Except it doesn't work this way. A review of a performance isn't personal data and isn't protected by any law in the EU hence the summary is completely wrong.
The right to be forgotten similarly doesn't allow Enron execs to erase their history because it's a prominent piece of historical public information.
The ruling and law do not in any way demand that this information to be censored, any suggestions to the contrary are simply FUD. If anyone is censoring this information on their service then that's wholly a personal choice and nothing to do with the law.
No that's not even close to what the ruling is about. The ruling doesn't relate to the right to be forgotten, contrary to the media repeatedly getting this wrong.
The ruling relates to the 1995 European Data Protection Directive which EU member states have all I believe implemented. The UK's implementation for example is the 1998 Data Protection Act for example.
What the act says, is that organisations (such as companies, charities) cannot hold personal data on people unless there is:
1) Prior agreement- e.g. you agree to let your bank hold your personal details when you open your account.
2) An exception under law, such as the police doing investigations, or credit reference agencies holding credit reference data.
3) A public interest/public record defence, such as a newspaper reporting on the bankruptcy of a public figure.
The data protection has existed and been applied this way to most companies since it's creation - i.e. in the UK since 1998 for example. When I worked with some recruitment agencies previously I gave them my CV, phone number, name, e-mail address etc. some years back. I have since had contact from other agencies whom I did not give these details too, likely someone stole them when they left and took them to their new employer or similar as is typical in that industry. Because I wasn't interested in these other recruiters the data protection act is what allowed me to tell them to cease all contact and delete every bit of information they have on me - I had agreed to no relationship with them, and I had made clear to those I originally gave my details to that they were not to be passed on under any circumstances. This is a good thing, the law empowered me to deal with data theft that resulted in me being pestered against my will.
The only thing that the recent ruling changed is that the judge simply ruled that the law does in fact apply to Google- for some reason Google has until this point felt that it's above the law and that because it uses lazy algorithms to simply harvest as much data as possible, slap adverts on that data and profit off of it that somehow the law didn't apply to it. The original newspaper article about the bankruptcy did not have to delete it because a newspaper can perform public record duties. Google on the other hand has no such protection, it does not produce public record, it simply harvests data from other sites (including those that do produce public record) and profits off of it to the tune of many billions in ad revenue.
This is why the ruling went against Google- because it's not special, the law does apply to it, because it's not creating public record content but simply copying it from those that do, and because in doing so it was storing personal data that the subject in question did not agree to let Google have.
If Google simply provided a blind link to the article in question there would've been no ruling against it, but the fact that it takes a copy of the article and provides a snippet alongside the link is where it fell foul - at this point it was clearly holding personal data without any legal right to do so.
The actual right to be forgotten is a proposed provision in an update to the European Data Protection Directive that is not yet law. If Google wishes for a search engine exemption the time to lobby for it is now, but criticising existing law which is 16 years old and which just about every other company has implemented and followed is monumentally stupid. Google is not and should not be above the law. The proposal in the 2012 refresh of the law (2012 is just when the process started, it's not finished yet) explicitly lays out the fact that the right to be forgotten cannot be used to censor arbitrarily such that although that's how the law is being applied now, it proposes making it more explicit in law.
So it's not about creating the right to be forgotten, it's not about publisher and links, it's simply a reiteration that yes, the law applies to Google like it does everyone. You can think
It wont work because the whole summary and story is 50 shades of wrong in the first place.
Time and time again the same FUD against the 1995 European Data Protection Directive (that often being referred to incorrectly as "the right to be forgotten") seems to get parroted here on Slashdot but it's completely wrong.
A review of someone's work is not, has never been, and will never be classed as personal data, and hence eligible for removal under the data protection directive, or even the proposed actual "right to be forgotten".
It'd be nice if the people bitching about this whole thing actually understood it but time and time again the only arguments against it are from those people who think it's something that it's categorically not so we end up with summarys on Slashdot like this which are just completely wrong.
If company A has 0 out of 3 failures in testing and 0 out of 3 failures in production and company B has 2 out of 3 failures in testing and 0 out of 3 failures in production are you seriously telling me you'd still treat them equally? I know I wouldn't - company A's path from theory to practice was clearly more on the money than company B's.
If I've learnt anything in software it's that software that has loads of issues during development and testing is inevitably more troublesome in production than software that made it through testing absolutely fine. The same applies here - failures are failures, it doesn't matter where they occur. One can reasonably argue not to write something off because it failed in testing claiming it's fixed for production, but multiple failures in testing still have to be considered. It'd be lunacy not to.
No, this is often the problem AI as a topic faces. AI research has given us things like spell checking, image recognition and so forth, and when such things are first implemented by researchers to almost everyone it looks like intelligence, a triumph of AI, but as more and more people understand it, the explanations of the way it works and the ways of illustrating the sorts of emergent data that arises from some such systems become better it loses it's magic and just becomes a "dumb algorithm".
So here's the thing, there's every possibility that we will in the next couple of decades figure out exactly how the human brain works, and be able to explain the sorts of emergent patterns that arise within it, and guess what? even the source of real natural intelligence will then also just be "dumb algorithms".
AI isn't magic, but many people view it as such until they understand it but it's also true of nature too- people attributed this same magic to living creatures such as simple insects, and yet we basically know how many basic insects work now, we can even produce robotic versions of them that act in the same ways - the processes that govern the way these insects move and live have themselves become dumb algorithms we can replicate within a computer.
So to answer the GP's question, the answer would probably be that yes, at first most people will have very little understanding of the emergent data that creates "intelligence" within the system, but the original researches will probably have a pretty decent idea. As more and more people study such a system we will rapidly begin to understand and find better ways of illustrating and mapping that data to understand how it works.
That's why personally I'm not really a fan of the strong/weak AI labels because ultimately all AI is just comprised of various algorithms that sit on a spectrum of complexity.
The strong/weak AI labels confuse people and you can see it here in this very discussion - people have jumped to the conclusion that Elon must be talking about an AI that "decides" that it doesn't like us and "decides" to kill us, but it doesn't need to be anything that fancy. It could be as simple as increase movement towards drone automation and interconnectivity and increase trust in handing them control over ever more powerful weapons. If you produce a large interconnected system of fairly autonomous drones and you fuck up the code that helps them determine what targets to hit, say for example, you get an overflow error on a certain date that resets their pre-programmed targetting systems such that they revert to seeing anything as a threat then it could be as simple as the drone fleet going rogue and then how do we deal with that? these things will be able to outmanoeuvre any fighter pilot, because they don't have the physical restrictions of us fleshies, robots on the ground will be able to spot, acquire, and fire at us using sub-millisecond levels of processing that outperforms even us, and even indirect fire will give advantage to them as they'll be controlling the skies and be able to spot and communicate more precisely to automated artillery and such.
You'd probably even harden the system because if you add in a fail safe what would be to stop your opponents using it? This sort of scenario doesn't require any conciousness or traditional "strong AI" intelligence, it doesn't require a computer to decide it hates us, it just needs a networked system of drones to automate target acquisition at the wrong targets en-masse. In the near future the limitation would thankfully probably be ammunition - we're still going to be in the supply chain there, but what if longer term, in 50 years say, we have these things churning ammo out of factories and self arming?
None of this requires a massive technological advance from where we are now, it doesn't require a leap in AI research, it doesn't require emergence of computer conciousness, it mostly just requires more of the technology we have right this moment being produced in greater quantity
Except HS2 isn't about environmental improvements or any such daftness but entirely about palm greasing and now that the economic benefits have been wholly debunked it's just a case of no MPs being willing to admit they were wrong about it and do the right thing in cancelling the whole £50bn waste of money.
The fact it runs right through various important nature reserves in fact causes massive damage to biodiversity because there are some species whose only habitats are going to be wiped out by it.
Which isn't to say I'm personally against all high speed rail development, I think this morning's announced plans in the UK for more rapid links between cities like Leeds and Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester and so forth make an awful lot of sense because they can use existing paths, do no more damage, and be more efficient. But existing lines that HS2 is designed to replace/complement are already pretty efficient and pretty good - no one wants to get to London in 1hr 30mins instead of 1hr 53mins and then spend 20 minutes walking to the new stations that are far away from the old stations where people actually want to be.
People don't bitch about high speed rail because they don't see the environmental benefits, they bitch about it because a lot of high speed rail plans are a complete farce. To put it another way, for the cost of HS2 we could fund the installation of free solar panels on half the houses in the country making them entirely self-powering whilst not destroying countless important protected natural habitats.
So tell me again, how exactly is high speed rail not something we should bitch about? Long story short, if you want to see environmental benefits then there are about 50bn better alternatives than boondodggles like HS2. As it stands the destruction to habitat coupled with the massively polluting outputs of the sort of industrial development that cutting a whole new route across the country will require will ensure that HS2 will do net environmental damage.
Writing off people who complain about high speed rail based on a spurious environmental argument is completely stupid when we in the UK have a perfect example of a really poor high speed rail plan that both does massive environmental harm and blows incredible amounts of money that could be used for everything from completion of fibre broadband rollouts nationwide, massive increases in renewable energy, two new nuclear plants, and still change left over to help fix the NHS funding gap or reduce our national debt a little. So yes, some high speed rail development is an astounding waste of money and yes it should be complained loudly about.
That's not even possible given that everyone in online games faces trolling and females are not even a majority of gamers.
You'll see far more homophobic abuse than you'll ever see misogyny in online games in large part because it's mostly males playing them and homophobia is often used as abuse between males.
In many years worth of hours of online gaming I've seen basically no misogynistic trolling. Most misogyny seems to occur on Twitter and such. In gaming it basically never happens relative to all other trolling that goes on, even in games with a much broader female player base like most MMOs.
I'm not sure really, if it was an employee it would've been criminal negligence but if someone isn't an employee or doesn't realise what they're doing? They could probably be charged for manslaughter but would a typical manslaughter case be sufficient enough punishment for many such deaths stemming from intentional meddling, but unintentional consequences? That's the problem I guess - computers create a level of indirection between the crime and the perpetrator and I don't think many pre-computer era laws really account for that possibility.
But you don't get peace by giving violent people free reign to be violent. You say you're proud, but there's no pride in being willing to be subservient to whoever is willing to come and violently take your liberties from you, and being happy to leave others to suffer when you could act.
"There was strong opposition to the conscription in my province for both World Wars, and I am proud of that."
Ah so you were a fan of the spread of Nazism and do not believe it should have been stopped - it's becoming clear why you have such a crackpot view of the world.
"By the way, it was the Russians who did most of the work."
On the Eastern front yes, with the support of the Western World War II arctic convoys.
"When Canadian and American forces landed in Europe, they were battling a heavily weakened enemy."
Canadian and American forces landed at very different times, the Americans didn't enter the war until about 4 years after Canada, and Germany's Western front had been weakened by that alliance of the likes of Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Poland, Free France and so on. It was success in the Battle of Britain that crippled Hitler's ability to advance beyond Western Europe. You're right that the Nazis were weakened by the time America entered the war, because it was that anglo-alliance that weakened it.
What's really astounding is the incredible lack of a grasp on history you have, but similarly your complete ignorance of history probably explains your astoundingly ignorant and monumentally stupid viewpoint - as the say goes, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and it would appear you don't even know your history let alone have any ability therefore to learn from it.
"You're deluded if you think the fight against ISIS will accomplish anything."
Your deluded if you think that not fighting ISIS will magically make it go away. Guess what we've been trying for the last 2 years? They only got stronger and managed to spread into even more countries.
"Have you been living in a cave for the past ten years? Why don't you tell me about the resounding successes that were Western interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia?"
What does it matter? They're a mixed bag. Iraq was stupid, a massive monumental mistake. Afghanistan was far from a resounding victory but has left the country in a better place than it was - contrary to popular belief life was still far worse and more brutal under the Taliban than it is now and what about Libya? you can't even fucking spell it right, is it suffering from militancy too? absolutely. Is that better than the other option of widespread Gaddafi led massacres that were and would've continued to claim far more lives than fighting now is causing? sure, no question about it. Sometimes when you're faced with two bad options it's better to take the least bad than allow the most bad to come to fruition.
You have an incredibly naive world view, you don't see the million shades of grey in the middle, you believe that if 3 military interventions weren't resounding successes then no intervention can ever work. It's wrong, it's false, and it only takes counter-examples such as World War II, or on a smaller scale, Sierra Leone to show that military intervention can in fact sometimes make things better. You can only have peace if both sides are willing, when one side is not you either give up and get raped, or you fight back for those hard won freedoms. What's particularly sad is that you can only even say the things you are because people far braver than you, far smarter than you, and far more sensible than you actually did put their lives on the line to do what's right, and rather than thank and support that you sit here pretending they're somehow wrong? They're not- you are.
Like it or not, here's the thing with bombing ISIS- tens of thousands of Yazidis, Christians, and Kurds alone have already been saved by those actions. Even if we stopped right now we've done more good in our actions than you would seem
That's not the problem. The problem is that the subject paints this article as an article about the death of trolling, but what it's really talking about is misogyny which is only an absolutely tiny fragment of online trolling.
Hence, if what the author is talking about comes true, the death of misogyny online, then it will not in any way even be close to the death of the internet trolling because every other type of trolling will still be present.
Thus this story deserves a big slapping down, it's purposefully misleading about a large widespread issue to push a much more focussed agenda than that it's dressed itself up as. People only do that when they don't have an argument that stands by itself, they only sensationalise when they don't have much to say about the actual specific point they're talking about, but perhaps most importantly, it's fucking offensive to the victims of every other type of trolling out there which can be equally as serious - it says "Hey, you guys aren't victims of real trolling because you're not female, or not victims of misogyny, that's the only real trolling"- tell that to the kid bullied to suicide for being overweight, being poor, having no friends or whatever else. It happens.
It's probably worth noting that in the UK a life sentence doesn't mean "life in prison", it means more likely about 15 years, though sometimes less. The soldier who murdered a wounded insurgent in Afghanistan for example only has a minimum of 10 years set.
Which isn't to say that's an acceptable punishment if this law is used against whistleblowers, but I figured it's worth making clear that life doesn't inherently mean whole life in the UK. Not even close in fact in the vast majority of cases - whole life is reserved for a very small select handful of psychopaths.
If someone hacked into an industrial control system and managed to release some toxic materials into a water supply poisoning a bunch of people then I think the sentence is adequate. Probably all the law needs to do is remove the all encompassing "damage national security" clause- simply having a clause about a sufficient level of harm the economy, environment, or individuals is all it would take to turn this from a bad law to a fairly reasonable law.
It was in large part Canada's willingness to stand by Britain and allow it's airmen to support it against Hitler's attempted advances in World War II. Canada was a major factor in helping prevent Britain losing the Battle of Britain, a defining moment which crushed Hitler's ability to spread West outside of Europe (and guess who would've been next if Britain fell?) by decimating his airforce and navy.
If you think isolation is a solution in an increasingly globalised world you're deluded. It wasn't 70 years ago when America learnt that the hard way at Pearl Harbour, and is most certainly isn't now.
That doesn't mean every intervention is sensible, effective or just, but absolution isolationism is just complete stupidity - it merely delays the inevitable and makes the inevitable worse because the delay allowed the enemy to gain more strength than they would have if they were just dealt with sooner before they reached your shores. This is reality, and it's been proven time and time again by every nation that's attempted the isolationism that you propose.
Yep, even now it still has launch day bugs, and if you raise it on their forums which is where you're told to raise it by DICE you get censored by their resident fanboys with mod powers who tell you to raise it with DICE who tell you to raise it with EA and so on.
If they can't even keep track of whose tracking issues and have a handful of mod power enabled fanboys to silence their customers then what hope is there of them ever producing anything not shit?
Really, issue tracking isn't a new thing, there are pretty well established methods of doing it now and yet DICE/EA somehow just can't log a launch day bug and deal with it in almost a year.
Um, this law is wholly illiberal, why would liberals ever want this? Anyone wanting this is not liberal by definition.
This is a classic conservative type proposition, not surprisingly, being put forth by the UK's Conservative party who sit on the centre-right (with a handful of far-right elements like Peter Bone).
I suspect what you really mean is "People I don't like will love this law", but whoever those people are, I assure you they're not liberals by the very fact that this law change goes against liberalism.
Because Richard and Judy got a bit of backlash when Judy decided it was okay to grossly upset a rape victim by belittling the harm done to her and we can't possibly have a situation where it's okay for celebrities to grossly offend people but not do anything when they suffer an inevitable backlash from their stupidity can we?
Right but that wasn't the AC's question was it? The question was how many had received 6 month sentences.
The answer is very few, of the thousands you cite, most didn't even get jail sentences, and even fewer again got a full 6 months.
Part the problem we have with the act though is the use of magistrates in the first place. Magistrates are kangaroo courts really, untrained busy bodies handing down judgements based on their own social hangups.
Which is a wider problem, because magistrates sit over many other cases.
Ironically, the proposal in TFA might actually therefore be an improvement - more cases being passed up to actual real courts with trained professionals overseeing the cases rather than magistrate chimps wont likely me more and longer jail sentences, it'll just mean more cases being thrown out because they're so fucking stupid in the first place.
So what? the point is that if we increase our usage to match the amount we have then we're not suddenly living in a world where there is an abundant supply, we'll just use more and have shortages just as much as always.
With that will be increased heat dissipation also resulting in another set of climate problems to that which we have now with CO2, unless we produce 100% efficient electronics, which isn't going to happen.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing though, I'm saying it's not going to be a magical panacea that lets us create a utopia. We'll still face similar problems to those which we face now, and we'll still have to deal with them.
Judges do have the final say, but it's impossible for judges to assess every single data acquisition and processing by every company, it would be an impossible task. Companies have to make the first decision as to what is and isn't acceptable, and if a company is believed to have made a wrong choice then that is challenged by whichever party in court where a judge (or jury) does have a say.
Despite what you say, you probably don't actually want to live in a world without data protection laws and there's no reason to think Google should be some special case that's immune to them.
What? Google didn't even exist when the 1995 European Data Protection Directive was being discussed. This is the law which the courts deemed Google to have breached.
The 2012 refresh is STILL being discussed.
Google is not the final judge in the matter, the courts would be if someone feels Google has not made the correct decision, but as the data controller and data processor Google has a legal obligation to ensure that all personal data which it holds is accurate, uptodate, relevant, and obtained with permission.
These are the criteria Google must use when determining whether it should continue to hold such data. Thus, for example, claims (with proof) of data inaccuracy or outdatedness, claims against data which is not relevant to Google's task as a public search engine (i.e. personal medical history), and claims of data being obtained without permission (personal nude photos) would all pass the test for Google to remove them from search results.
Personally I thought Google was being quite difficult in that it was intentionally pretending it was hard done by by removing legitimate public interest news articles and so forth, but after the European Commission slapped it on the wrist and after it's competitors started following the law without trying to play politics Google fell into line and started fulfilling it's legal obligations without engaging in censorship for the sake of political point scoring. As such, and given the 58% rejection rate it would seem that Google is now doing what it's supposed to and hence doing a decent job of adhering to the law at last.
It still has the opportunity to get the law changed in it's favour through lobbying and negotiations over the 2012 Data Protection Directive update which is the correct avenue to pursue any issues it takes with the law.
It's not even about not being able to report them, CRAs are just out and out not legally allowed to even store that information past a certain time. Once that period has elapsed companies must delete that data from their databases.
Data such as county court judgements in the UK are still held on file as part of public record past this point but corporations are not allowed to retain copies of or use that information and are hence not allowed to supply it forward as part of a credit report. I believe the cut off is currently 7 years for CCJs in the UK.
FWIW this isn't even part of any special laws regarding CRAs, this is just the plain old Data Protection Act (the UK's implementation of the European Data Protect Directive 1995). The only special treatment CRAs get is that they're allowed to gather and process personal credit data without first having to seek permission of the data subject - they can't even pass it on unless it's part of a formal request by the data subject (i.e. an application for a credit card). Everything else in the DPA still applies- they must hold it securely, it must only be kept if it's relevant to their job, it must be correct, it must be recent enough to be relevant and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
Except it doesn't work this way. A review of a performance isn't personal data and isn't protected by any law in the EU hence the summary is completely wrong.
The right to be forgotten similarly doesn't allow Enron execs to erase their history because it's a prominent piece of historical public information.
The ruling and law do not in any way demand that this information to be censored, any suggestions to the contrary are simply FUD. If anyone is censoring this information on their service then that's wholly a personal choice and nothing to do with the law.
No that's not even close to what the ruling is about. The ruling doesn't relate to the right to be forgotten, contrary to the media repeatedly getting this wrong.
The ruling relates to the 1995 European Data Protection Directive which EU member states have all I believe implemented. The UK's implementation for example is the 1998 Data Protection Act for example.
What the act says, is that organisations (such as companies, charities) cannot hold personal data on people unless there is:
1) Prior agreement- e.g. you agree to let your bank hold your personal details when you open your account.
2) An exception under law, such as the police doing investigations, or credit reference agencies holding credit reference data.
3) A public interest/public record defence, such as a newspaper reporting on the bankruptcy of a public figure.
The data protection has existed and been applied this way to most companies since it's creation - i.e. in the UK since 1998 for example. When I worked with some recruitment agencies previously I gave them my CV, phone number, name, e-mail address etc. some years back. I have since had contact from other agencies whom I did not give these details too, likely someone stole them when they left and took them to their new employer or similar as is typical in that industry. Because I wasn't interested in these other recruiters the data protection act is what allowed me to tell them to cease all contact and delete every bit of information they have on me - I had agreed to no relationship with them, and I had made clear to those I originally gave my details to that they were not to be passed on under any circumstances. This is a good thing, the law empowered me to deal with data theft that resulted in me being pestered against my will.
The only thing that the recent ruling changed is that the judge simply ruled that the law does in fact apply to Google- for some reason Google has until this point felt that it's above the law and that because it uses lazy algorithms to simply harvest as much data as possible, slap adverts on that data and profit off of it that somehow the law didn't apply to it. The original newspaper article about the bankruptcy did not have to delete it because a newspaper can perform public record duties. Google on the other hand has no such protection, it does not produce public record, it simply harvests data from other sites (including those that do produce public record) and profits off of it to the tune of many billions in ad revenue.
This is why the ruling went against Google- because it's not special, the law does apply to it, because it's not creating public record content but simply copying it from those that do, and because in doing so it was storing personal data that the subject in question did not agree to let Google have.
If Google simply provided a blind link to the article in question there would've been no ruling against it, but the fact that it takes a copy of the article and provides a snippet alongside the link is where it fell foul - at this point it was clearly holding personal data without any legal right to do so.
The actual right to be forgotten is a proposed provision in an update to the European Data Protection Directive that is not yet law. If Google wishes for a search engine exemption the time to lobby for it is now, but criticising existing law which is 16 years old and which just about every other company has implemented and followed is monumentally stupid. Google is not and should not be above the law. The proposal in the 2012 refresh of the law (2012 is just when the process started, it's not finished yet) explicitly lays out the fact that the right to be forgotten cannot be used to censor arbitrarily such that although that's how the law is being applied now, it proposes making it more explicit in law.
So it's not about creating the right to be forgotten, it's not about publisher and links, it's simply a reiteration that yes, the law applies to Google like it does everyone. You can think
It wont work because the whole summary and story is 50 shades of wrong in the first place.
Time and time again the same FUD against the 1995 European Data Protection Directive (that often being referred to incorrectly as "the right to be forgotten") seems to get parroted here on Slashdot but it's completely wrong.
A review of someone's work is not, has never been, and will never be classed as personal data, and hence eligible for removal under the data protection directive, or even the proposed actual "right to be forgotten".
It'd be nice if the people bitching about this whole thing actually understood it but time and time again the only arguments against it are from those people who think it's something that it's categorically not so we end up with summarys on Slashdot like this which are just completely wrong.
Why not?
If company A has 0 out of 3 failures in testing and 0 out of 3 failures in production and company B has 2 out of 3 failures in testing and 0 out of 3 failures in production are you seriously telling me you'd still treat them equally? I know I wouldn't - company A's path from theory to practice was clearly more on the money than company B's.
If I've learnt anything in software it's that software that has loads of issues during development and testing is inevitably more troublesome in production than software that made it through testing absolutely fine. The same applies here - failures are failures, it doesn't matter where they occur. One can reasonably argue not to write something off because it failed in testing claiming it's fixed for production, but multiple failures in testing still have to be considered. It'd be lunacy not to.
No, this is often the problem AI as a topic faces. AI research has given us things like spell checking, image recognition and so forth, and when such things are first implemented by researchers to almost everyone it looks like intelligence, a triumph of AI, but as more and more people understand it, the explanations of the way it works and the ways of illustrating the sorts of emergent data that arises from some such systems become better it loses it's magic and just becomes a "dumb algorithm".
So here's the thing, there's every possibility that we will in the next couple of decades figure out exactly how the human brain works, and be able to explain the sorts of emergent patterns that arise within it, and guess what? even the source of real natural intelligence will then also just be "dumb algorithms".
AI isn't magic, but many people view it as such until they understand it but it's also true of nature too- people attributed this same magic to living creatures such as simple insects, and yet we basically know how many basic insects work now, we can even produce robotic versions of them that act in the same ways - the processes that govern the way these insects move and live have themselves become dumb algorithms we can replicate within a computer.
So to answer the GP's question, the answer would probably be that yes, at first most people will have very little understanding of the emergent data that creates "intelligence" within the system, but the original researches will probably have a pretty decent idea. As more and more people study such a system we will rapidly begin to understand and find better ways of illustrating and mapping that data to understand how it works.
That's why personally I'm not really a fan of the strong/weak AI labels because ultimately all AI is just comprised of various algorithms that sit on a spectrum of complexity.
The strong/weak AI labels confuse people and you can see it here in this very discussion - people have jumped to the conclusion that Elon must be talking about an AI that "decides" that it doesn't like us and "decides" to kill us, but it doesn't need to be anything that fancy. It could be as simple as increase movement towards drone automation and interconnectivity and increase trust in handing them control over ever more powerful weapons. If you produce a large interconnected system of fairly autonomous drones and you fuck up the code that helps them determine what targets to hit, say for example, you get an overflow error on a certain date that resets their pre-programmed targetting systems such that they revert to seeing anything as a threat then it could be as simple as the drone fleet going rogue and then how do we deal with that? these things will be able to outmanoeuvre any fighter pilot, because they don't have the physical restrictions of us fleshies, robots on the ground will be able to spot, acquire, and fire at us using sub-millisecond levels of processing that outperforms even us, and even indirect fire will give advantage to them as they'll be controlling the skies and be able to spot and communicate more precisely to automated artillery and such.
You'd probably even harden the system because if you add in a fail safe what would be to stop your opponents using it? This sort of scenario doesn't require any conciousness or traditional "strong AI" intelligence, it doesn't require a computer to decide it hates us, it just needs a networked system of drones to automate target acquisition at the wrong targets en-masse. In the near future the limitation would thankfully probably be ammunition - we're still going to be in the supply chain there, but what if longer term, in 50 years say, we have these things churning ammo out of factories and self arming?
None of this requires a massive technological advance from where we are now, it doesn't require a leap in AI research, it doesn't require emergence of computer conciousness, it mostly just requires more of the technology we have right this moment being produced in greater quantity
Except HS2 isn't about environmental improvements or any such daftness but entirely about palm greasing and now that the economic benefits have been wholly debunked it's just a case of no MPs being willing to admit they were wrong about it and do the right thing in cancelling the whole £50bn waste of money.
The fact it runs right through various important nature reserves in fact causes massive damage to biodiversity because there are some species whose only habitats are going to be wiped out by it.
Which isn't to say I'm personally against all high speed rail development, I think this morning's announced plans in the UK for more rapid links between cities like Leeds and Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester and so forth make an awful lot of sense because they can use existing paths, do no more damage, and be more efficient. But existing lines that HS2 is designed to replace/complement are already pretty efficient and pretty good - no one wants to get to London in 1hr 30mins instead of 1hr 53mins and then spend 20 minutes walking to the new stations that are far away from the old stations where people actually want to be.
People don't bitch about high speed rail because they don't see the environmental benefits, they bitch about it because a lot of high speed rail plans are a complete farce. To put it another way, for the cost of HS2 we could fund the installation of free solar panels on half the houses in the country making them entirely self-powering whilst not destroying countless important protected natural habitats.
So tell me again, how exactly is high speed rail not something we should bitch about? Long story short, if you want to see environmental benefits then there are about 50bn better alternatives than boondodggles like HS2. As it stands the destruction to habitat coupled with the massively polluting outputs of the sort of industrial development that cutting a whole new route across the country will require will ensure that HS2 will do net environmental damage.
Writing off people who complain about high speed rail based on a spurious environmental argument is completely stupid when we in the UK have a perfect example of a really poor high speed rail plan that both does massive environmental harm and blows incredible amounts of money that could be used for everything from completion of fibre broadband rollouts nationwide, massive increases in renewable energy, two new nuclear plants, and still change left over to help fix the NHS funding gap or reduce our national debt a little. So yes, some high speed rail development is an astounding waste of money and yes it should be complained loudly about.
That's not even possible given that everyone in online games faces trolling and females are not even a majority of gamers.
You'll see far more homophobic abuse than you'll ever see misogyny in online games in large part because it's mostly males playing them and homophobia is often used as abuse between males.
In many years worth of hours of online gaming I've seen basically no misogynistic trolling. Most misogyny seems to occur on Twitter and such. In gaming it basically never happens relative to all other trolling that goes on, even in games with a much broader female player base like most MMOs.
I'm not sure really, if it was an employee it would've been criminal negligence but if someone isn't an employee or doesn't realise what they're doing? They could probably be charged for manslaughter but would a typical manslaughter case be sufficient enough punishment for many such deaths stemming from intentional meddling, but unintentional consequences? That's the problem I guess - computers create a level of indirection between the crime and the perpetrator and I don't think many pre-computer era laws really account for that possibility.
But you don't get peace by giving violent people free reign to be violent. You say you're proud, but there's no pride in being willing to be subservient to whoever is willing to come and violently take your liberties from you, and being happy to leave others to suffer when you could act.
"There was strong opposition to the conscription in my province for both World Wars, and I am proud of that."
Ah so you were a fan of the spread of Nazism and do not believe it should have been stopped - it's becoming clear why you have such a crackpot view of the world.
"By the way, it was the Russians who did most of the work."
On the Eastern front yes, with the support of the Western World War II arctic convoys.
"When Canadian and American forces landed in Europe, they were battling a heavily weakened enemy."
Canadian and American forces landed at very different times, the Americans didn't enter the war until about 4 years after Canada, and Germany's Western front had been weakened by that alliance of the likes of Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Poland, Free France and so on. It was success in the Battle of Britain that crippled Hitler's ability to advance beyond Western Europe. You're right that the Nazis were weakened by the time America entered the war, because it was that anglo-alliance that weakened it.
What's really astounding is the incredible lack of a grasp on history you have, but similarly your complete ignorance of history probably explains your astoundingly ignorant and monumentally stupid viewpoint - as the say goes, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and it would appear you don't even know your history let alone have any ability therefore to learn from it.
"You're deluded if you think the fight against ISIS will accomplish anything."
Your deluded if you think that not fighting ISIS will magically make it go away. Guess what we've been trying for the last 2 years? They only got stronger and managed to spread into even more countries.
"Have you been living in a cave for the past ten years? Why don't you tell me about the resounding successes that were Western interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia?"
What does it matter? They're a mixed bag. Iraq was stupid, a massive monumental mistake. Afghanistan was far from a resounding victory but has left the country in a better place than it was - contrary to popular belief life was still far worse and more brutal under the Taliban than it is now and what about Libya? you can't even fucking spell it right, is it suffering from militancy too? absolutely. Is that better than the other option of widespread Gaddafi led massacres that were and would've continued to claim far more lives than fighting now is causing? sure, no question about it. Sometimes when you're faced with two bad options it's better to take the least bad than allow the most bad to come to fruition.
You have an incredibly naive world view, you don't see the million shades of grey in the middle, you believe that if 3 military interventions weren't resounding successes then no intervention can ever work. It's wrong, it's false, and it only takes counter-examples such as World War II, or on a smaller scale, Sierra Leone to show that military intervention can in fact sometimes make things better. You can only have peace if both sides are willing, when one side is not you either give up and get raped, or you fight back for those hard won freedoms. What's particularly sad is that you can only even say the things you are because people far braver than you, far smarter than you, and far more sensible than you actually did put their lives on the line to do what's right, and rather than thank and support that you sit here pretending they're somehow wrong? They're not- you are.
Like it or not, here's the thing with bombing ISIS- tens of thousands of Yazidis, Christians, and Kurds alone have already been saved by those actions. Even if we stopped right now we've done more good in our actions than you would seem
That's not the problem. The problem is that the subject paints this article as an article about the death of trolling, but what it's really talking about is misogyny which is only an absolutely tiny fragment of online trolling.
Hence, if what the author is talking about comes true, the death of misogyny online, then it will not in any way even be close to the death of the internet trolling because every other type of trolling will still be present.
Thus this story deserves a big slapping down, it's purposefully misleading about a large widespread issue to push a much more focussed agenda than that it's dressed itself up as. People only do that when they don't have an argument that stands by itself, they only sensationalise when they don't have much to say about the actual specific point they're talking about, but perhaps most importantly, it's fucking offensive to the victims of every other type of trolling out there which can be equally as serious - it says "Hey, you guys aren't victims of real trolling because you're not female, or not victims of misogyny, that's the only real trolling"- tell that to the kid bullied to suicide for being overweight, being poor, having no friends or whatever else. It happens.
Yeah, I read a subject line about the death of trolls and I got a summary about feminism.
What the fuck? Anyone would think only females are ever victims of trolling going by this summary.
It's probably worth noting that in the UK a life sentence doesn't mean "life in prison", it means more likely about 15 years, though sometimes less. The soldier who murdered a wounded insurgent in Afghanistan for example only has a minimum of 10 years set.
Which isn't to say that's an acceptable punishment if this law is used against whistleblowers, but I figured it's worth making clear that life doesn't inherently mean whole life in the UK. Not even close in fact in the vast majority of cases - whole life is reserved for a very small select handful of psychopaths.
If someone hacked into an industrial control system and managed to release some toxic materials into a water supply poisoning a bunch of people then I think the sentence is adequate. Probably all the law needs to do is remove the all encompassing "damage national security" clause- simply having a clause about a sufficient level of harm the economy, environment, or individuals is all it would take to turn this from a bad law to a fairly reasonable law.
You're an embarrassment to your country.
It was in large part Canada's willingness to stand by Britain and allow it's airmen to support it against Hitler's attempted advances in World War II. Canada was a major factor in helping prevent Britain losing the Battle of Britain, a defining moment which crushed Hitler's ability to spread West outside of Europe (and guess who would've been next if Britain fell?) by decimating his airforce and navy.
If you think isolation is a solution in an increasingly globalised world you're deluded. It wasn't 70 years ago when America learnt that the hard way at Pearl Harbour, and is most certainly isn't now.
That doesn't mean every intervention is sensible, effective or just, but absolution isolationism is just complete stupidity - it merely delays the inevitable and makes the inevitable worse because the delay allowed the enemy to gain more strength than they would have if they were just dealt with sooner before they reached your shores. This is reality, and it's been proven time and time again by every nation that's attempted the isolationism that you propose.
Yep, even now it still has launch day bugs, and if you raise it on their forums which is where you're told to raise it by DICE you get censored by their resident fanboys with mod powers who tell you to raise it with DICE who tell you to raise it with EA and so on.
If they can't even keep track of whose tracking issues and have a handful of mod power enabled fanboys to silence their customers then what hope is there of them ever producing anything not shit?
Really, issue tracking isn't a new thing, there are pretty well established methods of doing it now and yet DICE/EA somehow just can't log a launch day bug and deal with it in almost a year.
Thankfully in the UK "liberals" are something all parties try and claim to be like a badge of honour, rather than a target of hate.
None of them actually are of course, but at least it's something they all aspire to be rather than aspire to hate.
Well, the exception being the Tory far right and other far right parties like UKIP of course who are basically the UK's answer to the tea party.
Now if only we had an actual liberal party that had any hope of getting into power, then stuff like this would be history.
Um, this law is wholly illiberal, why would liberals ever want this? Anyone wanting this is not liberal by definition.
This is a classic conservative type proposition, not surprisingly, being put forth by the UK's Conservative party who sit on the centre-right (with a handful of far-right elements like Peter Bone).
I suspect what you really mean is "People I don't like will love this law", but whoever those people are, I assure you they're not liberals by the very fact that this law change goes against liberalism.
Because Richard and Judy got a bit of backlash when Judy decided it was okay to grossly upset a rape victim by belittling the harm done to her and we can't possibly have a situation where it's okay for celebrities to grossly offend people but not do anything when they suffer an inevitable backlash from their stupidity can we?
Right but that wasn't the AC's question was it? The question was how many had received 6 month sentences.
The answer is very few, of the thousands you cite, most didn't even get jail sentences, and even fewer again got a full 6 months.
Part the problem we have with the act though is the use of magistrates in the first place. Magistrates are kangaroo courts really, untrained busy bodies handing down judgements based on their own social hangups.
Which is a wider problem, because magistrates sit over many other cases.
Ironically, the proposal in TFA might actually therefore be an improvement - more cases being passed up to actual real courts with trained professionals overseeing the cases rather than magistrate chimps wont likely me more and longer jail sentences, it'll just mean more cases being thrown out because they're so fucking stupid in the first place.
Except this is a reference to the provisions in the malicious communications act 2003.
So what? the point is that if we increase our usage to match the amount we have then we're not suddenly living in a world where there is an abundant supply, we'll just use more and have shortages just as much as always.
With that will be increased heat dissipation also resulting in another set of climate problems to that which we have now with CO2, unless we produce 100% efficient electronics, which isn't going to happen.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing though, I'm saying it's not going to be a magical panacea that lets us create a utopia. We'll still face similar problems to those which we face now, and we'll still have to deal with them.
Yeah, you say that now, but when we get more power, you can all but guarantee we'll use more power.
Probably, we'll start creating climate controlled neighbourhoods or something, live in Sunnyvale Town, where it's 30c all year around!
Judges do have the final say, but it's impossible for judges to assess every single data acquisition and processing by every company, it would be an impossible task. Companies have to make the first decision as to what is and isn't acceptable, and if a company is believed to have made a wrong choice then that is challenged by whichever party in court where a judge (or jury) does have a say.
As a European you obviously have no idea what the law protects you from if you're saying such a stupid thing.
Have a read here to get an understanding of how important data protection laws are and to understand what you're arguing against:
http://www.dataprotection.ie/d...
Despite what you say, you probably don't actually want to live in a world without data protection laws and there's no reason to think Google should be some special case that's immune to them.
What? Google didn't even exist when the 1995 European Data Protection Directive was being discussed. This is the law which the courts deemed Google to have breached.
The 2012 refresh is STILL being discussed.
Google is not the final judge in the matter, the courts would be if someone feels Google has not made the correct decision, but as the data controller and data processor Google has a legal obligation to ensure that all personal data which it holds is accurate, uptodate, relevant, and obtained with permission.
These are the criteria Google must use when determining whether it should continue to hold such data. Thus, for example, claims (with proof) of data inaccuracy or outdatedness, claims against data which is not relevant to Google's task as a public search engine (i.e. personal medical history), and claims of data being obtained without permission (personal nude photos) would all pass the test for Google to remove them from search results.
Personally I thought Google was being quite difficult in that it was intentionally pretending it was hard done by by removing legitimate public interest news articles and so forth, but after the European Commission slapped it on the wrist and after it's competitors started following the law without trying to play politics Google fell into line and started fulfilling it's legal obligations without engaging in censorship for the sake of political point scoring. As such, and given the 58% rejection rate it would seem that Google is now doing what it's supposed to and hence doing a decent job of adhering to the law at last.
It still has the opportunity to get the law changed in it's favour through lobbying and negotiations over the 2012 Data Protection Directive update which is the correct avenue to pursue any issues it takes with the law.
It's not even about not being able to report them, CRAs are just out and out not legally allowed to even store that information past a certain time. Once that period has elapsed companies must delete that data from their databases.
Data such as county court judgements in the UK are still held on file as part of public record past this point but corporations are not allowed to retain copies of or use that information and are hence not allowed to supply it forward as part of a credit report. I believe the cut off is currently 7 years for CCJs in the UK.
FWIW this isn't even part of any special laws regarding CRAs, this is just the plain old Data Protection Act (the UK's implementation of the European Data Protect Directive 1995). The only special treatment CRAs get is that they're allowed to gather and process personal credit data without first having to seek permission of the data subject - they can't even pass it on unless it's part of a formal request by the data subject (i.e. an application for a credit card). Everything else in the DPA still applies- they must hold it securely, it must only be kept if it's relevant to their job, it must be correct, it must be recent enough to be relevant and so on.