i suggest you go back to school and get an education. learn(if you even have a brain) to argue using logic instead of trying hard to cover your ignorance and irrationality ( and even idiocy) with absurd statements.
- what i said- "it should be illegal for government employees to makes decisions about people, especially security related decisions that can alter lives of alleged 'suspects', based on a privately owned closed sourced database, whose methods are unknown, whose administrators are not accountable, and whose content cannot be questioned by those affected. "
now carefully compare that to what you quote and 'argue' against. see the missing parts? and also notice parts that you quoted, but clearly failed to comprehend, like inability question, that already make redundant your lame 'arguments'?
and also take a second look at the your absurdities (ie "You've proposed making it illegal for government employees to use books","Should it be illegal for a govt employee to read a magazine? Should it be illegal for an IRS auditor to see that while Bill Gates reported $0 income on his tax return, Forbes says he made $400 million dollars, and decide to look into that?", etc.) that you irrationally use to run from addressing what i specifically said.
if you can, do all that. otherwise, as i said get an education to think rationally before you reply.
but if you have no brain, of course you are free to continue with irrational idiocies, but i can't give you a brain. so i will treat you as you deserve; its fun to beat up the born idiots. lol
contrary to what you say, there was nothing new in my last comment, i said the same throughout in my objections here to public institutions using closed private data( including costly access and lack of ways to get 'suspect' names off), as everyone who can read see. but you chose to ignore what i said, and assumed absurdities as i pointed out above. now out of made up objections to what i said, you pretend to see "new criteria".
this more than "a bit icky". and you assume too much when you say absurd irrational things like " You've proposed making it illegal for government employees to use books". that is a clear sign of intellectual bankruptcy.
it should be illegal for government employees to makes decisions about people, especially security related decisions that can alter lives of alleged 'suspects', based on a privately owned closed sourced database, whose methods are unknown, whose administrators are not accountable, and whose content cannot be questioned by those affected.
do you agree? or will you again try to run from specifics of this (some of which i as outlined above )by ignoring the nature of this closed sourced data? you are free to be intellectually dishonest, in order to ignore specifics, and give up your freedom and support oppressive powers , but don't expect to convince others by such paltry methods. unlike you , they perhaps prefer to be rational and free.
since facebook, google, etc are nothing more than ad pushers, and size of ad audience is what matters, its time they allow standard ways to measure their regular daily users that can be independently verified. meanwhile media should stop unquestioningly parroting the worthless garbage numbers(like this "1.09 billion daily users") they spout out.
so you find there is nothing disturbing in public institutions using a privately owned database of 'suspects' to make decisions(presumably security related decisions that may have far reaching consequences for so called 'suspects' and others )? database where suspects status as such is arrived at using unknown, vague, and closed, methods and sources, by people who are unknown and answerable to private entities. meanwhile 'suspects' (ie potentially everyone) have no way of knowing their status in database, and if they know cannot do anything about it.
i find that disturbing and think it should be illegal.
but there are always people who are willing to be controlled, and are willing to give up their decision making power to others along with all their lives. you one?
that "over 300 government and intelligence agencies" use this corporate run database of suspects is disturbing.
how does one become a suspect? who investigates using what criteria? how can one get a name off?
etc etc
private individuals and corps can maintain lists of suspects if they want. but that public institutions use data, whose origin and processes are closed sourced, and costly too, to make decisions, is not good, and should be unlawful.
use algorithms, if we believe we can generalize and use statistics and averages, thinking that people are more or less robots, obeying instincts and influence of environment and society, without free will. on the other hand, if we believe that each individual is different and has free will, there cannot be anything but superficial use for generalizations and averages, and certainly no sentencing algorithms.
of course judges etc, who will sentence without algorithms can make mistakes, but that is the price of free will. right to make mistakes, even right to be unjust and be evil( as well as good and just). but it may be better than be considered mere robots.
it happens due to a copy and paste (from m$ word?) from somewhere and page encoding here. submitter probably don't see it. editors should check for that before moving the submission to main. that is what editors are for. they could automate the checks if they are lazy or forget.
these malware "contain malicious code capable secretly rooting an estimated 90 percent of all Android phones" well there are malware/viruses/etc that are "capable" of doing damage to lot more percentage of variety of computing devices running variety of software.
but they need to get installed/infected/whatever. but these seems not be all that successful, in that crucial step, even with apps in google store
so don't get too excited.
public warnings are ok, and beneficial . but screaming is too much.
let us hope nasa will waste lost of money trying out all the inefficient ways of making electric planes.
then hopefully russians will create cheap and effective electric planes that everyone (even the usa military ) can borrow, as they do with human space travel (again even usa military use russian rockets now ) .
meanwhile eion musk will blow lots of hype trying get his cronies in usa government to give him money to make electric planes too(especially ones that fly on social media to give his fanboys much needed orgasms). as with all his projects this will be a subsidy worthy cause, even without crony capitalism.
no fan of these companies, but freedom of speech should be absolute on principle. as long as a person does not engage in actual violence, or a legal crime. he/she should be able to do whatever they want(including violent speech).
but these companies have already given up on freedom of speech. they have set up and use, censors and moderators, against those who are not actually violent and are not criminals .
in this case also, they seem to defend by pointing out impracticality of monitoring their platforms, rather than standing by principle of not monitoring at all.
"radiated into space as gravitational waves" that statement was written by somebody who does not understand what he/she is talking about when using words like 'space' in this context, and probably watched some eye candy animation that used same kind of false imagery to explain this.
seems jack dorsey is in denial. his profitless, billions of dollar destroying, anti free speech, sjw ridden, company is a dead man walking. this investment, being embraced by a smelly rotting corpse, is bad for soundcloud.
"Napster has made a name for itself as being a brand synonymous with illegal music downloads." is that an intentional understatement or just plain ignorance?
in contrast, "rhapsody" !? what's that? seriously!
to state the obvious but not much mentioned fact, most of what are called tech companies are nothing more than ad pushers. everything else is secondary. all their tech and other hypes, and constant need to keep high media profile, is driven by that need to push ads through higher usage. that is why even most of the stories that appear here in slashdot about them are lacking in substance and highly exaggerated.
as market saturates they will push to the limit of ad tolerance of the users they have.
it is about time, that all stories and 'news' that come from or relate to these 'tech companies' be treated with extra level of skepticism. otherwise you are just helping them push ads, nothing more.
other comments have pointed out the terrible confused inaccurate content of the summery here. and in article, and the claims google is making about this.
there is no new technological breakthrough here, that " advances machine learning capability by a factor of three generations", instead this is another implementation of a, long known, trade off that increase computation power/capability by decreasing precision.
this is hyped as how to "process data in a way similar to our own brain cells"(while real brain cells continue to be a mystery btw) or "AI" (whatever that vague, and useless, term mean or does nor mean), etc etc.
fact that google, from very top down, felt the need to hype such things, in totally exaggerated and inappropriate way, does tell something; google is in trouble new technology wise.
apart from privacy aspect, there is a property ownership aspect to facebok's use of information about users.
facebook ( and google and other so called social media) are primarily ad sellers. they sell ads with help of content created by users for users(themselves and others), which is different from say tv or newspapers which create/buy content to sell ads. shouldn't users have a right to monetize the content that is being used by facebook etc? shouldn't they have a cut from ad revenue same way tv program makers or reporters for newspapers?
and shouldn't users have right not to sell money making content, which is their property, without receiving payment?
while how courts will view the privacy concerns of users are uncertain, i think law will come on the side of users on the ownership of their property in the end.
few years down the road, facebook and google or their successors probably will end up with very thin margins.
seems to be in too much of a hurry. why not demonstrate this with synthetic animal/plant genomes first.
and drop the "to grow human organs for transplantation" whitewash. that is not the only use, if this can be done. they are promising and planning stuff too early and rather dishonestly. as with embryonic stem cells.
scientists should develop the technology for itself, without broadcasting either selective benefits, or hiding possible abuses. leave that to people who will make the political and legal decisions; public, politicians judges, philosophers, etc
there is over supply due to lower demand from copper mines. that does not mean cost of production is zero. they are simply selling at a loss, because demand dried up. if this is not temporary, they will stop producing.
as such this is not a good example advocating increasing sustainable solar energy.
but this sort of thing shouldn't be used to justify tracking, and invasions of privacy, of people who have not explicitly authorized facebook and other techs to track them.
but i am afraid they will be so used. be prepared hear more stories like this.
wonder if criminal and his lawyers(in this case probably cheap or free ones) fully used his legal defenses to invalidate evidence.
"Pro-life is more likely to be pro-death (penalty)"," A pro-choice person is more likely to support condom distribution and use," when out of rational arguments, use logical fallacy of speculated association. huh? and clearly confused speculations too. for instance, anti abortion Catholic church is against condoms, but is also against death penalty. others, i for one, is other way around on those two issues, but still pro-life on abortions. so leave out "more likely" speculative associations, and stick to issue.
"Anti-choice is about power and control (and punishment), not the baby." well pro-life/anti-abortion is about the baby, and its lack of choice, and its murder through free decisions and choices of those on whom it depends for life..
so more appropriate words to two main sides of abortion issue are "pro choice" and "pro life", also, "pro abortion " and "anti abortion"
writing lengthy comments with logical errors and distortions of science, does not make your false claims, "plants are carbon neutral","all plants get eaten", true. they are not. fact that CO2 level in atmosphere changed little (btw that is not, no change) over few centuries, is not the same as plants are carbon neutral. you seem to think they are the same.
climate and biological systems are highly complex and interlinked in variety of ways. you are just focusing on 1 thing and making false claims about it.
nor are these systems ever stable. they are always dynamic. and adjust to changes constantly. as you yourself admit, both atmosphere, and types and proportion of animals and plants differed widely over time(even shorter periods of time than your millions of years). climate passed through many changes(again within shorter periods too). and all of that still happens as we write. even drastic changes happened over centuries gradually but delectably.
why are you focused on millions of years, since there is no need to recreate fossil fuels to remove CO2? that is why i asked from 1st "why do you want it back as fossil fuels?".
to achieve catastrophic dissolution of systems ("scorching earth") there needs sudden and high impact changes, like burning all the fossil fuels within a short time. that is alarmist nonsense. however gradual changes spread over few centuries will result in gradual changes without catastrophe, as in past. necessary changes do not take millions of years but few centuries. if changes in one direction happen in such a time frame, changes in other directions(some of them replays of past conditions) can also happen in similar time frame.
and the fact that plants remove CO2 from atmosphere and not all of it get back to atmosphere (contrary to what you say) will play a part in those changes. as will types and spread of plants and organic matter that result from changes in climate ( and like the burning of fuel some of it may even be man created changes) but all that is complex, and needs boring real science, and do not make for alarmist slogans and sensationalism.
btw there never was a stable climate , and only ignorant want it stabilized .
as i said from start, rational case for a sustainable climate, and for less fossil fuel use, cannot be made by peddling alarmist ignorant nonsense and patently false claims .
why do you keep parroting the false claims that "plants are carbon neutral" and "all plants get eaten"? repeating nonsense and contradictory statements will not make them right. admit your mistake.
btw animals/organisms who do the eating and decomposition do not have to be "immortal", for carbon that got removed from atmosphere by plants to remain removed. use logic, if you can.
>ignorant much ? You should take a look in the mirror.
so should you.
Plants are carbon neutral. Every single atom of carbon a plant removes from the air with photosynthesis gets bonded back with Oxygen and turned back into CO2.
wrong and wrong . and further more, even plants that do get eaten transfer some of the carbon to another organic material, not air. so on and on.
to repeat, ignorance and irrational alarmist nonsense like this story and your absurd arguments in support, are not the way to make the case for a sustainable climate, and for less fossil fuel use.
Slashdot Mirror
i suggest you go back to school and get an education. learn(if you even have a brain) to argue using logic instead of trying hard to cover your ignorance and irrationality ( and even idiocy) with absurd statements.
-
what i said-
"it should be illegal for government employees to makes decisions about people, especially security related decisions that can alter lives of alleged 'suspects', based on a privately owned closed sourced database, whose methods are unknown, whose administrators are not accountable, and whose content cannot be questioned by those affected. "
now carefully compare that to what you quote and 'argue' against. see the missing parts?
and also notice parts that you quoted, but clearly failed to comprehend, like inability question, that already make redundant your lame 'arguments'?
and also take a second look at the your absurdities (ie "You've proposed making it illegal for government employees to use books","Should it be illegal for a govt employee to read a magazine? Should it be illegal for an IRS auditor to see that while Bill Gates reported $0 income on his tax return, Forbes says he made $400 million dollars, and decide to look into that?", etc.) that you irrationally use to run from addressing what i specifically said.
if you can, do all that.
otherwise, as i said get an education to think rationally before you reply.
but if you have no brain, of course you are free to continue with irrational idiocies, but i can't give you a brain.
so i will treat you as you deserve; its fun to beat up the born idiots. lol
contrary to what you say, there was nothing new in my last comment, i said the same throughout in my objections here to public institutions using closed private data( including costly access and lack of ways to get 'suspect' names off), as everyone who can read see. but you chose to ignore what i said, and assumed absurdities as i pointed out above.
now out of made up objections to what i said, you pretend to see "new criteria".
this more than "a bit icky".
and you assume too much when you say absurd irrational things like " You've proposed making it illegal for government employees to use books". that is a clear sign of intellectual bankruptcy.
it should be illegal for government employees to makes decisions about people, especially security related decisions that can alter lives of alleged 'suspects', based on a privately owned closed sourced database, whose methods are unknown, whose administrators are not accountable, and whose content cannot be questioned by those affected.
do you agree?
or will you again try to run from specifics of this (some of which i as outlined above )by ignoring the nature of this closed sourced data?
you are free to be intellectually dishonest, in order to ignore specifics, and give up your freedom and support oppressive powers , but don't expect to convince others by such paltry methods. unlike you , they perhaps prefer to be rational and free.
since facebook, google, etc are nothing more than ad pushers, and size of ad audience is what matters, its time they allow standard ways to measure their regular daily users that can be independently verified. meanwhile media should stop unquestioningly parroting the worthless garbage numbers(like this "1.09 billion daily users") they spout out.
so you find there is nothing disturbing in public institutions using a privately owned database of 'suspects' to make decisions(presumably security related decisions that may have far reaching consequences for so called 'suspects' and others )? database where suspects status as such is arrived at using unknown, vague, and closed, methods and sources, by people who are unknown and answerable to private entities. meanwhile 'suspects' (ie potentially everyone) have no way of knowing their status in database, and if they know cannot do anything about it.
i find that disturbing and think it should be illegal.
but there are always people who are willing to be controlled, and are willing to give up their decision making power to others along with all their lives. you one?
that "over 300 government and intelligence agencies" use this corporate run database of suspects is disturbing.
how does one become a suspect? who investigates using what criteria? how can one get a name off?
etc etc
private individuals and corps can maintain lists of suspects if they want. but that public institutions use data, whose origin and processes are closed sourced, and costly too, to make decisions, is not good, and should be unlawful.
use algorithms, if we believe we can generalize and use statistics and averages, thinking that people are more or less robots, obeying instincts and influence of environment and society, without free will.
on the other hand, if we believe that each individual is different and has free will, there cannot be anything but superficial use for generalizations and averages, and certainly no sentencing algorithms.
of course judges etc, who will sentence without algorithms can make mistakes, but that is the price of free will. right to make mistakes, even right to be unjust and be evil( as well as good and just). but it may be better than be considered mere robots.
lots of knowledgeable people hate or dislike javascript, and have done so from the start, and give excellent reasons for their hate and dislike.
but it has succeeded in spite of them and these reasons, and is more or less an indispensable part of modern on-line world currently.
why? what did these 'knowledgeable' people missed or still miss when evaluating it?
it happens due to a copy and paste (from m$ word?) from somewhere and page encoding here.
submitter probably don't see it.
editors should check for that before moving the submission to main. that is what editors are for. they could automate the checks if they are lazy or forget.
these malware "contain malicious code capable secretly rooting an estimated 90 percent of all Android phones"
well there are malware/viruses/etc that are "capable" of doing damage to lot more percentage of variety of computing devices running variety of software.
but they need to get installed/infected/whatever.
but these seems not be all that successful, in that crucial step, even with apps in google store
so don't get too excited.
public warnings are ok, and beneficial . but screaming is too much.
let us hope nasa will waste lost of money trying out all the inefficient ways of making electric planes.
then hopefully russians will create cheap and effective electric planes that everyone (even the usa military ) can borrow, as they do with human space travel (again even usa military use russian rockets now ) .
meanwhile eion musk will blow lots of hype trying get his cronies in usa government to give him money to make electric planes too(especially ones that fly on social media to give his fanboys much needed orgasms). as with all his projects this will be a subsidy worthy cause, even without crony capitalism.
no fan of these companies, but freedom of speech should be absolute on principle.
as long as a person does not engage in actual violence, or a legal crime. he/she should be able to do whatever they want(including violent speech).
but these companies have already given up on freedom of speech. they have set up and use, censors and moderators, against those who are not actually violent and are not criminals .
in this case also, they seem to defend by pointing out impracticality of monitoring their platforms, rather than standing by principle of not monitoring at all.
"radiated into space as gravitational waves"
that statement was written by somebody who does not understand what he/she is talking about when using words like 'space' in this context, and probably watched some eye candy animation that used same kind of false imagery to explain this.
seems jack dorsey is in denial. his profitless, billions of dollar destroying, anti free speech, sjw ridden, company is a dead man walking.
this investment, being embraced by a smelly rotting corpse, is bad for soundcloud.
"Napster has made a name for itself as being a brand synonymous with illegal music downloads."
is that an intentional understatement or just plain ignorance?
in contrast,
"rhapsody" !?
what's that? seriously!
to state the obvious but not much mentioned fact, most of what are called tech companies are nothing more than ad pushers.
everything else is secondary.
all their tech and other hypes, and constant need to keep high media profile, is driven by that need to push ads through higher usage. that is why even most of the stories that appear here in slashdot about them are lacking in substance and highly exaggerated.
as market saturates they will push to the limit of ad tolerance of the users they have.
it is about time, that all stories and 'news' that come from or relate to these 'tech companies' be treated with extra level of skepticism. otherwise you are just helping them push ads, nothing more.
other comments have pointed out the terrible confused inaccurate content of the summery here. and in article, and the claims google is making about this.
there is no new technological breakthrough here, that " advances machine learning capability by a factor of three generations", instead this is another implementation of a, long known, trade off that increase computation power/capability by decreasing precision.
this is hyped as how to "process data in a way similar to our own brain cells"(while real brain cells continue to be a mystery btw) or "AI" (whatever that vague, and useless, term mean or does nor mean), etc etc.
fact that google, from very top down, felt the need to hype such things, in totally exaggerated and inappropriate way, does tell something; google is in trouble new technology wise.
apart from privacy aspect, there is a property ownership aspect to facebok's use of information about users.
facebook ( and google and other so called social media) are primarily ad sellers.
they sell ads with help of content created by users for users(themselves and others), which is different from say tv or newspapers which create/buy content to sell ads.
shouldn't users have a right to monetize the content that is being used by facebook etc? shouldn't they have a cut from ad revenue same way tv program makers or reporters for newspapers?
and shouldn't users have right not to sell money making content, which is their property, without receiving payment?
while how courts will view the privacy concerns of users are uncertain, i think law will come on the side of users on the ownership of their property in the end.
few years down the road, facebook and google or their successors probably will end up with very thin margins.
seems to be in too much of a hurry.
why not demonstrate this with synthetic animal/plant genomes first.
and drop the "to grow human organs for transplantation" whitewash. that is not the only use, if this can be done.
they are promising and planning stuff too early and rather dishonestly. as with embryonic stem cells.
scientists should develop the technology for itself, without broadcasting either selective benefits, or hiding possible abuses.
leave that to people who will make the political and legal decisions; public, politicians judges, philosophers, etc
there is over supply due to lower demand from copper mines.
that does not mean cost of production is zero.
they are simply selling at a loss, because demand dried up.
if this is not temporary, they will stop producing.
as such this is not a good example advocating increasing sustainable solar energy.
good that obviously guilty criminal is in prison.
but this sort of thing shouldn't be used to justify tracking, and invasions of privacy, of people who have not explicitly authorized facebook and other techs to track them.
but i am afraid they will be so used. be prepared hear more stories like this.
wonder if criminal and his lawyers(in this case probably cheap or free ones) fully used his legal defenses to invalidate evidence.
"Pro-life is more likely to be pro-death (penalty)"," A pro-choice person is more likely to support condom distribution and use,"
when out of rational arguments, use logical fallacy of speculated association. huh?
and clearly confused speculations too. for instance, anti abortion Catholic church is against condoms, but is also against death penalty. others, i for one, is other way around on those two issues, but still pro-life on abortions.
so leave out "more likely" speculative associations, and stick to issue.
"Anti-choice is about power and control (and punishment), not the baby."
well pro-life/anti-abortion is about the baby, and its lack of choice, and its murder through free decisions and choices of those on whom it depends for life..
so more appropriate words to two main sides of abortion issue are "pro choice" and "pro life", also, "pro abortion " and "anti abortion"
writing lengthy comments with logical errors and distortions of science, does not make your false claims, "plants are carbon neutral","all plants get eaten", true. they are not.
fact that CO2 level in atmosphere changed little (btw that is not, no change) over few centuries, is not the same as plants are carbon neutral. you seem to think they are the same.
climate and biological systems are highly complex and interlinked in variety of ways. you are just focusing on 1 thing and making false claims about it.
nor are these systems ever stable. they are always dynamic. and adjust to changes constantly. as you yourself admit, both atmosphere, and types and proportion of animals and plants differed widely over time(even shorter periods of time than your millions of years). climate passed through many changes(again within shorter periods too). and all of that still happens as we write. even drastic changes happened over centuries gradually but delectably.
why are you focused on millions of years, since there is no need to recreate fossil fuels to remove CO2? that is why i asked from 1st "why do you want it back as fossil fuels?".
to achieve catastrophic dissolution of systems ("scorching earth") there needs sudden and high impact changes, like burning all the fossil fuels within a short time. that is alarmist nonsense.
however gradual changes spread over few centuries will result in gradual changes without catastrophe, as in past. necessary changes do not take millions of years but few centuries. if changes in one direction happen in such a time frame, changes in other directions(some of them replays of past conditions) can also happen in similar time frame.
and the fact that plants remove CO2 from atmosphere and not all of it get back to atmosphere (contrary to what you say) will play a part in those changes. as will types and spread of plants and organic matter that result from changes in climate ( and like the burning of fuel some of it may even be man created changes)
but all that is complex, and needs boring real science, and do not make for alarmist slogans and sensationalism.
btw there never was a stable climate , and only ignorant want it stabilized .
as i said from start, rational case for a sustainable climate, and for less fossil fuel use, cannot be made by peddling alarmist ignorant nonsense and patently false claims .
why do you keep parroting the false claims that "plants are carbon neutral" and "all plants get eaten"?
repeating nonsense and contradictory statements will not make them right.
admit your mistake.
btw animals/organisms who do the eating and decomposition do not have to be "immortal", for carbon that got removed from atmosphere by plants to remain removed.
use logic, if you can.
>ignorant much ?
You should take a look in the mirror.
so should you.
Plants are carbon neutral. Every single atom of carbon a plant removes from the air with photosynthesis gets bonded back with Oxygen and turned back into CO2.
wrong and wrong .
and further more, even plants that do get eaten transfer some of the carbon to another organic material, not air. so on and on.
to repeat, ignorance and irrational alarmist nonsense like this story and your absurd arguments in support, are not the way to make the case for a sustainable climate, and for less fossil fuel use.