its usual to imagine, (generally, as well as in fiction, movies, tv shows etc), civilization collapse and end of the world as we know it, in dark violent apocalyptic(as in actual book of revelation) terms. in fact, real apocalypse may be rather boring slow decline, which has perhaps already started in west. in fact, there are historians, who think a new dark age has already begun in west, with low literacy, almost complete absence of knowledge of fruits and values of their own culture, its history, and subsistence level superficial lives totally dependent on government or big corps, of big majority of western population.
your comment and the main post imply the assumption that red tide is man made and unnatural. nature by itself can be "toxic", kill "fish, turtles and dolphins", "discourage tourism on some of the state's most beautiful beaches", can have an "acrid smell that can make you cough", prevent "usual swimming", etc etc it is impossible to be a true nature lover and not "look at the dead fish and the murky, slightly reddish-hued water" and other such things. only people living in an artificial bubble containing a man made fantasy of wholly harmful and wholly beneficial mother nature will think otherwise.
if any thing, preventing and removing the "red tide" is an example of man destroying natural environment for his own good.
apply a similar steep discounted valuation, to any apple product, to arrive at its true worth as a product. rest is hype and manipulation of herd behavior.
the important question is, will the so called "artificial intelligence" (in reality, a data analysis algorithm running on fast computing infrastructure, using fuzzy logic to arrive at faster good enough probabilistic solution, rather than harder best solution, to a problem) look at only data relating to candidates' competency about the job allied to? or will it look at other data too? "diversity" quotas of the employer, personal appearance and tact, social interaction and team work skills, etc? and how exactly?
what you call "assembly-line" mindset is not "archaic", ancient, medieval, or even victorian, it is "modern". and wrong headed.
But then who is going to warehouse these kids while their parents are at work for 8-10 hours a day.
most human societies worked out how to raise their kids, within an extended family, with gender based division of labor, over the millennia. but advocating that sort of thing, or merely pointing it out, would result in accusations of sexism, and go against the deification and incentivization of nuclear or single parent families.
facebook's business is selling user data, gathered in site and off site, in both open and sneaky ways, to third parties. they may alter their contracts and engage in spin campaigns giving the impression they wont, but they will still sell the data.
instead of vaguely pretending otherwise, facebook needs to admit it openly, and be open about the ways they gather and sell data, and about to whom they sell. they should also give users full access to data gathered about them. they should not gather data about people not registered with facebook.
in that case, it would be clear, if you choose to use facebook, you are giving zuck power to sell your data. and as long as 3rd parties pay for data and are acting legally, there is nothing wrong with such data being used for political or commercial campaigns.
"The original point was that Open Source alone solves it all." where did it say that?! it is clear you are confused as to what i said, and arguing with strawmen.
you know that manafort was charged with something totally unrelated to election, that happened years before election, right? again, you are free to be so desperate as to think and say it is connected, engage in wild speculations and conspiracy theories, and basically live on nothing but airy hope. that is the fate of people who lose in game of life. others, like me, who are no so situated, and live in reality, are free to place their trust on facts and reason.
that is all you got? lol. people receiving information after it was published? is that knowingly committing crimes? what next? podesta working for russians because he was stupid enough to got phished?
again does indictment says anything different when it is in some other site? facts are facts, wherever it is on. you are free to engage in absurd fact free ad hominem logical fallacies; they don't matter to anyone intelligent.
... want to make a guess at how many people understand "Fuzzy Logic"? Or for that matter, even deterministic processors?
what for? if people want to stay ignorant about who and what sees, recognizes, and monitors them . let them. my point is, if people don't want to stay ignorant, and want to guard against that , they should have access to the knowledge.
even if less than 1% understand how it is done in detail, that is still millions, and they can distill that knowledge to digestible forms for benefit of others, fact that only a few medical researchers understand everything about a certain virus, does not mean others do not want to be safe from deceases caused by that virus, and not want to act under the guidance of those who understand.
it is justice department press release about justice department's indictment of russian agents.
comment i was replying to, said there were "trump campaign personell" charged. that was wrong, as i said. do you agree i am right on that?
and justice department is specific "no indication that any American was a knowing participant in this activity," and could you point to pages in indictment where it names americans knowingly "working with those that committed crimes", as you imply it does.
you are free to speculate about future indictments with or (as in your case) without facts. same way, someone else may speculate, you and i, will be indicted in future as russian saboteurs of slashdot threads. lol.
everything you disagree is russian propaganda? even when it says russians are indicted? and googling is the way not to be "misinformed"? lol. - in any case i just pointed to what the indictment and rosenstein statement, with source. does indictment says anything different when it is in some other site? did i use opinion of the site, whatever its bias? - you are free to engage in ad hominem logical fallacies, i stick to actual words and facts.
to generalize, so called modern "AI" is just data analysis, running on deterministic processors, using fuzzy logic aimed getting imperfect faster approximate results, rather than perfect results(which in some problems, especially real life problems. is impossible or near that). as such what is done, is "knowable". there is no secret knowledge there. secrets are due to humans rather than process or technology
32 people were charged. 12 of those were GRU (russian) agents. 3 were trump campaign personell. Article does not say who/what the others are.
?! wrong. from zerohedge with screen shot of indictment - "... there is no indication that any American was a knowing participant in this activity, and no indication that these efforts altered the vote count in any way." https://www.zerohedge.com/site...
only way people can guard against abuse(and even just use) of facial recognition, is through knowing how it is done(where the cameras are, how the software works, what are details in database used) etc etc). government should stick to facilitating opening all those details to everyone. it should not act to regulate that knowledge, as it wants, including to its own uses, without opening it up.
given the rabid irrational and irrelevant, response to a valid point, that code breaking had only a minor part in winning the world war two, and as such title displays an ignorant and idiotic mindset, it is quite obvious which of the authors of above two comments have a brain. readers can judge the relevance of the political affiliations of each likewise, according to their own brain power.
seriously only the dumb will buy apple after this incident, which exposed even to the dumbest in very blatant fashion, what everyone with above average intelligence already knew, apple's total disrespect for its customer base.
apple buyers after this , and all who buy products that prevent repairs and battery changes, are born idiot losers by definition.
competing against large conglomerates venturing outside its core competences is not all that terrible as it appears. large corp almost always fails, there are lots and lots of business school case studies of such failures.
google in particular has poked its filthy little "do every evil" hands into all sorts of ventures(including warmongering and politics btw) outside its core of search and email/online office. and isn't profitable in any of them(even in andriod), and not even a loss making leader in most others. it also has record of dropping its ventures suddenly after some arbitrary time.
you seem to love your ability not to "agree" irrelevantly about vague terms like "religion" and "platform" . if you were more rational and informed, you would define those terms and then state your disagreement specifically in a forum that was discussing them. but to ask that from you would be unfair. huh?
Slashdot Mirror
its usual to imagine, (generally, as well as in fiction, movies, tv shows etc), civilization collapse and end of the world as we know it, in dark violent apocalyptic(as in actual book of revelation) terms.
in fact, real apocalypse may be rather boring slow decline, which has perhaps already started in west.
in fact, there are historians, who think a new dark age has already begun in west, with low literacy, almost complete absence of knowledge of fruits and values of their own culture, its history, and subsistence level superficial lives totally dependent on government or big corps, of big majority of western population.
your comment and the main post imply the assumption that red tide is man made and unnatural.
nature by itself can be "toxic", kill "fish, turtles and dolphins", "discourage tourism on some of the state's most beautiful beaches", can have an "acrid smell that can make you cough", prevent "usual swimming", etc etc
it is impossible to be a true nature lover and not "look at the dead fish and the murky, slightly reddish-hued water" and other such things. only people living in an artificial bubble containing a man made fantasy of wholly harmful and wholly beneficial mother nature will think otherwise.
if any thing, preventing and removing the "red tide" is an example of man destroying natural environment for his own good.
apply a similar steep discounted valuation, to any apple product, to arrive at its true worth as a product.
rest is hype and manipulation of herd behavior.
apple product user = herd animal with low agency
the important question is, will the so called "artificial intelligence" (in reality, a data analysis algorithm running on fast computing infrastructure, using fuzzy logic to arrive at faster good enough probabilistic solution, rather than harder best solution, to a problem) look at only data relating to candidates' competency about the job allied to? or will it look at other data too? "diversity" quotas of the employer, personal appearance and tact, social interaction and team work skills, etc? and how exactly?
its old. interest is dying with each launch.
which is what it should be, if this is going to be a successful commercial operation.
stable sustainable success is boring. risky novelty is interesting.
continuous volatility and excitement, indicates high risk of failure.
hardly anyone watch soyuz launches.
an archaic assembly-line mindset.
what you call "assembly-line" mindset is not "archaic", ancient, medieval, or even victorian, it is "modern". and wrong headed.
But then who is going to warehouse these kids while their parents are at work for 8-10 hours a day.
most human societies worked out how to raise their kids, within an extended family, with gender based division of labor, over the millennia. but advocating that sort of thing, or merely pointing it out, would result in accusations of sexism, and go against the deification and incentivization of nuclear or single parent families.
facebook's business is selling user data, gathered in site and off site, in both open and sneaky ways, to third parties.
they may alter their contracts and engage in spin campaigns giving the impression they wont, but they will still sell the data.
instead of vaguely pretending otherwise, facebook needs to admit it openly, and be open about the ways they gather and sell data, and about to whom they sell.
they should also give users full access to data gathered about them. they should not gather data about people not registered with facebook.
in that case, it would be clear, if you choose to use facebook, you are giving zuck power to sell your data.
and as long as 3rd parties pay for data and are acting legally, there is nothing wrong with such data being used for political or commercial campaigns.
as long as they are open about transactions being public. why not?
if customers want, they can seek private transactions service elsewhere.
"The original point was that Open Source alone solves it all."
where did it say that?!
it is clear you are confused as to what i said, and arguing with strawmen.
you know that manafort was charged with something totally unrelated to election, that happened years before election, right?
again, you are free to be so desperate as to think and say it is connected, engage in wild speculations and conspiracy theories, and basically live on nothing but airy hope. that is the fate of people who lose in game of life.
others, like me, who are no so situated, and live in reality, are free to place their trust on facts and reason.
that is all you got? lol. people receiving information after it was published? is that knowingly committing crimes?
what next? podesta working for russians because he was stupid enough to got phished?
again does indictment says anything different when it is in some other site? facts are facts, wherever it is on.
you are free to engage in absurd fact free ad hominem logical fallacies; they don't matter to anyone intelligent.
Unfortunately, your "facts" have been proven wrong. .
where?
... want to make a guess at how many people understand "Fuzzy Logic"? Or for that matter, even deterministic processors?
what for?
if people want to stay ignorant about who and what sees, recognizes, and monitors them . let them.
my point is, if people don't want to stay ignorant, and want to guard against that , they should have access to the knowledge.
even if less than 1% understand how it is done in detail, that is still millions, and they can distill that knowledge to digestible forms for benefit of others,
fact that only a few medical researchers understand everything about a certain virus, does not mean others do not want to be safe from deceases caused by that virus, and not want to act under the guidance of those who understand.
it is justice department press release about justice department's indictment of russian agents.
comment i was replying to, said there were "trump campaign personell" charged. that was wrong, as i said. do you agree i am right on that?
and justice department is specific "no indication that any American was a knowing participant in this activity,"
and could you point to pages in indictment where it names americans knowingly "working with those that committed crimes", as you imply it does.
you are free to speculate about future indictments with or (as in your case) without facts.
same way, someone else may speculate, you and i, will be indicted in future as russian saboteurs of slashdot threads. lol.
everything you disagree is russian propaganda? even when it says russians are indicted?
and googling is the way not to be "misinformed"? lol.
-
in any case i just pointed to what the indictment and rosenstein statement, with source. does indictment says anything different when it is in some other site?
did i use opinion of the site, whatever its bias?
-
you are free to engage in ad hominem logical fallacies, i stick to actual words and facts.
to generalize, so called modern "AI" is just data analysis, running on deterministic processors, using fuzzy logic aimed getting imperfect faster approximate results, rather than perfect results(which in some problems, especially real life problems. is impossible or near that).
as such what is done, is "knowable". there is no secret knowledge there.
secrets are due to humans rather than process or technology
32 people were charged. 12 of those were GRU (russian) agents. 3 were trump campaign personell. Article does not say who/what the others are.
?! wrong.
from zerohedge with screen shot of indictment -
"... there is no indication that any American was a knowing participant in this activity, and no indication that these efforts altered the vote count in any way."
https://www.zerohedge.com/site...
only way people can guard against abuse(and even just use) of facial recognition, is through knowing how it is done(where the cameras are, how the software works, what are details in database used) etc etc).
government should stick to facilitating opening all those details to everyone. it should not act to regulate that knowledge, as it wants, including to its own uses, without opening it up.
given the rabid irrational and irrelevant, response to a valid point, that code breaking had only a minor part in winning the world war two, and as such title displays an ignorant and idiotic mindset, it is quite obvious which of the authors of above two comments have a brain.
readers can judge the relevance of the political affiliations of each likewise, according to their own brain power.
seriously only the dumb will buy apple after this incident, which exposed even to the dumbest in very blatant fashion, what everyone with above average intelligence already knew, apple's total disrespect for its customer base.
apple buyers after this , and all who buy products that prevent repairs and battery changes, are born idiot losers by definition.
It's a one-size fits all theory!
it's a non falsifiable theory - not science by definition.
enjoyed the dawning of new year.
why care for anyone who lives on whatsass/social media? they should "out" their non lives. they don't matter.
competing against large conglomerates venturing outside its core competences is not all that terrible as it appears. large corp almost always fails, there are lots and lots of business school case studies of such failures.
google in particular has poked its filthy little "do every evil" hands into all sorts of ventures(including warmongering and politics btw) outside its core of search and email/online office. and isn't profitable in any of them(even in andriod), and not even a loss making leader in most others.
it also has record of dropping its ventures suddenly after some arbitrary time.
... religion is a "platform"..
I agree with none of these platforms.
you seem to love your ability not to "agree" irrelevantly about vague terms like "religion" and "platform" . if you were more rational and informed, you would define those terms and then state your disagreement specifically in a forum that was discussing them.
but to ask that from you would be unfair. huh?