No sense waving your hand at a $50 damage limit, that's has as much weight as if it wasn't even written down. And irrelevant, since it isn't a contract dispute.
It seems hard to argue that it wasn't a proximate cause without knowing the (as yet unknown) facts of the case. We don't know even know what facts are in dispute.
Yeah, well, the average idiot actually thinks "I think therefore I am" is a truism!
Whereas actually the philosophical value is in the fact that it is obviously circular and doesn't prove anything, or show any understanding of anything. And yet, nobody can come up with a better answer. So we're left with knowing we can't prove that we exist, or that we know we exist. So then there is only the comparison between believing that you think and that you are, or not believing it, and there we find a distinct difference in utility; if we believe we exist but really we don't exist, no harm done. But if we do exist and believe we don't, then we will lack motivation to succeed, and it will matter. So belief in self existence has utility, not because we think, but because we believe that we do think, and we don't have any better answer.
With software, we're not in that situation; a competent person can in fact understand why the software outputs what it outputs given a certain input. And that answer will be of mathematically-testable quality.
Here, we don't care if the robot thinks that it exists; it is without relevance. The robot is built for human purposes, it is in a very different situation than a human who exists already and wants to explain it for reasons related to our extant capabilities of interacting with our environment. The human philosophical question is internal, and everything the robot is doing is external, including the measurements about if it was "thinking" or not. You can say that it "was thinking" or that it "wasn't thinking," and nothing has changed in the externalities.
Obviously the robot can't imagine itself; that's a specious claim. But it might in fact be able to describe itself; something best done without imagination. And, incidentally, something that humans suck at.
All the popular 8bit micros come in versions with extra UARTs. And another version with more.
All the popular micros are part of extensive lineups from lots of code space and few peripherals, to lots of peripherals and little code space. You don't change platforms for a UART.
No, I wouldn't go and google some basic shit. You're on slashdot. I'm probably a firmware programmer and I responded to your drivel because I understand the topic.
A name like that describes exactly the opposite of what I said, so if you're right and somebody did what I said and called it that, of course it wasn't popular.
But also, if you're using a system like I describe, you wouldn't actually have to care about if it is popular, because it is only the most recent wikipedia updates you wouldn't have; you'd be starting with many times more content than a full set of printed encyclopedias have. Just improving the quality of the existing content takes less work than when you have people competing to both change existing content, and add new content, such as with wikipedia. For example, a private group doing it doesn't have to allow contested deletions; they can come up with another system, like requiring the change to wait for a subject-matter expert if it is disputed, and then there is less wasted effort.
You know, before I read your comment I was thinking that a 70% top rate was reasonable, but after reading your analysis I'm thinking we should just listen to the economists and go with 86%.
No doubt all the politicians involved in this scam got their kickbacks.
True, and that has the potential to play very differently in an election compared to if they had also created a bunch of jobs.
The old argument was, "that's a horrible deal, you could generate more jobs spending the money directly." The new argument is, "you didn't even create any jobs, you were just lying to give money to China."
Republican voters love China right now, right? Right??
It is very highly unlikely that a different amount of food crops would be planted based on available land.
There is surplus agricultural land in the US. Variable crops are things like soy and corn, which, while edible, would in fact be sold as animal feed. Increasing the supply of animal feed lowers the price of that feed, which increases the amount of international investment in cattle production. Most nations do not have surplus agricultural land, and increased cattle production means less food crops being planted.
Wisconsin has world-class farm externalities, overly simplistic analysis is unlikely to capture causal relationships.
Those things have to be proved, yes, but remember, in a civil case the other side has to share their information about it. After you file the suit, then the other side has to tell you if it is true or not, and give you access to whatever evidence there is.
The order is: 1) make accusation 2) receive evidence 3) prove accusation, or fail to
The paperwork filed so far in the lawsuit tells you nothing at all about if the recording happened, and until the bug was disclosed they didn't know how it happened, but knew it had happened, or if it is just speculation and they're filing the suit to force somebody to tell them if in fact the bug caused the deposition to be recorded.
When something hasn't been disclosed, that means you don't know. It doesn't mean they don't know; it only means they didn't tell you.
That is probably not relevant, because that only controls where you argue about the contract details. This isn't an argument about the contract, it as a regular accusation of harm that doesn't rely on promises from the contract.
EULA terms regulate the use and provisioning of the service, they don't regulate any and all interactions the parties might have.
The bug seems to exhibit behavior well beyond what would be reasonably expected by what was disclosed; you don't want to push too hard in the wrong direction here, claiming that the EULA is in effect, because then your disclosure of what services are provided is potentially fraudulent. Oh, you say, not fraud merely negligent, OK, but Apple is a software company with lots of engineers; the software shouldn't even allow this bug. Normal programming practices would prevent the microphone from turning on unless the call was in a connected state. The bug implies that they didn't even write basic security protections, even though they know (they make and sell telecommunication devices) that sending audio without permission is a big deal. And they didn't write code to prevent that. So probably "gross" negligence, aka, wholesale negligence; the failure to have tried to do something important you knew you were supposed to do.
Random, flailing attacks don't always put you in a better position in these types of matters.;)
You're completely "horseshit" level wrong about the words "guaranteed" and "perfect."
Overstating what is even possible to declare yourself more Virtuous than other programmers just shows you're not competent to evaluate security.
And spending a bunch of money on correctness would never get you to "guaranteed perfect." That's just a fraudulent lie; you won't find that claim in the service description if you're hiring somebody to write you a set of proofs. The proofs themselves won't even be guaranteed to be bug free.
And golly, if firmware had dozens or hundreds of lines of code, all firmware would run on 8 bit micros, and embedding programming wouldn't even involve considerations about code size.
Currently, this a known unknown. We know it matters, and we know we don't know the answer.
So any hand-waving at all is speculative. You take it a step further and jump right to pejorative attacks; is that because your English comprehension is too poor for you to understand which facts have been disclosed, and which haven't been? Or is that just a personality feature?
You should take a look at the types of misconduct that lawyers get fined for by their bar associations.
Unless it becomes a political football, "failing to take reasonable precautions" to prevent previously unknown technology bugs is not going to even get a warning, much less a fine, much less a license suspension. That is just crazy talk.
You're also forgetting the fact that the data reported is from a simulation derived from the model built from the de-identiied data, not from the input data. And the most logical implication of the list of techniques used is that all of them are used where appropriate.
But, yes, I'm assuming competence. When it comes to statisticians at Google, that's an eminently reasonable assumption.
Right, but when google management is pushing the work out into other companies that they can control, that makes me think that perhaps they made a choice to compartmentalize a different set of assumptions.
You're making assumptions about assumptions, it is not a good system for understanding. If you don't know anything, and you know that much, it would be more knowledge than you have by assumptions based on assumptions.
Right, right, I'm sure it is very insightful for people who don't know what code is even running.
And for people who do, not so much.
You seem to presume making changes while stumbling in the dark with other people's code that you don't understand, but it might not be the only state available.
But in my experience, people who instantly turn to debuggers and introspective tools when they hit a bug are not learning what the code does, so if somebody else wrote it, then they are eternally stuck in the state you describe. Whereas, people who turn to the code will possess a growing understanding of the code.
Doesn't it vary from State to State if that is even "expressly stated?" You say stuff about reading a license, but don't they ask you to agree with a yes/no button even when their software knows you've never read it?
The details might turn out to matter more than the words said while waving the hand.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't blame Apple for this, that would be like saying that IBM shouldn't have helped the Germans in the 1930s. /s
You're just waving your hands when you say it isn't direct damages.
If the person isn't suing for contract violations, that doesn't even matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No sense waving your hand at a $50 damage limit, that's has as much weight as if it wasn't even written down. And irrelevant, since it isn't a contract dispute.
We don't know the details, and you can't rule out that the harm happened but for a wrongful recording.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...
See also:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...
And:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...
It seems hard to argue that it wasn't a proximate cause without knowing the (as yet unknown) facts of the case. We don't know even know what facts are in dispute.
Yeah, well, the average idiot actually thinks "I think therefore I am" is a truism!
Whereas actually the philosophical value is in the fact that it is obviously circular and doesn't prove anything, or show any understanding of anything. And yet, nobody can come up with a better answer. So we're left with knowing we can't prove that we exist, or that we know we exist. So then there is only the comparison between believing that you think and that you are, or not believing it, and there we find a distinct difference in utility; if we believe we exist but really we don't exist, no harm done. But if we do exist and believe we don't, then we will lack motivation to succeed, and it will matter. So belief in self existence has utility, not because we think, but because we believe that we do think, and we don't have any better answer.
With software, we're not in that situation; a competent person can in fact understand why the software outputs what it outputs given a certain input. And that answer will be of mathematically-testable quality.
Here, we don't care if the robot thinks that it exists; it is without relevance. The robot is built for human purposes, it is in a very different situation than a human who exists already and wants to explain it for reasons related to our extant capabilities of interacting with our environment. The human philosophical question is internal, and everything the robot is doing is external, including the measurements about if it was "thinking" or not. You can say that it "was thinking" or that it "wasn't thinking," and nothing has changed in the externalities.
Obviously the robot can't imagine itself; that's a specious claim. But it might in fact be able to describe itself; something best done without imagination. And, incidentally, something that humans suck at.
I'm assuming the whole thing boils down a low quality automated translation of the word "imagine." But maybe, just maybe, they're really this stupid.
All the popular 8bit micros come in versions with extra UARTs. And another version with more.
All the popular micros are part of extensive lineups from lots of code space and few peripherals, to lots of peripherals and little code space. You don't change platforms for a UART.
No, I wouldn't go and google some basic shit. You're on slashdot. I'm probably a firmware programmer and I responded to your drivel because I understand the topic.
A name like that describes exactly the opposite of what I said, so if you're right and somebody did what I said and called it that, of course it wasn't popular.
But also, if you're using a system like I describe, you wouldn't actually have to care about if it is popular, because it is only the most recent wikipedia updates you wouldn't have; you'd be starting with many times more content than a full set of printed encyclopedias have. Just improving the quality of the existing content takes less work than when you have people competing to both change existing content, and add new content, such as with wikipedia. For example, a private group doing it doesn't have to allow contested deletions; they can come up with another system, like requiring the change to wait for a subject-matter expert if it is disputed, and then there is less wasted effort.
You know, before I read your comment I was thinking that a 70% top rate was reasonable, but after reading your analysis I'm thinking we should just listen to the economists and go with 86%.
No doubt all the politicians involved in this scam got their kickbacks.
True, and that has the potential to play very differently in an election compared to if they had also created a bunch of jobs.
The old argument was, "that's a horrible deal, you could generate more jobs spending the money directly." The new argument is, "you didn't even create any jobs, you were just lying to give money to China."
Republican voters love China right now, right? Right??
It is very highly unlikely that a different amount of food crops would be planted based on available land.
There is surplus agricultural land in the US. Variable crops are things like soy and corn, which, while edible, would in fact be sold as animal feed. Increasing the supply of animal feed lowers the price of that feed, which increases the amount of international investment in cattle production. Most nations do not have surplus agricultural land, and increased cattle production means less food crops being planted.
Wisconsin has world-class farm externalities, overly simplistic analysis is unlikely to capture causal relationships.
They don't get to keep the money, but they do get to keep the publicity.
The Republicans in Wisconsin also get to keep the publicity.
Everybody got to keep the same thing, but there are definite winners and losers here. ;)
Considering that most German elections are won by center-right parties, that implies some scary stuff about you and your friends.
You seem a bit confused.
Those things have to be proved, yes, but remember, in a civil case the other side has to share their information about it. After you file the suit, then the other side has to tell you if it is true or not, and give you access to whatever evidence there is.
The order is:
1) make accusation
2) receive evidence
3) prove accusation, or fail to
The paperwork filed so far in the lawsuit tells you nothing at all about if the recording happened, and until the bug was disclosed they didn't know how it happened, but knew it had happened, or if it is just speculation and they're filing the suit to force somebody to tell them if in fact the bug caused the deposition to be recorded.
When something hasn't been disclosed, that means you don't know. It doesn't mean they don't know; it only means they didn't tell you.
That is probably not relevant, because that only controls where you argue about the contract details. This isn't an argument about the contract, it as a regular accusation of harm that doesn't rely on promises from the contract.
EULA terms regulate the use and provisioning of the service, they don't regulate any and all interactions the parties might have.
The bug seems to exhibit behavior well beyond what would be reasonably expected by what was disclosed; you don't want to push too hard in the wrong direction here, claiming that the EULA is in effect, because then your disclosure of what services are provided is potentially fraudulent. Oh, you say, not fraud merely negligent, OK, but Apple is a software company with lots of engineers; the software shouldn't even allow this bug. Normal programming practices would prevent the microphone from turning on unless the call was in a connected state. The bug implies that they didn't even write basic security protections, even though they know (they make and sell telecommunication devices) that sending audio without permission is a big deal. And they didn't write code to prevent that. So probably "gross" negligence, aka, wholesale negligence; the failure to have tried to do something important you knew you were supposed to do.
Random, flailing attacks don't always put you in a better position in these types of matters. ;)
That varies widely by State.
You're completely "horseshit" level wrong about the words "guaranteed" and "perfect."
Overstating what is even possible to declare yourself more Virtuous than other programmers just shows you're not competent to evaluate security.
And spending a bunch of money on correctness would never get you to "guaranteed perfect." That's just a fraudulent lie; you won't find that claim in the service description if you're hiring somebody to write you a set of proofs. The proofs themselves won't even be guaranteed to be bug free.
And golly, if firmware had dozens or hundreds of lines of code, all firmware would run on 8 bit micros, and embedding programming wouldn't even involve considerations about code size.
They're not even capable of comprehending your point, of course they want low standards.
but unless there was an actual recording
Currently, this a known unknown. We know it matters, and we know we don't know the answer.
So any hand-waving at all is speculative. You take it a step further and jump right to pejorative attacks; is that because your English comprehension is too poor for you to understand which facts have been disclosed, and which haven't been? Or is that just a personality feature?
that does seem to imply an actual injury of some kind, which is clearly not something that software alone can do, no matter how buggy
What if financial harm caused somebody to be unable to treat a physical ailment, leaving them in pain?
That wasn't even hard. I could come up with lots more plausible scenarios.
All humans are ignorant. He admits to more ignorance than other commentators simply because he's less full of shit.
You should take a look at the types of misconduct that lawyers get fined for by their bar associations.
Unless it becomes a political football, "failing to take reasonable precautions" to prevent previously unknown technology bugs is not going to even get a warning, much less a fine, much less a license suspension. That is just crazy talk.
You're also forgetting the fact that the data reported is from a simulation derived from the model built from the de-identiied data, not from the input data. And the most logical implication of the list of techniques used is that all of them are used where appropriate.
But, yes, I'm assuming competence. When it comes to statisticians at Google, that's an eminently reasonable assumption.
Right, but when google management is pushing the work out into other companies that they can control, that makes me think that perhaps they made a choice to compartmentalize a different set of assumptions.
You're making assumptions about assumptions, it is not a good system for understanding. If you don't know anything, and you know that much, it would be more knowledge than you have by assumptions based on assumptions.
Right, right, I'm sure it is very insightful for people who don't know what code is even running.
And for people who do, not so much.
You seem to presume making changes while stumbling in the dark with other people's code that you don't understand, but it might not be the only state available.
But in my experience, people who instantly turn to debuggers and introspective tools when they hit a bug are not learning what the code does, so if somebody else wrote it, then they are eternally stuck in the state you describe. Whereas, people who turn to the code will possess a growing understanding of the code.
Doesn't it vary from State to State if that is even "expressly stated?" You say stuff about reading a license, but don't they ask you to agree with a yes/no button even when their software knows you've never read it?
The details might turn out to matter more than the words said while waving the hand.
Learn how to operate your brain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"The first thing to do is to overwhelm your focused mind."
"This is the state of the brain when it is ready to be reformed, that is, to be reprogrammed."
But of course, the most important thing is to be in control of the screens you look at.