Right... Because it is unethical for America — uniquely among the world's nations — to fight its enemies and enforce its borders.
Is that what the US does? I think the problem is that "fight its enemies" is defined as drone striking suspects with limited evidence and civilian casualties, minimal accountability in a process that seems more like a global administrative execution program for people suspected or associated with anyone suspected of planning terrorism.
If you want to defend your borders that's fine, but do it at the border. Fact is there are no existential threats to the US, no territorial threats, and none have been made for decades. Biggest risks to welfare are economic in nature, whether theft of trade secrets, discard of patents, over reactions to terrorism, political turmoil, or cyber attacks on critical infrastructure. Further arms race is hardly necessary.
90% of what is now classified as 'sexually inappropriate' behavior is normal evolutionarily derived behavior.
There might be an aspect of nature at play. But don't let that convince you that women haven't been oppressed, or that gender equality isn't a concern anymore.
Just because something is the natural order of things, doesn't mean we should accept it.
Violence and murder is the natural order of humans, that doesn't mean we can't make laws to stop it:)
It's well known that we're not rational economic creatures... There are many examples of this, for example loss aversion..
I would be that fear of missing out on the bonus hits you far harder than the much higher cost of smoking.
I wouldn't be surprised if _fear of missing out_ on the bonus is more effective than the huge taxes that a factored into tobacco prices in many countries.
Agreed, it's closer to program synthesis... That said with transfer learning, the neural nets seem to _sometimes_ learn underlying concepts.
So the neural net seems to be able learn some of the underlying concepts, and we don't understand the algorithm that was synthesized.
That said, we still fully control these AIs, they don't evolve while solving a task, they can be saved to disk and restored:)
America is so far behind it's hard to comprehend... I just recently moved back to Denmark from San Francisco, and trying to cash a check from my former landlord is basically impossible. I remember cashing a Canadian check 5-6 years ago, but today banks won't touch checks.
In the US, however, most online bill-pay systems are just web frontends for sending a physical check by mail. I remember the teller explaining this to me, and laughed because I thought he was joking. It's a pretty stark difference, in Denmark physical letters is barely a thing (no private company or public entity sends me physical mail -- unless it's an extraordinary situation).
All the 3 letter agencies had a lot of trust... But they abused their position, the Snowden revelations made that clear.
They routinely violated laws in many countries, and when caught they weaseled out of it. Nobody admitted that what they had done was wrong, there was no massive change in leadership or policy. So trust was lost.
Suddenly, being safe from government abuse became a sales point, and tech companies were quick to jump that.
These days security people will discuss how to minimize risks from state actors "friendly" or not, even if answers aren't perfect, this is now a thing.
But this is their own doing. The 3 letter agencies lost public trust by invading people privacy in the shadows. We have a wide acceptance of search warrants from a public court; but when engulf the process in secrecy you loose trust.
IMO, lots of things could be unencrypted, but rebuilding this trust will take generations. And right now law enforcement in the US should perhaps focus on not shooting people, as a good first step to rebuilding public trust.
Yet, we must admit that making piracy harder than buying the service have been an immensely successful strategy:)
They never needed perfect security, you could always just record the music from the speakers anyways.
We don't live in the world where we have to download mp3s anymore, it's much easier to stream legitimately from spotify than it is to pirate. Now, if only we could get rid of the DRM completely.
The rise of murders in Venezuela following the Chávez presidency has also been attributed by experts to the corruption of Venezuelan authorities, poor gun control and a poor judiciary system.
and
According to Alessio Bruni of the United Nations Committee against Torture, "a typical problem of the prison system is gun violence, nearly circulating freely within prisons, causing hundreds and hundreds of people killed every year"
Outlawing guns without a proper judicial system is hard. And outlawing guns when they are readily available from the US is very hard.
I think it's fair to say that the ease of access to guns in the US causes a LOT of murders in south America. Where do you think Mexican cartels gets their guns from?
Also what is with the obsession of framing everything as a pro/con gun regulation argument. We know sane regulation of firearms limits the amount of damage a single person can cause... Fixing schools, education, mental healthcare, prisons, criminal justice, poverty, and running an trustworthy police force all contribute to reduction of violence, along with sane gun regulation.
The added upside to gun regulation is that it also protects neighboring countries, who currently suffer from illegal weapons import from the US.
True, but Intel is an American company so no big deal. It's only bad if the others do it. So don't expect anyone from Intel to be jailed like the VW guy. The only way is probably a class action lawsuit.
Okay, do we have any one indicating that this was intended... I think it's pretty clear that these are unintended bugs...
Meltdown could justify a recall, but probably it's impractical to do this... and spectre will probably not even be fixed in new chips. I suspect it'll be some time before we have a reliable fix to spectre, it'll probably require changes to the specifications as well..
Manufacturers can sell to whoever they want, as long as they don't discriminate based against any of the protected groups (race, religion, sex, age, etc).
Are you sure? I'm sure they get away with it quite often, but that's not the same as saying the practice is legal.
Afaik, manufacturers (or brand owners, if you will) can't dictate re-seller prices, etc. This is anti competitive behavior. Yes, they often get away with it, and yes, it's hard to prosecute. And no, I'm not a lawyer:)
As I understand it old extensions had synchronous hooks in to much of Firefox, causing security problems and making it impossible to improve performance.
Take a look at the browser extensions API, sure they aren't perfect, but on MDN it's clear that firefox has more extension APIs than Chrome.
Look at what Google pays Apple to be the default search engine on iOS. I think it was released as part of a court case, the figure was in the range of 1B/year.
Google wants to be the default search engine, this is their core business, Chrome was just a way to protect that core business..
I can't say I fully understand any economics at this scale, but my guess is Mozilla is some of the cheapest traffic Google can buy, and Google is all about protecting their core service: search.
I work on a team that manages automation infrastructure, we're about 7-8 people building tools and services for automation; with other teams building test suites and release pipelines on top of the automation infrastructure. A mono-repo like mozilla-central runs some ~2k tasks per push; this involves building across platforms and configurations, a long list of test suites, performance tests, etc..
All in the name of making sure Firefox doesn't break the web, etc. I'm sure we could try to be more efficient about running tests, but this is also risky, because we have so many developers and contributors.
The argument is that as companies waste more and more money; as they become more and more inefficient they become less profitable and less competitive. Over time, companies that become wasteful go out of business.
I generally see services/products without much innovation, huge barriers to entry and/or little change as candidates for being public services. Any kind of insurance is a good example. Government bureaucracies can be very efficient: consider private health care insurances vs. medicare.
In these scenarios private organizations often drive up cost/inefficiency, because they only way to introduce more profit is to drive up inefficiency.
Now, as governments and government agencies get more bureaucratic, more wasteful is there anything that stops this process?
Politicians... And yes, in other countries we do from time to time see massive reorganizations of public institutions.
I guess a crazy person could even argue that Trump is reorganizing or disorganizing a lot of US government agencies, hehe:)
As with software: it's all about picking the right tool for the problem at hand. I for one wouldn't want to see a government run clothing line attempting to deliver the latest fashion -- just to give a extreme counter example.
On topic: a for-profit investment might be what it takes to attract even more private capital. Especially, with the amounts of capital currently in play on the markets today. Granted I don't have the qualifications to know if there is enough basic research to foster hope of finding a cure.
bThat's true, and surely there will be distinction between various degrees of negligence, stupidity and bad luck.
But keeping the intrusion under wraps for months on end will probably be considered fairly "calculated" and very deliberate, hence, the hammer would fall very hard.
With any luck, we'll see more openness and more investments in security. For sure the new rules are going to mean 2FA everywhere.
Healthcare is a product with infinite demand and limited supply. There must always be a rationing system.
Not really, once there is an effective drug therapy supply is unlimited and demand is quickly finite:)
Sure, patents inflate the price, but most conditions that can be treated with a small surgery and/or drugs are fairly cheap to manage.
The only cases where we have something that resembles "infinite demand" is when we don't have a cure, and all we can do is an infinite sequence of supportive treatments.
Many conditions and treatments don't have an infinite demand and a limited supply. You'll get very far with cost-effective healthcare; not that I argue for giving up on people, merely prioritizing resources based on cost-efficiency rather than who has money.
There's probably no A/Cs in Scotland... and who knows maybe they don't use electricity for heating either. Oh, and it's the EU so energy saving light-bulbs are mandatory.
There are quite a few brilliant heating systems around the world that use excess heating from electricity production, or waste incinerators... When heating is supplied to your house through a hot water pipe it's possible to get a very impressive efficiency.
Heating water and installing hot water pipes is boring technology, but well proven and probably one of the more cost efficient ways to reduce greenhouse emissions. Even if the heating origins from burning stuff.
U2F is supported by Google and Chrome... Seriously, just get an yubikey... This is probably just Google doing the social work of forcing high-profile accounts to use U2F...
Rust has two upsides: safe multi-processing on a shared memory architecture; and safe manual memory management.
Shared memory architectures probably won't be relevant all that long... Limitations in hardware make cache synchronization hard, and limits the number of cores... Even today having multiple cores using shared memory is super slow. The future of safe multi-processing belongs to message passing, the over head is a bit higher, but the hardware will scale for decades to come.
As for safe zero-cost abstractions for manual memory management rust certainly has some benefits... But both go, java and.Net are proving that garbage collection isn't super expensive.
Don't get me wrong, rust the best language right now, and will probably be for another decade or two.. But the mental overhead of abstractions isn't free, so I'm not sure what the long term future will look like, except I know javascript will still run in 200 years:)
I'll admit I wasn't a fan of gnome 3 from the beginning, and it took a few years before it started to work well.. but these days it's working really well.
I actually enjoy using gnome... what is up with all this negative sentiment?
Note: Don't get me wrong I still can't live without type-ahead in nautilus and will probably have to patch it when I upgrade again, but all in all gnome is nice...
Slashdot Mirror
Why can't you publish your music?
So is this pretty much GNU / NT, maybe it shouldn't be called a linux distribution -- in order news where are the flying pigs? :)
Right... Because it is unethical for America — uniquely among the world's nations — to fight its enemies and enforce its borders.
Is that what the US does? I think the problem is that "fight its enemies" is defined as drone striking suspects with limited evidence and civilian casualties, minimal accountability in a process that seems more like a global administrative execution program for people suspected or associated with anyone suspected of planning terrorism.
If you want to defend your borders that's fine, but do it at the border. Fact is there are no existential threats to the US, no territorial threats, and none have been made for decades. Biggest risks to welfare are economic in nature, whether theft of trade secrets, discard of patents, over reactions to terrorism, political turmoil, or cyber attacks on critical infrastructure. Further arms race is hardly necessary.
90% of what is now classified as 'sexually inappropriate' behavior is normal evolutionarily derived behavior.
There might be an aspect of nature at play. But don't let that convince you that women haven't been oppressed, or that gender equality isn't a concern anymore.
:)
Just because something is the natural order of things, doesn't mean we should accept it.
Violence and murder is the natural order of humans, that doesn't mean we can't make laws to stop it
It's well known that we're not rational economic creatures... There are many examples of this, for example loss aversion..
I would be that fear of missing out on the bonus hits you far harder than the much higher cost of smoking.
I wouldn't be surprised if _fear of missing out_ on the bonus is more effective than the huge taxes that a factored into tobacco prices in many countries.
Agreed, it's closer to program synthesis... That said with transfer learning, the neural nets seem to _sometimes_ learn underlying concepts.
:)
So the neural net seems to be able learn some of the underlying concepts, and we don't understand the algorithm that was synthesized.
That said, we still fully control these AIs, they don't evolve while solving a task, they can be saved to disk and restored
America is so far behind it's hard to comprehend... I just recently moved back to Denmark from San Francisco, and trying to cash a check from my former landlord is basically impossible. I remember cashing a Canadian check 5-6 years ago, but today banks won't touch checks.
In the US, however, most online bill-pay systems are just web frontends for sending a physical check by mail. I remember the teller explaining this to me, and laughed because I thought he was joking. It's a pretty stark difference, in Denmark physical letters is barely a thing (no private company or public entity sends me physical mail -- unless it's an extraordinary situation).
All the 3 letter agencies had a lot of trust... But they abused their position, the Snowden revelations made that clear.
They routinely violated laws in many countries, and when caught they weaseled out of it. Nobody admitted that what they had done was wrong, there was no massive change in leadership or policy. So trust was lost.
Suddenly, being safe from government abuse became a sales point, and tech companies were quick to jump that.
These days security people will discuss how to minimize risks from state actors "friendly" or not, even if answers aren't perfect, this is now a thing.
But this is their own doing. The 3 letter agencies lost public trust by invading people privacy in the shadows. We have a wide acceptance of search warrants from a public court; but when engulf the process in secrecy you loose trust.
IMO, lots of things could be unencrypted, but rebuilding this trust will take generations. And right now law enforcement in the US should perhaps focus on not shooting people, as a good first step to rebuilding public trust.
"modern diseases", people diabetes in the past just died.
People in the past were far worse off by most accounts... We just love painting the past in rosy colors.
Yet, we must admit that making piracy harder than buying the service have been an immensely successful strategy :)
They never needed perfect security, you could always just record the music from the speakers anyways.
We don't live in the world where we have to download mp3s anymore, it's much easier to stream legitimately from spotify than it is to pirate. Now, if only we could get rid of the DRM completely.
You make a unique one per download... and require sign-in in-order to download... it something like that..
That said, I would rather they give up freemium and focus on paying clients, I for one want non-DRM clients for Linux.
Finds quotes like:
The rise of murders in Venezuela following the Chávez presidency has also been attributed by experts to the corruption of Venezuelan authorities, poor gun control and a poor judiciary system.
and
According to Alessio Bruni of the United Nations Committee against Torture, "a typical problem of the prison system is gun violence, nearly circulating freely within prisons, causing hundreds and hundreds of people killed every year"
Outlawing guns without a proper judicial system is hard. And outlawing guns when they are readily available from the US is very hard.
I think it's fair to say that the ease of access to guns in the US causes a LOT of murders in south America. Where do you think Mexican cartels gets their guns from?
Also what is with the obsession of framing everything as a pro/con gun regulation argument. We know sane regulation of firearms limits the amount of damage a single person can cause... Fixing schools, education, mental healthcare, prisons, criminal justice, poverty, and running an trustworthy police force all contribute to reduction of violence, along with sane gun regulation.
The added upside to gun regulation is that it also protects neighboring countries, who currently suffer from illegal weapons import from the US.
True, but Intel is an American company so no big deal. It's only bad if the others do it. So don't expect anyone from Intel to be jailed like the VW guy. The only way is probably a class action lawsuit.
Okay, do we have any one indicating that this was intended... I think it's pretty clear that these are unintended bugs...
Meltdown could justify a recall, but probably it's impractical to do this... and spectre will probably not even be fixed in new chips. I suspect it'll be some time before we have a reliable fix to spectre, it'll probably require changes to the specifications as well..
Manufacturers can sell to whoever they want, as long as they don't discriminate based against any of the protected groups (race, religion, sex, age, etc).
Are you sure? I'm sure they get away with it quite often, but that's not the same as saying the practice is legal. :)
Afaik, manufacturers (or brand owners, if you will) can't dictate re-seller prices, etc. This is anti competitive behavior. Yes, they often get away with it, and yes, it's hard to prosecute. And no, I'm not a lawyer
As I understand it old extensions had synchronous hooks in to much of Firefox, causing security problems and making it impossible to improve performance.
Take a look at the browser extensions API, sure they aren't perfect, but on MDN it's clear that firefox has more extension APIs than Chrome.
Look at what Google pays Apple to be the default search engine on iOS. I think it was released as part of a court case, the figure was in the range of 1B/year.
Google wants to be the default search engine, this is their core business, Chrome was just a way to protect that core business..
I can't say I fully understand any economics at this scale, but my guess is Mozilla is some of the cheapest traffic Google can buy, and Google is all about protecting their core service: search.
I work on a team that manages automation infrastructure, we're about 7-8 people building tools and services for automation; with other teams building test suites and release pipelines on top of the automation infrastructure. A mono-repo like mozilla-central runs some ~2k tasks per push; this involves building across platforms and configurations, a long list of test suites, performance tests, etc..
All in the name of making sure Firefox doesn't break the web, etc. I'm sure we could try to be more efficient about running tests, but this is also risky, because we have so many developers and contributors.
The argument is that as companies waste more and more money; as they become more and more inefficient they become less profitable and less competitive. Over time, companies that become wasteful go out of business.
I generally see services/products without much innovation, huge barriers to entry and/or little change as candidates for being public services. Any kind of insurance is a good example. Government bureaucracies can be very efficient: consider private health care insurances vs. medicare.
In these scenarios private organizations often drive up cost/inefficiency, because they only way to introduce more profit is to drive up inefficiency.
Now, as governments and government agencies get more bureaucratic, more wasteful is there anything that stops this process?
Politicians... And yes, in other countries we do from time to time see massive reorganizations of public institutions. I guess a crazy person could even argue that Trump is reorganizing or disorganizing a lot of US government agencies, hehe :)
As with software: it's all about picking the right tool for the problem at hand. I for one wouldn't want to see a government run clothing line attempting to deliver the latest fashion -- just to give a extreme counter example.
On topic: a for-profit investment might be what it takes to attract even more private capital. Especially, with the amounts of capital currently in play on the markets today. Granted I don't have the qualifications to know if there is enough basic research to foster hope of finding a cure.
bThat's true, and surely there will be distinction between various degrees of negligence, stupidity and bad luck.
But keeping the intrusion under wraps for months on end will probably be considered fairly "calculated" and very deliberate, hence, the hammer would fall very hard.
With any luck, we'll see more openness and more investments in security. For sure the new rules are going to mean 2FA everywhere.
Healthcare is a product with infinite demand and limited supply. There must always be a rationing system.
Not really, once there is an effective drug therapy supply is unlimited and demand is quickly finite :)
Sure, patents inflate the price, but most conditions that can be treated with a small surgery and/or drugs are fairly cheap to manage.
The only cases where we have something that resembles "infinite demand" is when we don't have a cure, and all we can do is an infinite sequence of supportive treatments.
Many conditions and treatments don't have an infinite demand and a limited supply. You'll get very far with cost-effective healthcare; not that I argue for giving up on people, merely prioritizing resources based on cost-efficiency rather than who has money.
There's probably no A/Cs in Scotland... and who knows maybe they don't use electricity for heating either. Oh, and it's the EU so energy saving light-bulbs are mandatory.
There are quite a few brilliant heating systems around the world that use excess heating from electricity production, or waste incinerators... When heating is supplied to your house through a hot water pipe it's possible to get a very impressive efficiency.
Heating water and installing hot water pipes is boring technology, but well proven and probably one of the more cost efficient ways to reduce greenhouse emissions. Even if the heating origins from burning stuff.
U2F is supported by Google and Chrome... Seriously, just get an yubikey... This is probably just Google doing the social work of forcing high-profile accounts to use U2F...
Rust has two upsides: safe multi-processing on a shared memory architecture; and safe manual memory management.
.Net are proving that garbage collection isn't super expensive.
:)
Shared memory architectures probably won't be relevant all that long... Limitations in hardware make cache synchronization hard, and limits the number of cores... Even today having multiple cores using shared memory is super slow. The future of safe multi-processing belongs to message passing, the over head is a bit higher, but the hardware will scale for decades to come.
As for safe zero-cost abstractions for manual memory management rust certainly has some benefits... But both go, java and
Don't get me wrong, rust the best language right now, and will probably be for another decade or two.. But the mental overhead of abstractions isn't free, so I'm not sure what the long term future will look like, except I know javascript will still run in 200 years
What makes you think the next bug will be in HT?
You can say this with respect to any feature of the CPUs...
I'll admit I wasn't a fan of gnome 3 from the beginning, and it took a few years before it started to work well.. but these days it's working really well.
I actually enjoy using gnome... what is up with all this negative sentiment?
Note: Don't get me wrong I still can't live without type-ahead in nautilus and will probably have to patch it when I upgrade again, but all in all gnome is nice...