They are going to present a number of choices you can make because if they didn't, this would end up with the guy, drawing on a Hitler mustache, sprinting around buck naked chasing dogs at the local park. I know how Internet thinks and it's lowbrow pranksterism knows no bounds. Alternatively, the dog park is going to be a lot more lively today.;)
Sorry fren but u a dum dum. 1550nm light is no more harmful than visible light on your skin. It won't even hurt people with Xeroderma Pigmentosum aka XP. However, the people it will hurt are the people that have Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity because that is purely psychosomatic.
This is my bad guys. It made the mistake of suggesting we standardize on using either Vi or Emacs and management thought it was a great idea. By the end of the day, the mail server was crawling and someone lost their shit and destroyed all the servers when management chose Vi because "Emacs has everything but a good text editor". #CautionaryTale
These "good" projects are examples of what's known as "positive progress". All ventures are progress but positive progress is defined by having both a positive short-term and long-term impact for humanity. Negative progress fails to satisfy one or both of these and is far easier to make happen due to shortsightedness or a lack of empathy.
User names identify who you are. You are always the same person; that can never be changed.
If I've learned anything from infosec, biology and cyberpunk anime then it's that identity (to others and yourself) is quite mutable with the proper application of technology.
Operation Chokepoint and it's constant expansion for instance.
You might have a point if not for the fact that Operation Choke Point was ended in August 2017 and had absolutely nothing to do with any kind of speech and everything to do with fraud.
I only like to do nice things for people who do nice things, because those are the people making a better world
That's a great oversimplification of reality. Obligating people to distribute source code changes does nothing to guarantee they are doing something positive for the world. Remember, Facebook is built atop of a Linux environment. Aside from that, a license doesn't even mean people will live up to their obligation as there are many GPL violators.
Open source is amoral meaning that it shows no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong. However, this doesn't mean it's immoral (conflicting with morals). What this does is provides people with the source code and the choice of acting morally. This is real freedom for the recipient of the source code. The "free-software movement" removes this choice from the recipient of the source code by obligating them to act a certain way.
I'm just a guy that likes to write code that does something nice for people. I can only speak for myself but whether people want to use my code morally or not really my interest so I don't try to make it my business.
Do note that GPL'd tools are used as a basis for the most insidious and invasive systems devised (e.g. Facebook).
A string that is used to identify a user; see also User Database. To be portable across systems conforming to POSIX.1-2017, the value is composed of characters from the portable filename character set. The <hyphen-minus> character should not be used as the first character of a portable user name.
Absolutely, which means they only have to have made progress in the past and they can't officially abandon it right now. However, they could abandon it or even have already drawn up plans to abandon it at any time in the future.
Timothy McVeigh believed the Feds had implanced a chip on him and were controlling him. So he went and made a fertilizer bomb and killed 160 people!
The real question is, why did the FBI tell him to blow up one of their own buildings? The answer is that it was a transparent false flag operation to keep chipped people from suspecting they too might be chipped as it interferes with the programming! I'd tell you more about it but my chip is erasing my memory of this conversation.;)
The actual argument is that if you use the potential for misuse as an argument to prevent the use of one technology, then the potential for misuse of every technology becomes an argument for it's rejection. You cannot limit what "abusable technologies" that argument is applied to without being a hypocrite.
The more power a technology gives an individual or small number of people, the more dangerous it becomes. There is a reason we try to keep a lid on dangerous technologies like nukes.
You act as if it's never happened in history.
You lack reading comprehension. I said that "the only reason they would like to be able to" use the technology, not that technology has never been abused.
So you were being serious when you wrote "the only reason police would like to be able to identify suspects easily is so they can kill anyone who is a threat to an oppressive agenda."? How is that supportive to your argument?
So what? A club is incapable of questioning or objecting to how it will be used. A syringe of propofol is incapable of questioning or objecting to how it will be used.
A club can only be used to hurt one person at a time. Explosives and drugs are tightly regulated for this exact reason. This system has the potential for large-scale abuse.
That's why there are humans in the system to manage such concerns.
The problem here is that it only takes a handful of people to run the system instead of the hundreds of thousands of uniformed officers that would be it's inferior analog. With so few people in charge it is far easier to keep their actions out of the public's knowledge. The problem is not that's powerful, it's that it's highly concentrated power.
If we reject every piece of technology that CAN be misused then I fear we'd be living in cave-man days.
Ah, the old false dilemma fallacy where absolutes are falsely used. If we reject some dangerous technologies then we must reject all dangerous technologies, right? Except what reason is there for that? The correct answer is none.
Yes, of course, the only reason police would like to be able to identify suspects easily is so they can kill anyone who is a threat to an oppressive agenda. "Come see the violence inherent in the system..."
You act as if it's never happened in history. However, my point clearly was that unlike police officers, it is fundamentally incapable of questioning or objecting to how the data it collects will be used.
It is obvious, there are neither legal nor even ethical differences.
Wow, straight up gaslighting. Interesting but not an argument, just a lie.
But, if it was Ok before, it must be Ok today.
I would have been very concerned if that were actually true but it's not. Also, what about slavery? You think slavery is okay because it was okay in the past?
You are just uncomfortable, that suddenly it may apply even to the lowly, mediocre, and insignificant you... Why?
Oh, so you are going with the "if you have nothing to hide..." whataboutism?
You need to work on forming a coherent argument because all of these fail basic logic.
Cameras — and the face-recognition software behind them — are no different from a policeman on the corner.
Cameras are just the eyes for a central computer system. This central computer system can have thousands of eyes, never sleeps, it never blinks, it never forgets. It can track where every single person goes as it moves between the locations it can see, making a record of pace, stride and facial expressions used. It can search and recognize people out of a database of billions in a fraction of a second. It can then share all this information which is then processed in a master system that can track your movements, mood, interactions and other attributes over time while correlating it with other personal records. Your motives for collecting this information are not considered and it will continue providing this information regardless if you are helping make the world safer or systematically killing those deemed a threat to an oppressive agenda.
To compare such a system to officers of the law is naive in the highest regard or more likely extremely disingenuous.
Perhaps you should learn to be a discerning listener. If what they say makes sense, and is supported by evidence
You misunderstand because it's to protect us all. That means protecting the discerning listeners from the fools who will believe anything. Facts don't worry me, it's the fools who swallow lies whole and then regurgitate them regularly that worry me.
One of the central tendencies of government is to concentrate, hoard, and abuse power. You should think carefully about giving them the power to "protect" you from listening to "bad people".
Absolutely, which is why we the who is very specific and encoded in law.
How do the words of an unregistered foreigner infringe on your rights?
I have the right to be protected from the subversive force of foreign governments. One of the central roles of government is to protect it's people.
How would your rights be infringed differently if they were "registered"?
There are multiple ways but just knowing someone is working on behalf of a foreign government is enough to make it worthwhile.
Why would the same words not infringe your rights if they were spoken by an American citizen?
If the words were their own then it would be their own motives at play, not those of a foreign government. It should be needless to say but foreign agents are not looking out for the good of the American people, so they are going to say different things or at least do so in different volumes. It's not like they act like just any ordinary US citizen either, they are here to do a job.
Either the testing is adequate, or it isn't. If it is, then we can be assured the bug fix was adequately tested. If it isn't, you're rolling the dice whether the fix was from a human or a bot.
You are correct. It's worth noting that it attempted to fix unit tests on 3000+ projects over six months, so it may be that poorly designed unit tests are what enabled it to "succeed" in making a patch for 15 projects.
Intel is a publicly traded company and bad news like you are abandoning the hopes you pinned on a new fabrication tech would severely damage their stock price. If you recall, during the aftermath of Meltdown, Intel made it sound like AMD chips had the same issue by conflating Meltdown and Spectre issues. Oh and the patch to the Linux kernel would have slowed down AMD chips as well which was an "accident" for sure.
Intel cannot compete but they can lie and cheat with the best of them.
So could a human, and it happens all the time. That's what testing (automated and manual) is for.
True enough but there is no cognitive design or debugging occurring, just code mutation, rebuilding and testing. In six months (and thousands of attempts later) it managed to make 15 patches, five of which where accepted. Some (if not all) of the five that were accepted needed to be modified as well.
This bot was fixing build failures?
I got that part wrong. From what I read, it's fixing unit testing failures.
Slashdot Mirror
Pff... the J-man healed paralyzed men before it was cool. ;)
They are going to present a number of choices you can make because if they didn't, this would end up with the guy, drawing on a Hitler mustache, sprinting around buck naked chasing dogs at the local park. I know how Internet thinks and it's lowbrow pranksterism knows no bounds. Alternatively, the dog park is going to be a lot more lively today. ;)
Sorry fren but u a dum dum. 1550nm light is no more harmful than visible light on your skin. It won't even hurt people with Xeroderma Pigmentosum aka XP. However, the people it will hurt are the people that have Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity because that is purely psychosomatic.
This is my bad guys. It made the mistake of suggesting we standardize on using either Vi or Emacs and management thought it was a great idea. By the end of the day, the mail server was crawling and someone lost their shit and destroyed all the servers when management chose Vi because "Emacs has everything but a good text editor". #CautionaryTale
These "good" projects are examples of what's known as "positive progress". All ventures are progress but positive progress is defined by having both a positive short-term and long-term impact for humanity. Negative progress fails to satisfy one or both of these and is far easier to make happen due to shortsightedness or a lack of empathy.
User names identify who you are. You are always the same person; that can never be changed.
If I've learned anything from infosec, biology and cyberpunk anime then it's that identity (to others and yourself) is quite mutable with the proper application of technology.
Operation Chokepoint and it's constant expansion for instance.
You might have a point if not for the fact that Operation Choke Point was ended in August 2017 and had absolutely nothing to do with any kind of speech and everything to do with fraud.
I only like to do nice things for people who do nice things, because those are the people making a better world
That's a great oversimplification of reality. Obligating people to distribute source code changes does nothing to guarantee they are doing something positive for the world. Remember, Facebook is built atop of a Linux environment. Aside from that, a license doesn't even mean people will live up to their obligation as there are many GPL violators.
Open source is amoral meaning that it shows no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong. However, this doesn't mean it's immoral (conflicting with morals). What this does is provides people with the source code and the choice of acting morally. This is real freedom for the recipient of the source code. The "free-software movement" removes this choice from the recipient of the source code by obligating them to act a certain way.
I'm just a guy that likes to write code that does something nice for people. I can only speak for myself but whether people want to use my code morally or not really my interest so I don't try to make it my business.
Do note that GPL'd tools are used as a basis for the most insidious and invasive systems devised (e.g. Facebook).
Yes, as you found out "0day" is not a valid username.
I tested Ubuntu, Debian, FreeBSD, and OpenSolaris, 0day is a perfectly valid username.
Oh it's more than just that, I checked the POSIX standard and this rule of his is entirely invented.
per the POSIX standard:
A string that is used to identify a user; see also User Database. To be portable across systems conforming to POSIX.1-2017, the value is composed of characters from the portable filename character set. The <hyphen-minus> character should not be used as the first character of a portable user name.
so what's the portable filename character set?
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . _ -
What's this mean? On POSIX your username can be "007", "4-8_" or "._-" if you want it to be.
Lennart is full of shit and cannot admit he didn't even consider the standard when designing systemd.
Absolutely, which means they only have to have made progress in the past and they can't officially abandon it right now. However, they could abandon it or even have already drawn up plans to abandon it at any time in the future.
I'm pretty sure the FBI has other ways to stop chipped people from revealing crucial inform{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER
What are you talking about and who keeps posting as me?
Timothy McVeigh believed the Feds had implanced a chip on him and were controlling him. So he went and made a fertilizer bomb and killed 160 people!
The real question is, why did the FBI tell him to blow up one of their own buildings? The answer is that it was a transparent false flag operation to keep chipped people from suspecting they too might be chipped as it interferes with the programming! I'd tell you more about it but my chip is erasing my memory of this conversation. ;)
The actual argument is that if you use the potential for misuse as an argument to prevent the use of one technology, then the potential for misuse of every technology becomes an argument for it's rejection. You cannot limit what "abusable technologies" that argument is applied to without being a hypocrite.
The more power a technology gives an individual or small number of people, the more dangerous it becomes. There is a reason we try to keep a lid on dangerous technologies like nukes.
You act as if it's never happened in history.
You lack reading comprehension. I said that "the only reason they would like to be able to" use the technology, not that technology has never been abused.
So you were being serious when you wrote "the only reason police would like to be able to identify suspects easily is so they can kill anyone who is a threat to an oppressive agenda."? How is that supportive to your argument?
So what? A club is incapable of questioning or objecting to how it will be used. A syringe of propofol is incapable of questioning or objecting to how it will be used.
A club can only be used to hurt one person at a time. Explosives and drugs are tightly regulated for this exact reason. This system has the potential for large-scale abuse.
That's why there are humans in the system to manage such concerns.
The problem here is that it only takes a handful of people to run the system instead of the hundreds of thousands of uniformed officers that would be it's inferior analog. With so few people in charge it is far easier to keep their actions out of the public's knowledge. The problem is not that's powerful, it's that it's highly concentrated power.
If we reject every piece of technology that CAN be misused then I fear we'd be living in cave-man days.
Ah, the old false dilemma fallacy where absolutes are falsely used. If we reject some dangerous technologies then we must reject all dangerous technologies, right? Except what reason is there for that? The correct answer is none.
Yes, of course, the only reason police would like to be able to identify suspects easily is so they can kill anyone who is a threat to an oppressive agenda. "Come see the violence inherent in the system..."
You act as if it's never happened in history. However, my point clearly was that unlike police officers, it is fundamentally incapable of questioning or objecting to how the data it collects will be used.
It is obvious, there are neither legal nor even ethical differences.
Wow, straight up gaslighting. Interesting but not an argument, just a lie.
But, if it was Ok before, it must be Ok today.
I would have been very concerned if that were actually true but it's not. Also, what about slavery? You think slavery is okay because it was okay in the past?
You are just uncomfortable, that suddenly it may apply even to the lowly, mediocre, and insignificant you... Why?
Oh, so you are going with the "if you have nothing to hide..." whataboutism?
You need to work on forming a coherent argument because all of these fail basic logic.
Cameras — and the face-recognition software behind them — are no different from a policeman on the corner.
Cameras are just the eyes for a central computer system. This central computer system can have thousands of eyes, never sleeps, it never blinks, it never forgets. It can track where every single person goes as it moves between the locations it can see, making a record of pace, stride and facial expressions used. It can search and recognize people out of a database of billions in a fraction of a second. It can then share all this information which is then processed in a master system that can track your movements, mood, interactions and other attributes over time while correlating it with other personal records. Your motives for collecting this information are not considered and it will continue providing this information regardless if you are helping make the world safer or systematically killing those deemed a threat to an oppressive agenda.
To compare such a system to officers of the law is naive in the highest regard or more likely extremely disingenuous.
So you think that, say, Mao's little red book should be banned in the USA?
No, why would it be?
If you honestly believe that it is the role of government to protect you from the thoughts and opinions of people in other nations
Not at all. You seem to misunderstand what a foreign agent is.
Perhaps you should learn to be a discerning listener. If what they say makes sense, and is supported by evidence
You misunderstand because it's to protect us all. That means protecting the discerning listeners from the fools who will believe anything. Facts don't worry me, it's the fools who swallow lies whole and then regurgitate them regularly that worry me.
One of the central tendencies of government is to concentrate, hoard, and abuse power. You should think carefully about giving them the power to "protect" you from listening to "bad people".
Absolutely, which is why we the who is very specific and encoded in law.
How do the words of an unregistered foreigner infringe on your rights?
I have the right to be protected from the subversive force of foreign governments. One of the central roles of government is to protect it's people.
How would your rights be infringed differently if they were "registered"?
There are multiple ways but just knowing someone is working on behalf of a foreign government is enough to make it worthwhile.
Why would the same words not infringe your rights if they were spoken by an American citizen?
If the words were their own then it would be their own motives at play, not those of a foreign government. It should be needless to say but foreign agents are not looking out for the good of the American people, so they are going to say different things or at least do so in different volumes. It's not like they act like just any ordinary US citizen either, they are here to do a job.
Please note that it says "no law". It doesn't say "no law except for unregistered foreigners".
And yet one cannot make death threats to others. The reason is that it infringes upon my rights. The same can be said for unregistered foreign agents.
Either the testing is adequate, or it isn't. If it is, then we can be assured the bug fix was adequately tested. If it isn't, you're rolling the dice whether the fix was from a human or a bot.
You are correct. It's worth noting that it attempted to fix unit tests on 3000+ projects over six months, so it may be that poorly designed unit tests are what enabled it to "succeed" in making a patch for 15 projects.
Intel is a publicly traded company and bad news like you are abandoning the hopes you pinned on a new fabrication tech would severely damage their stock price. If you recall, during the aftermath of Meltdown, Intel made it sound like AMD chips had the same issue by conflating Meltdown and Spectre issues. Oh and the patch to the Linux kernel would have slowed down AMD chips as well which was an "accident" for sure.
Intel cannot compete but they can lie and cheat with the best of them.
So could a human, and it happens all the time. That's what testing (automated and manual) is for.
True enough but there is no cognitive design or debugging occurring, just code mutation, rebuilding and testing. In six months (and thousands of attempts later) it managed to make 15 patches, five of which where accepted. Some (if not all) of the five that were accepted needed to be modified as well.
This bot was fixing build failures?
I got that part wrong. From what I read, it's fixing unit testing failures.
Member when you had some modicum of control of your software and OS.
Member when software main purpose was to do something useful, and not just display ads.
Yeah, I do, it's called FOSS. I use it and so should you.