People ARE getting wiped out this year, every year, by nature - Floods, Fires, Squirrels (hacking our power grid), etc. Shove off with all your "some vuln (say it short so you sound cool) COULD do something" hysteria. SO MUCH SECURITY FATIGUE - you are undermining your own cause. Next time, STOP, and think first about real risk, relative risk, cost vs. benefit, before you make your next grand proclamation about security. The level of insularity and hubris in the security community must be peaking soon.
The future is everyone giving up and buying cyber-loss insurance. My house doesn't have to be a fortress with me guarding it 24/7 to get homeowner's insurance. The same level of practicality and get-on-with-your-life thinking needs to come to all of this cyber-security business.
Yep, coding is just specifying things precisely and completely. Many attempts have been made, for decades, to try to create (very) high-level languages and UIs that business people can use to avoid coders. These things have never succeeded in general utility, because they ultimately end up trading one type of coding for another type that is actually worse, and then foist it upon users who are not accustomed to thinking precisely. And whether it be an AI, UI, or human code, the users can't simply express to them/it what they want. For even mildly complicated systems, it takes people lots of time, iterations of meetings and exploration, and sometimes multiple layers of human translation to give us useful requirements / specs. It takes a near-superhuman to do all that today, and our current AI are making little or no progress in the direction of general intelligence.
And they probably have few environmental restrictions holding back their development and production of clean tech. It's got to be a lot harder to both be clean and produce it.
It will be a sad day when our software stagnates to the point where a desktop computer no longer has a productivity and capability advantage. We should be able to keep advancing the power of software in ways that need more computing power and "because physics" the desktop will survive. It's possible that "the cloud" will fill this space, to some extent. Also, if I dock my phone to large display and better input devices, and the OS provides proper support for desktop productivity, then it IS a desktop computer. The war may be won by the OS that does both, and Windows 10, for all it's warts, has a head start in that direction. What do you think it will take to get IOS usable as a desktop OS? Seems like a tall order to me...
Of course he means "strong" AI. Many of us oldsters refuse to let the term AI get reassigned to mean something lame every time a new set of kids comes along wanting to claim they have made progress. They need to go give their lame stuff a name of its own instead of weaseling the real thing off as "strong AI" or AGI.
And he's right, the current "AI" methods may give us much safer cars, able to step in and save us from most accidents at the cost of some false positives, but they will not give us the "take a nap in your Tesla" true self-driving cars that everyone was (the din is fading now) promising us.
Your sig mentions Alterslash, which is actually something keeping my Windows Phone (8.1) usable since the hellacious javascript on regular Slashdot is crashing my browser.
This gets modded funny, but I'd like to see the security freaks respond to this someday. Hey security guy, let's say I'm a power company exec --Why should I pay you twice what the guys battling the squirrels get? How about I fire you and hire two more squirrel fighters...
This is a great example of an unrealistic FUD scenario. It's going to take:
a) Something that would really happen, not just could happen, and the "could" here, at least for anyone actually at home at the time, is very weak. b) Something that happens to a large number of people, not just "the other guy", i.e. the guy who dies in a car accident because he was distracted by eating a burrito. c) Something expensive enough to be worth the trouble to defend against it. d) Something where the damages will not be considered a public or "someone else's" responsibility, i.e. "I'm not going to use 13 factor authentication and air-gap my thermostat. Instead I'll vote for a more centralized internet where I can know who hacked me and sue them, and/or I'll vote for more cops on the internet."
Right, they don't want to know. They don't want security. What they want is a crime-free neighborhood. In the end, it comes down to economics. People make rational individual economic choices about security. Consider how people have long handled security for their homes. Most homes and even businesses are not physically secure in any way even close to what is being demanded by security zealots. Setting people who got sold a bill of goods by ADT and Dr. Robert Neville aside, for most the "price" of living in a fortress is too high compared to the actual risk and level of damages. They would rather pay for more cops, or move to a nicer location or a gated community. They don't want bars on the windows, etc. When the risks and consequences reach a level that actually changes the equation, then people will choose to do the "right" thing. Otherwise, people, as a whole, will not take any cure that even approaches the costs of the disease. And this applies to shared (e.g. societal) costs as well, with even a higher bar. Nobody is going to support legislation to force people into onerous security practices any time soon. Security mavens and wannabes ("security good, me support security") need to get some perspective on this.
Oh where oh where are my mod points today?! Most of the reason why "UI designers" hate skeuomorphism is because they got bored, and wanted to change things. Just exactly like the way my mom had to rearrange the living room furniture every year.
Yes, there are tons of great scripts, and if you look at the television and streaming landscapes, plenty of them are already there. I'm not making the "lack of quality" argument, I'm saying that with the fragmentation and proliferation that's been happening, we basically want for nothing. And if you think your particular fringe taste is not being met, you only need to look closer, or wait a few months. I have heard some commentators call it another "Golden Age". But nothing out there expands my mind like it used to, and I'm tired, for now, of what seems like the same old stuff even in my fringe tastes. And I'm not interested in "novelty at any price" -- as seen in dystopian stories of snuff films becoming mainstream, for example.
Sorry, I did not intend to say they did. We need the break, because of our modern luxuries and capabilities which allow us to overload ourselves with media. Our ancestors were naturally limited by lack of time and technology for such things. Though at times (e.g. Roman), they may have come close.
We're just getting way past the saturation point with entertainment and stories of every kind. We need a break, and then afterward we can go back to telling and hearing the same old tales again, just as our ancestors have done for millennia. Maybe we could even do something useful for a while. I have even been thinking about cutting the cord on my Netflix subscription......and I'm not any kind of anti-TV nutter.
31 billion divided by how many airlines? I think the quotient is going to be less than the amount of money an airline would fritter away on stupidity, and that's before talking about who would actually be the beneficiaries of that savings.
Slashdot Mirror
Goodbye to straw men in straw hat weather! Or will this be on somebody's "proving grounds"?
People ARE getting wiped out this year, every year, by nature - Floods, Fires, Squirrels (hacking our power grid), etc. Shove off with all your "some vuln (say it short so you sound cool) COULD do something" hysteria. SO MUCH SECURITY FATIGUE - you are undermining your own cause. Next time, STOP, and think first about real risk, relative risk, cost vs. benefit, before you make your next grand proclamation about security. The level of insularity and hubris in the security community must be peaking soon.
The future is everyone giving up and buying cyber-loss insurance. My house doesn't have to be a fortress with me guarding it 24/7 to get homeowner's insurance. The same level of practicality and get-on-with-your-life thinking needs to come to all of this cyber-security business.
Yep, coding is just specifying things precisely and completely. Many attempts have been made, for decades, to try to create (very) high-level languages and UIs that business people can use to avoid coders. These things have never succeeded in general utility, because they ultimately end up trading one type of coding for another type that is actually worse, and then foist it upon users who are not accustomed to thinking precisely. And whether it be an AI, UI, or human code, the users can't simply express to them/it what they want. For even mildly complicated systems, it takes people lots of time, iterations of meetings and exploration, and sometimes multiple layers of human translation to give us useful requirements / specs. It takes a near-superhuman to do all that today, and our current AI are making little or no progress in the direction of general intelligence.
And they probably have few environmental restrictions holding back their development and production of clean tech. It's got to be a lot harder to both be clean and produce it.
It will be a sad day when our software stagnates to the point where a desktop computer no longer has a productivity and capability advantage. We should be able to keep advancing the power of software in ways that need more computing power and "because physics" the desktop will survive. It's possible that "the cloud" will fill this space, to some extent. Also, if I dock my phone to large display and better input devices, and the OS provides proper support for desktop productivity, then it IS a desktop computer. The war may be won by the OS that does both, and Windows 10, for all it's warts, has a head start in that direction. What do you think it will take to get IOS usable as a desktop OS? Seems like a tall order to me...
3840 kHz will sure get him a mix of ham and CB.
Of course he means "strong" AI. Many of us oldsters refuse to let the term AI get reassigned to mean something lame every time a new set of kids comes along wanting to claim they have made progress. They need to go give their lame stuff a name of its own instead of weaseling the real thing off as "strong AI" or AGI.
And he's right, the current "AI" methods may give us much safer cars, able to step in and save us from most accidents at the cost of some false positives, but they will not give us the "take a nap in your Tesla" true self-driving cars that everyone was (the din is fading now) promising us.
Your sig mentions Alterslash, which is actually something keeping my Windows Phone (8.1) usable since the hellacious javascript on regular Slashdot is crashing my browser.
This gets modded funny, but I'd like to see the security freaks respond to this someday. Hey security guy, let's say I'm a power company exec --Why should I pay you twice what the guys battling the squirrels get? How about I fire you and hire two more squirrel fighters...
Yeah, my power company uses McAfee, no probl^#&^%&!)+!#&*!%#& NO CARRIER
This is a great example of an unrealistic FUD scenario. It's going to take:
a) Something that would really happen, not just could happen, and the "could" here, at least for anyone actually at home at the time, is very weak.
b) Something that happens to a large number of people, not just "the other guy", i.e. the guy who dies in a car accident because he was distracted by eating a burrito.
c) Something expensive enough to be worth the trouble to defend against it.
d) Something where the damages will not be considered a public or "someone else's" responsibility, i.e. "I'm not going to use 13 factor authentication and air-gap my thermostat. Instead I'll vote for a more centralized internet where I can know who hacked me and sue them, and/or I'll vote for more cops on the internet."
Right, they don't want to know. They don't want security. What they want is a crime-free neighborhood. In the end, it comes down to economics. People make rational individual economic choices about security. Consider how people have long handled security for their homes. Most homes and even businesses are not physically secure in any way even close to what is being demanded by security zealots. Setting people who got sold a bill of goods by ADT and Dr. Robert Neville aside, for most the "price" of living in a fortress is too high compared to the actual risk and level of damages. They would rather pay for more cops, or move to a nicer location or a gated community. They don't want bars on the windows, etc. When the risks and consequences reach a level that actually changes the equation, then people will choose to do the "right" thing. Otherwise, people, as a whole, will not take any cure that even approaches the costs of the disease. And this applies to shared (e.g. societal) costs as well, with even a higher bar. Nobody is going to support legislation to force people into onerous security practices any time soon. Security mavens and wannabes ("security good, me support security") need to get some perspective on this.
Oh where oh where are my mod points today?! Most of the reason why "UI designers" hate skeuomorphism is because they got bored, and wanted to change things. Just exactly like the way my mom had to rearrange the living room furniture every year.
Yes, there are tons of great scripts, and if you look at the television and streaming landscapes, plenty of them are already there. I'm not making the "lack of quality" argument, I'm saying that with the fragmentation and proliferation that's been happening, we basically want for nothing. And if you think your particular fringe taste is not being met, you only need to look closer, or wait a few months. I have heard some commentators call it another "Golden Age". But nothing out there expands my mind like it used to, and I'm tired, for now, of what seems like the same old stuff even in my fringe tastes. And I'm not interested in "novelty at any price" -- as seen in dystopian stories of snuff films becoming mainstream, for example.
Sorry, I did not intend to say they did. We need the break, because of our modern luxuries and capabilities which allow us to overload ourselves with media. Our ancestors were naturally limited by lack of time and technology for such things. Though at times (e.g. Roman), they may have come close.
We're just getting way past the saturation point with entertainment and stories of every kind. We need a break, and then afterward we can go back to telling and hearing the same old tales again, just as our ancestors have done for millennia. Maybe we could even do something useful for a while. I have even been thinking about cutting the cord on my Netflix subscription... ...and I'm not any kind of anti-TV nutter.
Awww give J.B. a break -- Not my taste, but at least he can sing with his own voice.
Maybe the periodic stories, or even the Wikipedia article itself, hides the actual communication. Maybe I'm issuing an instruction right now...
31 billion divided by how many airlines? I think the quotient is going to be less than the amount of money an airline would fritter away on stupidity, and that's before talking about who would actually be the beneficiaries of that savings.
Stop trying to fool us, lizard man.
Yeah, I ws thinking that Slashdot finally found an article that was of interest to absolutely no one.
Another in a long line of "It sounds cool, seemed promising, but we really couldn't do much of anything useful with it" tosses to the crowd.
Pretty soon somebody's gonna get framed and end up on a deadly game show, and not that rip-off version with the whiney kids.
At least Intel seems to be breaking away from the hype a bit, by delaying the self-driving future to 2035 instead of next year.