If I could be sure I could be surveillance free I'd pay $230. But I don't see how that is possible. How would I know?
Simple; every site you visit can use cookies, Flash supercookies, third-party Javascript, user-agent sniffing and mouse-movement tracking to identify and monitor everything you do, in order to make sure it's not being surveilled.
Of course, there's always the chance that such power will be abused. To prevent this, we can have an alliance of government spy agencies keep a look out by tapping undersea cables, collating the data in vast stores for data mining, purchase known security vulnerabilities, employ legions of crackers to find more, deliberately weaken security standards, disseminate malware and intercept datacentre traffic.
Of course, there's always the chance that such power will be abused. To prevent this, we can have secret courts hold secret sessions to make secret rulings based on secret interpretations of the law.
Of course, there's always the chance that such power will be abused. To prevent this, we can have oversight committees which publically state that none of this is going on, then when the details emerge they have the choice of either admitting that they completely failed in their job, or that they were lying.
Of course, there's always the chance that such power will be abused. To prevent this, we can hold democratic elections to choose which one of the two available crooks should get that power.
Nope. Plasma physics was very young, and nobody had truly studied plasma turbulence.
Likely because their importance was underestimated. There are plenty of fields that are very young or unresearched right now, which might turn out to play an important role.
A lot of the commodity software reached the point of 'good enough' years ago - look how long it's taken to get away from XP, and still many organisations continue to use it.
I find it hard to believe that operating systems became "good enough" with Windows XP. Rather, Vista took so long to come out that it disrupted the established upgrade cycle. If the previous 2-to-3-year cycle had continued, Vista would have come out in 2003 (without as many changes, obviously), Windows 7 in 2005 and Windows 8 in 2007. We'd be on something like Windows 12 by now.
It's good that consumers are more aware and critical of forced obsolecence, but I don't agree with the "XP is good enough" crowd. It makes sense to want the latest (eg. Windows 8); it makes sense to use something until it's no longer supported (eg. Vista); it makes sense to use something that's "good enough" (eg. Windows 95 for features, or 2000 for compatibility). XP is none of those: it's out of date, unsupported and a bloated resource hog.
I use systemd on GobiLinux to launch Gnome3 in Wayland so I can tab-indent, via my Dvorak keyboard, the UTF-16-encoded, dynamically-typed code of my GPLed program in Emacs. While playing Oggs in Amarok2 through PulseAudio on OSS4./nerd-troll
"The government says if there had been no new powers there would have been no obligation on phone and internet companies to keep records if there was a UK court challenge to the retention of data."
So? That's a good thing. It's the reason why the ECJ ruled as it did. Grrrr....
Most publishers sold games on Steam's Russian store for far cheaper than they did on the US or UK stores - a friend of mine bought a 4-pack of copies of Dead Island (back when that was a new-ish game and the 4-pack was going for upwards of $60 on the US store) from Russia for like $20.
Then, Valve started cracking down on cross-region purchases, making it so that you could still add games from other regions but could not actually play them until your IP was detected as being in one of those regions. The problem was that it was applied so that more expensive regions had fewer restrictions - US-bought games can be played anywhere, as can AUS/NZ ones, but games purchased from Russia or a few other regions can't be played outside of those specific regions. This means that if you're from the US and go on vacation in Russia, you can play Counter-Strike GO while in Russia, but if you're Russian and go on vacation to the US you can't play CS:GO while in the US.
It's a ridiculous double-standard, and a counter to geo-blocking would remove a lot of it.
It makes perfect sense, since the market for these games is massively skewed. Many customers are only interested in particular titles; they want GTA V and don't regard "Gangster Sim III" as a viable alternative. Since the publishers have a monopoly over their titles, they can set the prices to whatever the market will bear, regardless of how much it costs them to produce each unit (which, FYI, is $0 since the game's already finished and released).
If the market were allowed to decide, ie. if it was legal for anyone to sell copies of already-finished games, rather than just the publishers, then the prices would crash right down to near-zero.
Keep that in mind next time some copyright troll is denouncing "pirates" for being "anti-capitalist", when in fact it's copyright which is responsible for this anti-competitive crap.
Mozilla wants an 'open Web'. Making an open source browser is a big part of that.
Protecting users from mass surveillance is another. Crippling third-party systems by default is a big part of that.
Unfortunately that kills some existing services, like unified commenting systems, which users want. Someone *could* come along with a unified commenting system which doesn't conduct mass surveillance, but that's an unlikely business model at the moment. Hence Mozilla's solving the chicken-and-egg problem themselves, by making a unified commenting system which (presumably) doesn't do mass surveillance.
If this works, it will go a long way towards making the third-party-crippling an effective default. Hence the Web becomes more 'open'.
These people are doing the same things that were the very basis of oppression of any and all freedoms on German soil in these two regimes. It is like these cretins _want_ that state of affairs back.
They want that level of power, but since it's *them* this time, they'll only use it for "good" (ie. what *they* want).
Of course, they neglect to realise that's exactly what the Nazi's thought.
The reality that since the beginning of times governing people requires spying that same people.
The government needs spies as it needs assassins and torturers and all kinds of evil agents. If the people keep pushing to reveal the truth, the result won't be the disappearance of evil agents but the removal of the pink veil.
At some point, if the kid insists enough, the parent's patience ends and he replies "because I say so, now shut up."
At "the beginning of times" governments used targetted spying. They couldn't tap intercontinental fibreoptic communication cables, run the output through face recognition algorithms and automatically build huge databases of everyone's correspondance.
As an analogy, I accept that police and handcuffs are necessary evils. What I don't accept is that we may as well have everyone wear electromagnetic bracelets, which police can remotely switch into a pair of handcuffs.
But if I had a headset strapped on, I'd rather be in an immersive world like OpenCroquet/Cobalt/Qwak[1] (which support VNC for accessing "legacy" applications) than a white space surrounded by floating rectangles.
Of course it would be pretty awesome to be able to colonize Mars, but we're not there yet and putting a human being there unless there is a real reason to do so is wasteful and a safety risk.
You're right that there needs to be a 'real reason', but we can say the same thing about, say, Australia. Why do we make so many wasteful and potentially dangerous trips there every day? Because there is a thriving colony of humans there.
It's a bootstrapping problem. Visiting/emmigrating to a martian colony would be a 'real reason' to go to Mars; so that's what we need to build.
If a deep neural network is biologically inspired we can ask the question, does the same result apply to biological networks? Put more bluntly, 'Does the human brain have similar built-in errors?
And, my second question, just because deep neural networks are biologically inspired, can we infer from this kind of issue in computer programs that there is likely to be a biological equivalent? Or has everyone made the same mistake and/or we're seeing a limitation in the technology?
Maybe the problem isn't with the biology, but the technology?
Or are we so confident in neural networks that we deem them infallible? (Which, obviously, they aren't.)
You're just repeating the question asked in the summary.
"Monitoring" is an awfully loose term. Could this, for instance, apply to such things as the persistant port scanning (e.g. "monitoring" which ports a user has open on a given IP) and thus have implications for operations like Shodan HQ, or even the periodic scans of the entire Internet done by the likes of H.D. Moore and other companies or universities conducting research?
Research is conducted based on the data available. If stronger protocols reduce the amount of available data, research will continue with that reduced amount of data.
If some research specifically requires more data, that's OK. That's called 'performing an experiment', and there are numerous procedures which can be followed to do this. One thing they all have in common is that if they involve people, like Internet monitoring does, then it must pass an ethics board and gain consent from all of the subjects involved.
If that were the case today, there wouldn't be all of this mess playing out.
In other words, a God-like observer with perfect knowledge of the brain would not consider it non-computable. But for humans, with their imperfect knowledge of the universe, it is effectively non-computable.
What they're saying is that there are limits, beyond undecidability, when a human mind tries to study itself. It's an algorithmic analogy to the classic data-storage problem of trying to imagine, using your mind, the whole contents of your mind. Via recursion, that can't be done. Likewise, TFA is saying that we can't use our minds to compute some things about our minds, even though an outside observer with perfect knowledge of our mind could do so.
The reference to PCs is hence entirely wrong. What they're saying is that if a PC worked like our brain, it would be limited in its introspection ability compared to, for example, a hypervisor on which it's running.
The groupings that emerge when ordered by homicides per 100,000 is interesting. The most dangerous seem to be quasi-dictatorial republics in the Americas. Unsurprisingly this includes the USA.
Some people prefer the high-quality version and are willing to pay extra, others are unwilling to pay extra, or have poor vision and think the low-quality version is good enough.
Others think that the quality of a movie cannot be measured in pixels.
Slashdot Mirror
Thankfully I'm using modern browsers, so I shouldn't be affected:
* NetSurf 3.2 (released 2014-08-30)
* Dillo 3.0.4 (released 2014-04-09)
* lynx 2.8.8 (released 2014-03-09)
* w3m 0.5.3 (released 2013-04-26)
If I could be sure I could be surveillance free I'd pay $230. But I don't see how that is possible. How would I know?
Simple; every site you visit can use cookies, Flash supercookies, third-party Javascript, user-agent sniffing and mouse-movement tracking to identify and monitor everything you do, in order to make sure it's not being surveilled.
Of course, there's always the chance that such power will be abused. To prevent this, we can have an alliance of government spy agencies keep a look out by tapping undersea cables, collating the data in vast stores for data mining, purchase known security vulnerabilities, employ legions of crackers to find more, deliberately weaken security standards, disseminate malware and intercept datacentre traffic.
Of course, there's always the chance that such power will be abused. To prevent this, we can have secret courts hold secret sessions to make secret rulings based on secret interpretations of the law.
Of course, there's always the chance that such power will be abused. To prevent this, we can have oversight committees which publically state that none of this is going on, then when the details emerge they have the choice of either admitting that they completely failed in their job, or that they were lying.
Of course, there's always the chance that such power will be abused. To prevent this, we can hold democratic elections to choose which one of the two available crooks should get that power.
Nope. Plasma physics was very young, and nobody had truly studied plasma turbulence.
Likely because their importance was underestimated. There are plenty of fields that are very young or unresearched right now, which might turn out to play an important role.
'Nuff said.
A lot of the commodity software reached the point of 'good enough' years ago - look how long it's taken to get away from XP, and still many organisations continue to use it.
I find it hard to believe that operating systems became "good enough" with Windows XP. Rather, Vista took so long to come out that it disrupted the established upgrade cycle. If the previous 2-to-3-year cycle had continued, Vista would have come out in 2003 (without as many changes, obviously), Windows 7 in 2005 and Windows 8 in 2007. We'd be on something like Windows 12 by now.
It's good that consumers are more aware and critical of forced obsolecence, but I don't agree with the "XP is good enough" crowd. It makes sense to want the latest (eg. Windows 8); it makes sense to use something until it's no longer supported (eg. Vista); it makes sense to use something that's "good enough" (eg. Windows 95 for features, or 2000 for compatibility). XP is none of those: it's out of date, unsupported and a bloated resource hog.
You're forgetting:
3a. Rush it through the legislative process, so opponents have as little time as possible to act
http://www.theguardian.com/tec...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-2...
I use systemd on GobiLinux to launch Gnome3 in Wayland so I can tab-indent, via my Dvorak keyboard, the UTF-16-encoded, dynamically-typed code of my GPLed program in Emacs. While playing Oggs in Amarok2 through PulseAudio on OSS4. /nerd-troll
Why can’t we tell them what they want to hear?
Anchorman 3: The Legend Goes Webscale
"The government says if there had been no new powers there would have been no obligation on phone and internet companies to keep records if there was a UK court challenge to the retention of data."
So? That's a good thing. It's the reason why the ECJ ruled as it did. Grrrr....
Most publishers sold games on Steam's Russian store for far cheaper than they did on the US or UK stores - a friend of mine bought a 4-pack of copies of Dead Island (back when that was a new-ish game and the 4-pack was going for upwards of $60 on the US store) from Russia for like $20.
Then, Valve started cracking down on cross-region purchases, making it so that you could still add games from other regions but could not actually play them until your IP was detected as being in one of those regions. The problem was that it was applied so that more expensive regions had fewer restrictions - US-bought games can be played anywhere, as can AUS/NZ ones, but games purchased from Russia or a few other regions can't be played outside of those specific regions. This means that if you're from the US and go on vacation in Russia, you can play Counter-Strike GO while in Russia, but if you're Russian and go on vacation to the US you can't play CS:GO while in the US.
It's a ridiculous double-standard, and a counter to geo-blocking would remove a lot of it.
It makes perfect sense, since the market for these games is massively skewed. Many customers are only interested in particular titles; they want GTA V and don't regard "Gangster Sim III" as a viable alternative. Since the publishers have a monopoly over their titles, they can set the prices to whatever the market will bear, regardless of how much it costs them to produce each unit (which, FYI, is $0 since the game's already finished and released).
If the market were allowed to decide, ie. if it was legal for anyone to sell copies of already-finished games, rather than just the publishers, then the prices would crash right down to near-zero.
Keep that in mind next time some copyright troll is denouncing "pirates" for being "anti-capitalist", when in fact it's copyright which is responsible for this anti-competitive crap.
A few will skip the doctor part and either heal spontaneously (praise the lord!) or die
Thus reinforcing the selection bias.
Or just provide a usage-over-time graph, so customers can see there's a large base-line usage when they're not even at home.
I'm with Andrews & Arnold and I can see this usage data by logging into their Web site.
Notice that anon used the phrase "shouldn't be", not "isn't".
Mozilla wants an 'open Web'. Making an open source browser is a big part of that.
Protecting users from mass surveillance is another. Crippling third-party systems by default is a big part of that.
Unfortunately that kills some existing services, like unified commenting systems, which users want. Someone *could* come along with a unified commenting system which doesn't conduct mass surveillance, but that's an unlikely business model at the moment. Hence Mozilla's solving the chicken-and-egg problem themselves, by making a unified commenting system which (presumably) doesn't do mass surveillance.
If this works, it will go a long way towards making the third-party-crippling an effective default. Hence the Web becomes more 'open'.
Serves her right.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
These people are doing the same things that were the very basis of oppression of any and all freedoms on German soil in these two regimes. It is like these cretins _want_ that state of affairs back.
They want that level of power, but since it's *them* this time, they'll only use it for "good" (ie. what *they* want).
Of course, they neglect to realise that's exactly what the Nazi's thought.
The reality that since the beginning of times governing people requires spying that same people.
The government needs spies as it needs assassins and torturers and all kinds of evil agents. If the people keep pushing to reveal the truth, the result won't be the disappearance of evil agents but the removal of the pink veil.
At some point, if the kid insists enough, the parent's patience ends and he replies "because I say so, now shut up."
At "the beginning of times" governments used targetted spying. They couldn't tap intercontinental fibreoptic communication cables, run the output through face recognition algorithms and automatically build huge databases of everyone's correspondance.
As an analogy, I accept that police and handcuffs are necessary evils. What I don't accept is that we may as well have everyone wear electromagnetic bracelets, which police can remotely switch into a pair of handcuffs.
But if I had a headset strapped on, I'd rather be in an immersive world like OpenCroquet/Cobalt/Qwak[1] (which support VNC for accessing "legacy" applications) than a white space surrounded by floating rectangles.
[1] https://code.google.com/p/open... https://virtual.wf/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Of course it would be pretty awesome to be able to colonize Mars, but we're not there yet and putting a human being there unless there is a real reason to do so is wasteful and a safety risk.
You're right that there needs to be a 'real reason', but we can say the same thing about, say, Australia. Why do we make so many wasteful and potentially dangerous trips there every day? Because there is a thriving colony of humans there.
It's a bootstrapping problem. Visiting/emmigrating to a martian colony would be a 'real reason' to go to Mars; so that's what we need to build.
I'm saying "why would be assume a similar flaw in a biological system because computer simulations have a flaw".
Nobody's assuming; scientists are asking a question.
I think jumping to the possibility that biological systems share the same weaknesses as computer programs is a bit of a stretch.
I've not come across the phrase "jumping to the possibility" before. If I 'jump' to giving this a possibility of 2%, is that a 'stretch'?
And, my second question, just because deep neural networks are biologically inspired, can we infer from this kind of issue in computer programs that there is likely to be a biological equivalent? Or has everyone made the same mistake and/or we're seeing a limitation in the technology?
Maybe the problem isn't with the biology, but the technology?
Or are we so confident in neural networks that we deem them infallible? (Which, obviously, they aren't.)
You're just repeating the question asked in the summary.
"Monitoring" is an awfully loose term. Could this, for instance, apply to such things as the persistant port scanning (e.g. "monitoring" which ports a user has open on a given IP) and thus have implications for operations like Shodan HQ, or even the periodic scans of the entire Internet done by the likes of H.D. Moore and other companies or universities conducting research?
Research is conducted based on the data available. If stronger protocols reduce the amount of available data, research will continue with that reduced amount of data.
If some research specifically requires more data, that's OK. That's called 'performing an experiment', and there are numerous procedures which can be followed to do this. One thing they all have in common is that if they involve people, like Internet monitoring does, then it must pass an ethics board and gain consent from all of the subjects involved.
If that were the case today, there wouldn't be all of this mess playing out.
What they're saying is that there are limits, beyond undecidability, when a human mind tries to study itself. It's an algorithmic analogy to the classic data-storage problem of trying to imagine, using your mind, the whole contents of your mind. Via recursion, that can't be done. Likewise, TFA is saying that we can't use our minds to compute some things about our minds, even though an outside observer with perfect knowledge of our mind could do so.
The reference to PCs is hence entirely wrong. What they're saying is that if a PC worked like our brain, it would be limited in its introspection ability compared to, for example, a hypervisor on which it's running.
Because guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
The groupings that emerge when ordered by homicides per 100,000 is interesting. The most dangerous seem to be quasi-dictatorial republics in the Americas. Unsurprisingly this includes the USA.
Some people prefer the high-quality version and are willing to pay extra, others are unwilling to pay extra, or have poor vision and think the low-quality version is good enough.
Others think that the quality of a movie cannot be measured in pixels.