Once the damage is done, it's often irreversible, short of something like a heart transplant. Diet and exercise can help you lose weight and strengthen the hert and lungs, but only if the system isn't already broken.
That is complete nonsense, my advice to you is: don't give out medical advice.
Second, at 80% accuracy (and the thing it actually predicts....), it sucks badly. You will probably have to search a while to find an experienced expert that does this badly on this classification task.
What stands out to me is that there is no control. They mention in the limitations of the study that they're comparing the output of the program to predictions based on the somewhat arbitrary reporting categories for heart disease, when the disease it known to have multiple components in real patients. The categories are not a viable stand-in for human predictive performance, they are intentionally over-simplified. If the software was given data segmented by reporting category it would have lower performance, but perhaps it would give a better idea of how good the predictions are.
You don't even need to find out what their claim was to know that the headline is horse shit. The word "when" sets things up grammatically to offer a claim, but by itself it doesn't mean anything. But death has meaning, and a prediction having 80% accuracy has meaning, so it combines to a false claim. When could mean anything, it could mean the minute, second, picosecond, day, year, decade, millennium, etc. But it can't mean all of those, so it is false if you use the given precision.
I for one am not being dismissive of the useful of the algorithms at all when I say they're not more or less artificial nor more or less intelligent than other programs.
That's the problem, it is just regular software. Like calling software an "app" doesn't change anything, it is just a label. The problem with the AI label it is that none of the words are accurate descriptions of how it differs from other software. The problem isn't that programs are "merely" programs, but that software programs are not trees, ice cream, stars, or the feeling of spring. If you called apps "ice cream," people would complain, and it would have nothing to do with them looking down on ice cream.
It would be better if they just named the specific algorithm that it uses instead of the useless catch-all of "AI." It makes sense for academia to arbitrarily classify which things go into which classes and departments, but it doesn't make sense for programmers generally, or program users, to slavishly follow those categorizations where there are more descriptive and more accurate ones at hand.
Something might be an expert system, or be an application based on a neural network. But still, unless it is buggy all the intelligence in the system was engineered by the programmers; a "self-learning" algorithm only learns what it was engineered to learn, and what it learned accidentally due to bugs. And the engineer isn't even artificial!
I read through the paper... and it may not resemble how computers process instructions and retrieve data...
OK so you did understand the parts that were in context of this thread!
"The brain is just a computer" is hand-wavy and objectively incorrect. It is not necessary to prove it is some other thing to demonstrate that it isn't a computer, for all useful values of "computer" including common English usage.
"The brain is just a computer" is entirely subjective, and like other opinions when it is claimed as objective fact it is simply false. If you want it to be true, you have to leave it as an opinion, where it isn't claiming to refute or even contradict other opinions.
The only reason the term doesn't have any meaning is because everyone's definition of "intelligence" is different in the first place.
I disagree that that is the only reason. Another reason is that we don't agree on the term "artificial." In most cases I would say that all the intelligence, regardless of how that part is defined, came from the programmer and not the software.
We actually can't agree on the meaning of any part of the term!
That's not a valid question in response to my comment. Please re-read my comment to find that I already provided the sufficient information for you to determine the relevance of your question.
Offer and be willing to sell. It is silly to claim that in Canada if you offer something for sale and nobody will buy at your first price, you can never offer it for sale at any other price. Unless somebody buys one, then you can change it. No, that is just an inaccurate representation of the rules. I can know that just because Canada has a functioning economy. If your business fails and you offer everything in your store at a discount and you call it a sale, that is actually allowed! Even if you have an item on one of the shelves that never sold.
What you claim is the rules is silly; you wouldn't have to prove both that you offered it for sale at a price, AND that you sold it for that price. If you sold it for that price we already know you offered it for that price. And the only reason to invoke offering it at that price is in case you didn't actually sell any, so you still have a metric. There are a bunch of details and caveats that make your pedanticism false. And, you ignored my points just to push an incorrect oversimplification.
It seems to me that this residue could have come from the plane he hijacked. It doesn't make sense that he would have used a tie from work, or that he would have all this residue but also be an employee who wears a tie. It seems reasonable that a Boeing maintenance employee might who had worked at that plant and had residue all over his coveralls might have been transferred to a maintenance division and have been leaving that residue around.
727 was a very common plane at the time. I was still seeing them at airports 15 years ago. A lot were produced. It was the 737 equivalent of its day. It isn't really a big deal to know how to operate the stairs; you could learn that on one flight by chatting up the flight staff, or just buy a used study guide. After all it isn't a secret how the controls work on commercial airplanes.
Smith & Wesson does not advertise their product as a tool to use for robbery. If they started putting posters up in rough neighborhoods telling people where to buy it without a background check, and then one of those weapons purchased that way was used in a murder, then they would be responsible.
That is the difference. Smith & Wesson makes a product and only advertises legal uses of their product, and there are many legal uses. So no problem!
This guy made a tool and advertised it as being useful in committing crimes. That is part of that he was accused of in the first place. If he had advertised it as a debugging tool for programmers, and advertised it in normal places, then no problem! Keyloggers are legal. But malware intended to be installed without permission is not. And if only advertised it in normal places, he might not get any sales, because programmers wouldn't pay for that they would just download and compile one, or use the one that came with one of their pen testing tools.
If you make security tools available to ignorant criminals who couldn't do it on their own, that will turn out to be provable and you will be punished.
Just like, if you opened a martial arts dojo and advertised it as a way to be better at assaulting people, and one of your students then assaulted somebody, you'd have problems! Whereas if you keep your mouth shut and don't try to capitalize on the illegal uses of fighting arts, then no problem! Then if your student assaults somebody it is only bad PR.
It isn't enough that there is some theoretical legal use for something. You have to also NOT be claiming that it is really for an illegal use.;)
Lock picks aren't illegal either, but carrying burglary tools often is.
The Court doesn't care about, "Can the defendant show that the tool/weapon/whatever has a legit other use than he is accused of?" That would be silly. The Court instead tries to figure out what was actually going on in a particular instance. So nobody cares if it would be legal in another situation. In this situation we have victims whose devices were invaded in a way that is a crime. The government accused the defendant of having made that tool specifically for the purpose of committing that crime. Nobody cares if he could have made a similar tool that wasn't for crime; he isn't accused of that, and in that situation there wouldn't even be a crime being investigated.
If the person installing the software for an illegal purpose is using it for what it was intended, if it was marketed to them to commit the crime, then it is an illegal tool and the author shares in all the responsibility for the crime. Sure, he could have made a debugging tool that was presented as a programming or networking tool and not a criminal tool, but then how would his criminal customers know that they could use it for their crime? They wouldn't. He would get less sales, because these sorts of criminals tend to be pretty low-information.
He was an idiot to become a defense contractor, that puts your whole life on secret audit! If you've got an existing criminal enterprise, don't go there. You're not the sort of person who we [citizens] want doing that sort of work anyways.
If I was King, he'd be getting burnt at the stake. Keep in mind that there are a wide variety of views on the appropriate punishment, and even on the type of crime committed. If he was part of an organized crime operation and distributed burglary tools to 3000 accomplices who burgled 16000 people, I would want to see a life sentence just to keep him off the street. That's a huge amount of crime to be responsible for! Anything less than a life sentence is a slap on the wrist IMO.
This wasn't some sort of nanny-State victimless "crime." 16000 people had their property invaded for nefarious purposes!
Also, the meme about not having a good lawyer is silly. In the US for these types of cases a court-appointed lawyer will be a normal private lawyer, not some sort of low cost discount lawyer. You get the same legal representation as everybody else. If you're rich you get a superstar, and if you're poor you get a regular lawyer. Cheap lawyers are not even in the courtroom arguing cases, there are lots of different roles to play and you have to be a very competent lawyer to make a career in criminal defense.
"Welcome to the _____" means that the thing is part of the experience there. There is nothing exclusive; if it meant that was the only thing there, it would require more words. Words that I didn't include.
If you think that C code on IoT devices is just for running an interpreter then my advice is to look past the ESP8266 because as awesome as it is, and as cool as Lua is, most products using the ESP are using C, and there is a very popular C webserver for it you implement the dynamic elements as C callbacks. That is the sort of thing that is driving IoT, and most of the IoT chips don't even have popular interpreters ported to them! You say you've got video code on embedded devices, that's nice but those are high powered systems compared to the cheap ICs necessary for IoT. If you're doing video, you need resources, and you can use a lot more normal types of coding techniques and preferred tools to get the job done because they use less than video. IoT is about having a very small amount of resources.
And no, you can't separate the methodology of their test from the implications. That is true of any sort of test or study; the details of what was studied sets the stage for what you can claim that it shows. A methodology based on web searches can't actually tell you about popularity unless you have really extensive data on confounding variables, and nobody has that here. So you can't improve the data quality enough to make that sort of claim. You can't even make that claim! It isn't available. All we know is that searches changed. It could be as simple as, some percent of searches for C used the word "Arduino" instead of "C" and there wasn't even a change in actual searches. That's how broad and unresolved the confounders are. The idea that it might be less popular isn't even a hypothesis, it is just an idea thrown at the wall that might explain it. Or might not.
This is funny sitting next to the anti-American snobbery. We may not have many restrictions on "sales," but we do have lots of consumer protections, and they're followed because customers will get red-faced angry if they aren't, and also the government is obligated to investigate consumer complaints involving false items or untrue prices.
Once difference compared to the Canadian situation in the article is that consumers in the US do not consider a "list price" to have any meaning other than "this is a price that the person telling you about it put on a list." Americans assume that they game that, and that if you try to control it they just find other ways to manipulate it; like the UK where stores will have a section of overpriced stuff on the least convenient shelf for a fixed period of time before it goes on sale.
Here we don't worry about a "list" price, we worry about what another outlets sell it at. It is the part that is actually true. And stores who target lower income customers often buy 12 month sign kits and have rotating "sales" with the same prices all year.
Which is exactly why Free Markets will never exist. You can never have the information you need.
Economic information theory teaches that information has a value and a cost. You can have the information you need, but it costs something. In this case it would cost time to compare.
My advice, next time keep parsing until you understand what I'm saying, you seem to have just not understood any of it so why click reply?
You really can't find the implied "one type" from the discussion? Really? For sure? I'll just stop there then. You should have continued parsing until you found it, then you could reply. With content.
Yeah, most people don't get bloody nipples from exercising in regular clothes. That's a pretty... niche effect.
Well, that's always the problem with that sort of propaganda; most people want to win, if they only win 25% of the games they're not going to learn that winning is bad. The whole concept of that as propaganda is crazy. Yes, at the end of the game there is only one winner, everybody else loses. That only means it is viable as a game. Duh.
Slashdot Mirror
Once the damage is done, it's often irreversible, short of something like a heart transplant. Diet and exercise can help you lose weight and strengthen the hert and lungs, but only if the system isn't already broken.
That is complete nonsense, my advice to you is: don't give out medical advice.
Second, at 80% accuracy (and the thing it actually predicts....), it sucks badly. You will probably have to search a while to find an experienced expert that does this badly on this classification task.
What stands out to me is that there is no control. They mention in the limitations of the study that they're comparing the output of the program to predictions based on the somewhat arbitrary reporting categories for heart disease, when the disease it known to have multiple components in real patients. The categories are not a viable stand-in for human predictive performance, they are intentionally over-simplified. If the software was given data segmented by reporting category it would have lower performance, but perhaps it would give a better idea of how good the predictions are.
You don't even need to find out what their claim was to know that the headline is horse shit. The word "when" sets things up grammatically to offer a claim, but by itself it doesn't mean anything. But death has meaning, and a prediction having 80% accuracy has meaning, so it combines to a false claim. When could mean anything, it could mean the minute, second, picosecond, day, year, decade, millennium, etc. But it can't mean all of those, so it is false if you use the given precision.
Seriously, you come at us with anonymous elitism? Wow, this place has gone downhill! Even the academic snobs are fucking morons now.
I for one am not being dismissive of the useful of the algorithms at all when I say they're not more or less artificial nor more or less intelligent than other programs.
That's the problem, it is just regular software. Like calling software an "app" doesn't change anything, it is just a label. The problem with the AI label it is that none of the words are accurate descriptions of how it differs from other software. The problem isn't that programs are "merely" programs, but that software programs are not trees, ice cream, stars, or the feeling of spring. If you called apps "ice cream," people would complain, and it would have nothing to do with them looking down on ice cream.
It would be better if they just named the specific algorithm that it uses instead of the useless catch-all of "AI." It makes sense for academia to arbitrarily classify which things go into which classes and departments, but it doesn't make sense for programmers generally, or program users, to slavishly follow those categorizations where there are more descriptive and more accurate ones at hand.
Something might be an expert system, or be an application based on a neural network. But still, unless it is buggy all the intelligence in the system was engineered by the programmers; a "self-learning" algorithm only learns what it was engineered to learn, and what it learned accidentally due to bugs. And the engineer isn't even artificial!
I read through the paper... and it may not resemble how computers process instructions and retrieve data...
OK so you did understand the parts that were in context of this thread!
"The brain is just a computer" is hand-wavy and objectively incorrect. It is not necessary to prove it is some other thing to demonstrate that it isn't a computer, for all useful values of "computer" including common English usage.
"The brain is just a computer" is entirely subjective, and like other opinions when it is claimed as objective fact it is simply false. If you want it to be true, you have to leave it as an opinion, where it isn't claiming to refute or even contradict other opinions.
The only reason the term doesn't have any meaning is because everyone's definition of "intelligence" is different in the first place.
I disagree that that is the only reason. Another reason is that we don't agree on the term "artificial." In most cases I would say that all the intelligence, regardless of how that part is defined, came from the programmer and not the software.
We actually can't agree on the meaning of any part of the term!
That's not a valid question in response to my comment. Please re-read my comment to find that I already provided the sufficient information for you to determine the relevance of your question.
Maybe that's why he stopped laying golden eggs?
Most of the Android vulnerabilities only affect small ranges of versions, and older devices that don't get updates might fare better than you think!
Offer and be willing to sell. It is silly to claim that in Canada if you offer something for sale and nobody will buy at your first price, you can never offer it for sale at any other price. Unless somebody buys one, then you can change it. No, that is just an inaccurate representation of the rules. I can know that just because Canada has a functioning economy. If your business fails and you offer everything in your store at a discount and you call it a sale, that is actually allowed! Even if you have an item on one of the shelves that never sold.
What you claim is the rules is silly; you wouldn't have to prove both that you offered it for sale at a price, AND that you sold it for that price. If you sold it for that price we already know you offered it for that price. And the only reason to invoke offering it at that price is in case you didn't actually sell any, so you still have a metric. There are a bunch of details and caveats that make your pedanticism false. And, you ignored my points just to push an incorrect oversimplification.
If you're saying he might be a liar, that isn't making me think it is more likely that he is also innocent.
It seems to me that this residue could have come from the plane he hijacked. It doesn't make sense that he would have used a tie from work, or that he would have all this residue but also be an employee who wears a tie. It seems reasonable that a Boeing maintenance employee might who had worked at that plant and had residue all over his coveralls might have been transferred to a maintenance division and have been leaving that residue around.
727 was a very common plane at the time. I was still seeing them at airports 15 years ago. A lot were produced. It was the 737 equivalent of its day. It isn't really a big deal to know how to operate the stairs; you could learn that on one flight by chatting up the flight staff, or just buy a used study guide. After all it isn't a secret how the controls work on commercial airplanes.
Smith & Wesson does not advertise their product as a tool to use for robbery. If they started putting posters up in rough neighborhoods telling people where to buy it without a background check, and then one of those weapons purchased that way was used in a murder, then they would be responsible.
That is the difference. Smith & Wesson makes a product and only advertises legal uses of their product, and there are many legal uses. So no problem!
This guy made a tool and advertised it as being useful in committing crimes. That is part of that he was accused of in the first place. If he had advertised it as a debugging tool for programmers, and advertised it in normal places, then no problem! Keyloggers are legal. But malware intended to be installed without permission is not. And if only advertised it in normal places, he might not get any sales, because programmers wouldn't pay for that they would just download and compile one, or use the one that came with one of their pen testing tools.
If you make security tools available to ignorant criminals who couldn't do it on their own, that will turn out to be provable and you will be punished.
Just like, if you opened a martial arts dojo and advertised it as a way to be better at assaulting people, and one of your students then assaulted somebody, you'd have problems! Whereas if you keep your mouth shut and don't try to capitalize on the illegal uses of fighting arts, then no problem! Then if your student assaults somebody it is only bad PR.
It isn't enough that there is some theoretical legal use for something. You have to also NOT be claiming that it is really for an illegal use. ;)
Lock picks aren't illegal either, but carrying burglary tools often is.
The Court doesn't care about, "Can the defendant show that the tool/weapon/whatever has a legit other use than he is accused of?" That would be silly. The Court instead tries to figure out what was actually going on in a particular instance. So nobody cares if it would be legal in another situation. In this situation we have victims whose devices were invaded in a way that is a crime. The government accused the defendant of having made that tool specifically for the purpose of committing that crime. Nobody cares if he could have made a similar tool that wasn't for crime; he isn't accused of that, and in that situation there wouldn't even be a crime being investigated.
If the person installing the software for an illegal purpose is using it for what it was intended, if it was marketed to them to commit the crime, then it is an illegal tool and the author shares in all the responsibility for the crime. Sure, he could have made a debugging tool that was presented as a programming or networking tool and not a criminal tool, but then how would his criminal customers know that they could use it for their crime? They wouldn't. He would get less sales, because these sorts of criminals tend to be pretty low-information.
He was an idiot to become a defense contractor, that puts your whole life on secret audit! If you've got an existing criminal enterprise, don't go there. You're not the sort of person who we [citizens] want doing that sort of work anyways.
Heavy-handed over-reaction. 10 years?!
If I was King, he'd be getting burnt at the stake. Keep in mind that there are a wide variety of views on the appropriate punishment, and even on the type of crime committed. If he was part of an organized crime operation and distributed burglary tools to 3000 accomplices who burgled 16000 people, I would want to see a life sentence just to keep him off the street. That's a huge amount of crime to be responsible for! Anything less than a life sentence is a slap on the wrist IMO.
This wasn't some sort of nanny-State victimless "crime." 16000 people had their property invaded for nefarious purposes!
Also, the meme about not having a good lawyer is silly. In the US for these types of cases a court-appointed lawyer will be a normal private lawyer, not some sort of low cost discount lawyer. You get the same legal representation as everybody else. If you're rich you get a superstar, and if you're poor you get a regular lawyer. Cheap lawyers are not even in the courtroom arguing cases, there are lots of different roles to play and you have to be a very competent lawyer to make a career in criminal defense.
"Welcome to the _____" means that the thing is part of the experience there. There is nothing exclusive; if it meant that was the only thing there, it would require more words. Words that I didn't include.
If you think that C code on IoT devices is just for running an interpreter then my advice is to look past the ESP8266 because as awesome as it is, and as cool as Lua is, most products using the ESP are using C, and there is a very popular C webserver for it you implement the dynamic elements as C callbacks. That is the sort of thing that is driving IoT, and most of the IoT chips don't even have popular interpreters ported to them! You say you've got video code on embedded devices, that's nice but those are high powered systems compared to the cheap ICs necessary for IoT. If you're doing video, you need resources, and you can use a lot more normal types of coding techniques and preferred tools to get the job done because they use less than video. IoT is about having a very small amount of resources.
And no, you can't separate the methodology of their test from the implications. That is true of any sort of test or study; the details of what was studied sets the stage for what you can claim that it shows. A methodology based on web searches can't actually tell you about popularity unless you have really extensive data on confounding variables, and nobody has that here. So you can't improve the data quality enough to make that sort of claim. You can't even make that claim! It isn't available. All we know is that searches changed. It could be as simple as, some percent of searches for C used the word "Arduino" instead of "C" and there wasn't even a change in actual searches. That's how broad and unresolved the confounders are. The idea that it might be less popular isn't even a hypothesis, it is just an idea thrown at the wall that might explain it. Or might not.
This is funny sitting next to the anti-American snobbery. We may not have many restrictions on "sales," but we do have lots of consumer protections, and they're followed because customers will get red-faced angry if they aren't, and also the government is obligated to investigate consumer complaints involving false items or untrue prices.
Once difference compared to the Canadian situation in the article is that consumers in the US do not consider a "list price" to have any meaning other than "this is a price that the person telling you about it put on a list." Americans assume that they game that, and that if you try to control it they just find other ways to manipulate it; like the UK where stores will have a section of overpriced stuff on the least convenient shelf for a fixed period of time before it goes on sale.
Here we don't worry about a "list" price, we worry about what another outlets sell it at. It is the part that is actually true. And stores who target lower income customers often buy 12 month sign kits and have rotating "sales" with the same prices all year.
Which is exactly why Free Markets will never exist. You can never have the information you need.
Economic information theory teaches that information has a value and a cost. You can have the information you need, but it costs something. In this case it would cost time to compare.
In much of the world that is true; it is the female version of the middle finger.
My advice, next time keep parsing until you understand what I'm saying, you seem to have just not understood any of it so why click reply?
You really can't find the implied "one type" from the discussion? Really? For sure? I'll just stop there then. You should have continued parsing until you found it, then you could reply. With content.
Yeah, most people don't get bloody nipples from exercising in regular clothes. That's a pretty... niche effect.
Right, that's what I said.
Well, that's always the problem with that sort of propaganda; most people want to win, if they only win 25% of the games they're not going to learn that winning is bad. The whole concept of that as propaganda is crazy. Yes, at the end of the game there is only one winner, everybody else loses. That only means it is viable as a game. Duh.
LOL that's called a spam folder, try a torrent site.
But you're close to correct; none of the sex involves the colon.
If you ever get a chance to play the game, you might be shocked to discover that taxes aren't a big part of it.
Which makes sense, it was intended to show the natural consequences of land monopolies.
You seem to be confusing the game the article is about with one of the games that inspired it.