If you don't think they can correlate the video they are already collecting with those times, then you aren't a very good conspiracy theorist, are you?"
So let me get this straight; I'm "making it up" by asserting they keep the photo they take at the automated passport control terminal. But, you are going to assert, without any proof, that they've kept all the surveillance video. In what universe does that make sense? Where they keep all surveillance VIDEO of the hallways...but discard the PHOTOS at passport control?
The default is to assume they are keeping the photos. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. And even if they said they weren't we shouldn't beleive it unless its been independently audited. (The temporary photos taken by the xray scanners were being kept, even thought they weren't supposed to be. So, no, the burden of proof rests with the person asserting they are not being kept. Deal with it.
"If you don't think they can correlate the video they are already collecting with those times"
Of course they can. But do you think there is a database anywhere out there indexed by every single passengers name and passport with links to all the bits of video footage of them walking around airports? I don't. I'm sure if someone were sufficiently interested, they could recover that footage based on the time stamps, find me at check-in as a starting point, and then work through all the hundreds of cameras to find my path through the airport camera to camera to camera from point A to the restaurant, to a waiting area, to a shop, to the bathrooms, finally to point B where i scan again to board.
"who is it that thinks they don't already have the information"
What information specifically are you talking about, that you think I think they don't already have? Because at this point I have no idea what you are driving at.
The same way a restaurateur can refuse to serve a customer who previously made a mess of your dining room.
Facebook may be 'facing the public' but its still a private service and it can decide not to provide service, or do business with anyone it wants pretty much for any reason, at any time. The ToS maybe "bullshit", but its not even necessary... they don't have to wait until you violate the ToS they can decide they just don't like your face, without any ToS at all.
"Then don't go to an airport because they already video everyone there."
And until recently surveillance video was pretty ephemeral, and even if they hung onto, virtually worthless unless someone was paid to watch it, looking for you. It's a pretty new development that they can even theoretically make automated use of it, and track people recorded in surveillance footage.
"You don't even know that they are keeping the facial scan once you leave, you're just making that part up."
"All this is is replacing a human with a computer."
The human who looked at me and compared my face to the photo has forgotten my face about a minute after processing me and no permanent record was made of it.
The computer stores that photo forever in a searchable database. So... yeah... its completely different.
"You liberals are so funny with your "partisan republican" but the good upstanding democrats aren't buying it."
Would you be happier if I said partisan republicans and partisan democrats? I only said partisan once to highlight that it was a partisan break, but if it means so much to you, yes, I recognize the the house comittee is split along partisan lines... as in both parties are being partisan.
You're figuring getting what? 1 billion downloads? You think you have a chance of hitting that?
And if you do, 0.0005% of their mining power is equivalent to 5,000 devices. You think 5000 devices ranging from new macbook pros to 8 year old ipads and iphone 4's is going to net you a million bucks a week? You'll pick up maybe $10- 20,000 per month. Still pretty impressive but a long way from your millions per day. (An iphone X mining 24x7 will net you around $13/mo.* And the majority of your devices will be a lot less than that.
(And again, if you've got any property with 1 billion plus downloads, you've already hit the jackpot beyond all but the most popular apps/preinstalled apps wildest dreams. And can probably monetize it other ways for far far FAR more revenue.)
"Bonus points if I can tell it to run only when my phone is plugged in to charge."
And what happens when you have 2 apps, or 4 apps, or 12 apps or 20 apps that use this model? They still going to be happy with 1/20th ?
I mean, i guess if you are going to embrace this nonsense, you might as well go all in right? And install a miner that mines currency for yourself, and set that one to have priority over all the other ones. Your other 20 apps can divide 1% of the cpu between them... if nothing else it'd be a good way to kill this business model off.
"That asks the user first. I am 100% ok with that. Bonus points if I can tell it to run only when my phone is plugged in to charge."
Your phone isn't going to charge very vast if the CPU is pinned at 100%. It's also going to be running super hot.
"I hope other ad replacements happen as well."
Their are already 2 great options: 1) Free Open Source options (f-droid!!) Not really an option on iOS... which is the main reason i don't use iOS.
2) "paying for the app"; with or without free-trial / limited shareware version. I'm pretty happy with this as well.
Sadly with too many apps that's not an option, they'd rather leech off me in some way. Whether its ads or mining crypto currency or harvesting data... or all three.
"The investigation is being closed with nothing found."
Cite?
" completely ignore the news that broke today that the whole "Russian hacked the election" and "Russia colluded..."
All I see is some partisan republicans on a house commitee releasing a statement to that effect. Nobody else seems to be buying it; including the Democrats on that same committee. Nevermind the statement from the CIA etc.
Oh, i agree people are inconsistent. I don't dispute for a second any of the horror stories out there about shit work done by people.
But its a mistake to think simply putting robots in is the solution. Robots are terrific at doing exactly what they're told for days on end, and lousy at anything else. Humans... aren't great at doing exactly same thing over and over again, and are apt to get lazy. But they can deal with the things the machines can't deal with.
Your pasta maker example, for example... nobody ever checked underneath, until you did. But you did. A robot would NEVER have checked unless it had been programmed to check.
Upon looking you discovered a disgusting mess and set about cleaning it. The robot would not have checked, and if had and got nowhere, it wouldn't have dug around in the bag for industrial floor cleaner. Your example is look how shit people are... but people also correct the problem.
When you do it with robots, those problems still exist, but they never get checked.
The camera watches the conveyer belt for imperfections, great, but if there is a bunch of mold just outside the cameras view, it never sees it, despite everything that comes thorugh getting a nice dose of spores. Or what if the rat sits on the other side of the camera nibbling away AFTER they've passed the camera inspection...
Or perhaps the mold is on the camera itself, and depending on the camera programming, if we're lucky it'll start rejecting everything and someone will come over to find out what's going on. If we're unlucky... it'll fail such that since its not seeing the flaw its looking for and it'll pass everything while running blind undetected.
Robots/machines are great at improving the productivity of people. But replacing people with robots doesn't necessarily make things better, if the people are lousy, the robots just let them be lousy at greater scale.
Of course you could. But those are the same low paid unsanitary people he wanted to replace because he didn't want them touching his food. Does he think they're going to do a good job cleaning the food machines?
" Does a car wash check how clean your car is before washing it?"
It doesn't really verify its clean afterwards either. That's the bigger problem. You ever go to unload the dishwasher and find rice stuck to all the glasses, or something caked on to a pot that didn't come off? The robot will use those dishes, because... "they're clean".
"It doesn't have to be automated, a human is probably cheaper in the near term and they can wash the robots in several different stores in a day. "
Yeah, and if five minutes after the human crew leaves for the next store a mouse gets caught in the machine and dismembered, the robots will happily continue serving burgers through the disgusting mess until the cleaning crew gets back the next day.
"I'd rather have a machine make my food than a human. "
You know those odd horror stories about a dead rodent found in a can of tomatoes or jar of pickles. Yeah, that's how good the machines are. Admittedly that's the worst case scenario; but for every dead rat in a can or jar, there's 10 generations of rats living in and around those machines, getting into the food, taking shits, and otherwise living their lives out.
As for the robots in a fast food joint; same thing. I worked fast food as a kid; a good team would tear down, strip, and sanitize the milkshake machine, every gasket, and o-ring. A lazy cleaning crew might it rinse out, but not do a complete tear down, and leave all the rings and gaskets in place. And you'll get nasty residue and build up in all those little nooks and crannies.
The milkshake machine is a 'robot' and it can get gross fast. A lazy graveyard cleaning crew might not get caught for a month... until a health inspector opens it up and notices the brown crust growing around the drive shaft. Or a customer completes about some 'gross' sludge from finally broke off and game out in their serving.
"machines can't some soon enough as far as I'm concerned."
Very few human staff will tolerate a rat or a roach on the table while they're preparing your food. A rat can nibble on the bun, with roaches hanging out in the lettuce while a machine puts your burger together.
".. because the Porsche engines have a defect (the IMS bearing) that can destroy the engine at basically any time"
Replacing the IMS bearing is cheaper than putting a V8 into it. But I concede that if you've already blown the 911 engine... that it might be a cheaper way of putting what is left back on the road... although replacing it with a 911 engine with a fixed IMS would actually increase its value vs forever turn it into a worthless frankenstein.
Wait... you are watching the firefox missteps from Chrome? What part do you enjoy exactly? The exhiliration of being the first one in the crash so you can lord it over the people coming behind you a month later? Your the guy laughing at ships sailing into iceberg waters... from the Titanic.
Pretty much every misstep firefox makes is because it's following Chrome's lead.
"It may not be as far off, or as outlandish an idea, as some seem to think"
Yes. It is.
" Both Boeing and Airbus are working on fully autonomous flight systems. And as I understand it, autopilot (the real kind, in planes, not the Tesla variety) can already handle all but the most challenging conditions"
That, however is not the biggest nor hardest challenge that actually needs to be solved here.
1) We don't have flying cars. We aren't close to having flying cars. Autonomous flying cars isn't on the horizon, because flying cars aren't on the horizon.
2) Price. A small helicopter capable of carrying a couple passengers around can run $100/hr-$300/hr after everything is factored in (maintenance, insurance, inspections, etc, etc).
3) Safety. A flying car without power is a falling car. Consider the potential Injury to occupants and damage to the property below, in a scenario with a cloud a uber flying cars zipping about a busy populous city.
4) Noise pollution.
Solving the autonomous flying part... isn't the problem that needs solving.
"ultimate performance: God is dead and you now sit upon the throne in this wasteland of pure and unadulterated windows. The seals have been unlocked and the runes aligned as you see once and for all the true blistering power of Minesweeper. Cortana is replaced with a cursed portrait of W.E.B. Du-Buois into which you whisper your darkest desires (and save your passwords.) The startup sound is the entire 16 hour watergate deposition. the shutdown sound is a sacrosanct quote of your last words before you die as theyve been divined from the future."
Ah, so it just boots to Windows 95 then. Gotcha.;)
" At best, they were promised a multiplayer experience, but that promise didn't come from Valve."
If I bought the title from Valve, after reading the description on Valve, and Valve gets 30% of the cash... then Valve has an obligation to deliver what was promised along with the publisher.
This isn't some bizarre interpretation, if I buy cottage cheese and take it home, open it, and its modly, I can return it to the store I bought it from.
"At best, they were promised a multiplayer experience, but that promise didn't come from Valve."
Valve curated the title, published the promise, featured the promise prominently on their own publishing platform ("steam"), and then took a substantial component of the selling price. That promise may not have originated with Valve, but Valve most definitely passed it on with their explicit endorsement.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't think they can correlate the video they are already collecting with those times, then you aren't a very good conspiracy theorist, are you?"
So let me get this straight; I'm "making it up" by asserting they keep the photo they take at the automated passport control terminal. But, you are going to assert, without any proof, that they've kept all the surveillance video. In what universe does that make sense? Where they keep all surveillance VIDEO of the hallways.. .but discard the PHOTOS at passport control?
The default is to assume they are keeping the photos. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. And even if they said they weren't we shouldn't beleive it unless its been independently audited. (The temporary photos taken by the xray scanners were being kept, even thought they weren't supposed to be. So, no, the burden of proof rests with the person asserting they are not being kept. Deal with it.
"If you don't think they can correlate the video they are already collecting with those times"
Of course they can. But do you think there is a database anywhere out there indexed by every single passengers name and passport with links to all the bits of video footage of them walking around airports? I don't. I'm sure if someone were sufficiently interested, they could recover that footage based on the time stamps, find me at check-in as a starting point, and then work through all the hundreds of cameras to find my path through the airport camera to camera to camera from point A to the restaurant, to a waiting area, to a shop, to the bathrooms, finally to point B where i scan again to board.
"who is it that thinks they don't already have the information"
What information specifically are you talking about, that you think I think they don't already have? Because at this point I have no idea what you are driving at.
The same way a restaurateur can refuse to serve a customer who previously made a mess of your dining room.
Facebook may be 'facing the public' but its still a private service and it can decide not to provide service, or do business with anyone it wants pretty much for any reason, at any time. The ToS maybe "bullshit", but its not even necessary... they don't have to wait until you violate the ToS they can decide they just don't like your face, without any ToS at all.
The part im offended by is taking and keeping more pictures, and recording more interactions.
I couldn't care less that various countries record that I arrived or departed. Or that they can see my passport photo.
Making a copy of my password photo is not the same as taking another picture of me.
"Then don't go to an airport because they already video everyone there."
And until recently surveillance video was pretty ephemeral, and even if they hung onto, virtually worthless unless someone was paid to watch it, looking for you. It's a pretty new development that they can even theoretically make automated use of it, and track people recorded in surveillance footage.
"You don't even know that they are keeping the facial scan once you leave, you're just making that part up."
I know you aren't that naive.
My passport photo is in a searchable database.
My travel data is already in a searchable database.
My photo taken as I cross each border is NOT.
It is very different to have a single photo taken for an identification paperwork to being photographed everywhere you go.
"All this is is replacing a human with a computer."
The human who looked at me and compared my face to the photo has forgotten my face about a minute after processing me and no permanent record was made of it.
The computer stores that photo forever in a searchable database. So... yeah... its completely different.
"You liberals are so funny with your "partisan republican" but the good upstanding democrats aren't buying it."
Would you be happier if I said partisan republicans and partisan democrats? I only said partisan once to highlight that it was a partisan break, but if it means so much to you, yes, I recognize the the house comittee is split along partisan lines... as in both parties are being partisan.
" only 10% of the iPhones"
You're figuring getting what? 1 billion downloads? You think you have a chance of hitting that?
And if you do, 0.0005% of their mining power is equivalent to 5,000 devices. You think 5000 devices ranging from new macbook pros to 8 year old ipads and iphone 4's is going to net you a million bucks a week? You'll pick up maybe $10- 20,000 per month. Still pretty impressive but a long way from your millions per day. (An iphone X mining 24x7 will net you around $13/mo.* And the majority of your devices will be a lot less than that.
(And again, if you've got any property with 1 billion plus downloads, you've already hit the jackpot beyond all but the most popular apps/preinstalled apps wildest dreams. And can probably monetize it other ways for far far FAR more revenue.)
* https://9to5mac.com/2017/12/21...
(and this article was written during the cryptocurrency spike over christmas; it's come down quite a bit since then.)
"Bonus points if I can tell it to run only when my phone is plugged in to charge."
And what happens when you have 2 apps, or 4 apps, or 12 apps or 20 apps that use this model? They still going to be happy with 1/20th ?
I mean, i guess if you are going to embrace this nonsense, you might as well go all in right? And install a miner that mines currency for yourself, and set that one to have priority over all the other ones. Your other 20 apps can divide 1% of the cpu between them... if nothing else it'd be a good way to kill this business model off.
"That asks the user first. I am 100% ok with that. Bonus points if I can tell it to run only when my phone is plugged in to charge."
Your phone isn't going to charge very vast if the CPU is pinned at 100%. It's also going to be running super hot.
"I hope other ad replacements happen as well."
Their are already 2 great options:
1) Free Open Source options (f-droid!!) Not really an option on iOS... which is the main reason i don't use iOS.
2) "paying for the app"; with or without free-trial / limited shareware version. I'm pretty happy with this as well.
Sadly with too many apps that's not an option, they'd rather leech off me in some way. Whether its ads or mining crypto currency or harvesting data... or all three.
"The investigation is being closed with nothing found."
Cite?
" completely ignore the news that broke today that the whole "Russian hacked the election" and "Russia colluded ..."
All I see is some partisan republicans on a house commitee releasing a statement to that effect. Nobody else seems to be buying it; including the Democrats on that same committee. Nevermind the statement from the CIA etc.
In other words: shut up comrade.
Oh, i agree people are inconsistent. I don't dispute for a second any of the horror stories out there about shit work done by people.
But its a mistake to think simply putting robots in is the solution. Robots are terrific at doing exactly what they're told for days on end, and lousy at anything else. Humans... aren't great at doing exactly same thing over and over again, and are apt to get lazy. But they can deal with the things the machines can't deal with.
Your pasta maker example, for example... nobody ever checked underneath, until you did. But you did. A robot would NEVER have checked unless it had been programmed to check.
Upon looking you discovered a disgusting mess and set about cleaning it. The robot would not have checked, and if had and got nowhere, it wouldn't have dug around in the bag for industrial floor cleaner. Your example is look how shit people are... but people also correct the problem.
When you do it with robots, those problems still exist, but they never get checked.
The camera watches the conveyer belt for imperfections, great, but if there is a bunch of mold just outside the cameras view, it never sees it, despite everything that comes thorugh getting a nice dose of spores. Or what if the rat sits on the other side of the camera nibbling away AFTER they've passed the camera inspection...
Or perhaps the mold is on the camera itself, and depending on the camera programming, if we're lucky it'll start rejecting everything and someone will come over to find out what's going on. If we're unlucky... it'll fail such that since its not seeing the flaw its looking for and it'll pass everything while running blind undetected.
Robots/machines are great at improving the productivity of people. But replacing people with robots doesn't necessarily make things better, if the people are lousy, the robots just let them be lousy at greater scale.
Of course you could. But those are the same low paid unsanitary people he wanted to replace because he didn't want them touching his food. Does he think they're going to do a good job cleaning the food machines?
" Does a car wash check how clean your car is before washing it?"
It doesn't really verify its clean afterwards either. That's the bigger problem. You ever go to unload the dishwasher and find rice stuck to all the glasses, or something caked on to a pot that didn't come off? The robot will use those dishes, because... "they're clean".
"It doesn't have to be automated, a human is probably cheaper in the near term and they can wash the robots in several different stores in a day. "
Yeah, and if five minutes after the human crew leaves for the next store a mouse gets caught in the machine and dismembered, the robots will happily continue serving burgers through the disgusting mess until the cleaning crew gets back the next day.
"I'd rather have a machine make my food than a human. "
You know those odd horror stories about a dead rodent found in a can of tomatoes or jar of pickles. Yeah, that's how good the machines are. Admittedly that's the worst case scenario; but for every dead rat in a can or jar, there's 10 generations of rats living in and around those machines, getting into the food, taking shits, and otherwise living their lives out.
As for the robots in a fast food joint; same thing. I worked fast food as a kid; a good team would tear down, strip, and sanitize the milkshake machine, every gasket, and o-ring. A lazy cleaning crew might it rinse out, but not do a complete tear down, and leave all the rings and gaskets in place. And you'll get nasty residue and build up in all those little nooks and crannies.
The milkshake machine is a 'robot' and it can get gross fast. A lazy graveyard cleaning crew might not get caught for a month... until a health inspector opens it up and notices the brown crust growing around the drive shaft. Or a customer completes about some 'gross' sludge from finally broke off and game out in their serving.
"machines can't some soon enough as far as I'm concerned."
Very few human staff will tolerate a rat or a roach on the table while they're preparing your food. A rat can nibble on the bun, with roaches hanging out in the lettuce while a machine puts your burger together.
".. because the Porsche engines have a defect (the IMS bearing) that can destroy the engine at basically any time"
Replacing the IMS bearing is cheaper than putting a V8 into it. But I concede that if you've already blown the 911 engine... that it might be a cheaper way of putting what is left back on the road... although replacing it with a 911 engine with a fixed IMS would actually increase its value vs forever turn it into a worthless frankenstein.
Kudos to the modders for making the i3 series even work; that's a pretty cool feat on a technical level.
But I've got a i7 8700K; and I can't really imagine even wanting to hack it into an older motherboard... under any circumstances.
Its sort of like figuring out how to install an american v8 into a Porsche 911. There's modders who do that... but I can't fathom why.
Isn't there already meta-moderation? Isn't that already what it is there for?
Now enjoying watching this train wreck..
Wait... you are watching the firefox missteps from Chrome? What part do you enjoy exactly? The exhiliration of being the first one in the crash so you can lord it over the people coming behind you a month later? Your the guy laughing at ships sailing into iceberg waters ... from the Titanic.
Pretty much every misstep firefox makes is because it's following Chrome's lead.
good luck, uber and lyft are already lobbying to ban privately owned autonomous vehicles from cities. They only want their fleets allowed.
"It may not be as far off, or as outlandish an idea, as some seem to think"
Yes. It is.
" Both Boeing and Airbus are working on fully autonomous flight systems. And as I understand it, autopilot (the real kind, in planes, not the Tesla variety) can already handle all but the most challenging conditions"
That, however is not the biggest nor hardest challenge that actually needs to be solved here.
1) We don't have flying cars. We aren't close to having flying cars. Autonomous flying cars isn't on the horizon, because flying cars aren't on the horizon.
2) Price. A small helicopter capable of carrying a couple passengers around can run $100/hr-$300/hr after everything is factored in (maintenance, insurance, inspections, etc, etc).
3) Safety. A flying car without power is a falling car. Consider the potential Injury to occupants and damage to the property below, in a scenario with a cloud a uber flying cars zipping about a busy populous city.
4) Noise pollution.
Solving the autonomous flying part... isn't the problem that needs solving.
"ultimate performance: God is dead and you now sit upon the throne in this wasteland of pure and unadulterated windows. The seals have been unlocked and the runes aligned as you see once and for all the true blistering power of Minesweeper. Cortana is replaced with a cursed portrait of W.E.B. Du-Buois into which you whisper your darkest desires (and save your passwords.) The startup sound is the entire 16 hour watergate deposition. the shutdown sound is a sacrosanct quote of your last words before you die as theyve been divined from the future."
Ah, so it just boots to Windows 95 then. Gotcha. ;)
your trolling right? or joking? :p you can't be serious.
" At best, they were promised a multiplayer experience, but that promise didn't come from Valve."
If I bought the title from Valve, after reading the description on Valve, and Valve gets 30% of the cash... then Valve has an obligation to deliver what was promised along with the publisher.
This isn't some bizarre interpretation, if I buy cottage cheese and take it home, open it, and its modly, I can return it to the store I bought it from.
"At best, they were promised a multiplayer experience, but that promise didn't come from Valve."
Valve curated the title, published the promise, featured the promise prominently on their own publishing platform ("steam"), and then took a substantial component of the selling price. That promise may not have originated with Valve, but Valve most definitely passed it on with their explicit endorsement.