We will just have to start raising a generation of politicians who have reputations for telling the truth. Politicians who ordinary people will believe, who have integrity and the trust of the population. Leaders who don't commit criminal acts, shag anything that moves or accept illegal payments from all and sundry.
Ones who don't try to weasel out of situations with denials, false claims (I was not told about.... ), redefinition of meaning or refusing to answer questions.
And if they can be seen not to be corrupt or self-serving then when they are confronted by "deepfakes" of them acting as normal politicians do now, we will know that they are the victims, not the criminals.
[ File under: fantasy land ]
the cash equivalent to a much larger sum, $532 per month
The Wired.com article contains a footnote that says:
CORRECTION, Sept. 14, 2:55PM: Recipients in the study who got cash received $117 or $532. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said they received those amounts per month.
if that happens because someone is appearing in commercials instead of new
In the early days of the space programme the astronauts were heavily promoted for their celebrity status. NASA profited greatly from that (if not financially) and many children grew up with the "I wanna be a [sic] astronaut" idea implanted in their heads.
There is nothing wrong with commercialisation. Though I doubt many brands would want their name to be among the falling debris of a failed launch.
Maybe we'll see rockets painted in appropriate colours with DUREX written large down the side?
Right now the internet is one big space that every user shares with every other user.
That is irrespective of whether one user is a grandma trying to email to a relative, an individual buying a product, a city's traffic light network, a government department, a car or a battleship
This is a ridiculous situation to be in. We segregate road users for their own safety (and that of others) and in order to provide facilities that are appropriate for each type of user. What we don't need is a one-size-fits-all security model. We should be separating out the various forms of network traffic into physically discrete networks. Maybe even to the extent of having multiple networks with little or no cross-over between them.
This would be especially apt for a break between commercial and non-commercial traffic. Or between government and civilian use. And especially between safety-critical infrastructure and everything else.
The concept of an "internet" is past its useful life. The whole structure never took security seriously and was designed more around trust than enforcement. It is past time to move a LOT of stuff off the public network and to make it harder for grandma to accidentally email the Pentagon's National Military Command Centre - just like it isn't (I hope) possible for someone to accidentally walk in through its front door.
And no, I don't mean for a distributed, geographically diverse, meeting. I mean an opportunity for an office worker to pick up their phone (thus preventing anyone else from calling them) and make like they are working for an hour or two without ever actually doing a single dam' thing.
For many workers actually doing nothing for an extended period is the biggest contribution they will make to the success or profitability of their employer. These people should not be prevented from doing what little they can!
Many people like the "fun" of making a baby but not so many are prepared to accept the responsibility of supporting the child into adulthood. Producing software has many of the same attributes. Writing software is fun, creative. Fixing problems is a chore.
Continually updating your "progeny" to stay compatible with changing O/S and API requirements is boring. Making it compatible with the other programs in the environment is difficult and making it usable, well-designed and intuitive needs a rare skill set.
To encourage "good parenting" in FOSS, we should place more value on projects that are kept up to date. Where the authors show commitment to fixing bugs, new releases (although most FOSS could do with far fewer new features and more time spent on improving what is already there) and making it easy for the user to use - documentation, examples, explanations.
Once it becomes widely known that the vast majority of accidents are caused by human error, then insurers will push up the cost of "human" insurance.
We will then enter a period of claims containing "punitive" damages: "well, why wasn't the car computer controlled?" and insurance rates for people will climb even more. And as rates of vehicle accidents become lower, due to there being more AVs on the roads, the publc's tolerance for accidents as being "acts of god" will diminish.
It will get to the point where people are forced to give up driving themselves. Not only will the cost of insurance be prohibitive, but counter-claims made by people will be up against the mountain of sensor data supporting the AV-owner's view that their vehicle was acting lawfully, while the human driver was not.
Although some of the individual relative uncertainties are of the order of 10 parts per million, the difference between the smallest and largest values is about 500 parts per million."
Do any of these experiments keep running for a long period of time? Years for example, continually taking measurements.
I am not suggesting that G does change, but to just assume it is a constant could be a gap in our complete understanding of the concept.
Moreover, the astronauts that flew to the Moon all lived in Houston. It would stand to reason, therefore, that as NASA gears up to return to the Moon, major elements of this program would likewise be controlled from the Texas metropolis
This line of reasoning makes no sense.
The Moon landings were over 40 years ago (the first one will celebrate 50 years, next year). It is unlikely that any of the staff, equipment or "know how" that contributed to those few missions still exists in Houston - or has any relevance now.
What would make sense would be to spread the largesse around. Find some other place that hasn't benefited from the NASA pork barrel and build the new centre there.
at least some of them are likely applying the scientific method to their research.
Which "method" would that be?
Is it the one where they conduct repeatable experiments?
How about the method where they take quantitative readings of known, agreed, observations and then extrapolate the results?
Maybe it is the method where a group of people have a few beers and bemoan the propspects for the world. Then (after a few more beers) arrive at the conclusion that we're all doomed.
Looking at the policy for Science magazine, one of the two sources of experiments in this study - and the one that published 7 of the 8 failures, they say they only review "some" of the articles in depth.
Is it possible that a lax review policy is also a contributor to the less than rigorous science they publish.
It is not a result of an algorithm; it is a collection of decisions by corporations and policymakers
And those decisions are made from a range of options. Options that are created by technology.
Until there were computers, there was no option to send email. A telegram being a poor substitute. Until there were webcams, there was no option for cheap and reliable video-conferencing. Until there were photocopiers the only option to copy documents was carbon paper or Banda copiers: poor alternatives, but the only ones.
Technology created the options that corporations then adopted. Sometimes (like with video recorders) there were multiple options and people made a choice. But before those options appeared, there was no choice.
So it is quite reasonable to say that it is technology that is causing the disruption. It is providing the options for disruption. All businesses do is choose which one to adopt.
Microsoft might spend a lot of money to develop the first unit of a new program, but every unit after that is virtually free to produce
Although that doesn't mean there are no costs.
There are support costs, distribution costs, the technical deficit cost from bugs, patches, security holes, backwards compatibility and future integration-ability.
So while there may not be customer supply-and-demand, there is certainly a cost to the supply (and demand) of other factors. Not the least is finding and keeping the talent to support all this stuff through its lifetime.
There seems to be a rule about TV, that a person - a man at least, unless he is cast as a villain - cannot be both clever and attractive. Although all I have watched of TBBT is a youtube compilation of the "best" bits (a friend couldn't understand why I had never watched it. I have a physics degree so the reasoning went I had to like it).
There were some actually funny scenes in it, but overall I just felt it was a programme about OCD and autistic spectrum disorder.
My impression is that the show depicts what dumb people think smart people are like (a cliche, I know. But it seems to fit). And it makes the audience of "ordinary" people feel good about themselves by showing that smart people are worse than them in most of the ways that are important.
Many people used to die from malaria, tuberculosis, pneumonia. Then we got drugs that prevented those. So they started to die from smoking-related diseases instead. So we all stopped smoking. Now people die from cancers: some caused by excessive drinking.
If that ceases to be a major cause of death, what is next? Obesity? We get told off for that, too.
So what will people die from in the future? Too much exercising? terminal anxiety? boredom?
How should we go about preventing those deaths and then, ultimately, at what point will all these studies, research groups and advice-givers give up and admit that everybody is going to die from something. What causes of death will be deemed "natural"?
Those who have studied Perl will know that laziness is a virtue. It means you do the bare minimum necessary to achieve your goal. Who but a fool would do more, unnecessary, work?
If there is a burgeoning market for $4-figure phones, it is because there are enough people willing to drop a $k for a mobile device. Whether they get that amount of value from it (compared to the amount of value they would get from a $500 phone, or a $200 one) doesn't really enter the equation.
For many people the value is in the having - and ensuring that everyone knows they have it. Pure status.
but the sense of empathy that comes from music, arts, literature and psychology provides a big advantage in design
This is complete nonsense.
There are just as many people with empathy who study useful subjects as there are who study arts and humanities. And just as many sociopaths and crazies, too. Writing turgid prose, discordant music, and making self-indulgent art or design does not imbue someone with empathy. Nor do "deep" and ambiguous creations mean someone is enigmatic, insightful or more intelligent - it often means that they are confused, unable to communicate clearly and don't really know what it is they are trying to put across. Just as scientists are often accused of being.
Most of the artists I know will tell you "I do it for myself, not for other people" when asked to explain their work. That is not the sign of an "empathic" personality.
Slashdot Mirror
Ones who don't try to weasel out of situations with denials, false claims (I was not told about .... ), redefinition of meaning or refusing to answer questions.
And if they can be seen not to be corrupt or self-serving then when they are confronted by "deepfakes" of them acting as normal politicians do now, we will know that they are the victims, not the criminals.
[ File under: fantasy land ]
the cash equivalent to a much larger sum, $532 per month
The Wired.com article contains a footnote that says:
CORRECTION, Sept. 14, 2:55PM: Recipients in the study who got cash received $117 or $532. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said they received those amounts per month.
Headlines don't need adjectives. We don't need to be told what to think about something that is being reported. We are able to make up our own minds.
Just give us the information. We'll form our own opinions.
if that happens because someone is appearing in commercials instead of new
In the early days of the space programme the astronauts were heavily promoted for their celebrity status. NASA profited greatly from that (if not financially) and many children grew up with the "I wanna be a [sic] astronaut" idea implanted in their heads.
There is nothing wrong with commercialisation. Though I doubt many brands would want their name to be among the falling debris of a failed launch.
Maybe we'll see rockets painted in appropriate colours with DUREX written large down the side?
That is irrespective of whether one user is a grandma trying to email to a relative, an individual buying a product, a city's traffic light network, a government department, a car or a battleship
This is a ridiculous situation to be in. We segregate road users for their own safety (and that of others) and in order to provide facilities that are appropriate for each type of user. What we don't need is a one-size-fits-all security model. We should be separating out the various forms of network traffic into physically discrete networks. Maybe even to the extent of having multiple networks with little or no cross-over between them.
This would be especially apt for a break between commercial and non-commercial traffic. Or between government and civilian use. And especially between safety-critical infrastructure and everything else.
The concept of an "internet" is past its useful life. The whole structure never took security seriously and was designed more around trust than enforcement. It is past time to move a LOT of stuff off the public network and to make it harder for grandma to accidentally email the Pentagon's National Military Command Centre - just like it isn't (I hope) possible for someone to accidentally walk in through its front door.
For many workers actually doing nothing for an extended period is the biggest contribution they will make to the success or profitability of their employer. These people should not be prevented from doing what little they can!
Although what they will be "reading" that history on, is anybody's guess.
Many people like the "fun" of making a baby but not so many are prepared to accept the responsibility of supporting the child into adulthood. Producing software has many of the same attributes. Writing software is fun, creative. Fixing problems is a chore.
Continually updating your "progeny" to stay compatible with changing O/S and API requirements is boring. Making it compatible with the other programs in the environment is difficult and making it usable, well-designed and intuitive needs a rare skill set.
To encourage "good parenting" in FOSS, we should place more value on projects that are kept up to date. Where the authors show commitment to fixing bugs, new releases (although most FOSS could do with far fewer new features and more time spent on improving what is already there) and making it easy for the user to use - documentation, examples, explanations.
And things that can be moved can be stolen.
Once it becomes widely known that the vast majority of accidents are caused by human error, then insurers will push up the cost of "human" insurance.
We will then enter a period of claims containing "punitive" damages: "well, why wasn't the car computer controlled?" and insurance rates for people will climb even more. And as rates of vehicle accidents become lower, due to there being more AVs on the roads, the publc's tolerance for accidents as being "acts of god" will diminish.
It will get to the point where people are forced to give up driving themselves. Not only will the cost of insurance be prohibitive, but counter-claims made by people will be up against the mountain of sensor data supporting the AV-owner's view that their vehicle was acting lawfully, while the human driver was not.
Although some of the individual relative uncertainties are of the order of 10 parts per million, the difference between the smallest and largest values is about 500 parts per million."
Do any of these experiments keep running for a long period of time? Years for example, continually taking measurements.
I am not suggesting that G does change, but to just assume it is a constant could be a gap in our complete understanding of the concept.
Moreover, the astronauts that flew to the Moon all lived in Houston. It would stand to reason, therefore, that as NASA gears up to return to the Moon, major elements of this program would likewise be controlled from the Texas metropolis
This line of reasoning makes no sense.
The Moon landings were over 40 years ago (the first one will celebrate 50 years, next year). It is unlikely that any of the staff, equipment or "know how" that contributed to those few missions still exists in Houston - or has any relevance now.
What would make sense would be to spread the largesse around. Find some other place that hasn't benefited from the NASA pork barrel and build the new centre there.
at least some of them are likely applying the scientific method to their research.
Which "method" would that be?
Is it the one where they conduct repeatable experiments?
How about the method where they take quantitative readings of known, agreed, observations and then extrapolate the results?
Maybe it is the method where a group of people have a few beers and bemoan the propspects for the world. Then (after a few more beers) arrive at the conclusion that we're all doomed.
Is it possible that a lax review policy is also a contributor to the less than rigorous science they publish.
It is not a result of an algorithm; it is a collection of decisions by corporations and policymakers
And those decisions are made from a range of options. Options that are created by technology.
Until there were computers, there was no option to send email. A telegram being a poor substitute. Until there were webcams, there was no option for cheap and reliable video-conferencing. Until there were photocopiers the only option to copy documents was carbon paper or Banda copiers: poor alternatives, but the only ones.
Technology created the options that corporations then adopted. Sometimes (like with video recorders) there were multiple options and people made a choice. But before those options appeared, there was no choice.
So it is quite reasonable to say that it is technology that is causing the disruption. It is providing the options for disruption. All businesses do is choose which one to adopt.
Microsoft might spend a lot of money to develop the first unit of a new program, but every unit after that is virtually free to produce
Although that doesn't mean there are no costs.
There are support costs, distribution costs, the technical deficit cost from bugs, patches, security holes, backwards compatibility and future integration-ability.
So while there may not be customer supply-and-demand, there is certainly a cost to the supply (and demand) of other factors. Not the least is finding and keeping the talent to support all this stuff through its lifetime.
There were some actually funny scenes in it, but overall I just felt it was a programme about OCD and autistic spectrum disorder.
My impression is that the show depicts what dumb people think smart people are like (a cliche, I know. But it seems to fit). And it makes the audience of "ordinary" people feel good about themselves by showing that smart people are worse than them in most of the ways that are important.
If that ceases to be a major cause of death, what is next? Obesity? We get told off for that, too.
So what will people die from in the future? Too much exercising? terminal anxiety? boredom?
How should we go about preventing those deaths and then, ultimately, at what point will all these studies, research groups and advice-givers give up and admit that everybody is going to die from something. What causes of death will be deemed "natural"?
Those who have studied Perl will know that laziness is a virtue. It means you do the bare minimum necessary to achieve your goal. Who but a fool would do more, unnecessary, work?
according to Engadget, NASA has "decided that it will move forward with the SpaceX plan to fuel rockets after astronauts have already boarded.
And maybe NASA will learn a thing or two about how to conduct a space-launch operation, as well.
The company addressed [the privacy concerns] on a privacy page
Personally, I would be more inclined to address the "privacy concerns" with a screwdriver or a baseball bat.
Police Bodycams Can Be Hacked To Doctor Footage
It's a feature.
Then they fed 200,000 names and related employment information into their AI system.
Before doing this, I sincerely hope Primer got written permission from those "overlooked" scientists.
One reason for not having a Wiki page is because they don't actually want one. Not everybody is a self-promoting narcissist.
If there is a burgeoning market for $4-figure phones, it is because there are enough people willing to drop a $k for a mobile device. Whether they get that amount of value from it (compared to the amount of value they would get from a $500 phone, or a $200 one) doesn't really enter the equation.
For many people the value is in the having - and ensuring that everyone knows they have it. Pure status.
but the sense of empathy that comes from music, arts, literature and psychology provides a big advantage in design
This is complete nonsense.
There are just as many people with empathy who study useful subjects as there are who study arts and humanities. And just as many sociopaths and crazies, too. Writing turgid prose, discordant music, and making self-indulgent art or design does not imbue someone with empathy. Nor do "deep" and ambiguous creations mean someone is enigmatic, insightful or more intelligent - it often means that they are confused, unable to communicate clearly and don't really know what it is they are trying to put across. Just as scientists are often accused of being.
Most of the artists I know will tell you "I do it for myself, not for other people" when asked to explain their work. That is not the sign of an "empathic" personality.