everything and these are all just patched for the core problem. Most distros just don't have the (QA) resources to test and maintain a complex software stack in a modern OS. And when some dumb 25 yro kid decides the problem is in how packages are installed (clearly indicating that they know nothing about the core problems caused by complexity) all they do is increase the workload of the developers. The core problem is that there isn't enough developer time put into bug fixing and testing. Thus the solution only makes the problem worse.
Your comment illustrates the core problem here. You seem to think you have some sort of insight into the problem when there is no real reason for you to believe this. You so overestimate your understanding as to propose and implement "solutions" that do nothing to fix the problem (in this case even making it worse) but you got to put that you work on an opensource project on your CV so who cares. The fact that the world would be a better place without your efforts never enters your mind. Either help out (by learning about how hard it is to keep a distro working it the face of a shifting set software projects that are rarely working together) or fuck off. Linus has likely done more to help others in the last 24 hours than you will do in your entire life and your sad little attempt to tear him down says more about you than Linus.
While the complexity is immense, it wouldn't surprise me at all if autonomous vehicles are already safer than human drivers. There are two problems, though: (1) there are still many bad human drivers on the road, and (2) the general public and regulators aren't just expecting the autonomous vehicles to be safer than humans, they're unrealistically expecting them to be perfect drivers while being forced to share the road with human drivers.
That's kinda what I meant. It's more about perception than reality. It wouldn't surprise me either if they were already safer. But the perception is that unless they're perfect, they're not safer.
The insurance companies will disagree and they will get their way. They have lobbyists, you don't. As long as it lowers the accident rate (and more importantly the total amount of claims), the technology will get pushed.
Could you code a computer to avoid a child running in the road?
Its called Computer Vision. You just need to make sure these types of hazards are in the training set. And then you need to make the system works better (has a lower error rate) than a human could in the same situation.
Could you code a computer to stay in it's lane during a blizzard when the lane lines are obscured?
Its called radar. Its better than your eyes. There is also lidar but that doesn't work as well in the snow.
Could you code a computer to steer out of a skid on black ice?
Can you? I would bet even Uber's shitty system could do it better than most humans. And again, that's the standard, not perfection.
Could you code a computer to drive in pea soup fog when the sensors are blinded?
Again, its called radar. And the car would do it better than a human in such a situation. Also, clearly you don't understand how these systems are constructed. Its not a bunch of biz logic deployed in your shitty web framework, its a sophisticated ML and computer vision system. Just because you can code a website doesn't mean you understand how these types of AI systems work.
I have a "math issue" that has stumped most of my professors and online math forums. Linear regression typically uses the "least squares" algorithm. However, the power of 2 seems arbitrary to me, and possibly over-emphasizes outliers.
One professor at first said that the power of 2 makes the "best fit" in an objective sense, but later admitted that he doesn't really know, and couldn't find an answer before the end of the semester.
While it is true that the power of 2 may simplify the computation process*, that doesn't necessarily means it produces a better result in terms of line or curve fitting. Now that we have computers to do the number crunching, perhaps it's time to embrace arbitrary or different powers (superscripts).
(Disclaimer, I'm not a math expert.)
* In other words, power-of-2 produces the simplest known algorithm. But my question revolves around best data fit, not computational resources nor algorithm or formula brevity. Note that when using other powers, one may have to add an absolute value function because power-of-2 automatically provides the equivalent. I actually did a simulation that tested different powers; "blurring" known datasets and seeing which power best matched the original. I couldn't find any significant difference, but probably didn't try enough samples. I tested with fractional powers also, such as 1.5, 2.5, etc.
Those other exponents probably also work. That term is just to help estimate the slope but any exponent > 1 would likely work there. Its just that its impractical for a variety of reasons including the fact that linear regression is just too simple a model for anything but the simplest use cases. Other techniques which aren't built upon linear regression are used instead so nobody studies this. You very well might be right about outliers for some use cases but it doesn't matter as other techniques are already much better than your minor improvement to a model that's rarely used in practice due to its extreme simplicity.
The messed up notation by Newton is not used and instead the much saner stuff from Riemann is used. Newton was smart, but a hack and a crank. And he tried to suppress Riemann notation. Mathematics would probably have done better without Newton.
Riemann lived 2 centuries after Newton. And your conclusions aren't correct, they aren't even wrong!!!
When I visited the US the first time, 2 years ago, it reminded me of traveling back to the 80ies. It seriously felt as if nothing changed after that. I thought it was cute and quaint.
Everything pointed to the fact that it was done for the companies and the business and nothing for the people by the people.
What you were seeing is that all US cities have some buildings and infrastructure that is still standing from before 1945. EU cities by and large don't have those. If they have old buildings, its because it was the rare thing not destroyed in the war and usually is turned into a tourist attraction somehow. Same with telephone poles and wired communications. The rest of the world built theirs later and hence it works better. Also, almost all the technology (and money) used to rebuild those European cities came from the US. So don't be shitty because we could have told you to go fuck yourself after the war and rebuilt our own cities and infrastructure instead. But since we knew you would just devolve into another war if we did that, and this time one of your counties might actually be able to build a nuke; we thought better of it.
Human agency and oversight: "AI systems should enable equitable societies by supporting human agency and fundamental rights, and not decrease, limit or misguide human autonomy."
This seems to be a weird EU version of don't decrease human liberty. Whether a specific AI system obeys this is something you can never get everyone to agree upon. To some, self-driving cars without steering wheels violate this principle. Not sure I agree with that but some will see it that way.
Robustness and safety: "Trustworthy AI requires algorithms to be secure, reliable and robust enough to deal with errors or inconsistencies during all life cycle phases of AI systems."
Most software systems don't do this for predictable deterministic tasks. All ML algorithms have a built in error rate. Its part of the math. Hell, most humans aren't capable of this when performing many AI tasks.
Privacy and data governance: "Citizens should have full control over their own data, while data concerning them will not be used to harm or discriminate against them."
Would be nice. Needs open standards to work. Won't happen because politicians, lawyers and CEOs don't understand software.
Transparency: "The traceability of AI systems should be ensured."
No ML or RL algorithm in common use does this.
Diversity, non-discrimination and fairness: "AI systems should consider the whole range of human abilities, skills and requirements, and ensure accessibility."
If the dataset is biased, then the prediction will be biased. Its math. Don't blame AI when its just reflecting human society. And AI can't fix human society either, that's our job. Quit blaming technology for human failings.
Societal and environmental well-being: "AI systems should be used to enhance positive social change and enhance sustainability and ecological responsibility."
Eh, so no use of AI for companies in finance. I'm sure that will have a positive effect on your banks in the global financial markets.
Accountability: "Mechanisms should be put in place to ensure responsibility and accountability for AI systems and their outcomes."
Finally, a good one. But it should be extended to anyone who sells or rents software is responsible for the quality of the software and for losses that incur for its problems. That's a better one...
This entire framework judges AI incorrectly. The standard isn't perfection. Its better than the humans hired to do the job can do. It would be better if the same standards applied to AI computer systems and humans. That reaches the EU's goal with fewer lawyers.
Korea https://economictimes.indiatim... Audi http://time.com/3837814/audi-e... When was the ONR renamed NRL ? https://www.smithsonianmag.com...
At least these schemes solve solars problem of storage. (maybe no idea how these schemes will deal with being operated intermittently)
No, no they don't. All those schemes are based on nuclear but they just don't tell you that. The only way any of these technologies doesn't produce CO2 is if they use nuclear. Solar and wind are far far far to energy sparse (ie not energy dense) to provide enough heat to power these processes. If you were to try to use wind or solar you would create more CO2 moving and heating the water or air than if you just used natural gas to power the process. Not to mention the land you would have to clear for the wind and solar plants (you can't just use solar cells, you would need a solar concentrator like Ivanpah). If you used fossil fuels, that would be self defeating as you would use more fuel than you produce. These systems are about what you can do with nuclear. Without nuclear they are interesting curiosities with no use. That's why nothing has been done with them even though we've be able to do these types of chemical processes for decades in some cases.
My TED Talk would be about literally how easy it would be for the US and Canada to meet and exceed the Paris Accords, achieving 100 percent Renewable Power for electricity by 2025, removing all fossil fuel infrastructure depreciation, deductions, and exclusions, and literally MAKE MONEY and save US and Canadian taxpayers money by doing it.
Step by step.
I'd like to thank Capilano University and the University of Washington for the scientific, business, and economic education that made that possible, of course. And another alumnus for getting me started on this path when she made me realize why paper recycling programs weren't doing well - by bringing it back to supply and demand, and allowing me to see a lot of what drives this is literally capital formation and assumptions of risk by the public for actions that cause damage to us.
Sooooooooooooo, nuclear power then?
Today's home computers DO come with a programming environment: the browser.
You may sneer at JavaScript but it's the easiest way to get started programming these days. Oh, and the skills you pick up may actually be marketable!
Until the next rev of the browser when all the weird tweeks you learned are now broken in different ways.
Stuff like PCI compliance means IT has no actual say in the matter.
I agree...bad password policies are still the root of the problem though. You can't fight human nature.
I'm burning mod points to post this but I just can't let this go by. A huge part of the problem with security is IT itself. We have learned that long passwords are good and use of weird characters (numbers, capital letters, punct, etc) are bad. Plus most users shouldn't be required to know more than 2 passwords (normal and maybe an elevated one). But many IT personal keep with the same broken password policies from the past that we now know are bad. If you still use these outdated and problematic password policies, you can't blame the users, IT is still at fault...
Australia, NZ, Argentina, Chile are all decent places to live and have over 30 paid days of time off per year by law. This isn't only in Europe -- this is most of the non-US world. Not everyone wants to "take over the world". Some of us just want to live comfortably and have some fun while we're here.
You clearly don't know the history of Argentina or Chile then. And Nordic countries with large nationalized oil funds to pay for expansive social programs are nice if you can get them but unless your country is lucky enough to have those properties, its likely that their policies won't work for you like you (all of us really) wish they might.
If you said "I'll tell people the bridge is defective unless you pay up", that would be extortion.
Which is why I didn't say that. The bug information will get out. Its already in the hands of an independent entity. And that's the nature of information with financial value. The casino is paying for knowing earlier and before potential attackers. They didn't pay up. What do you expect to happen next?
Here's the federal statute, 18 U.S. Code $â875 (d) -- ... any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee
First, the researchers had already given the information to the casino, the casino was reneging on payment. The casino was a deadbeat who wasn't paying up. The researchers said, well we know about a bunch of other stuff and won't tell you before we release publicly since you are a deadbeat who doesn't pay their bills. And since you are a deadbeat who has exhausted their credit, we'll tell everyone else and nobody will tell you anything. That's not a threat, that's normal business practices. No pay, no play. A threat would be we'll steal all your money. Releasing publicly is the responsible behavior for security researchers. That this will open up the casino to every hacker on the planet is immaterial. And pointing that out isn't a threat. Pointing out that poking Mike Tyson in the chest while insulting his mother is likely to result in bodily harm isn't a threat. I think you are still confused as to what a threat is. The researchers have to release publicly, that's the responsible thing. If the casino doesn't pay all their security guards how long till they get robbed? Pointing that out isn't a threat. A threat is if you don't pay me, I'll rob you. Anything else is a gross twisting of the meaning of a threat.
While it's good that they can intercept ICBMs, I suspect the only thing this will accomplish is spurring the development of anti-interception ICBMs. Naturally, development on anti-anti-interception ICMBs. The perpetual development of intercept and anti-intercept technology will continue back and forth ad nauseam.
Too late...Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles
delusions of genocide
Did you maybe mean grandeur? I am not aware of any genocidal ambition on the part of Putin. Its not hard to believe he might hold some idea of racial superiority but I don't see him engaging in ethnic cleansing etc.
Let me introduce you to the Georgia-Russia War. A quick and nasty little bit of Russian military intervention. They are currently preparing the war crimes trials from this very short 5-day war. That's a bit quick for war crimes unless you really wanted to get rid of parts of the civilian population as a general principle. Then there is Russian takeover of Crimea and their intervention in Ukraine. I'm not sure many of the citizens of those places would agree with you. Ethnic tensions and playing on them is a major part of politics in that area of the world and Russia is no different.
With current Falcon 9 launch costs, orbital power is actually cost competitive. But it's new and unknown, so no one's going to take the risk until launch costs fall further or natural gas stops being so very cheap.
If you missed the Slashdot article a couple years back, PG&E actually worked up a serious proposal for orbital power to avoid NIMBY issues, but ultimately abandoned it because of NIMBY issues.
Citation you can see from space needed. I doubt PG&E abandoned it due to NIMBY unless it was concerns about the giant space death ray that the design calls for. PG&E only builds what the regulators tell them to build (or buy). And utilities like reliability and predictability and I'm not sure such a exotic scheme qualifies in the near future. Space is expensive (and dangerous) and there are lots of losses in harnessing energy (the second law of thermodynamics is a bitch). Its hard to see how orbital solar can compete but I haven't crunched the numbers on it yet. And finally, PG&E has been burned hard by just about every flash in the pan energy technology and I doubt that they are eager to try again right now.
Threatening to release it unless they pay you is extortion, a felony. At the federal level it carries a prison sentence of up to three years.
No, no it fucking isn't. If what you say was true, there would be no way to expose an employer who was putting their workers at risk as then you would be extorting your employer for better treatment. Blackmail is when I know you are fucking your neighbors dog and unless you pay me I will post pictures of the act. This is more like an engineer knowing a bridge is defective and telling people not to use it. The fact that that same action also makes the casino more likely to be hacked is irrelevant because they could be hacked by someone else anyway and its unlikely that this researcher is the only one who knows about a specific type of flaw. Also, the bug bounty program is a contract and the casino failed to live up to their own contract. And the real world corrective action will be taken anyway. Now that the black hats know this specific security system is defective, how long till all the casinos that use this specific system get hacked? I'm guessing inside the year.
I can't see how labor laws would enter into it, since the person has no employment relationship with the company. On the other hand, 'pay me or I'll make this information public' is almost the definition of blackmail. I feel like in any bug bounty situation, there should be a contract between the person and company before things go too far, to avoid situations like in the article. I'm not sure how to propose or negotiate such a contract while avoiding implications of blackmail.
That's not blackmail. Blackmail is I know you did something wrong and I will tell unless you pay me. This is more like a whistle-blower where you need their expertise to fix the problem. The researchers telling the public about the flaw is more akin to warning people that a bridge is defective. Also, there is an easy fix to this problem and somehow I think it will get used quite quickly against this casino. What idiots....