The problem with news outlets isn't just the fact-checking. Although I agree with you it's important. I'd be willing to pay for stories carrying the label: "this story has been fact-checked and all reported statements either check out as true or have been marked as unconfirmed". Unfortunately It's also the selection and filtering of news.
Compare for example the stories on Fox news with those CNN for a day. I do that once in a while and I get the distinct impression they're reporting on different worlds.
Fox News for example reports everything that might possible be used to call global warming into question (and omits everything that supports it), and goes on and on and on about Mrs. Clinton's emails. And stubbornly try to pin blame on her for the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi. They've put it firmly into their minds that it's their job to spin those affairs out, keep them alive (at least until the elections), and milk them for all they're worth. Fact-checking Mrs. Clinton seems to be limited to one main subject: emails. Fox News commenting on Mrs. Clinton seems to focus on emails. Did I mention that Fox News seems to be particularly interested in her emails?
When it comes to Mr. Trump, Fox News steadfastily refuses to fact-check or to criticise him (well... I can understand that: look what he did to Megyn Kelly and how he boycotted Fox News). No critical comment on Mr. Trump's allegations that Mrs. Clinton "plans to abolish the second amendment". No comment on his claims of seeing "secret footage" of cash-for-prisoners deals. No comment on his allegations that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton "founded ISIS". Even less (if possible) critical review of Mr. Trump's allegations that Mr. Obama is a "weak president" as far as ISIS is concerned. No comment on his mean-spirited dissing of the Khan's. No comment on his brinkmanship-like ramblings about leaving Nato (great move now that Russia is re-emerging as an aggressive power and EU countries are getting worried) and leaving Japan to fend for itself.
Then CNN. Lots of different topics being covered every day. But each time Mr. Trump ventilates some blatant, glaring untruth or a snide insinuation it's reported on CNN. Is that bias? Could be. It would be mine if I had to report. Does Mrs. Clinton come off scot-free? I shouldn't think so. The development of her email story is duly reported.
As a matter of fact, continued exposure to Fox News can be harmful to one's mental health. See e.g. http://www.thebrainwashingofmy... .
Use https://startpage.com/ instead of Google. They say (and as far as I'm aware truthfully) that they don't store your search history and don't sell what your IP address searched for.
Install an ad-blocker (search for it). Any ad-blocker is better than none at all.
Use NoScript (just search for it) in your browser. Reason: most websites log what you searched for on their site, link that to your IP address, datamine and sell the results. Nothing you can do about that, but websites can run scripts in your browser that make the process easier for them and more intrusive. This way a site has to obtain your permission to run a script. There is a nuisance factor for yourself too because some sites won't display content without running scripts. Then you can decide on a case by case basis if you want to allow it.
Nothing's perfect, but even a leaky umbrella is better than none at all.
If you're going to join a protest demonstration, make sure you've shaved, shine your shoes, comb your hair, cover up your more offensive tattoos, wear presentable clothes (if at all possible wear a tie). Comport yourself with quiet dignity throughout the demonstration. Also make sure any slogans you hold are correctly spelled.
It could swing the jury your way at trial years later when the footage is produced in court as part of examination of your character.
As long as it's optional, not in the way, and impossible to activate by accident I don't have a particular problem with it.
Personally I think it's a terrible idea. What's shown when I enter an URL should be between whoever designed the website and me. If a site is down, or a page is missing, I want to know about it.
The last thing I need is a bunch of programmers dreaming up ways to divert me from the real website to whatever is their idea of what I should be seeing. A typical example of a group of coders not knowing what to do with their time and messing with the basic functionality of their application, if you ask me.
So: great to see that you're having fun Mozilla programmers, but make sure to implement this an an optional feature and keep it out of my way unless I explicitly activate it. Otherwise I'll be looking for a new browser. Fair warning.
I'm happy to hear that yet another piece of "alternative", "stick-it-to-The-Man" payment infrastructure has been burgled. Really.
It injects a much needed note of caution and realism into the dream of technologically focused, realism-challenged (and therefore irresponsible) amateur social engineers.
You see, a large part of the appeal of bitcoin comes from its aura of "under the radar", "the authorities need never find out" financial transactions.
This holds an attraction for several groups, of which two are problematic: outright criminals and their "lets-dodge-the-system" libertarian cousins.
I believe that outright criminals like the possibility of doing financial transactions without giving out your real name. Think "dark net" transactions involving in cybercrime services, malware, botnet control, stolen data, stolen credentials, drugs, weapons, etc. Think suppliers in "Silk Road" transactions.
I think that "lets-dodge-the-system" libertarians, who often figure as end-users of illegal goods and services are attracted to the possibility of doing "under the radar" financial transactions for the same reason: their real name can be kept undisclosed. In part they're happy to purchase illegal goods, in part they're ideologically motivated (as in "we need to grow alternative economy that's outside "government" or "system" control because all government is bad and "the system" is designed to screw us over").
For the first group (criminals) I believe it serves as a useful deterrent, or at least a risk and a complication.
For the second group it serves as a salutary reminder that their fellow citizens are at least as reprehensible as "the government" and just as capable of screwing them over as any "institution". After all, the institutions we have have evolved over several centuries, if not millennia, to strike a balance between freedom, safeguards, responsibility, accountability and free-for-all banditry. Something that starry-eyed, technology fixated "bash-the-system" enthusiasts will only appreciate if hammered home by personal or close-to-personal experience.
Where and how new technologies like bitcoin should fit into our society remains to be seen (and experimentally determined). However, our existing institutions have very real merits and safeguards that have evolved because of human nature itself. Such safeguards (which we all too often take for granted) are lacking from new technological developments and are just as important as the basic functionality. A reminder of which can only be positive.
I know this is Slashdot, where actually reading background articles can get you disqualified.
However, it so happens that even a cursory glance at the articles you linked to show that, although there is reason for concern, your claim is heavy on hyperbole and light on justification.
If researchers use patched versions of their statistical packages, and don't fall prey to the error described in the Scientific American article you linked to, their results should be Ok.
Researcher can usually improve the validity of their results by consulting with a proper statistician before they rush off to publish, but that holds in many more areas of science.
Am I supposed to be shocked? Those terms don't strike me as particularly unreasonable.
I mean... raising children is a chore and costs a lot of money. Think of it as free board and tuition for the first brat so that you can safely experiment a little on the first and get it right with the second and the third. I call that a public service!
In addition... the NSA has all my data already and just in case... why would I want object to them collecting more on me? That would be un-patriottic, no?
In addition I'm not doing anything on the site that would upset my employer.
So err... where's the problem? I find the honesty of the TOS rather refreshing actually.
There is no fundamental change of course in physics.
Firstly: particle physics is far from the only branch of physics and it makes zero sense to judge the "philosophical foundations of physics" by particle physics alone.
Secondly, it is hardly uncommon to have experimental measurement abilities and theorising out of sync. It was only about 75 years after the Schroedinger equation was proposed that we got anything like direct physical confirmation of the shape or orbitals.Gravity lenses confirming general relativity were observed well after the theory was published. And so forth.
Given how far outside our current experimental and observational abilities the current crop of particle physics lies, a century until we can come up with experimental or observational make evidence does not seem excessive. It's just the way things are.
In the mean time there is plenty of time to get to grips with the theoretical difficulties of getting useful predictions out of string theory. We have seen progres, but another century doesn't seem excessive here either.
Why can't we let people get on with it... and focus on more "mundane" physics like quantum mechanics? It's not as if that's anything like a dead branch of investigation either.
Well... to some extent. Lets look at the article itself, shall we?
From the (Bloomberg) article: "From software developers and mathematical modelers to geriatric nurses and care workers, a mismatch in qualifications means companies are struggling to fill posts, even though the unemployment rate at 20.4 percent is the second-highest in Europe".
Yea, right. Mathematical modelers are always thin on the ground and software developers can be, depending on what you ask. Geriatric nurses are an impopular specialisation, and demand is growing fairly quickly. Working conditions tend not to be the best though, so it's not the most popular specialisation. Takes a year and a half to qualify though, and not many hospitals are willing to pay you to do it. Those that are pay you a pittance, fire you the day you graduate, and start with the next bunch of trainees.
Problem is: can you trust current industry demand to guide your choice of curriculum?
Answer: No you can't. Companies (with the exception of the likes of Shell, IBM, GM, Unilever etc.) don't plan any further ahead than 6 months. Easier and cheaper that way. So, current industry demand isn't a very good indicator.
And this: "Pimentelâ(TM)s client asked him for list of candidates trained in "Agile" project management techniques for helping companies boost their productivity by using more I.T. systems. The client was offering as much as 200,000 euros ($220,000) a year -- almost 10 times the average salary in Spain."
Salary's pretty good, especially for Europe. But "trained in agile". Does that mean "attended a few lectures in scrum or whatever"? No. From the rest of the article: you need to have sufficient experience to know what software development is and what the issues are. And then the article lets it transpire that you'll be talking with senior management... on your project. Sounds like a "development lead with experience in agile" position to me. Definitely not for your average coder, with or without course in "agile" development bolted on.
I can only conclude that the Slashdot headline is a bit misleading. The Bloomberg headline is more accurate, and the article goes on to lambast the Spanish educational system for not paying sufficient attention to industry needs (STEM subjects).
However... about a year and a half ago I made the acquaintance of a (very smart) Spanish PhD in experimental physics who (1) couldn't find a fitting job opportunity in Spain when she graduated (6 years ago) (2) went abroad to do a doctorate (3) was subsequently unable to find a faculty position (two years ago) in Europe) and went to work as a data analyst for the government.
Several interesting things in this story: she couldn't find a decent job even though she was smart, motivated, and well-educated, she had to look outside Spain to do a PhD (well, some would call that a valuable education in itself), then couldn't find a job in the field for which she had just qualified (experimental physics), and went to do work for which she wasn't "formally" qualified but for which she was quite well prepared (kudos to that HR department).
Now think of your average HR department. Would they have hired her as a data analist? Nah... too many boxes not ticked. No Hadoop experience, no Java programming certificates, no certificate in SAS, not SPLUNK certified, no Python programming certificates, no Linux certificates (although she did her PhD work on Linux systems like all physicists). Yup. Probably no MS Office certificates either (but perhaps those can be overlooked).
So it's a sum of circumstances: insufficient attention to trivial but "in-demand" qualifications on part of educational authorities to please box-ticking HR departments, HR departments being generally unable to bring any understanding and intelligence to their job (costs too much to have somebody working there who actually understand what the job entails, right... so keep with the box-tickers). industry as a whole being unable to provide reliable forecasts of future personnel demands.
Nobody forces you to be on the power grid (you can install your own diesel aggregate and solar panels), nobody forces you to get tap water (feel free to install a cistern and order up a tanker to fill it, or brush your teeth with bottled water), and (depending on where you live) you may be allowed to install a septic tank and a chemical toilet where you live.
The point is: you can survive perfectly well without utilities; it will just mean additional expense. Same with Google. Nobody forces you to use it, but most of your clients will. So as a business you haven't got a lot of choice really.
With parcels you have to wire in a detonator of some sort. Therefore parcels tend to be scanned for wires and subjected to sniffing for explosives and other chemically and biologically hazardous materials. This sort of scrutiny rarely happens with your own drones before they take off (or while they are airborne).
Unlike drones, parcels also tend to be traceable to the sender.
Neither of which are favourable conditions for a would-be terrorist, right?
This is an example of a technology that holds promise when used responsibly, but also grave dangers and downsides.
One of the dangers is how it can be abused.
For example, if I were in charge of ISIS terror operations, I would now be researching the feasibility of delivering semtex parcels to e.g. veteran's homes in the US by drone. The addresses I can buy on the Internet, drones are available, and painting one in Amazon colours will ensure it doesn't attract a lot of attention when it takes off. The "payload" would have to be a fairly powerful explosive because of the drones' limited carrying capacity, so something like semtex would be preferred. Now, acquiring semtex locally or smuggling it into the US without getting caught (let alone operating a network in the US to deliver it to the "operators") will be a problem, but what have we got dedicated followers for, right? We can afford operational losses, as long as at least a few shipments get through.
Or a targeted release of anthrax or small-pox, or whatever you've got.
I really wouldn't need to score many 'hits' to unleash a huge wave of publicity, would I?
Even three to five "hits" would compromise people's sense of personal security in their very homes, and lead to a nation-wide outcry. Besides, the operator may well be secretly pleased we're only asking him to risk arrest and pilot a drone, not to detonate the parcel while it's strapped to his butt, so it might be easier to get volunteers. Not bad for a relatively cheap and simple terrorist operation, eh?
Terrorism threats will be with us for years to come, so let's be a little cautious and also consider what new windows of vulnerability we may be opening up here, Ok?
In my opinion you've missed the point of Epstein's article.
Epstein contends (and I agree) that Google's services are so pervasive that it really has taken on the role of a public utility, while still being an ordinary commercial enterprise without any responsibility whatsoever to anyone except their shareholders.
By its very nature, Google *cannot* be transparent about its page-rank algorithm because the instant it is, every SEO con artist in existence will proceed to abuse that knowledge and undermine the quality and usefulness of Google's search results.
The bottom line is: Google is a company that provides a service that's as essential as power, water, roads, trash collection and sanitation that's beyond oversight and cannot (ever) be transparent about its service. How would you like that same level of transparency and total un-accountability with other utilities?
What you call "freedom", I call risky concentration of power without checks, balances, or oversight. An appeal to "freedom" is, I think, an oversimplification. Why not allow utility companies to switch off the power, the water supply, or block the sewers if they it would be in their corporate interests to do so? When water authorities ration water usage because supplies are running out, everyone is up in arms, but you'd like to lie down and take it if it's in the corporate rather than the public interest? After all, nothing stops you from buying bottled water, does it? Or installing a swimming pool as a backup water cistern, right? How about allowing the wastewater treatment plant to shut down the sewers in the city centre if somebody (perhaps a restaurant) dumps a load of fat down the sink that plays hob with their sewage treatment?
What Google does (and must do) to keep its services humming really does lead to injustice in individual cases.
To that extent I agree with Epstein. Where I disagree with Epstein is whether it's worth the price in this particular case. However, with Google, whilst transparency is impossible oversight isn't. We may well need regulations and oversight for search engines somewhere down the line.
One of the things Epstein takes issue with stems from Google's tendency to retaliate against websites that create artificial websites referring to the one they wish to promote.
This is a way of taking advantage of the way the page-rank algorithm works, in that it counts "incoming links" (they're doing a weighted, iteratively calculated count, but lets keep things simple).
Left to its own, there would be little the page-rank algorithm can do against such obvious abuse of the algorithm to self-promote certain sites. Thus, in the best traditions of the unenlightened self-interest that so pervades our society, the wellspring of the Commons is poisoned. The best of it is that it's all "legal" (there is no law against). As a consequence the value of Google's search results is at risk, and with it the public service they provide.
Rather than seeking redress from the law (which simply doesn't offer any), Google decided to mete out its own kind of justice: it corrected the search rank of sites that do this downward (manually or otherwise) so that they were starved of traffic. The message Google sends with this is: pull this one on us and we'll bury you.
In cases of genuine abuse (websites inflating their rank through this kind of "Search Engine Optimization" I agree with this measure. Unfortunately downgrading a site's search rank is a powerful weapon which, even when used without malice, can lead to injustice against which there is no appeal. Simply because either people or algorithms that do the downranking will make mistakes.
Alas, our world is not perfect. On the whole however I prefer Google to protect its search algorithm from abuse by SEO con artists at the expense of killing the odd innocent website. Sorry but my interests are better served by having high-quality search results than by preventing injustice.
It's a classic example of methodological incompetence. Got your popcorn? Let's start the show.
Their dependent variable is piracy rates (between 0 and 100) as published by the BSA. Not one word about measurement uncertainty in those data. Remember how the MPAA and the BSA used to estimate sales losses due to piracy? That's right: list_price x (penetration_fraction x population of PC's - license sold). I kid you not. And they calmly rely on piracy data from those sources.
Then their explanatory variable: the so-called IQ measure. They cite the "seminal" work of Lyn,R. VanHaanen, T ()
Unfortunately for the authors of the latest "correlation paper", the work of Lyn and VanHaanen is anything but uncontroversial. I quote from one of the Lyn and VanHaanenpapers:
First, we believe that these estab-
lish beyond reasonable doubt the validity of our national IQ.
This was initially disputed by a number of critics. For in-
stance, Ervik (2003, pp. 405â"6) asked âoeare people in rich
countries smarter than those in poorer countries?â and con-
cluded that âoethe authors fail to present convincing evidence
and appear to jump to conclusions.â Nechyba (2004, p.
1178) wrote of the âoerelatively weak statistical evidence and
dubious presumptions.â Barnett and Williams (2004, p.)
rejected our national IQ as âoevirtually meaninglessâ; Volken
(2003, p. 411) described them as âoehighly deficientâ; and
Hunt and Sternberg (2006, pp. 133, 136) rejected them as
âoetechnically inadequate⦠and meaninglessâ.
The answer to these criticisms is that our national IQs are
validated by their high correlations with scores in tests of
mathematics, science and reading, as shown in Table 1, and
also with the numerous other economic and social phenom-
ena documented in subsequent tables. These high correla-
tions would not be present if our national IQs were
meaningless.
Gettit? The fact that there are high correlations "proves" the validity of their inference that there are meaningful relationships. Did they go to Trump University or what?
In this vein I especially like the high correlation (see http://www.tylervigen.com/spur... ) between per-capita cheese consumption and people who died by becoming entangled in their bedsheets.
I wonder if the authors thought to control for that.
As far as serious research is concerned, this is the end of the line, but lets go on and have a look at their model, shall we?
They model the value of a fraction through a straightforward regression model: SP_i = \alpha + \beta IQ_i + \lambda X_i + \epsilon_i
Oops, and there we have the little matter of using straightforward regression to model a fraaaaction, instead of something like logistic regression.
For those who don't immediately spot the problem, see e.g. here: http://www.theanalysisfactor.c...
Ordinary linear models are simply unsuitable to model fractions. A point that's common knowledge with statisticians, but one that's apparently lost on the authors (and the authors on which they base their work).
Right, lets continue and look at the graph they show with their regression line. Each country counts as one (China has the same weight as the e.g. Senegal and the US has the same weight as the Comores. Look ma, no weights! Sounds good eh? When you look at their graph, China shows up as one serious outlier with an "IQ" score of about 110 and a "piracy" score of about 80%. Only 1 bln people up there. Close by, in the bottom-right corner of their graph is the good ole US of A, weighing in at about 270 mln people, with almost the same score
It's a classic example of methodological incompetence. Got your popcorn? Let's start the show.
Their dependent variable is piracy rates (between 0 and 100) as published by the BSA. Not one word about measurement uncertainty in those data. Remember how the MPAA and the BSA used to estimate sales losses due to piracy? That's right: list_price x (penetration_fraction x population of PC's - license sold). I kid you not. And they calmly rely on piracy data from those sources.
Then their explanatory variable: the so-called IQ measure. They cite the "seminal" work of Lyn,R. VanHaanen, T ()
Unfortunately for the authors of the latest "correlation paper", the work of Lyn and VanHaanen is anything but uncontroversial. I quote from one of the Lyn and VanHaanenpapers:
First, we believe that these estab-
lish beyond reasonable doubt the validity of our national IQ.
This was initially disputed by a number of critics. For in-
stance, Ervik (2003, pp. 405â"6) asked âoeare people in rich
countries smarter than those in poorer countries?â and con-
cluded that âoethe authors fail to present convincing evidence
and appear to jump to conclusions.â Nechyba (2004, p.
1178) wrote of the âoerelatively weak statistical evidence and
dubious presumptions.â Barnett and Williams (2004, p.)
rejected our national IQ as âoevirtually meaninglessâ; Volken
(2003, p. 411) described them as âoehighly deficientâ; and
Hunt and Sternberg (2006, pp. 133, 136) rejected them as
âoetechnically inadequate⦠and meaninglessâ.
The answer to these criticisms is that our national IQs are
validated by their high correlations with scores in tests of
mathematics, science and reading, as shown in Table 1, and
also with the numerous other economic and social phenom-
ena documented in subsequent tables. These high correla-
tions would not be present if our national IQs were
meaningless.
Allow me to correct you, because the term "patent troll" is unknown in business circles, largely dated, prejudicial, defamatory, and may open you up to legal action.
What you really meant to say is that the Chinese company affected is one that specialises in monetising Valuable Intellectual Property, by which means it spurs Innovation, while not necessarily being a practising entity.
As far as I can see, the problem indeed isn't in finding facts that demonstrate Trump is spiritually, ethically, intellectually and temperamentally unsuited for office, it's convincing a few million voters that voting for him is stupid. People don't vote rationally, they vote emotionally.
This is one of the few things mr. Trump has got right, as shown by his public statement that he could kill someone in front of the camera and not suffer a significant loss of popularity.
The current economic adversity, the fact that large numbers of people are financially struggling, that the prospect of automatically having a good life as long as one works diligently and happens to be an American has dimmed.
Over the last 16 years voters have listened to various presidents and countless lesser politicians who have campaigned by delivering upbeat messages about "Aaaahhhhmerriikaahhh" in all its forms. Only to find that reality still fell short of their expectations: their personal financial situation didn't improve as they had hoped, their position in the job market wasn't all that good and doesn't look like it will improve soon. In facts, it looks like it's not going to improve substantially unless something changes dramatically.
People have also been bombarded for decades with news that as a matter of fact focuses on what went wrong rather than on what fraction of things went wrong (shock news sells a lot better than balanced news with a perspective) and insofar as non-local news got through to them, it was negative news that seemed to imply they were somehow falling short in a million ways that require intense effort to even understand, let alone address. In addition, there's the powerful (if erroneous) emotion that they can survive if they're not dependent on anyone else, specifically as regards personal safety (i.e. a constitutional right to have one or more guns). And now they're getting disquieting messages that "people" want to question, qualify, if not abolish that right.
To many people this feels like err... betrayal. And it generates a lot of undirected anger.
Then suddenly there is this slugger who minces no words, is always ready to lash out at some "others" who are imperiling us, reflects that anger and seems to promise a way to a better future ("Make America Great Again"). Moreover one who never uses any complicated words, and in fact, whose entire thinking is very very uncomplicated, but who nevertheless seems able to be successful (billionaire and all; nevermind he inherited a fortune and would have done just as well if he had invested in stock market index trackers and retired when his inheritance came through). He looks different from all those other politicians who take such obvious care to be smarmy and to attract votes.
Wow... that guy is easy to relate to, right?
The problem is in showing to those people that this oh so uncomplicated slugger with his brazen simplemindedness and his appeal to people's anger isn't the best way forward. Only... people who feel attracted to him aren't receptive to rational argument. They're receptive to emotional ones. You just need to find which ones exactly. It's a bit like being a psychiatrist and a trial lawyer in one.
People that follow mr. Trump have minds like a lock that will admit only a limited number of keys. Figuring out which key to use in what state of the debate is why you do opposition research. If you tell the opposition which key's you've found so far, they will try to deny and deflect your arguments, change the subject, outshout you, and line up flashier talking points of their own to sway people.
Since mr. Trump only recently hired political insiders to get the technicalities of his campaign right, having access to a file like this works to his advantage: part of his people's work has been done and they can focus on shoring up his weaknesses and coming up with ideas for offense rather than analysing mr. Trump's weaknesses from the bottom up.
It's called proportionality. Amazon sends millions of packages, but were caught out breaking safety rules about 24 times.
You don't want to kill Amazon, just make it comply. I'd say that 350 K for a single transgression will get their attention. If not, the next penalty will be higher.
Waterfall works really well when you have a big coherent system to maintain with all kinds of long-distance couplings in e.g. the software architecture (what should the software do and what not, which part does what, which parts provide services to other parts), data-structures (field definitions, encoding schemes, tracking id's, etc.), database engines, database consistence rules, timing requirements, etc.
You really really don't want some SCRUM team messing around with those.
And yes, Agile is superior to Waterfall when it comes to adapting software to en-user requirements that can be accommodated within the constraints imposed by architecture and application-server and application-application interfaces and have only "local" implications.
It absolutely helps if coders can talk to their users directly instead of through a layer of architects, analysts and designers. But you have to constrain what they can talk about.
Uber has nothing to do with "competition", let alone a "free market". It deals in "unfair competition", in which it maintains a monopoly on apps and servers, appropriates inflated fees for their electronic service, and uses (underpaid pseudo-entrepreneur) part-timers as throw-away employees to actually drive (and drive out ordinary taxi companies and ordinary taxicab drivers).
The only thing Uber did was to find a regulated market, determine it could make money by an end-run around the regulations, and offer unregulated services by offloading most risks to their pseudo-entrepreneur drivers. In addition they use (apparently successfully) of dog-whistle PR techniques to sell their business model.
Oh, and they also have a standing policy to price-gouge the public as soon as there is any situation that leads to higher than normal demand. Free play of demand and supply they call it. Only... all of it is hidden within their servers.
And they have a policy to threaten price-comparison sites with legal action (their "terms of service" forbid you to publish any price quotations they make you). They're only pro "free-market" if they stand to make money from it. Not if it brings genuine competition.
No, people who advocate bringing down traffic levels aren't nuts and there is a genuine conflict of interest to resolve here.
From a transport planning point of view you have various types of roads: some types of road are planned and designed to provide high levels of service to road users whereas other roads (mainly in residential areas) can be designed (or even just designated) to provide residential areas with safe and bearable traffic conditions.
It's basically the local council's job to balance these interests. What a local council is allowed to do is e.g. to limit the capacity of certain roads (through e.g. road closures, bends, througpasses, speed humps, traffic lights, or whatever) to the extent that such roads become unattractive to non-local traffic.
Tax-paying non-local motorists have no greater "right" to pass through residential areas than tax-paying residents have to demand that roads in residential areas have traffic conditions appropriate for residential areas.
Slashdot Mirror
Compare for example the stories on Fox news with those CNN for a day. I do that once in a while and I get the distinct impression they're reporting on different worlds.
Fox News for example reports everything that might possible be used to call global warming into question (and omits everything that supports it), and goes on and on and on about Mrs. Clinton's emails. And stubbornly try to pin blame on her for the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi. They've put it firmly into their minds that it's their job to spin those affairs out, keep them alive (at least until the elections), and milk them for all they're worth. Fact-checking Mrs. Clinton seems to be limited to one main subject: emails. Fox News commenting on Mrs. Clinton seems to focus on emails. Did I mention that Fox News seems to be particularly interested in her emails?
When it comes to Mr. Trump, Fox News steadfastily refuses to fact-check or to criticise him (well ... I can understand that: look what he did to Megyn Kelly and how he boycotted Fox News). No critical comment on Mr. Trump's allegations that Mrs. Clinton "plans to abolish the second amendment". No comment on his claims of seeing "secret footage" of cash-for-prisoners deals. No comment on his allegations that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton "founded ISIS". Even less (if possible) critical review of Mr. Trump's allegations that Mr. Obama is a "weak president" as far as ISIS is concerned. No comment on his mean-spirited dissing of the Khan's. No comment on his brinkmanship-like ramblings about leaving Nato (great move now that Russia is re-emerging as an aggressive power and EU countries are getting worried) and leaving Japan to fend for itself.
Then CNN. Lots of different topics being covered every day. But each time Mr. Trump ventilates some blatant, glaring untruth or a snide insinuation it's reported on CNN. Is that bias? Could be. It would be mine if I had to report. Does Mrs. Clinton come off scot-free? I shouldn't think so. The development of her email story is duly reported.
As a matter of fact, continued exposure to Fox News can be harmful to one's mental health. See e.g. http://www.thebrainwashingofmy... .
For a victim in an advanced state of over-exposure, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Perhaps one or two suggestions might be useful:
Use https://startpage.com/ instead of Google. They say (and as far as I'm aware truthfully) that they don't store your search history and don't sell what your IP address searched for.
Install an ad-blocker (search for it). Any ad-blocker is better than none at all.
Use NoScript (just search for it) in your browser. Reason: most websites log what you searched for on their site, link that to your IP address, datamine and sell the results. Nothing you can do about that, but websites can run scripts in your browser that make the process easier for them and more intrusive. This way a site has to obtain your permission to run a script. There is a nuisance factor for yourself too because some sites won't display content without running scripts. Then you can decide on a case by case basis if you want to allow it.
Nothing's perfect, but even a leaky umbrella is better than none at all.
If you're going to join a protest demonstration, make sure you've shaved, shine your shoes, comb your hair, cover up your more offensive tattoos, wear presentable clothes (if at all possible wear a tie). Comport yourself with quiet dignity throughout the demonstration. Also make sure any slogans you hold are correctly spelled.
It could swing the jury your way at trial years later when the footage is produced in court as part of examination of your character.
Personally I think it's a terrible idea. What's shown when I enter an URL should be between whoever designed the website and me. If a site is down, or a page is missing, I want to know about it.
The last thing I need is a bunch of programmers dreaming up ways to divert me from the real website to whatever is their idea of what I should be seeing. A typical example of a group of coders not knowing what to do with their time and messing with the basic functionality of their application, if you ask me.
So: great to see that you're having fun Mozilla programmers, but make sure to implement this an an optional feature and keep it out of my way unless I explicitly activate it. Otherwise I'll be looking for a new browser. Fair warning.
It injects a much needed note of caution and realism into the dream of technologically focused, realism-challenged (and therefore irresponsible) amateur social engineers.
You see, a large part of the appeal of bitcoin comes from its aura of "under the radar", "the authorities need never find out" financial transactions.
This holds an attraction for several groups, of which two are problematic: outright criminals and their "lets-dodge-the-system" libertarian cousins.
I believe that outright criminals like the possibility of doing financial transactions without giving out your real name. Think "dark net" transactions involving in cybercrime services, malware, botnet control, stolen data, stolen credentials, drugs, weapons, etc. Think suppliers in "Silk Road" transactions.
I think that "lets-dodge-the-system" libertarians, who often figure as end-users of illegal goods and services are attracted to the possibility of doing "under the radar" financial transactions for the same reason: their real name can be kept undisclosed. In part they're happy to purchase illegal goods, in part they're ideologically motivated (as in "we need to grow alternative economy that's outside "government" or "system" control because all government is bad and "the system" is designed to screw us over").
For the first group (criminals) I believe it serves as a useful deterrent, or at least a risk and a complication.
For the second group it serves as a salutary reminder that their fellow citizens are at least as reprehensible as "the government" and just as capable of screwing them over as any "institution". After all, the institutions we have have evolved over several centuries, if not millennia, to strike a balance between freedom, safeguards, responsibility, accountability and free-for-all banditry. Something that starry-eyed, technology fixated "bash-the-system" enthusiasts will only appreciate if hammered home by personal or close-to-personal experience.
Where and how new technologies like bitcoin should fit into our society remains to be seen (and experimentally determined). However, our existing institutions have very real merits and safeguards that have evolved because of human nature itself. Such safeguards (which we all too often take for granted) are lacking from new technological developments and are just as important as the basic functionality. A reminder of which can only be positive.
So disguise your dogfood as drugs and carry a foreign passport when you enter. Problem solved!
EU to give taxpayer funded security audits.
So?
Sounds like money well spent to me.
I know this is Slashdot, where actually reading background articles can get you disqualified.
However, it so happens that even a cursory glance at the articles you linked to show that, although there is reason for concern, your claim is heavy on hyperbole and light on justification.
If researchers use patched versions of their statistical packages, and don't fall prey to the error described in the Scientific American article you linked to, their results should be Ok.
Researcher can usually improve the validity of their results by consulting with a proper statistician before they rush off to publish, but that holds in many more areas of science.
By that time I'll be able buy a replacement set of kidneys and a brand new iver. They're welcome to my discards.
I mean ... raising children is a chore and costs a lot of money. Think of it as free board and tuition for the first brat so that you can safely experiment a little on the first and get it right with the second and the third. I call that a public service!
In addition ... the NSA has all my data already and just in case ... why would I want object to them collecting more on me? That would be un-patriottic, no?
In addition I'm not doing anything on the site that would upset my employer.
So err ... where's the problem? I find the honesty of the TOS rather refreshing actually.
Firstly: particle physics is far from the only branch of physics and it makes zero sense to judge the "philosophical foundations of physics" by particle physics alone.
Secondly, it is hardly uncommon to have experimental measurement abilities and theorising out of sync. It was only about 75 years after the Schroedinger equation was proposed that we got anything like direct physical confirmation of the shape or orbitals.Gravity lenses confirming general relativity were observed well after the theory was published. And so forth.
Given how far outside our current experimental and observational abilities the current crop of particle physics lies, a century until we can come up with experimental or observational make evidence does not seem excessive. It's just the way things are.
In the mean time there is plenty of time to get to grips with the theoretical difficulties of getting useful predictions out of string theory. We have seen progres, but another century doesn't seem excessive here either.
Why can't we let people get on with it ... and focus on more "mundane" physics like quantum mechanics? It's not as if that's anything like a dead branch of investigation either.
From the (Bloomberg) article: "From software developers and mathematical modelers to geriatric nurses and care workers, a mismatch in qualifications means companies are struggling to fill posts, even though the unemployment rate at 20.4 percent is the second-highest in Europe".
Yea, right. Mathematical modelers are always thin on the ground and software developers can be, depending on what you ask. Geriatric nurses are an impopular specialisation, and demand is growing fairly quickly. Working conditions tend not to be the best though, so it's not the most popular specialisation. Takes a year and a half to qualify though, and not many hospitals are willing to pay you to do it. Those that are pay you a pittance, fire you the day you graduate, and start with the next bunch of trainees.
Problem is: can you trust current industry demand to guide your choice of curriculum?
Answer: No you can't. Companies (with the exception of the likes of Shell, IBM, GM, Unilever etc.) don't plan any further ahead than 6 months. Easier and cheaper that way. So, current industry demand isn't a very good indicator.
And this: "Pimentelâ(TM)s client asked him for list of candidates trained in "Agile" project management techniques for helping companies boost their productivity by using more I.T. systems. The client was offering as much as 200,000 euros ($220,000) a year -- almost 10 times the average salary in Spain."
Salary's pretty good, especially for Europe. But "trained in agile". Does that mean "attended a few lectures in scrum or whatever"? No. From the rest of the article: you need to have sufficient experience to know what software development is and what the issues are. And then the article lets it transpire that you'll be talking with senior management ... on your project. Sounds like a "development lead with experience in agile" position to me. Definitely not for your average coder, with or without course in "agile" development bolted on.
I can only conclude that the Slashdot headline is a bit misleading. The Bloomberg headline is more accurate, and the article goes on to lambast the Spanish educational system for not paying sufficient attention to industry needs (STEM subjects).
However ... about a year and a half ago I made the acquaintance of a (very smart) Spanish PhD in experimental physics who (1) couldn't find a fitting job opportunity in Spain when she graduated (6 years ago) (2) went abroad to do a doctorate (3) was subsequently unable to find a faculty position (two years ago) in Europe) and went to work as a data analyst for the government.
Several interesting things in this story: she couldn't find a decent job even though she was smart, motivated, and well-educated, she had to look outside Spain to do a PhD (well, some would call that a valuable education in itself), then couldn't find a job in the field for which she had just qualified (experimental physics), and went to do work for which she wasn't "formally" qualified but for which she was quite well prepared (kudos to that HR department).
Now think of your average HR department. Would they have hired her as a data analist? Nah ... too many boxes not ticked. No Hadoop experience, no Java programming certificates, no certificate in SAS, not SPLUNK certified, no Python programming certificates, no Linux certificates (although she did her PhD work on Linux systems like all physicists). Yup. Probably no MS Office certificates either (but perhaps those can be overlooked).
So it's a sum of circumstances: insufficient attention to trivial but "in-demand" qualifications on part of educational authorities to please box-ticking HR departments, HR departments being generally unable to bring any understanding and intelligence to their job (costs too much to have somebody working there who actually understand what the job entails, right ... so keep with the box-tickers). industry as a whole being unable to provide reliable forecasts of future personnel demands.
Disagreed!
Nobody forces you to be on the power grid (you can install your own diesel aggregate and solar panels), nobody forces you to get tap water (feel free to install a cistern and order up a tanker to fill it, or brush your teeth with bottled water), and (depending on where you live) you may be allowed to install a septic tank and a chemical toilet where you live.
The point is: you can survive perfectly well without utilities; it will just mean additional expense. Same with Google. Nobody forces you to use it, but most of your clients will. So as a business you haven't got a lot of choice really.
With parcels you have to wire in a detonator of some sort. Therefore parcels tend to be scanned for wires and subjected to sniffing for explosives and other chemically and biologically hazardous materials. This sort of scrutiny rarely happens with your own drones before they take off (or while they are airborne).
Unlike drones, parcels also tend to be traceable to the sender.
Neither of which are favourable conditions for a would-be terrorist, right?
One of the dangers is how it can be abused.
For example, if I were in charge of ISIS terror operations, I would now be researching the feasibility of delivering semtex parcels to e.g. veteran's homes in the US by drone. The addresses I can buy on the Internet, drones are available, and painting one in Amazon colours will ensure it doesn't attract a lot of attention when it takes off. The "payload" would have to be a fairly powerful explosive because of the drones' limited carrying capacity, so something like semtex would be preferred. Now, acquiring semtex locally or smuggling it into the US without getting caught (let alone operating a network in the US to deliver it to the "operators") will be a problem, but what have we got dedicated followers for, right? We can afford operational losses, as long as at least a few shipments get through.
Or a targeted release of anthrax or small-pox, or whatever you've got.
I really wouldn't need to score many 'hits' to unleash a huge wave of publicity, would I?
Even three to five "hits" would compromise people's sense of personal security in their very homes, and lead to a nation-wide outcry. Besides, the operator may well be secretly pleased we're only asking him to risk arrest and pilot a drone, not to detonate the parcel while it's strapped to his butt, so it might be easier to get volunteers. Not bad for a relatively cheap and simple terrorist operation, eh?
Terrorism threats will be with us for years to come, so let's be a little cautious and also consider what new windows of vulnerability we may be opening up here, Ok?
In my opinion you've missed the point of Epstein's article.
Epstein contends (and I agree) that Google's services are so pervasive that it really has taken on the role of a public utility, while still being an ordinary commercial enterprise without any responsibility whatsoever to anyone except their shareholders.
By its very nature, Google *cannot* be transparent about its page-rank algorithm because the instant it is, every SEO con artist in existence will proceed to abuse that knowledge and undermine the quality and usefulness of Google's search results.
The bottom line is: Google is a company that provides a service that's as essential as power, water, roads, trash collection and sanitation that's beyond oversight and cannot (ever) be transparent about its service. How would you like that same level of transparency and total un-accountability with other utilities?
What you call "freedom", I call risky concentration of power without checks, balances, or oversight. An appeal to "freedom" is, I think, an oversimplification. Why not allow utility companies to switch off the power, the water supply, or block the sewers if they it would be in their corporate interests to do so? When water authorities ration water usage because supplies are running out, everyone is up in arms, but you'd like to lie down and take it if it's in the corporate rather than the public interest? After all, nothing stops you from buying bottled water, does it? Or installing a swimming pool as a backup water cistern, right? How about allowing the wastewater treatment plant to shut down the sewers in the city centre if somebody (perhaps a restaurant) dumps a load of fat down the sink that plays hob with their sewage treatment?
What Google does (and must do) to keep its services humming really does lead to injustice in individual cases.
To that extent I agree with Epstein. Where I disagree with Epstein is whether it's worth the price in this particular case. However, with Google, whilst transparency is impossible oversight isn't. We may well need regulations and oversight for search engines somewhere down the line.
This is a way of taking advantage of the way the page-rank algorithm works, in that it counts "incoming links" (they're doing a weighted, iteratively calculated count, but lets keep things simple).
Left to its own, there would be little the page-rank algorithm can do against such obvious abuse of the algorithm to self-promote certain sites. Thus, in the best traditions of the unenlightened self-interest that so pervades our society, the wellspring of the Commons is poisoned. The best of it is that it's all "legal" (there is no law against). As a consequence the value of Google's search results is at risk, and with it the public service they provide.
Rather than seeking redress from the law (which simply doesn't offer any), Google decided to mete out its own kind of justice: it corrected the search rank of sites that do this downward (manually or otherwise) so that they were starved of traffic. The message Google sends with this is: pull this one on us and we'll bury you.
In cases of genuine abuse (websites inflating their rank through this kind of "Search Engine Optimization" I agree with this measure. Unfortunately downgrading a site's search rank is a powerful weapon which, even when used without malice, can lead to injustice against which there is no appeal. Simply because either people or algorithms that do the downranking will make mistakes.
Alas, our world is not perfect. On the whole however I prefer Google to protect its search algorithm from abuse by SEO con artists at the expense of killing the odd innocent website. Sorry but my interests are better served by having high-quality search results than by preventing injustice.
It's a classic example of methodological incompetence. Got your popcorn? Let's start the show.
Their dependent variable is piracy rates (between 0 and 100) as published by the BSA. Not one word about measurement uncertainty in those data. Remember how the MPAA and the BSA used to estimate sales losses due to piracy? That's right: list_price x (penetration_fraction x population of PC's - license sold). I kid you not. And they calmly rely on piracy data from those sources.
Then their explanatory variable: the so-called IQ measure. They cite the "seminal" work of Lyn,R. VanHaanen, T ()
Unfortunately for the authors of the latest "correlation paper", the work of Lyn and VanHaanen is anything but uncontroversial. I quote from one of the Lyn and VanHaanenpapers:
Gettit? The fact that there are high correlations "proves" the validity of their inference that there are meaningful relationships. Did they go to Trump University or what?
In this vein I especially like the high correlation (see http://www.tylervigen.com/spur... ) between per-capita cheese consumption and people who died by becoming entangled in their bedsheets.
I wonder if the authors thought to control for that.
As far as serious research is concerned, this is the end of the line, but lets go on and have a look at their model, shall we?
They model the value of a fraction through a straightforward regression model: SP_i = \alpha + \beta IQ_i + \lambda X_i + \epsilon_i
Oops, and there we have the little matter of using straightforward regression to model a fraaaaction, instead of something like logistic regression. For those who don't immediately spot the problem, see e.g. here: http://www.theanalysisfactor.c...
Ordinary linear models are simply unsuitable to model fractions. A point that's common knowledge with statisticians, but one that's apparently lost on the authors (and the authors on which they base their work).
Right, lets continue and look at the graph they show with their regression line. Each country counts as one (China has the same weight as the e.g. Senegal and the US has the same weight as the Comores. Look ma, no weights! Sounds good eh? When you look at their graph, China shows up as one serious outlier with an "IQ" score of about 110 and a "piracy" score of about 80%. Only 1 bln people up there. Close by, in the bottom-right corner of their graph is the good ole US of A, weighing in at about 270 mln people, with almost the same score
It's a classic example of methodological incompetence. Got your popcorn? Let's start the show.
Their dependent variable is piracy rates (between 0 and 100) as published by the BSA. Not one word about measurement uncertainty in those data. Remember how the MPAA and the BSA used to estimate sales losses due to piracy? That's right: list_price x (penetration_fraction x population of PC's - license sold). I kid you not. And they calmly rely on piracy data from those sources.
Then their explanatory variable: the so-called IQ measure. They cite the "seminal" work of Lyn,R. VanHaanen, T ()
Unfortunately for the authors of the latest "correlation paper", the work of Lyn and VanHaanen is anything but uncontroversial. I quote from one of the Lyn and VanHaanenpapers:
Allow me to correct you, because the term "patent troll" is unknown in business circles, largely dated, prejudicial, defamatory, and may open you up to legal action.
What you really meant to say is that the Chinese company affected is one that specialises in monetising Valuable Intellectual Property, by which means it spurs Innovation, while not necessarily being a practising entity.
There, fixed that for you.
As far as I can see, the problem indeed isn't in finding facts that demonstrate Trump is spiritually, ethically, intellectually and temperamentally unsuited for office, it's convincing a few million voters that voting for him is stupid. People don't vote rationally, they vote emotionally.
This is one of the few things mr. Trump has got right, as shown by his public statement that he could kill someone in front of the camera and not suffer a significant loss of popularity.
The current economic adversity, the fact that large numbers of people are financially struggling, that the prospect of automatically having a good life as long as one works diligently and happens to be an American has dimmed.
Over the last 16 years voters have listened to various presidents and countless lesser politicians who have campaigned by delivering upbeat messages about "Aaaahhhhmerriikaahhh" in all its forms. Only to find that reality still fell short of their expectations: their personal financial situation didn't improve as they had hoped, their position in the job market wasn't all that good and doesn't look like it will improve soon. In facts, it looks like it's not going to improve substantially unless something changes dramatically.
People have also been bombarded for decades with news that as a matter of fact focuses on what went wrong rather than on what fraction of things went wrong (shock news sells a lot better than balanced news with a perspective) and insofar as non-local news got through to them, it was negative news that seemed to imply they were somehow falling short in a million ways that require intense effort to even understand, let alone address. In addition, there's the powerful (if erroneous) emotion that they can survive if they're not dependent on anyone else, specifically as regards personal safety (i.e. a constitutional right to have one or more guns). And now they're getting disquieting messages that "people" want to question, qualify, if not abolish that right.
To many people this feels like err ... betrayal. And it generates a lot of undirected anger.
Then suddenly there is this slugger who minces no words, is always ready to lash out at some "others" who are imperiling us, reflects that anger and seems to promise a way to a better future ("Make America Great Again"). Moreover one who never uses any complicated words, and in fact, whose entire thinking is very very uncomplicated, but who nevertheless seems able to be successful (billionaire and all; nevermind he inherited a fortune and would have done just as well if he had invested in stock market index trackers and retired when his inheritance came through). He looks different from all those other politicians who take such obvious care to be smarmy and to attract votes.
Wow ... that guy is easy to relate to, right?
The problem is in showing to those people that this oh so uncomplicated slugger with his brazen simplemindedness and his appeal to people's anger isn't the best way forward. Only ... people who feel attracted to him aren't receptive to rational argument. They're receptive to emotional ones. You just need to find which ones exactly. It's a bit like being a psychiatrist and a trial lawyer in one.
People that follow mr. Trump have minds like a lock that will admit only a limited number of keys. Figuring out which key to use in what state of the debate is why you do opposition research. If you tell the opposition which key's you've found so far, they will try to deny and deflect your arguments, change the subject, outshout you, and line up flashier talking points of their own to sway people.
Since mr. Trump only recently hired political insiders to get the technicalities of his campaign right, having access to a file like this works to his advantage: part of his people's work has been done and they can focus on shoring up his weaknesses and coming up with ideas for offense rather than analysing mr. Trump's weaknesses from the bottom up.
You don't want to kill Amazon, just make it comply. I'd say that 350 K for a single transgression will get their attention. If not, the next penalty will be higher.
You really really don't want some SCRUM team messing around with those.
And yes, Agile is superior to Waterfall when it comes to adapting software to en-user requirements that can be accommodated within the constraints imposed by architecture and application-server and application-application interfaces and have only "local" implications.
It absolutely helps if coders can talk to their users directly instead of through a layer of architects, analysts and designers. But you have to constrain what they can talk about.
Uber has nothing to do with "competition", let alone a "free market". It deals in "unfair competition", in which it maintains a monopoly on apps and servers, appropriates inflated fees for their electronic service, and uses (underpaid pseudo-entrepreneur) part-timers as throw-away employees to actually drive (and drive out ordinary taxi companies and ordinary taxicab drivers).
The only thing Uber did was to find a regulated market, determine it could make money by an end-run around the regulations, and offer unregulated services by offloading most risks to their pseudo-entrepreneur drivers. In addition they use (apparently successfully) of dog-whistle PR techniques to sell their business model.
Oh, and they also have a standing policy to price-gouge the public as soon as there is any situation that leads to higher than normal demand. Free play of demand and supply they call it. Only ... all of it is hidden within their servers.
And they have a policy to threaten price-comparison sites with legal action (their "terms of service" forbid you to publish any price quotations they make you). They're only pro "free-market" if they stand to make money from it. Not if it brings genuine competition.
No, people who advocate bringing down traffic levels aren't nuts and there is a genuine conflict of interest to resolve here.
From a transport planning point of view you have various types of roads: some types of road are planned and designed to provide high levels of service to road users whereas other roads (mainly in residential areas) can be designed (or even just designated) to provide residential areas with safe and bearable traffic conditions.
It's basically the local council's job to balance these interests. What a local council is allowed to do is e.g. to limit the capacity of certain roads (through e.g. road closures, bends, througpasses, speed humps, traffic lights, or whatever) to the extent that such roads become unattractive to non-local traffic.
Tax-paying non-local motorists have no greater "right" to pass through residential areas than tax-paying residents have to demand that roads in residential areas have traffic conditions appropriate for residential areas.