The college doesn't care though as they already have the money. It's the person who went there that isn't getting a job. I suppose if you go on like that long enough people will wise up, but those diploma mill colleges that consistently advertised on television that had horrible reputations managed to keep raking in tuition.
The biggest problem is that the buyers (new students) aren't very intelligent consumers. It's 18 year old kids, many of whom don't have parents with any more experience or knowledge about colleges than they do, who are getting roped into signing up for very expensive loans to finance the whole thing. I'd wager that half of them don't really understand compound interest and even more don't realize that they can't default on their student loans.
College has been turning into a shit show over the last several decades. I don't mean to imply that it's useless or has no value, just that it's becoming an increasingly warped and perverted version of what it was originally designed for. Handing out loans to anyone who wants one has led to ballooning costs and colleges spending more money on student centers and other things to attract more students (and more money) rather than focusing on improving educational outcomes or doing more research. Administration and bureaucracy keeps growing and invariably makes things worse for professors by requiring busywork or just inundating them with pointless crap.
I understand that some political stories have a technology angle, but this has fuck all to do with technology and doesn't even make the barest effort to dress it up in such a way as to make it belong. At least throw in something about someone calling for districts to be drawn up by computers or using some algorithm that ensures fairness so we can argue about that.
The only problem AMD currently have is that they are not really competitive with Intel for low power mobile chips.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by low power. AMD doesn't have anything that competes against Atom in the ~5W range, but at that power threshold it seems like most people just go with an ARM SoC anyways.
However, AMD did just release their mobile Zen-based APUs a few months back and they've been trickling out into the market. These are all 4-core/8-thread chips with onboard graphics in a ~15W TDP envelope. That's the same as Intel's U series processors. I think that they're reasonably close in terms of CPU performance but I haven't seen a lot of benchmarks yet, but AMD wins hands down on the GPU side.
Perhaps we should just let it go to extremes and allow for some states that have vastly different rules and let people vote with their feet. Donâ(TM)t like the socialist state of Delaware? Move to the unfettered free market state of Kansas. Sure you likely end up with some horrible idiocy like religious or ethnicity-based states (i.e., no whites or no blacks or Mormons only) but that population would be self-selecting and then you wouldnâ(TM)t need to have those crazies as neighbors as they would have moved years ago. Everyone is welcome to as much ideological misery of their own choosing as they care to have and if they grow to dislike it they can move.
I like the idea mostly from a scientific perspective as it lets us test these different kinds of ideas out and to study them and prevents powerful interests from shoving a one size benefits them type of policy down the throats of everyone in the country. It probably has a lot of problems beyond the obvious, but it might be worth trying none the less.
Most commented would be even worse. It really just means the most controversial and Iâ(TM)d guess most of them have more to do with politics than tech.
I think that's going a bit too far. If this is a course designed for anyone to take as a first programming course, I think this approach is ideal, or at least much better than many alternatives. There are a lot of classes like this (one example I remember was college vs university physics where the university physics course was still challenging, but designed around being accessible for people who weren't going to major in physics or eventually take upper level classes that demanded an even greater level of rigor) where it's more appropriate to grade on a more gentle slope instead of making the class hard as balls in order to weed out potential majors.
On the other hand, that's why it would be a terrible idea for people who are going to major in computer science. Using this grading scale punishes someone who always tried the hardest material from the beginning and struggled with it and rewards someone who eventually made the jump from using their own shit as a crayon to managing to turn out the computer and submit assignments. There's something to be said for measuring growth as a part of a student's potential, but if the starting point is so low, I'm not sure how much it matters.
This sounds like the kind of computer science class that everyone at Harvard has to take (given the class size of 700), so I think it's appropriate to build the class to get the maximum amount of student buy-in so that the students actually learn something. Grades at a place like Harvard are utterly useless since just having a degree already marks you as one of the elite, never mind the connections you'll make while attending. I'd also guess that most people who are going to major in computer science will test out of the course or take a much more rigorous course with a more stringent grading scale.
Could be practice in a real-world scenario. These cameras might not offer anything of particular value, but it might help the hackers get some experience in these kinds of things for cases where the cameras might offer much juicier information.
Either that or they're just bored hackers and hacking things is what they do. They compromise a system because it's there.
Rust is giving us new capabilities that let us write secure and performant software easier and faster than ever before.
Unfortunately, none of that stuff actually seems to be what users want (but I'm sure they'll be glad to know that their Mr. Robot promotion plug-in was more secure and easier for y'all to write), so people continue to abandon Firefox for other browsers.
But you don't have a right to free utilities, and eventually you are required to pay them or the service will be shut off. I don't think it's unreasonable to place some restrictions on utilities as they are typically granted legal monopoly status by the government so it's only fair that in turn they can't act as they will in all matters. Also, if I were off the grid would those utility companies be required to come and provide me with service if my own power generation or heating were to fail in the middle of winter? I suspect not, so I don't believe what you're describing is a right at all.
Also, please name all of this infrastructure that I'm supposedly getting for free because its some kind of right that I supposedly have. As far as I can tell it's funded through various local sales taxes or use taxes in some form. If I were to suggest that I should get it for free because I have some right to it, I'd be laughed at. I'm not some kind of anarchist that believes all government is evil or we'd be best off with none, but looking at the world today I see the government doing as much if not more to violate my rights than it does to ensure them.
I think you're confusing what "rights" actually are. A service that you voluntarily pay for (or that you're required to pay for) is scarcely a right and shouldn't be treated or thought of as such. Nor should laws placed on utilities for common sense reasons.
Wouldn't the proponents of MVC argue that view-specific controllers are doing it wrong? There are probably some instances where there's just no getting around it, but having tightly coupled code like that is considered bad regardless of approach.
I'm guessing that people are skimping on design and rushing into implementation which is what's creating these ugly problems.
I fail to see on a philosophical level how anything can be a right if it requires someone else to provide it for you.
I understand that the people who come up with stuff like this have good intentions in mind, but at some point they can just as easily start to argue that plantation owners ought to have a right to have a certain amount of cotton picked for them.
Also, since this is the UK, a right to broadband is pretty fucking useless considering you're only free to use it unless you want to look at porn or say things that other people might not consider nice.
Please explain how an algorithm can be biased if you leave out ethnicity from the input data, but only after the fact discover that it results in fewer individuals of some group getting loans. It's not discriminating, it's just pointing out that two groups have very different input values as a very broad category. It probably also has different results between Asians, Jews, Hispanics, and most other groups. You're mistaking identifying different outcomes after the fact as a result of different initial factors with the usual human approach of lazily categorizing based on factors that aren't causal, but merely correlations.
You can even prove its not racist by finding a set of input data for individuals from two different demographic groups and seeing if it returns the same results for both. My guess is that it gives loans to black people who have good credit scores, a stable income, etc. and denies them to white people who have poor credit history and no steady income.
Algorithms are going to be far better than humans because they don't care about black, gay, atheist, etc. A human might well be intellectually lazy enough to group all blacks together as poor credit risks, but an algorithm isn't if you leave that irrelevant data out. In fact, using these algorithms would mean that if there is widespread discrimination against a group, that the company using the algorithm can actively pick out the people who will be able to repay loans which will generate additional profit. They've given themselves customers that other people are denying.
This doesn't look like being careful or taking preventative measures against misuse. Instead it reeks of not liking the results and not caring to address the underlying causes of those results. Giving loans to bad lending risks isn't going to magically make them responsible or more likely to pay back their loans. If black people, Methodists, or white people from WV happen to fall into that category more often than other groups, then you need to actually look at what is contributing to that result if you actually want to fix the problem.
Or they think it will be more damaging to their competitors (Amazon, Google, etc.) than it will be to themselves. Google seems to have a lot of different lawsuits from all sides of the aisle related to this issue at the current moment, so it could just be a way to try to get Google to tear itself apart even more.
Algorithms don't discriminate if you remove the kind of data (race, age, etc.) that would allow them to make categorizations or judgments based on that data. But if you examine the results after the fact and reapply those labels and find some difference in outcomes, its because there is some difference in input, not a category identifier. If you find your algorithm thinks African Americans are a worse lending risk, it's likely because they're categorically less well off financially than other demographic groups, not because its racist against black people.
This kind of idiotic approach is just ignoring the actual underlying problems or differences in favor of trying to slap a band-aid on top of it to assuage guilty feelings. Worse yet, it prevents confronting the actual issues head on and is doomed to failure.
Quadro cards weren't necessarily more powerful than the consumer cards (typically its the same GPU die with slightly lower clock speeds and significantly more memory) based on that same architecture. The biggest difference was that they just had the professional drivers that people doing CAD work, 3D modeling, etc. wanted and could justify the added expense for.
Also you must have been running with two cards or some kind of X2 card as I don't believe that NVidia made any single card solutions that supported 4 monitors back then.
Do you remember when the industrial revolution first started and power looms and such were invented. Suddenly people could make socks in a tiny fraction of the time it used to take to knit a pair. Unfortunately they made so many socks that all sock makers went completely out of business due to limited customers and to topi it all off their lost wages lead to a complete collapse of the economy in England.
Wait, that didn't actually happen. Instead people bought more socks than ever before because people had long wanted more socks than were capable of being produced. Just like hundreds of years ago with socks, what happens when you increase productivity and you can create more of something, consumptions tends to increase because people wanted more, just not at the previous price. People will keep on wanting more shit even as we find ways of making it ever more quickly and at lower costs and probably will until we find some way to alter our brain chemistry.
Perhaps now people see why it's a bad idea to allow unelected bureaucrats who are not accountable to the electorate the ability to create rules that govern anything. Blame FDR and the Congress at the time if you want to blame anyone as they were the ones to create the agency (though to be fair to them, it merely replaced previous bodies that did similar things) and abdicated their authority.
You might think Congress would want this authority back in their own hands, but Congress actually loves this shit, because they can just shrug their shoulders and say that there's nothing that they can do about it. If we actually left the authority to create an enact laws in their hands, they would be a lot more hesitant to enact broadly unpopular laws.
You can argue that having groups like the FCC, EPA, etc. can accomplish some good because they can at least dedicate their time to the various problems or areas they are concerned with, but they should have no authority to do anything aside from making recommendations to Congress who have been elected by the people to enact legislation.
This just seems like a cash grab on the part of Patreon. There's no reason that they couldn't combine all of the pledges into a single transaction with respect to billing the customer and then split the fee equally across all transactions. So if someone is pledging $1 to 10 different individuals,
Yes, most research is above board and is done by qualified people who want to make the world a better place, but there's always going to be some graft, it's pretty much unavoidable. However, FOIA requests are just one way to keep the system honest and to allow people to make more informed decisions. It is their money after all.
Steve did a lot of stupid things, but when he hit it was usually big. Steve also seemed to eventually come around to the correct idea after he missed though. Sure it wasn't always the best, but it was at least moving in the right direction. Cook is certainly a key part of Apple and probably ultimately more important in their success than Jobs as good ideas don't count for shit if you can't execute, but Cook is not good at vision. He's insanely good at helping execute on someone else's vision, but that doesn't make him particularly good at it. Jobs would probably say the same about Apple under Cook as he once quipped about Microsoft: They have no taste.
I think they would have to use the streets anyways as the sidewalks in parts of the city are full of tents or other makeshift dwellings for homeless people. Some of them would have no issues with stealing from delivery robots and there isn't a lot the police would do about it.
If Cuban communist agents really wanted to infiltrate America they could have just landed on US soil and claimed asylum which would have been granted, just as it had been for decades up until earlier this year when Obama ended that policy. If this were a real goal of Cuba, the U.S. would be rife with Cuban spies unless they only decided they should get in on this whole espionage thing within the last 10 months. There were so many Cubans actually trying to escape that even thousands of spies would have been able to blend in quite easily.
NOBODY in security EVER thinks a backdoor is a good thing!
They are a MASSIVE vulnerability just waiting to get cracked, and if they are mandatory, all it takes is a single slip and that entire group is totally unprotected!
It's not a question of IF it will be used and abused, but simply WHEN
Is it really that much different than other optical illusions that cause you to perceive something that isn't there? The only thing interesting about this is that it's more of an aural illusion. It's almost like watching someone getting tackled or hit really hard and your brain sending some of the pain/reaction response to your body.
Here's something else that might interest you as if you do put some stereo headphones on and close your eyes, your brain may similarly use the cues its getting and start sending other signals in expectation of it believes is happening.
Slashdot Mirror
The college doesn't care though as they already have the money. It's the person who went there that isn't getting a job. I suppose if you go on like that long enough people will wise up, but those diploma mill colleges that consistently advertised on television that had horrible reputations managed to keep raking in tuition.
The biggest problem is that the buyers (new students) aren't very intelligent consumers. It's 18 year old kids, many of whom don't have parents with any more experience or knowledge about colleges than they do, who are getting roped into signing up for very expensive loans to finance the whole thing. I'd wager that half of them don't really understand compound interest and even more don't realize that they can't default on their student loans.
College has been turning into a shit show over the last several decades. I don't mean to imply that it's useless or has no value, just that it's becoming an increasingly warped and perverted version of what it was originally designed for. Handing out loans to anyone who wants one has led to ballooning costs and colleges spending more money on student centers and other things to attract more students (and more money) rather than focusing on improving educational outcomes or doing more research. Administration and bureaucracy keeps growing and invariably makes things worse for professors by requiring busywork or just inundating them with pointless crap.
I understand that some political stories have a technology angle, but this has fuck all to do with technology and doesn't even make the barest effort to dress it up in such a way as to make it belong. At least throw in something about someone calling for districts to be drawn up by computers or using some algorithm that ensures fairness so we can argue about that.
Jagger said it best: "Hey! You! Get off of my cloud!"
The only problem AMD currently have is that they are not really competitive with Intel for low power mobile chips.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by low power. AMD doesn't have anything that competes against Atom in the ~5W range, but at that power threshold it seems like most people just go with an ARM SoC anyways.
However, AMD did just release their mobile Zen-based APUs a few months back and they've been trickling out into the market. These are all 4-core/8-thread chips with onboard graphics in a ~15W TDP envelope. That's the same as Intel's U series processors. I think that they're reasonably close in terms of CPU performance but I haven't seen a lot of benchmarks yet, but AMD wins hands down on the GPU side.
Perhaps we should just let it go to extremes and allow for some states that have vastly different rules and let people vote with their feet. Donâ(TM)t like the socialist state of Delaware? Move to the unfettered free market state of Kansas. Sure you likely end up with some horrible idiocy like religious or ethnicity-based states (i.e., no whites or no blacks or Mormons only) but that population would be self-selecting and then you wouldnâ(TM)t need to have those crazies as neighbors as they would have moved years ago. Everyone is welcome to as much ideological misery of their own choosing as they care to have and if they grow to dislike it they can move.
I like the idea mostly from a scientific perspective as it lets us test these different kinds of ideas out and to study them and prevents powerful interests from shoving a one size benefits them type of policy down the throats of everyone in the country. It probably has a lot of problems beyond the obvious, but it might be worth trying none the less.
Most commented would be even worse. It really just means the most controversial and Iâ(TM)d guess most of them have more to do with politics than tech.
I think that's going a bit too far. If this is a course designed for anyone to take as a first programming course, I think this approach is ideal, or at least much better than many alternatives. There are a lot of classes like this (one example I remember was college vs university physics where the university physics course was still challenging, but designed around being accessible for people who weren't going to major in physics or eventually take upper level classes that demanded an even greater level of rigor) where it's more appropriate to grade on a more gentle slope instead of making the class hard as balls in order to weed out potential majors.
On the other hand, that's why it would be a terrible idea for people who are going to major in computer science. Using this grading scale punishes someone who always tried the hardest material from the beginning and struggled with it and rewards someone who eventually made the jump from using their own shit as a crayon to managing to turn out the computer and submit assignments. There's something to be said for measuring growth as a part of a student's potential, but if the starting point is so low, I'm not sure how much it matters.
This sounds like the kind of computer science class that everyone at Harvard has to take (given the class size of 700), so I think it's appropriate to build the class to get the maximum amount of student buy-in so that the students actually learn something. Grades at a place like Harvard are utterly useless since just having a degree already marks you as one of the elite, never mind the connections you'll make while attending. I'd also guess that most people who are going to major in computer science will test out of the course or take a much more rigorous course with a more stringent grading scale.
Why did they bother?
Could be practice in a real-world scenario. These cameras might not offer anything of particular value, but it might help the hackers get some experience in these kinds of things for cases where the cameras might offer much juicier information.
Either that or they're just bored hackers and hacking things is what they do. They compromise a system because it's there.
Rust is giving us new capabilities that let us write secure and performant software easier and faster than ever before.
Unfortunately, none of that stuff actually seems to be what users want (but I'm sure they'll be glad to know that their Mr. Robot promotion plug-in was more secure and easier for y'all to write), so people continue to abandon Firefox for other browsers.
But you don't have a right to free utilities, and eventually you are required to pay them or the service will be shut off. I don't think it's unreasonable to place some restrictions on utilities as they are typically granted legal monopoly status by the government so it's only fair that in turn they can't act as they will in all matters. Also, if I were off the grid would those utility companies be required to come and provide me with service if my own power generation or heating were to fail in the middle of winter? I suspect not, so I don't believe what you're describing is a right at all.
Also, please name all of this infrastructure that I'm supposedly getting for free because its some kind of right that I supposedly have. As far as I can tell it's funded through various local sales taxes or use taxes in some form. If I were to suggest that I should get it for free because I have some right to it, I'd be laughed at. I'm not some kind of anarchist that believes all government is evil or we'd be best off with none, but looking at the world today I see the government doing as much if not more to violate my rights than it does to ensure them.
I think you're confusing what "rights" actually are. A service that you voluntarily pay for (or that you're required to pay for) is scarcely a right and shouldn't be treated or thought of as such. Nor should laws placed on utilities for common sense reasons.
Wouldn't the proponents of MVC argue that view-specific controllers are doing it wrong? There are probably some instances where there's just no getting around it, but having tightly coupled code like that is considered bad regardless of approach.
I'm guessing that people are skimping on design and rushing into implementation which is what's creating these ugly problems.
I fail to see on a philosophical level how anything can be a right if it requires someone else to provide it for you.
I understand that the people who come up with stuff like this have good intentions in mind, but at some point they can just as easily start to argue that plantation owners ought to have a right to have a certain amount of cotton picked for them.
Also, since this is the UK, a right to broadband is pretty fucking useless considering you're only free to use it unless you want to look at porn or say things that other people might not consider nice.
Please explain how an algorithm can be biased if you leave out ethnicity from the input data, but only after the fact discover that it results in fewer individuals of some group getting loans. It's not discriminating, it's just pointing out that two groups have very different input values as a very broad category. It probably also has different results between Asians, Jews, Hispanics, and most other groups. You're mistaking identifying different outcomes after the fact as a result of different initial factors with the usual human approach of lazily categorizing based on factors that aren't causal, but merely correlations.
You can even prove its not racist by finding a set of input data for individuals from two different demographic groups and seeing if it returns the same results for both. My guess is that it gives loans to black people who have good credit scores, a stable income, etc. and denies them to white people who have poor credit history and no steady income.
Algorithms are going to be far better than humans because they don't care about black, gay, atheist, etc. A human might well be intellectually lazy enough to group all blacks together as poor credit risks, but an algorithm isn't if you leave that irrelevant data out. In fact, using these algorithms would mean that if there is widespread discrimination against a group, that the company using the algorithm can actively pick out the people who will be able to repay loans which will generate additional profit. They've given themselves customers that other people are denying.
This doesn't look like being careful or taking preventative measures against misuse. Instead it reeks of not liking the results and not caring to address the underlying causes of those results. Giving loans to bad lending risks isn't going to magically make them responsible or more likely to pay back their loans. If black people, Methodists, or white people from WV happen to fall into that category more often than other groups, then you need to actually look at what is contributing to that result if you actually want to fix the problem.
Or they think it will be more damaging to their competitors (Amazon, Google, etc.) than it will be to themselves. Google seems to have a lot of different lawsuits from all sides of the aisle related to this issue at the current moment, so it could just be a way to try to get Google to tear itself apart even more.
Algorithms don't discriminate if you remove the kind of data (race, age, etc.) that would allow them to make categorizations or judgments based on that data. But if you examine the results after the fact and reapply those labels and find some difference in outcomes, its because there is some difference in input, not a category identifier. If you find your algorithm thinks African Americans are a worse lending risk, it's likely because they're categorically less well off financially than other demographic groups, not because its racist against black people.
This kind of idiotic approach is just ignoring the actual underlying problems or differences in favor of trying to slap a band-aid on top of it to assuage guilty feelings. Worse yet, it prevents confronting the actual issues head on and is doomed to failure.
Quadro cards weren't necessarily more powerful than the consumer cards (typically its the same GPU die with slightly lower clock speeds and significantly more memory) based on that same architecture. The biggest difference was that they just had the professional drivers that people doing CAD work, 3D modeling, etc. wanted and could justify the added expense for.
Also you must have been running with two cards or some kind of X2 card as I don't believe that NVidia made any single card solutions that supported 4 monitors back then.
Do you remember when the industrial revolution first started and power looms and such were invented. Suddenly people could make socks in a tiny fraction of the time it used to take to knit a pair. Unfortunately they made so many socks that all sock makers went completely out of business due to limited customers and to topi it all off their lost wages lead to a complete collapse of the economy in England.
Wait, that didn't actually happen. Instead people bought more socks than ever before because people had long wanted more socks than were capable of being produced. Just like hundreds of years ago with socks, what happens when you increase productivity and you can create more of something, consumptions tends to increase because people wanted more, just not at the previous price. People will keep on wanting more shit even as we find ways of making it ever more quickly and at lower costs and probably will until we find some way to alter our brain chemistry.
Perhaps now people see why it's a bad idea to allow unelected bureaucrats who are not accountable to the electorate the ability to create rules that govern anything. Blame FDR and the Congress at the time if you want to blame anyone as they were the ones to create the agency (though to be fair to them, it merely replaced previous bodies that did similar things) and abdicated their authority.
You might think Congress would want this authority back in their own hands, but Congress actually loves this shit, because they can just shrug their shoulders and say that there's nothing that they can do about it. If we actually left the authority to create an enact laws in their hands, they would be a lot more hesitant to enact broadly unpopular laws.
You can argue that having groups like the FCC, EPA, etc. can accomplish some good because they can at least dedicate their time to the various problems or areas they are concerned with, but they should have no authority to do anything aside from making recommendations to Congress who have been elected by the people to enact legislation.
This just seems like a cash grab on the part of Patreon. There's no reason that they couldn't combine all of the pledges into a single transaction with respect to billing the customer and then split the fee equally across all transactions. So if someone is pledging $1 to 10 different individuals,
Yes, most research is above board and is done by qualified people who want to make the world a better place, but there's always going to be some graft, it's pretty much unavoidable. However, FOIA requests are just one way to keep the system honest and to allow people to make more informed decisions. It is their money after all.
Steve did a lot of stupid things, but when he hit it was usually big. Steve also seemed to eventually come around to the correct idea after he missed though. Sure it wasn't always the best, but it was at least moving in the right direction. Cook is certainly a key part of Apple and probably ultimately more important in their success than Jobs as good ideas don't count for shit if you can't execute, but Cook is not good at vision. He's insanely good at helping execute on someone else's vision, but that doesn't make him particularly good at it. Jobs would probably say the same about Apple under Cook as he once quipped about Microsoft: They have no taste.
I think they would have to use the streets anyways as the sidewalks in parts of the city are full of tents or other makeshift dwellings for homeless people. Some of them would have no issues with stealing from delivery robots and there isn't a lot the police would do about it.
If Cuban communist agents really wanted to infiltrate America they could have just landed on US soil and claimed asylum which would have been granted, just as it had been for decades up until earlier this year when Obama ended that policy. If this were a real goal of Cuba, the U.S. would be rife with Cuban spies unless they only decided they should get in on this whole espionage thing within the last 10 months. There were so many Cubans actually trying to escape that even thousands of spies would have been able to blend in quite easily.
NOBODY in security EVER thinks a backdoor is a good thing! They are a MASSIVE vulnerability just waiting to get cracked, and if they are mandatory, all it takes is a single slip and that entire group is totally unprotected! It's not a question of IF it will be used and abused, but simply WHEN
Fixed it for you.
Is it really that much different than other optical illusions that cause you to perceive something that isn't there? The only thing interesting about this is that it's more of an aural illusion. It's almost like watching someone getting tackled or hit really hard and your brain sending some of the pain/reaction response to your body.
Here's something else that might interest you as if you do put some stereo headphones on and close your eyes, your brain may similarly use the cues its getting and start sending other signals in expectation of it believes is happening.