Nazi stands for national socialist workers' party.
The Nazis were originally socialist, and had a strong socialist faction up until 1934, when the leader of that faction, Ernst Rohm, was murdered on Hitler's order along with many other "leftists". This consolidated Adolf's authority, and made it easier for him to work with German industrialists. All economies are a mixture of socialist and private enterprise, but after 1934, saying Nazi Germany was "socialist" makes as much sense as saying that China is "communist".
The Nazis weren't left. Not even under Rohm.
In the 20's before the night of the long knives, the primary enemy of the Nazis were the Bolsheviks... as in the actual left wing supporters in Germany. Nazis were always a right wing government and Ernst Rohm was not the Nazi party leader, he was the leader of the Sturmabteilung (SA) or brown shirts (as opposed to the SS, who wore black shirts). The SA's job was to be the foot soldiers of the Nazi party whilst the SS were the ideological enforcers. The SA would beat up Bolsheviks, paint stars of David on Jewish businesses, threaten people who were supporting either of these groups and stand over elections to make sure the Nazis got enough votes. The SS were to ensure that party members were ideologically pure. After the Night of the Long Knives the SA was folded into the German Army or SS (which was also somewhat integrated into the military to continue their role as secret police).
Hitler was firmly the leader of the Nazis in the 1920's with a variety of others who are quite infamous, Goebbels, Goering, Himmler to name a few. Rohm was a lieutenant, not the leader. He was betrayed and murdered by Hitler and the other Nazis primarily because he was a political obstacle, but also because he was a homosexual.
If you read the soliloquy "first they came for" you'll notice the first people they came for was actually the left:
first they came for the communists, but I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, but I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Before they even started with the Jewish, the Nazis had wiped out both the Bolsheviks and the Unionists. The closest thing Nazi Germany had to a social program was Action T4, which was the systematic forced euthanasia of anyone who might be a burden to the state, the elderly, the infirm, the mentally ill, so on and so forth.
Dont be confused because they had a word we badly translate as Socialism in their name, would you call the Democratic Peoples Republic of (North) Korea a democracy?
When categorize Nazi party as being left or right, rather than compare it to the communists, you could just as well compare the Nazis to the Weimar republic. You can't get consistent answers if you do that.
Personally, I think that labeling parties right/left (or even worse policies as right/left) engenders sloppy thinking and is often, if not usually, a tool for deceptive speech. In the case of labeling 20th century fascist movements as being right/left, you might as well try to categorize apples, grapes, and watermelons into right/left fruits. They are their own kind of thing and such simple binary labeling only serve to obscure what they are, and to obscure the nature of whatever they are being compared to.
Actually, most parties were distinctly left or right, the idea of a party not having a specific ideological bend is relatively new and was only really defined in the 80's and 90's as "third way" politics.
Nazism is an offshoot of Italian (Classical) Fascism which is distinctly a right wing ideology. Right wing means they expunged values that we associate with the right like nationalism, harsh criminal punishments, larger militaries, cultural isolation and xenophobia. The main difference between fascism and Nazism is that the Nazis baked in proper racism from the start, it institutionalised the idea of who and what was a superior man (ubermech). A fascist might be racist as a matter of accident, but a Nazi is required to be racist.
Fascism and Nazism are examples of extreme right wing (and authoritarian) governments, the same as Stalinist communism is an example of an extreme left wing (authoritarian) government. Both are bad because they're extreme, not because they're right or left. The big problem in the west is that we naturally lean a bit to the right, so we'll more readily accept extremist right wingers whilst demonising their counterparts on the left. There is nothing wrong with being a bit to the right, but it means we have to be more vigilant about the extremists who tell us the things we like to hear (because that's how Hitler got into power, he gave the Germans a scapegoat whilst feeding them complements).
"Apple audio engineers...quickly deemed the Echo's sound quality inferior and got back to work building a better speaker."
Inferior?
I take it Apple audio engineers have not actually used a pair of their own shitty earbuds...
These _are_ Apple engineers. Making something white and shiny is more important than making it work, let alone making it work well. The matt black outside of an Echo device is clearly a huge flaw.
Seriously though, the Echo speakers are pretty bad, which is why they've got a 3.5mm port so you can connect a decent set of speakers. Again, to Apple's Imagineers this is a huge flaw in the device. However bad the Echo speakers are, they are still better than any Apple (or Beats) product I've heard (before anyone asks, Senn is my go to brand for cheap audio).
There's no incentive for someone, once convicted of a felony, to cease committing crimes when the only places that will hire them are Taco Bell and McDonald's. That's why our prison system doesn't reform people, it just makes them even worse criminals. The law should work the other way: it should be illegal to discriminate against people for past transgressions unless they clearly disqualify the individual, such as a child molester working at a daycare.
It would seem that something as basic as being an Uber driver should be available for most former criminals. I mean, I get the people who don't have drivers licenses are a problem, but why should you have a spotless record to be an Uber driver?
As much as I agree with your point that former criminals shouldn't be heavily restricted from working, there are certain restrictions that are prudent. Some jobs are just not suitable for ex-cons, these are usually ones where the worker can be put in dangerous situations with members of the general public, or worse yet, underage (which is why we have a working with children check in the UK). Taxi driver is one of those jobs as it requires you to deal with often rude and obstinate members of the public whilst controlling a 2t machine that can cause a great deal of damage.
OK, someone convicted of drug offences (which over here means you were dealing) I can see, but the article mentioned that these were specifically motor vehicle felonies ranging from DUI to dangerous driving, so we aren't talking about a minor 10 MPH over infraction. These were people who had their licenses taken off them because they weren't fit to hold one. Here in the UK, if you want any kind of driving job you need a 100% clean license. Here a speeding fine for under 15 MPH over the limit (S15) carries with it a 3 point penalty which would disqualify you from many driving jobs and certainly all driving jobs involving people.
To keep it in perspective, Uber hired people who had serious motor vehicle convictions as taxi drivers because they didn't do their due diligence with new applicants... 57 times. Uber screwed up here.
MITM wifi attacks and hotpot impersonation have been a thing for the better part of a decade now, what does this bring to the table that malicious actors didn't already have?
Yes, but now it has a Web 2.fucking.0 name, a marketing slogan and can be encased in a plastic pineapple. Cant you see how this is completely different?
An entire summary repeating standard reasons why everyone reuses code. Must be a click-bait article. Thanks.
Probably also an explanation that I use the same sandwich bag for the new cheese when I've finished the old cheese. Because I cant be arsed getting another sandwich bag out of the cupboard when I've got a perfectly good one in front of me.
Seriously reading through the majority of the comments that list inane things like "what about children crossing the road?", "what about cats and dogs?", "what if there's an ambulance?", "what if the road is blocked and there's construction work, how does GPS work then?"
These are not inane things. They are real issues that we already have to deal with and wont be going anywhere in 2 years.
It continually astounds me that people think that these cars will automagically fix themselves in 2 years and be perfect and safe and give you all sunshine and fucking unicorns.
And the best excuse that they can come up with is:
I mean seriously do you guys have no understanding of information systems?
With zero context... Information Systems covers a lot of technologies.
I do have some knowledge of the technologies involved as I've worked in remote sensing for a number of years. RADAR and LIDAR are great technologies that fall victim to a few common problems, namely bad weather. LIDAR is terrible when it rains or snows because rain and snow have a high refractive index, LIDAR being based on light, tends to have issues with that. RADAR cant tell the difference between a leaf and a bollard. The state of the art systems installed into high end Mercs and BMW's are easily fooled by an overhanging branch.
The problem you've got is sensory processing. It takes real processing power to take all these disparate sensing method (Image, IR, LIDAR/RADAR) and produce a clear picture of what is going on. Right now, to read features on a face against a grey background takes minutes with high speed computers, thats looking at something with a clear picture and a very narrow set of parameters. The thing Autonomous cars need to do to be at level 4 (we're currently at level 2) is to be able to make split second decisions on incomplete data. The car hasn't got time to process, cross-check and verify data. Thats why the classic dog/child running out on the road is used as an example, its something that is unpredictable but also needs to be fully expected to happen in real life.
Computers, AI in particular is very good at handling great volumes of predictable data, a car with it's steeringwheel attendant glued to its phone is going to need to deal with unpredictable data. So by the time AI is advanced enough to let dopey Doris have an autonomus car, a great many other changes will have occurred first. The autonomous car is a long way off, in fact it may end up being this generations "flying car", however AI is far more likely to take over jobs that are based solely in applying rules to data, like legal and accounting services long before then. In fact we're going to see robot doctors long before robot cars.
Now finally, there's a reason that these cars haven't been tested here in sunny Berkshire (that's in England), its because it rains for half the year, roads are narrow and overhanging branches are common. For your average Skinny Latte sipping California hipster marveling at how close autonomous cars are... this environment is unimaginable, they would describe it as hostile to life and wonder how anyone survives in such a cold and rainy environment (and for those Cali hipsters, this is sarcasm, Berkshire is tame to anything north of the Tyne... and we are nae even in Scotland yet).
To those of you think driverless cars are too hard, and they can't possibly work, just watch,
I will, I'll watch you become more and more disappointed that your fabled self-driving car remains "just a few years away".
Now Volvo, they're some smart cookies, I'm sure they've gotten a contract where they don't actually have to deliver a level 5 car... or even a level 4 one and would even have crunched the numbers on Uber not even existing by then (so why not grab a slice of that sweet, sweet VC cash before the VC's realise they've been had).
Perhaps you're right, since most cars are made by robots and automated machinery anyways these days what difference is it what country they come from. It's nothing new, even Harley-Davidson motorcycles have had Japanese electronics going back to the 70s. But Mexico?
I think it matters a little, but not as much as it used to. Although manufacturing is largely automated, process is still human designed and controlled. Things like QA/QC, although the Japanese have successfully run factories in Thailand for years now without a huge problem. As long as VW, GM, et al. are running the Mexico plants right, there shouldn't be an appreciable drop in quality. IIRC, dont VW make the Golf in Mexico because of tariffs on German cars? Same with VM assembling Korean cars in CKD form (Complete Knock Down).
When it comes to cars, design is more important. The Koreans are rapidly picking up the pace because they've poached ze Germans, ex-AUDI and BMW designers and engineers are now designing cars for Kia and Hyundai.
A well designed car is likely to be a well made car. A poorly designed car, no matter how well made is still going to be bad.
VW isn't "behind the pack" they're behind a couple of early technology leaders. VW is actually at the front of the "pack" of major manufacturers who are still WAY behind the curve on electrification.
That said, it's absolutely pathetic that nearly 10 years after Tesla announced the Model S that there still isn't a single competitor to that vehicle. (And how I wish there was, I'm sick of Tesla's slimy unethical behaviour!)
Not really, VW is about average at best, probably a bit worse than Renault or GM.
BMW is ostensibly at the head of the pack because they've been selling dedicated electric cars (i3 and i8) as well as hybrid versions of their existing cars (I.E. a 330e plug in hybrid) in good numbers. After that you've got Toyota and probably Mitsubishi with their PHEV range.
The problem VW has is that when Toyota was developing petrol hybrids, VW sank all of its money into Diesels which seemed like a good idea given the favourable tax concessions given to diesels in Europe. Now these concessions are going because it turns out Diesels aren't clean after all and VW is about to lose half it's European sales. Hence the rush for hybrid and electrification.
Electric cars are quick, efficient and quiet. Imagine NYC if the sound of engines were taken away.
Are traffic problems not bad enough in NYC already? All it takes is for a few of those cars to run out of power per day.
The other week I was stuck on the A327 because an electric car (a Tesla no less) had run out of power. The A327 is mostly single lane each way so at peak hour there are practically no chances to overtake (and the Tesla driver refused to push his precious car off the road whilst waiting for recovery) I was relatively close but delayed by almost an hour. Not sure how many carbons my 3L turbo 6 put out at that time.
My experience with Tesla drivers has demonstrated that the only thing these cars are missing is the logo needs a W, A and T added to it.
Sadly, most of the VW models sold in North America are made in Mexico. For obvious reasons, VW doesn't publicize that fact.
Dont worry, the ones made in Germany are just as crappy.
Besides, the whole "made in" is a misnomer these days, parts come in from all over the world and are just assembled in the final location. In fact the "Golf" is made in several locations, Spain as the Seat Leon, Czech Republic as the Skoda Octavia, all the same parts, just a different final assembly location.
Very few cars are made woe to go in the same country, most of these are hyper expensive (think McLaren expensive). I've had Japanese cars with Philips headlamps (made in Germany) and German cars with NGK spark plugs (made in Japan), parts are sourced from all over the world, this is both good and bad as you can get crap components (suspension made in China) or get the worlds best components.
one can't trust the government for personal protection. Until that changes, guns is essentially the only effective protection many have.
I'm not fond of the prospect of walking around all the time packing heat, and having to defend myself with deadly force on a split-second's notice. If you live your life in such peril, then there's much worse going on than the inability of government to protect you.
There are plenty of civilized countries with far lower gun violence than the USA, where people don't feel the need to walk around armed.
As a resident of one of those countries (UK) and a citizen of another (Australia) I'm glad that the worst thing I need to worry about is some nutter with a chefs knife (which despite all the hullabaloo about knife crime here in the UK, is something you can still buy at Tesco without anyone batting an eyelid).
As for the Las Vegas shooter, he had scoped, high-powered rifles, bump-stocks, and a 32nd-floor vantage point. Could the crowd have retaliated effectively with hand-held pistols? Not likely.
Forget that as an extreme example, the guy who used to own the Iphone, Devin Kelley shot a small town church at close range, did any of the gun loving Texans manage to take him down? Nope, he shot himself.
The idea that you carry a gun for self defence is foolhardy because a criminal will always get the jump on you. Someone who wants to rob or kill you wont just stand there whilst you say "excuse me Mr Gun Toting Crim, would you mind standing terribly still whilst I retrieve and aim my weapon". Hell no, you're just going to turn a robbery into a murder. The criminal always has the advantage of choosing when and where to attack, a defender rarely has the advantage here at the best of times.
As I've said, the worst thing I'm worried about here is a nutter with a knife and I'm barely even worried about that because it's such a rare thing. The fact that most of our criminals are not armed, let alone armed with guns means that the defender is often on equal footing, a defender trained in self defence actually has the advantage even if caught unaware. But hey, the freedom not to be scared of randoms is wrong right, because no guns?
Well, whatever you are babbling about seems popular. Its a load of bull, but popular bull, apparently.
It's always a bit sad if people believe their own propaganda. There are many reasons why the rate of reported rapes in Sweden is high. But as far as we can tell, an unusually high incident of rape as defined in other countries is not among them. Sweden has a much more expansive definition of rape, a different definition of what count as a single incident of rape, a very comprehensive collection and reporting system, and a very low cultural bar to reporting rape.
I'd also be very sceptical of everything the Gatestone Institute reports - quite apart from their political bias, it should be a warning that they run advertisments that promise beautiful Russian women who just want to take your out, and presumable sell you thousand's of iPhone 8s for only US$1 per piece....
This.
Some people go to any length to prove their bigotry has a basis in reality.
Crime has seen an uptick in Europe of late, but is this due to immigrants or the more rational explanation that economic conditions have worsened over the last year. You'll notice that the a worse uptick in crime is occurring in the UK whilst the immigrants are leaving (which might have something to do with the UK's economic conditions worsening faster than Europes).
Nah, must be the immagrunts, right? Not like crime and poverty have a demonstrated relationship.
Also, serious crimes like stabbings are a rare thing over here, the massive increase over 4 years is something like 50 extra cases a year in a city the size of London (8.7 million people).
"Scientists at Harvard have developed a pair of new kill switches that can be used to thwart bioengineered microbes that go rogue".
Nearly right! But it's quite important to implement the kill switches BEFORE the microbes "go rogue" (whatever that may mean).
Henry Wu: Actually they can't breed in the wild. Population control is one of our security precautions. There's no unauthorized breeding in Jurassic Park. Dr. Ian Malcolm: How do you know they can't breed? Henry Wu: Well, because all the animals in Jurassic Park are female. We've engineered them that way. Dr. Ian Malcolm: But again, how do you know they're all female? Does somebody go out into the park and pull up the dinosaurs' skirts? Henry Wu: We control their chromosomes. It's really not that difficult. All vertebrate embryos are inherently female anyway, they just require an extra hormone given at the right developmental stage to make them male. We simply deny them that.
Or is this one more like the lysine contingency.
He corresponded briefly with General Robert E. Lee, so I suppose any statues to him must be torn down.
If any of them were put up by racists years after his death, yep, tear them down. A lot of the Jackson and Lee statues were erected in the Jim Crow era.
I believe they belong in a museum where they are objects of education and cultural significance.
Actually they're both but should never be used as the first factor of authentication.
Face-ID and fingerprints are insecure and easily fooled.
Yes and no.
Done properly these technologies are quite effective, however to do it properly you need a $5000 bit of kit at every door and a hefty back end. Fingerprint scanners at Immigration are quite good, but you wont get that level of quality on a £500 phone. So in order to make it work, corners are cut which makes them ineffective as a security measure.
Besides, people get distracted enough punching in a 4 character pin, I'm not looking forward to the pandemonium face unlock will cause on the road.
Seriously, automatic gates in a variety of countries combined with biometric passports have made immigration much faster. This is a huge boon for the frequent traveler (as well as many infrequent ones).
That's a very cheap claim to make without any reasoning. That's probably it's so popular on Twitter and such (mostly because reasoning doesn't fit into 140 characters).
It was bullshit that had no rational basis, but was worded to sound so. A lot of people cant tell the difference sadly.
Basic scientific rigor was missing, it relied on information/soundbites taken out of context, broad generalisations were made to apply to individuals, extrapolations were exaggerated and evidence that did not fit his conclusion was ignored. Whilst I wont say it was strictly misogynistic (I've read and heard far worse) I will say it came of as angry towards women, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's not misogynistic but he definitely misunderstands.
However a lot of people are championing it because they they think it helps in playing the white male victim card.
Now I fully expect to see this modded down because I dare to question the document, let alone the victimisation of white males.
That's why when I attend funerals, I make a speech suggesting that there is no evidence of an afterlife, and that the deceased's death was objectively meaningless. Don't even ask what I say at weddings.
All weddings should start with the words "Divorces are expensive".
Besides, I think we as a culture have things backwards. A funeral should be a joyous occasion full of festivities where we remember someone who has lived, enriched our lives with their mere presence and made a mark on many people. Weddings on the other hand should be sober and somber occasions where one reflects on the freedom they have lost and the responsibilities they have gained.
The point of the (well written) original article was that Damore had handled things poorly due to his condition, not that his opinions arose due to his condition.
This.
The guy wasn't a jerk because he had (claims to have) Asperger/Autism, he's a jerk because he's a jerk.
I'm sick of autism/Asperger Syndrome being used as an excuse for people being a jerk. People who have autism are not inherently mean or arrogant, in fact most of them are the complete opposite. When talking to someone who has a disorder on the Autism spectrum, they aren't being rude, they're shit scared and the further along the spectrum they are, the worse it gets. Put simply, they are very slow to trust. Once you get past that they tend to be kind and gentle people, sure there are a few arseholes, same as any type of person but not as many as people think.
Any Autistic person who is functional enough to land a job, let alone a job at Google simply wants to get along with their colleagues and improve their life. This is the kind of shit doctors told their parent's that they'd never been able to do 20 years ago so for them its an accomplishment and it annoys them to no end seeing people Autism as an excuse for bad behavior (and as always, have difficulty expressing this).
Finally, when people associate negative things with functional autism, its usually because of another mental illness (paranoia, paranoid delusions and severe depression are somewhat common) that Autism exacerbates but isn't exclusive to Autistic people.
he describes how he was associated with people he had never supported following the media backlash
Well, he went straight to not one, but two alt-right youtubers instead of going to a somewhat reputable news publisher. Even going on Fox News would have looked better (they certainly would have been able to coach him to spin it better) and they certainly would have been beating down his door to get him. He's entirely responsible for the way people perceived him. Now it sounds like he's trying hard to salvage some semblance of a career.
It's becoming increasingly clear that no human can possibly have a functional grasp of all the knowledge required to make accurate diagnosis across all possible conditions. In the current model patients hope that they have something simple or obvious, and if not that their doctor can send them to the correct expert. This has far too many false positives and false negatives built in.
AI systems able to access comprehensive libraries of information are better at this type of work. Sure, I'd want an expert who can tailor search terms, accurately describe symptoms in a consistent manner, but for a number of years now I've been cheering every AI advance in clinical diagnosis. Can't come soon enough.
The thing is, it's not necessary for a medical AI to know everything or have a 99.99999% success rate, unlike an autonomous car which has to make split second decisions based on incomplete information.
A medical AI analyses a sample and says "Hey doc, this looks like Cancer", the doctor then has a look and determines if it looks like cancer and determines what extra tests are needed or if it's clear enough, goes straight to recommending a treatment. At the very least, it provides an extra set of eyes.
I understand most posters here are from the US and are used to paying through the nose for basic medical services, but for the rest of us having a medical AI in front of trained doctors will make things a hell of a lot easier and cheaper for the NHS. Simple diagnosis and treatments can be managed by the AI, things like a case of the sniffles or getting a sick note. Advanced cases or ambiguous things can be forwarded through to a human.
Basically you're describing Feudalism, which is definitely not progressive. Its quite the opposite. Feudalism is where the lord maintains the ownership of all the lands and the tenants (serfs and freemen) rent off the lord for a portion of their produce. The tenants, well at least the freemen are permitted to work it as they see fit as long as the lords get their tribute. This is very much a conservative wet dream who are still bitter about having to give up any of their rights to the peasantry.
The difference here is that instead of a ruling family you have "the government". The Soviets used to have an expression: "you own what you guard". When the government owns and controls everything, the bureaucrats own and control everything, including you. In Soviet Union, the government officials had property, income, and quality of life that far exceeded the rest, and was proportional to their position. I fail to see the difference.
And where did I advocate government ownership? Sure its better than Feudalism, but I'd still rather not have it (Communism originated from a time where Feudal lords still controlled much of eastern Europe like they did in dark age England, Feudalism in England was over before the US even existed).
Have you been to Manhattan, San Francisco, Silicon Valley - they so-called havens of the progressives? They are far more segregated, stratified, with their high castles inaccessible to the common citizens, compared to the South, for example.
Have you?
These aren't liberal havens. The people who live in SF, Manhattan, Central London et al want to keep their property prices high and the riff raff out. They aren't progressive in any way shape or form no-matter what Fox News tells you. Why do you think multi-millionaires flock to these places to live if they're so bohemian? Clue by four, if that were true they wouldn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, are you saying that Honest John's Quality Used Automobile Emporium is not a supplier of reliable and reasonably priced family vehicles?!
Yes, it's actually run by a bloke name Dave... but no-body trusts a Dave.
Nazi stands for national socialist workers' party.
The Nazis were originally socialist, and had a strong socialist faction up until 1934, when the leader of that faction, Ernst Rohm, was murdered on Hitler's order along with many other "leftists". This consolidated Adolf's authority, and made it easier for him to work with German industrialists. All economies are a mixture of socialist and private enterprise, but after 1934, saying Nazi Germany was "socialist" makes as much sense as saying that China is "communist".
The Nazis weren't left. Not even under Rohm.
In the 20's before the night of the long knives, the primary enemy of the Nazis were the Bolsheviks... as in the actual left wing supporters in Germany. Nazis were always a right wing government and Ernst Rohm was not the Nazi party leader, he was the leader of the Sturmabteilung (SA) or brown shirts (as opposed to the SS, who wore black shirts). The SA's job was to be the foot soldiers of the Nazi party whilst the SS were the ideological enforcers. The SA would beat up Bolsheviks, paint stars of David on Jewish businesses, threaten people who were supporting either of these groups and stand over elections to make sure the Nazis got enough votes. The SS were to ensure that party members were ideologically pure. After the Night of the Long Knives the SA was folded into the German Army or SS (which was also somewhat integrated into the military to continue their role as secret police).
Hitler was firmly the leader of the Nazis in the 1920's with a variety of others who are quite infamous, Goebbels, Goering, Himmler to name a few. Rohm was a lieutenant, not the leader. He was betrayed and murdered by Hitler and the other Nazis primarily because he was a political obstacle, but also because he was a homosexual.
If you read the soliloquy "first they came for" you'll notice the first people they came for was actually the left:
first they came for the communists, but I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, but I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Before they even started with the Jewish, the Nazis had wiped out both the Bolsheviks and the Unionists. The closest thing Nazi Germany had to a social program was Action T4, which was the systematic forced euthanasia of anyone who might be a burden to the state, the elderly, the infirm, the mentally ill, so on and so forth.
Dont be confused because they had a word we badly translate as Socialism in their name, would you call the Democratic Peoples Republic of (North) Korea a democracy?
When categorize Nazi party as being left or right, rather than compare it to the communists, you could just as well compare the Nazis to the Weimar republic. You can't get consistent answers if you do that.
Personally, I think that labeling parties right/left (or even worse policies as right/left) engenders sloppy thinking and is often, if not usually, a tool for deceptive speech. In the case of labeling 20th century fascist movements as being right/left, you might as well try to categorize apples, grapes, and watermelons into right/left fruits. They are their own kind of thing and such simple binary labeling only serve to obscure what they are, and to obscure the nature of whatever they are being compared to.
Actually, most parties were distinctly left or right, the idea of a party not having a specific ideological bend is relatively new and was only really defined in the 80's and 90's as "third way" politics.
Nazism is an offshoot of Italian (Classical) Fascism which is distinctly a right wing ideology. Right wing means they expunged values that we associate with the right like nationalism, harsh criminal punishments, larger militaries, cultural isolation and xenophobia. The main difference between fascism and Nazism is that the Nazis baked in proper racism from the start, it institutionalised the idea of who and what was a superior man (ubermech). A fascist might be racist as a matter of accident, but a Nazi is required to be racist.
Fascism and Nazism are examples of extreme right wing (and authoritarian) governments, the same as Stalinist communism is an example of an extreme left wing (authoritarian) government. Both are bad because they're extreme, not because they're right or left. The big problem in the west is that we naturally lean a bit to the right, so we'll more readily accept extremist right wingers whilst demonising their counterparts on the left. There is nothing wrong with being a bit to the right, but it means we have to be more vigilant about the extremists who tell us the things we like to hear (because that's how Hitler got into power, he gave the Germans a scapegoat whilst feeding them complements).
"Apple audio engineers...quickly deemed the Echo's sound quality inferior and got back to work building a better speaker."
Inferior?
I take it Apple audio engineers have not actually used a pair of their own shitty earbuds...
These _are_ Apple engineers. Making something white and shiny is more important than making it work, let alone making it work well. The matt black outside of an Echo device is clearly a huge flaw.
Seriously though, the Echo speakers are pretty bad, which is why they've got a 3.5mm port so you can connect a decent set of speakers. Again, to Apple's Imagineers this is a huge flaw in the device. However bad the Echo speakers are, they are still better than any Apple (or Beats) product I've heard (before anyone asks, Senn is my go to brand for cheap audio).
There's no incentive for someone, once convicted of a felony, to cease committing crimes when the only places that will hire them are Taco Bell and McDonald's. That's why our prison system doesn't reform people, it just makes them even worse criminals. The law should work the other way: it should be illegal to discriminate against people for past transgressions unless they clearly disqualify the individual, such as a child molester working at a daycare.
It would seem that something as basic as being an Uber driver should be available for most former criminals. I mean, I get the people who don't have drivers licenses are a problem, but why should you have a spotless record to be an Uber driver?
As much as I agree with your point that former criminals shouldn't be heavily restricted from working, there are certain restrictions that are prudent. Some jobs are just not suitable for ex-cons, these are usually ones where the worker can be put in dangerous situations with members of the general public, or worse yet, underage (which is why we have a working with children check in the UK). Taxi driver is one of those jobs as it requires you to deal with often rude and obstinate members of the public whilst controlling a 2t machine that can cause a great deal of damage.
OK, someone convicted of drug offences (which over here means you were dealing) I can see, but the article mentioned that these were specifically motor vehicle felonies ranging from DUI to dangerous driving, so we aren't talking about a minor 10 MPH over infraction. These were people who had their licenses taken off them because they weren't fit to hold one. Here in the UK, if you want any kind of driving job you need a 100% clean license. Here a speeding fine for under 15 MPH over the limit (S15) carries with it a 3 point penalty which would disqualify you from many driving jobs and certainly all driving jobs involving people.
To keep it in perspective, Uber hired people who had serious motor vehicle convictions as taxi drivers because they didn't do their due diligence with new applicants... 57 times. Uber screwed up here.
MITM wifi attacks and hotpot impersonation have been a thing for the better part of a decade now, what does this bring to the table that malicious actors didn't already have?
Yes, but now it has a Web 2.fucking.0 name, a marketing slogan and can be encased in a plastic pineapple. Cant you see how this is completely different?
An entire summary repeating standard reasons why everyone reuses code. Must be a click-bait article. Thanks.
Probably also an explanation that I use the same sandwich bag for the new cheese when I've finished the old cheese. Because I cant be arsed getting another sandwich bag out of the cupboard when I've got a perfectly good one in front of me.
Apple is motivated to protect their customers at the moment
Apple is motivated to keep its customers locked into its distribution channel. Never blame conspiracies for what can easily be explained by greed.
These are not inane things. They are real issues that we already have to deal with and wont be going anywhere in 2 years.
It continually astounds me that people think that these cars will automagically fix themselves in 2 years and be perfect and safe and give you all sunshine and fucking unicorns.
And the best excuse that they can come up with is:
With zero context... Information Systems covers a lot of technologies.
I do have some knowledge of the technologies involved as I've worked in remote sensing for a number of years. RADAR and LIDAR are great technologies that fall victim to a few common problems, namely bad weather. LIDAR is terrible when it rains or snows because rain and snow have a high refractive index, LIDAR being based on light, tends to have issues with that. RADAR cant tell the difference between a leaf and a bollard. The state of the art systems installed into high end Mercs and BMW's are easily fooled by an overhanging branch.
The problem you've got is sensory processing. It takes real processing power to take all these disparate sensing method (Image, IR, LIDAR/RADAR) and produce a clear picture of what is going on. Right now, to read features on a face against a grey background takes minutes with high speed computers, thats looking at something with a clear picture and a very narrow set of parameters. The thing Autonomous cars need to do to be at level 4 (we're currently at level 2) is to be able to make split second decisions on incomplete data. The car hasn't got time to process, cross-check and verify data. Thats why the classic dog/child running out on the road is used as an example, its something that is unpredictable but also needs to be fully expected to happen in real life.
Computers, AI in particular is very good at handling great volumes of predictable data, a car with it's steeringwheel attendant glued to its phone is going to need to deal with unpredictable data. So by the time AI is advanced enough to let dopey Doris have an autonomus car, a great many other changes will have occurred first. The autonomous car is a long way off, in fact it may end up being this generations "flying car", however AI is far more likely to take over jobs that are based solely in applying rules to data, like legal and accounting services long before then. In fact we're going to see robot doctors long before robot cars.
Now finally, there's a reason that these cars haven't been tested here in sunny Berkshire (that's in England), its because it rains for half the year, roads are narrow and overhanging branches are common. For your average Skinny Latte sipping California hipster marveling at how close autonomous cars are... this environment is unimaginable, they would describe it as hostile to life and wonder how anyone survives in such a cold and rainy environment (and for those Cali hipsters, this is sarcasm, Berkshire is tame to anything north of the Tyne... and we are nae even in Scotland yet).
I will, I'll watch you become more and more disappointed that your fabled self-driving car remains "just a few years away".
Now Volvo, they're some smart cookies, I'm sure they've gotten a contract where they don't actually have to deliver a level 5 car... or even a level 4 one and would even have crunched the numbers on Uber not even existing by then (so why not grab a slice of that sweet, sweet VC cash before the VC's realise they've been had).
Perhaps you're right, since most cars are made by robots and automated machinery anyways these days what difference is it what country they come from. It's nothing new, even Harley-Davidson motorcycles have had Japanese electronics going back to the 70s. But Mexico?
I think it matters a little, but not as much as it used to. Although manufacturing is largely automated, process is still human designed and controlled. Things like QA/QC, although the Japanese have successfully run factories in Thailand for years now without a huge problem. As long as VW, GM, et al. are running the Mexico plants right, there shouldn't be an appreciable drop in quality. IIRC, dont VW make the Golf in Mexico because of tariffs on German cars? Same with VM assembling Korean cars in CKD form (Complete Knock Down).
When it comes to cars, design is more important. The Koreans are rapidly picking up the pace because they've poached ze Germans, ex-AUDI and BMW designers and engineers are now designing cars for Kia and Hyundai. A well designed car is likely to be a well made car. A poorly designed car, no matter how well made is still going to be bad.
VW isn't "behind the pack" they're behind a couple of early technology leaders. VW is actually at the front of the "pack" of major manufacturers who are still WAY behind the curve on electrification.
That said, it's absolutely pathetic that nearly 10 years after Tesla announced the Model S that there still isn't a single competitor to that vehicle. (And how I wish there was, I'm sick of Tesla's slimy unethical behaviour!)
Not really, VW is about average at best, probably a bit worse than Renault or GM.
BMW is ostensibly at the head of the pack because they've been selling dedicated electric cars (i3 and i8) as well as hybrid versions of their existing cars (I.E. a 330e plug in hybrid) in good numbers. After that you've got Toyota and probably Mitsubishi with their PHEV range.
The problem VW has is that when Toyota was developing petrol hybrids, VW sank all of its money into Diesels which seemed like a good idea given the favourable tax concessions given to diesels in Europe. Now these concessions are going because it turns out Diesels aren't clean after all and VW is about to lose half it's European sales. Hence the rush for hybrid and electrification.
Electric cars are quick, efficient and quiet. Imagine NYC if the sound of engines were taken away.
Are traffic problems not bad enough in NYC already? All it takes is for a few of those cars to run out of power per day.
The other week I was stuck on the A327 because an electric car (a Tesla no less) had run out of power. The A327 is mostly single lane each way so at peak hour there are practically no chances to overtake (and the Tesla driver refused to push his precious car off the road whilst waiting for recovery) I was relatively close but delayed by almost an hour. Not sure how many carbons my 3L turbo 6 put out at that time.
My experience with Tesla drivers has demonstrated that the only thing these cars are missing is the logo needs a W, A and T added to it.
Sadly, most of the VW models sold in North America are made in Mexico. For obvious reasons, VW doesn't publicize that fact.
Dont worry, the ones made in Germany are just as crappy.
Besides, the whole "made in" is a misnomer these days, parts come in from all over the world and are just assembled in the final location. In fact the "Golf" is made in several locations, Spain as the Seat Leon, Czech Republic as the Skoda Octavia, all the same parts, just a different final assembly location.
Very few cars are made woe to go in the same country, most of these are hyper expensive (think McLaren expensive). I've had Japanese cars with Philips headlamps (made in Germany) and German cars with NGK spark plugs (made in Japan), parts are sourced from all over the world, this is both good and bad as you can get crap components (suspension made in China) or get the worlds best components.
one can't trust the government for personal protection. Until that changes, guns is essentially the only effective protection many have.
I'm not fond of the prospect of walking around all the time packing heat, and having to defend myself with deadly force on a split-second's notice. If you live your life in such peril, then there's much worse going on than the inability of government to protect you.
There are plenty of civilized countries with far lower gun violence than the USA, where people don't feel the need to walk around armed.
As a resident of one of those countries (UK) and a citizen of another (Australia) I'm glad that the worst thing I need to worry about is some nutter with a chefs knife (which despite all the hullabaloo about knife crime here in the UK, is something you can still buy at Tesco without anyone batting an eyelid).
As for the Las Vegas shooter, he had scoped, high-powered rifles, bump-stocks, and a 32nd-floor vantage point. Could the crowd have retaliated effectively with hand-held pistols? Not likely.
Forget that as an extreme example, the guy who used to own the Iphone, Devin Kelley shot a small town church at close range, did any of the gun loving Texans manage to take him down? Nope, he shot himself.
The idea that you carry a gun for self defence is foolhardy because a criminal will always get the jump on you. Someone who wants to rob or kill you wont just stand there whilst you say "excuse me Mr Gun Toting Crim, would you mind standing terribly still whilst I retrieve and aim my weapon". Hell no, you're just going to turn a robbery into a murder. The criminal always has the advantage of choosing when and where to attack, a defender rarely has the advantage here at the best of times.
As I've said, the worst thing I'm worried about here is a nutter with a knife and I'm barely even worried about that because it's such a rare thing. The fact that most of our criminals are not armed, let alone armed with guns means that the defender is often on equal footing, a defender trained in self defence actually has the advantage even if caught unaware. But hey, the freedom not to be scared of randoms is wrong right, because no guns?
Or was there some other set of "rights" or policies you think are backfiring? Take for instance: Yes, Violent Crime Has Spiked In Sweden Since Open Immigration Germany: Migrant Crime Spiked in 2016
Well, whatever you are babbling about seems popular. Its a load of bull, but popular bull, apparently.
It's always a bit sad if people believe their own propaganda. There are many reasons why the rate of reported rapes in Sweden is high. But as far as we can tell, an unusually high incident of rape as defined in other countries is not among them. Sweden has a much more expansive definition of rape, a different definition of what count as a single incident of rape, a very comprehensive collection and reporting system, and a very low cultural bar to reporting rape.
I'd also be very sceptical of everything the Gatestone Institute reports - quite apart from their political bias, it should be a warning that they run advertisments that promise beautiful Russian women who just want to take your out, and presumable sell you thousand's of iPhone 8s for only US$1 per piece....
This.
Some people go to any length to prove their bigotry has a basis in reality.
Crime has seen an uptick in Europe of late, but is this due to immigrants or the more rational explanation that economic conditions have worsened over the last year. You'll notice that the a worse uptick in crime is occurring in the UK whilst the immigrants are leaving (which might have something to do with the UK's economic conditions worsening faster than Europes).
Nah, must be the immagrunts, right? Not like crime and poverty have a demonstrated relationship.
Also, serious crimes like stabbings are a rare thing over here, the massive increase over 4 years is something like 50 extra cases a year in a city the size of London (8.7 million people).
"Scientists at Harvard have developed a pair of new kill switches that can be used to thwart bioengineered microbes that go rogue".
Nearly right! But it's quite important to implement the kill switches BEFORE the microbes "go rogue" (whatever that may mean).
Henry Wu: Actually they can't breed in the wild. Population control is one of our security precautions. There's no unauthorized breeding in Jurassic Park.
Dr. Ian Malcolm: How do you know they can't breed?
Henry Wu: Well, because all the animals in Jurassic Park are female. We've engineered them that way.
Dr. Ian Malcolm: But again, how do you know they're all female? Does somebody go out into the park and pull up the dinosaurs' skirts?
Henry Wu: We control their chromosomes. It's really not that difficult. All vertebrate embryos are inherently female anyway, they just require an extra hormone given at the right developmental stage to make them male. We simply deny them that.
Or is this one more like the lysine contingency.
He corresponded briefly with General Robert E. Lee, so I suppose any statues to him must be torn down.
If any of them were put up by racists years after his death, yep, tear them down. A lot of the Jackson and Lee statues were erected in the Jim Crow era.
I believe they belong in a museum where they are objects of education and cultural significance.
I'm afraid your numbers are off. The prefecture of Fukushima has about 13,750 sq km. 750 is less than the area of that 20km evacuation circle.
Should still be enough area for a S.T.A.L.K.E.R. sequel.
How do you say "Don't just stand there, come in, com in" in Japanese
Biometrics are user-ids, not passwords.
Actually they're both but should never be used as the first factor of authentication.
Face-ID and fingerprints are insecure and easily fooled.
Yes and no.
Done properly these technologies are quite effective, however to do it properly you need a $5000 bit of kit at every door and a hefty back end. Fingerprint scanners at Immigration are quite good, but you wont get that level of quality on a £500 phone. So in order to make it work, corners are cut which makes them ineffective as a security measure.
Besides, people get distracted enough punching in a 4 character pin, I'm not looking forward to the pandemonium face unlock will cause on the road.
Seriously, automatic gates in a variety of countries combined with biometric passports have made immigration much faster. This is a huge boon for the frequent traveler (as well as many infrequent ones).
Why would we care?
Face Unlock on Android was broken years ago. Its taken this long for the iSnore to catch up *yawns*.
Damore's memo was just misogynist bullshit.
That's a very cheap claim to make without any reasoning. That's probably it's so popular on Twitter and such (mostly because reasoning doesn't fit into 140 characters).
It was bullshit that had no rational basis, but was worded to sound so. A lot of people cant tell the difference sadly.
Basic scientific rigor was missing, it relied on information/soundbites taken out of context, broad generalisations were made to apply to individuals, extrapolations were exaggerated and evidence that did not fit his conclusion was ignored. Whilst I wont say it was strictly misogynistic (I've read and heard far worse) I will say it came of as angry towards women, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's not misogynistic but he definitely misunderstands.
However a lot of people are championing it because they they think it helps in playing the white male victim card.
Now I fully expect to see this modded down because I dare to question the document, let alone the victimisation of white males.
That's why when I attend funerals, I make a speech suggesting that there is no evidence of an afterlife, and that the deceased's death was objectively meaningless. Don't even ask what I say at weddings.
All weddings should start with the words "Divorces are expensive".
Besides, I think we as a culture have things backwards. A funeral should be a joyous occasion full of festivities where we remember someone who has lived, enriched our lives with their mere presence and made a mark on many people. Weddings on the other hand should be sober and somber occasions where one reflects on the freedom they have lost and the responsibilities they have gained.
The point of the (well written) original article was that Damore had handled things poorly due to his condition, not that his opinions arose due to his condition.
This.
The guy wasn't a jerk because he had (claims to have) Asperger/Autism, he's a jerk because he's a jerk.
I'm sick of autism/Asperger Syndrome being used as an excuse for people being a jerk. People who have autism are not inherently mean or arrogant, in fact most of them are the complete opposite. When talking to someone who has a disorder on the Autism spectrum, they aren't being rude, they're shit scared and the further along the spectrum they are, the worse it gets. Put simply, they are very slow to trust. Once you get past that they tend to be kind and gentle people, sure there are a few arseholes, same as any type of person but not as many as people think.
Any Autistic person who is functional enough to land a job, let alone a job at Google simply wants to get along with their colleagues and improve their life. This is the kind of shit doctors told their parent's that they'd never been able to do 20 years ago so for them its an accomplishment and it annoys them to no end seeing people Autism as an excuse for bad behavior (and as always, have difficulty expressing this).
Finally, when people associate negative things with functional autism, its usually because of another mental illness (paranoia, paranoid delusions and severe depression are somewhat common) that Autism exacerbates but isn't exclusive to Autistic people.
Well, he went straight to not one, but two alt-right youtubers instead of going to a somewhat reputable news publisher. Even going on Fox News would have looked better (they certainly would have been able to coach him to spin it better) and they certainly would have been beating down his door to get him. He's entirely responsible for the way people perceived him. Now it sounds like he's trying hard to salvage some semblance of a career.
It's becoming increasingly clear that no human can possibly have a functional grasp of all the knowledge required to make accurate diagnosis across all possible conditions. In the current model patients hope that they have something simple or obvious, and if not that their doctor can send them to the correct expert. This has far too many false positives and false negatives built in.
AI systems able to access comprehensive libraries of information are better at this type of work. Sure, I'd want an expert who can tailor search terms, accurately describe symptoms in a consistent manner, but for a number of years now I've been cheering every AI advance in clinical diagnosis. Can't come soon enough.
The thing is, it's not necessary for a medical AI to know everything or have a 99.99999% success rate, unlike an autonomous car which has to make split second decisions based on incomplete information.
A medical AI analyses a sample and says "Hey doc, this looks like Cancer", the doctor then has a look and determines if it looks like cancer and determines what extra tests are needed or if it's clear enough, goes straight to recommending a treatment. At the very least, it provides an extra set of eyes.
I understand most posters here are from the US and are used to paying through the nose for basic medical services, but for the rest of us having a medical AI in front of trained doctors will make things a hell of a lot easier and cheaper for the NHS. Simple diagnosis and treatments can be managed by the AI, things like a case of the sniffles or getting a sick note. Advanced cases or ambiguous things can be forwarded through to a human.
The difference here is that instead of a ruling family you have "the government". The Soviets used to have an expression: "you own what you guard". When the government owns and controls everything, the bureaucrats own and control everything, including you. In Soviet Union, the government officials had property, income, and quality of life that far exceeded the rest, and was proportional to their position. I fail to see the difference.
And where did I advocate government ownership? Sure its better than Feudalism, but I'd still rather not have it (Communism originated from a time where Feudal lords still controlled much of eastern Europe like they did in dark age England, Feudalism in England was over before the US even existed).
Have you been to Manhattan, San Francisco, Silicon Valley - they so-called havens of the progressives? They are far more segregated, stratified, with their high castles inaccessible to the common citizens, compared to the South, for example.
Have you? These aren't liberal havens. The people who live in SF, Manhattan, Central London et al want to keep their property prices high and the riff raff out. They aren't progressive in any way shape or form no-matter what Fox News tells you. Why do you think multi-millionaires flock to these places to live if they're so bohemian? Clue by four, if that were true they wouldn't.