Nobody is trying to program computers to do this stuff, so nobody is there to program them to do it.
They just use AI algorithms that put code in a blender, and tests chunks to see if something didn't fail, and eventually they can "train" it to do some simple task. Except they're not "training" anything, they're just establishing the success conditions. So they have a hard time intentionally teaching it a nuance to a trick; they don't even know what tricks it is using!
Eventually some humans will write some code, and then the machines will be able to do it just fine.
It isn't really that hard though, it only needs a big enough database of idioms.
Almost everything people think of the computers are bad at because nobody is doing the legwork, instead they're trying to cheat with big datacenters and "AI" algorithms. What they need is a big team of linguists to catalog more.
Not only that, but a system that attempts to track state should be able to tell from the context that there would be other references to Jane's poverty or money problems. Otherwise, nobody cares if it gets it wrong or not because it either wasn't even part of a larger work, or didn't have significance. So it should have an idiom match, and supporting context. Not much work is even being done on that yet.
Maybe you should reconsider your purchasing habits? Maybe even do a web search for device reviews of older devices from the same company before purchasing.
...if you're on a known, shared system (e.g. AWS, Azure, WordPress, Squarespace, etc.) it becomes far easier to abuse, since you could do something like, say, initiate a request that would load a private key into memory, use a sidechannel attack of these sorts to log the memory...
If you have a private key to load, and you're allowed to do that from javascript, you can just do it directly, there is no need to play games with this. Also, is it true that these services give you some sort of enhanced access where you'd be able to do something special by using your own key from a device that had already logged in with a user account? Wouldn't the key need to be the right key anyways? And if you have my key to load into memory, why would you also need to run the code on my mobile device?
It sounds like a small portion of three different attack vectors cut and pasted together into an unrealistic threat. That said, I wouldn't install an app onto a mobile device that was capable of doing something to harm me; IMO mobile maps and search are huge conveniences, but mobile banking is for idiots, and controlling business-critical network services from a "mobile" device is also for idiots; get a laptop, or any other portable device that runs a full OS if you have those responsibilities!
Plus, my android devices are all so slow that if they were running this type of thing they'd be unusable to me before it even succeeded! They're going to need to run it for weeks, crashing it a zillion times on the way, just to figure out where the memory locations are. They'd never get there without getting wiped.
Not only that, but if you're writing an OS you'd need a lot of code that malware in user apps would want.
And for example on Android, they don't even have their own ABI for the compiler to target, you compile for Android just by coincidence and the compiler doesn't know Android code from bare metal code with no OS.
I don't install very many apps, and I certainly don't read the source for all of them, however, I also don't grant very many permissions.
The apps I do look at the source, they're the ones that ask for permissions but I still want to use the app. So I'll review all the parts of the code that use the permissions I'm uncomfortable giving out, to see how they use their access.
Nobody is going do to full audit to check for everything possible, but OTOH, a few people will do a cursory analysis to see if there is obvious behavior that is undesired. So it takes a lot more to hide them than to just assume nobody is looking. Somebody is looking, and you'll need to be good to hide stuff for very long if you have any users. Double if the app is a security app, because who are the users?
If I collected that much data on a just a handful of random people I would be called a serial stalker and brought up on charges.
No, you wouldn't.
In stalking, the crime is about contacting the victim repeatedly after they've instructed you to stop. It is about unwanted contact, not about the collecting of data. If a stalker never made any contact, it would never become illegal.
Generally when you tell people working with the sort of data in the story to stop contacting you, they do; the next time the company contacts you it is a different person calling.
A key part of the stalking laws is that the victim would reasonably be afraid for their physical safety. That isn't the case in telemarketing, etc., or the mere storage of data.
SCO's lawyers are sentenced by their own idiocy to a lifetime of fighting a lost battle without receiving payment. Letting them go home would really spoil the fun!
I propose a $102 annual refuse service tax, with a $100 refund for recycling. Each instance of placing garbage into the recycling stream would receive a fine, and repeated infractions would result in a multi-year recycling ban. Serious intentional infractions would be criminal.
It is nothing about that, it is about the laws on the books that give the government specific rights to restrict international activities of companies for national security purposes already specifically mention the Communist Party.
Your perception that that involves somehow "going back" is silly; the laws were never changed, and the language never stopped putting enemies in the already-enumerated boxes like "Communist" and "Terrorist."
It doesn't have anything to do with Communism per se, it has instead to do with a generic threat to throw government powers behind some sort of enforcement.
Just like, during my wife's immigration interview she had to answer lots of questions about if she was ever a member of the Communist Party, etc. Just because the media told you, "Yay, the Cold War ended," it didn't actually imply that Congress had rewritten the last 60 years of law to take out all the terminology.
There are always a gaggle of morons who think it is "obtuse" to measure the meaning of the words separately from taking sides on some dispute that the words talk about.
But they're persuasive basically never.
What I find funny is that you even managed to identify that the words make a significant semantic difference that is relevant to the topic, and yet you still decide it is obtuse to care. That's something, but it sure as hell isn't acute!
Much of that is correct, but a child can indeed exercise a right that normally requires to be of sound mind; including signing contracts. Your internal model of that part is totally bungled, sorry.
It is the adults involved who are not allowed to hold the child responsible for the contract; instead, they would have to hold the parents responsible. There are further restrictions that often make the contract totally unenforceable, but it is still a valid contract. And the child can, with or even without the consent of a guardian, go to court to enforce it! That's the real reason businesses try very hard not to sign contracts with children! Most of the time, their contract protections are worthless but the child's are enforceable!
And while I understand you're parroting popular dogma, according to the Supreme Court of the Unites States the Constitution does grant rights. If the dogma you cited was literally true, then the Constitution would merely catalog a few rights but they'd be of equal standing as all the Common Law rights that already existed at that time; and that is not at all true in any way! It is rather painfully obvious, too, if you actually do analysis instead of just parroting popular talking points from AM radio.
If Trump wasn't such an incompetent moron, he'd have instructed them to charge anybody entering illegally and bringing their children along with child abuse! Instead he went to twitter, "Ugga wugga bugga CRIMINALS wugga bugga ugga FNORD" or some stupid shit.
If I go and rob a bank, and bring a child with me, nobody is going to complain that the police "separated" us by arresting me. But they're certainly add extra charges relating to it. So that is what a hardliner with even a small fraction of a clue would be doing here. But Trump can't even speak rationally enough to make the most obvious arguments that would assist his position; he just points in their general direction and then starts rambling like Racist Grandpa on Thanksgiving. I'm not saying intelligent people are going to buy it and think these things are the same, but it seems to me to be the honest policy disagreement; hardliners see it as the same, and most people do not. But the way his bungles the messaging, hardliners mostly are trying to stay out of the discussion, and he has no visible allies other than open racists.
It is a continuing relief that he's such an idiot, and that he's surrounded by Yes People. He'd be doing so much more damage if he was able to actually get his hairbrained[sic] policies enacted. Thankfully he continues to shoot himself in the foot on a daily basis and is incapable of the sort of introspection that would improve his performance.
And of course they wouldn't be allowed family detention centers, they're not capable of the sort of compassionate analysis that would lead to the sort of facility for that purpose that the courts would allow, and of course he's so busy constantly fighting with Republicans in Congress that he'd never get the funding to do it legal. It would have to be like a summer camp, not a jail, or the courts are going to say "No way, Jose!" And then Captain Squirrelhair would spend the next week shitposting to twitter about the judge, guaranteeing he loses all appeals and can't get much deference do to the lack of doubt about his true intentions. That's the thing about the "benefit of the doubt," it requires the self-control to maintain some doubt by speaking in a diplomatic manner.
Whatever helps you sleep at night. Actually since you're a ghoul you probably don't need sleep. Never mind.
Another moron who can't tell the difference between parsing the meaning of the words, and presenting a policy opinion.
I'll give you the spoiler: I didn't tell you my opinion of anything, what I actually said was relating to the meaning of the words used.
If you're not on the side of honest communication, I really see no benefit in even noticing your opinions. I certainly wouldn't worry about what you think about my opinions when I not only haven't shared them, but when I know you're communicating under false pretenses. It probably doesn't even occur to you the damage you do whatever your perceived cause is when you spew hate at people just based on knowledge that they're interesting in using honest words. It seems to me that if you believe in the moral standing of your cause, you'd actually perceive benefit in honest communication, and you'd view people working hard to keep the language honest as potential allies; unfortunately, you don't perceive honesty as being a natural ally of whatever your moral position is!
Not only do I air-gap important digital electronics, I even air-gap my inductors and transformers! You never know when somebody is going to fuzz your inputs, you don't want to risk saturation leading to denial of service!
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody is trying to program computers to do this stuff, so nobody is there to program them to do it.
They just use AI algorithms that put code in a blender, and tests chunks to see if something didn't fail, and eventually they can "train" it to do some simple task. Except they're not "training" anything, they're just establishing the success conditions. So they have a hard time intentionally teaching it a nuance to a trick; they don't even know what tricks it is using!
Eventually some humans will write some code, and then the machines will be able to do it just fine.
Watch out, the parents are slow too.
Luckily online sarcasm was deprecated in 1986, so they only have to parse that when doing books.
If you can't read old Perl, just give up. ;)
If they'd just transfer the expert systems out of AI and into one of the programming majors then it would get done really quick.
It isn't really that hard though, it only needs a big enough database of idioms.
Almost everything people think of the computers are bad at because nobody is doing the legwork, instead they're trying to cheat with big datacenters and "AI" algorithms. What they need is a big team of linguists to catalog more.
Not only that, but a system that attempts to track state should be able to tell from the context that there would be other references to Jane's poverty or money problems. Otherwise, nobody cares if it gets it wrong or not because it either wasn't even part of a larger work, or didn't have significance. So it should have an idiom match, and supporting context. Not much work is even being done on that yet.
Everything cuts. Use more force.
The F word is just a synonym for smurf. It is the easiest word to use, in any language.
Maybe you should reconsider your purchasing habits? Maybe even do a web search for device reviews of older devices from the same company before purchasing.
...if you're on a known, shared system (e.g. AWS, Azure, WordPress, Squarespace, etc.) it becomes far easier to abuse, since you could do something like, say, initiate a request that would load a private key into memory, use a sidechannel attack of these sorts to log the memory...
If you have a private key to load, and you're allowed to do that from javascript, you can just do it directly, there is no need to play games with this. Also, is it true that these services give you some sort of enhanced access where you'd be able to do something special by using your own key from a device that had already logged in with a user account? Wouldn't the key need to be the right key anyways? And if you have my key to load into memory, why would you also need to run the code on my mobile device?
It sounds like a small portion of three different attack vectors cut and pasted together into an unrealistic threat. That said, I wouldn't install an app onto a mobile device that was capable of doing something to harm me; IMO mobile maps and search are huge conveniences, but mobile banking is for idiots, and controlling business-critical network services from a "mobile" device is also for idiots; get a laptop, or any other portable device that runs a full OS if you have those responsibilities!
Plus, my android devices are all so slow that if they were running this type of thing they'd be unusable to me before it even succeeded! They're going to need to run it for weeks, crashing it a zillion times on the way, just to figure out where the memory locations are. They'd never get there without getting wiped.
Not only that, but if you're writing an OS you'd need a lot of code that malware in user apps would want.
And for example on Android, they don't even have their own ABI for the compiler to target, you compile for Android just by coincidence and the compiler doesn't know Android code from bare metal code with no OS.
I don't install very many apps, and I certainly don't read the source for all of them, however, I also don't grant very many permissions.
The apps I do look at the source, they're the ones that ask for permissions but I still want to use the app. So I'll review all the parts of the code that use the permissions I'm uncomfortable giving out, to see how they use their access.
Nobody is going do to full audit to check for everything possible, but OTOH, a few people will do a cursory analysis to see if there is obvious behavior that is undesired. So it takes a lot more to hide them than to just assume nobody is looking. Somebody is looking, and you'll need to be good to hide stuff for very long if you have any users. Double if the app is a security app, because who are the users?
There is an app you can download to test, but it's not clear what it actually does.
If you install the app, you found the larger security hole. :)
If I collected that much data on a just a handful of random people I would be called a serial stalker and brought up on charges.
No, you wouldn't.
In stalking, the crime is about contacting the victim repeatedly after they've instructed you to stop. It is about unwanted contact, not about the collecting of data. If a stalker never made any contact, it would never become illegal.
Generally when you tell people working with the sort of data in the story to stop contacting you, they do; the next time the company contacts you it is a different person calling.
A key part of the stalking laws is that the victim would reasonably be afraid for their physical safety. That isn't the case in telemarketing, etc., or the mere storage of data.
SCO's lawyers are sentenced by their own idiocy to a lifetime of fighting a lost battle without receiving payment. Letting them go home would really spoil the fun!
I propose a $102 annual refuse service tax, with a $100 refund for recycling. Each instance of placing garbage into the recycling stream would receive a fine, and repeated infractions would result in a multi-year recycling ban. Serious intentional infractions would be criminal.
It is nothing about that, it is about the laws on the books that give the government specific rights to restrict international activities of companies for national security purposes already specifically mention the Communist Party.
Your perception that that involves somehow "going back" is silly; the laws were never changed, and the language never stopped putting enemies in the already-enumerated boxes like "Communist" and "Terrorist."
It doesn't have anything to do with Communism per se, it has instead to do with a generic threat to throw government powers behind some sort of enforcement.
Just like, during my wife's immigration interview she had to answer lots of questions about if she was ever a member of the Communist Party, etc. Just because the media told you, "Yay, the Cold War ended," it didn't actually imply that Congress had rewritten the last 60 years of law to take out all the terminology.
There are always a gaggle of morons who think it is "obtuse" to measure the meaning of the words separately from taking sides on some dispute that the words talk about.
But they're persuasive basically never.
What I find funny is that you even managed to identify that the words make a significant semantic difference that is relevant to the topic, and yet you still decide it is obtuse to care. That's something, but it sure as hell isn't acute!
Much of that is correct, but a child can indeed exercise a right that normally requires to be of sound mind; including signing contracts. Your internal model of that part is totally bungled, sorry.
It is the adults involved who are not allowed to hold the child responsible for the contract; instead, they would have to hold the parents responsible. There are further restrictions that often make the contract totally unenforceable, but it is still a valid contract. And the child can, with or even without the consent of a guardian, go to court to enforce it! That's the real reason businesses try very hard not to sign contracts with children! Most of the time, their contract protections are worthless but the child's are enforceable!
And while I understand you're parroting popular dogma, according to the Supreme Court of the Unites States the Constitution does grant rights. If the dogma you cited was literally true, then the Constitution would merely catalog a few rights but they'd be of equal standing as all the Common Law rights that already existed at that time; and that is not at all true in any way! It is rather painfully obvious, too, if you actually do analysis instead of just parroting popular talking points from AM radio.
If Trump wasn't such an incompetent moron, he'd have instructed them to charge anybody entering illegally and bringing their children along with child abuse! Instead he went to twitter, "Ugga wugga bugga CRIMINALS wugga bugga ugga FNORD" or some stupid shit.
If I go and rob a bank, and bring a child with me, nobody is going to complain that the police "separated" us by arresting me. But they're certainly add extra charges relating to it. So that is what a hardliner with even a small fraction of a clue would be doing here. But Trump can't even speak rationally enough to make the most obvious arguments that would assist his position; he just points in their general direction and then starts rambling like Racist Grandpa on Thanksgiving. I'm not saying intelligent people are going to buy it and think these things are the same, but it seems to me to be the honest policy disagreement; hardliners see it as the same, and most people do not. But the way his bungles the messaging, hardliners mostly are trying to stay out of the discussion, and he has no visible allies other than open racists.
It is a continuing relief that he's such an idiot, and that he's surrounded by Yes People. He'd be doing so much more damage if he was able to actually get his hairbrained[sic] policies enacted. Thankfully he continues to shoot himself in the foot on a daily basis and is incapable of the sort of introspection that would improve his performance.
And of course they wouldn't be allowed family detention centers, they're not capable of the sort of compassionate analysis that would lead to the sort of facility for that purpose that the courts would allow, and of course he's so busy constantly fighting with Republicans in Congress that he'd never get the funding to do it legal. It would have to be like a summer camp, not a jail, or the courts are going to say "No way, Jose!" And then Captain Squirrelhair would spend the next week shitposting to twitter about the judge, guaranteeing he loses all appeals and can't get much deference do to the lack of doubt about his true intentions. That's the thing about the "benefit of the doubt," it requires the self-control to maintain some doubt by speaking in a diplomatic manner.
Whatever helps you sleep at night. Actually since you're a ghoul you probably don't need sleep. Never mind.
Another moron who can't tell the difference between parsing the meaning of the words, and presenting a policy opinion.
I'll give you the spoiler: I didn't tell you my opinion of anything, what I actually said was relating to the meaning of the words used.
If you're not on the side of honest communication, I really see no benefit in even noticing your opinions. I certainly wouldn't worry about what you think about my opinions when I not only haven't shared them, but when I know you're communicating under false pretenses. It probably doesn't even occur to you the damage you do whatever your perceived cause is when you spew hate at people just based on knowledge that they're interesting in using honest words. It seems to me that if you believe in the moral standing of your cause, you'd actually perceive benefit in honest communication, and you'd view people working hard to keep the language honest as potential allies; unfortunately, you don't perceive honesty as being a natural ally of whatever your moral position is!
Not only do I air-gap important digital electronics, I even air-gap my inductors and transformers! You never know when somebody is going to fuzz your inputs, you don't want to risk saturation leading to denial of service!
Punching nazis isn't something progressives do. It is something patriotic Americans do.
Oh, it's the Alpine Girls from the car show. That explains why slashdot likes it.