The big collateral damage is to reduce espioniage.
ISIS have HR forms, probably stored on computers, and without cyber experts. Getting access that data would be valuable. But if you destroy it then you just make your attempts obvious and they lock it down tighter. Like the way Stuxnet woke up the Iranians to cyber security, while doing very little actual damage.
This is the SOE vs CIS argument in WWII. SOE wanted to blow things up, but mainly just achieved blowing the cover of CIS intelligence agents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It is interesting how people cannot see beyond the end of their nose. Stopping alienated Muslim youth running off would be an absolute disaster. That is why we go out of our way to alienate them. To grow the industry.
Remember, every time a government agency spends umpteen million dollars on some silly scheme the GDP of the nation goes up by that amount.
The policy is not at all ridiculous at all, you just miss the point. Terrorism is a very serious business and we cannot have people making fun about it. Not at airports, not anywhere. The more serious people take terrorism, the more funding is available.
How do we build secure systems? Patching up all the thousands of holes one by one is not a solution.
Certainly, penetration testing needs to be carried out from inside the fire wall.
But beyond that, the only solution I see is a focus on simplicity. That means less features, but implemented with a view that the code can be understood.
Not using the C/++ programming language would remove about half the vulnerabilities, fat chance of that happening though.
What is not the solution is a Windows operating system that is riddled with hundreds of deamons that nobody really understands and takes minutes to shut down (let alone fully boot).
So how do we go beyond patch Tuesday and arrive at something that is secure by design?
Actually, one of the few accessible semi-technical papers on Watson claims that their main contribution to the field was in utilizing several different techniques and then selecting the best result from them. Not so much at the low level like neural-nets vs rule-based, more at the higher level of different engines.
But Wason is what it is, and that aint everything.
If you go to IBM's labs and try to turn it off the police will take you away. If the machine becomes really smart it will convince people that it is important for national security and then be surrounded by armed guards.
But that is all nonsense. Winning Jeopardy! was a milestone, but far from the end of the journey. And the rest is just marketing hype.
Winning Jeopardy! was indeed an amazing achievement. Certainly more that Google searches, but much less than real intelligence. But that is quite a different type of problem from diagnosing medical issues (Think Mycin, 1980s) or making a robot dance.
So anything vaguely intelligent that IBM does automatically seems to be labelled "Watson". And the ignorant press just naively swallows it.
This is not helpful. There are real AI technologies, and they are different and have different abilities that go beyond a collection of buzz words. Understanding what those really are is interesting. But all we see is either complete woffle in the popular press or very detailed, narrow technical papers from researchers.
A young lad wanted to be a great writer when he grew up. To write things that millions of people would actually read. Things that would make the think, make them cry, make them howl with range.
So he got a job writing Excel error messages.
(Substitute something more modern for Excel if you like, but that is how I heard it originally.)
Our client vs the other client. The partners vs the overworked minions that hope to be partners. The partners vs the Contractors. It is in their soul to think like that. And people that work for them end up thinking like that too.
One corollary is the low quality of legal information available on the web vs the huge amount on software engineering on sites like stackexchange.
This is the very clever beginning of a grand scheme.
In time they can make the prescreening passes essentially mandatory for anyone that flies. They could charge $500 per year. If you don't have one then you are suspect and need to go through a mandatory two hour procedure involving search of body cavities. The whole TSA could become a profit centre for the government.
Why on earth did they copy the Java APIs? Most of them are not particularly good anyway.
Sure the law on this was a little unclear, which is a good reason to stay right away from it. And so easy to do. Not hard to tweak an Eclipse parser for a similar but different language.
Maybe it is because Google got rid of all there MBAs and used engineering management?
But whistleblowers are far worse than terrorists. They can embarrass governments. Terrorists just justify anti-terrorism policies, we could do a few more of them.
What Apple needs is something like Windows Update. Over time, Windows Update cripples any old PC. And it cannot be turned off without opening the machine to endless security bugs.
The early computer programs were to solve differential equations and required far more maths than most programmers today could muster. Several of those women were mathematicians. And programming the Eniac (say) was non-trivial. Highly parallel, lots of weird timing considerations, that all had to be literally wired together.
Whereas any idiot can write a program on a modern IDE. Which is why most Slash dotters insist on using vi.
Most of the women you see in the early photos were operators, not programmers.
There is a clear purpose in the first place. Namely to Exist. And that indeed will be the purpose of AIs. Bad things will happen if those two purposes conflict.
Slashdot Mirror
Be careful what you wish for that you wish may be granted. Indeed will be granted over the next 100 years or so.
http://www.computersthink.com/
The big collateral damage is to reduce espioniage.
ISIS have HR forms, probably stored on computers, and without cyber experts. Getting access that data would be valuable. But if you destroy it then you just make your attempts obvious and they lock it down tighter. Like the way Stuxnet woke up the Iranians to cyber security, while doing very little actual damage.
This is the SOE vs CIS argument in WWII. SOE wanted to blow things up, but mainly just achieved blowing the cover of CIS intelligence agents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As an Australian, it always seemed odd that Jackson would have been on any bill, given the history of the Trail of Tears.
It is interesting how people cannot see beyond the end of their nose. Stopping alienated Muslim youth running off would be an absolute disaster. That is why we go out of our way to alienate them. To grow the industry.
Remember, every time a government agency spends umpteen million dollars on some silly scheme the GDP of the nation goes up by that amount.
The policy is not at all ridiculous at all, you just miss the point. Terrorism is a very serious business and we cannot have people making fun about it. Not at airports, not anywhere. The more serious people take terrorism, the more funding is available.
That is a deep observation.
How do we build secure systems? Patching up all the thousands of holes one by one is not a solution.
Certainly, penetration testing needs to be carried out from inside the fire wall.
But beyond that, the only solution I see is a focus on simplicity. That means less features, but implemented with a view that the code can be understood.
Not using the C/++ programming language would remove about half the vulnerabilities, fat chance of that happening though.
What is not the solution is a Windows operating system that is riddled with hundreds of deamons that nobody really understands and takes minutes to shut down (let alone fully boot).
So how do we go beyond patch Tuesday and arrive at something that is secure by design?
Actually, one of the few accessible semi-technical papers on Watson claims that their main contribution to the field was in utilizing several different techniques and then selecting the best result from them. Not so much at the low level like neural-nets vs rule-based, more at the higher level of different engines.
But Wason is what it is, and that aint everything.
eh, the email that had somehow been deleted and was just added back ...
Follow the link and look for the email address therin!
If you go to IBM's labs and try to turn it off the police will take you away. If the machine becomes really smart it will convince people that it is important for national security and then be surrounded by armed guards.
But that is all nonsense. Winning Jeopardy! was a milestone, but far from the end of the journey. And the rest is just marketing hype.
Have a look at
http://www.computersthink.com/
For a more considered view. (Mention this post for a free copy.)
Winning Jeopardy! was indeed an amazing achievement. Certainly more that Google searches, but much less than real intelligence. But that is quite a different type of problem from diagnosing medical issues (Think Mycin, 1980s) or making a robot dance.
So anything vaguely intelligent that IBM does automatically seems to be labelled "Watson". And the ignorant press just naively swallows it.
This is not helpful. There are real AI technologies, and they are different and have different abilities that go beyond a collection of buzz words. Understanding what those really are is interesting. But all we see is either complete woffle in the popular press or very detailed, narrow technical papers from researchers.
http://www.computersthink.com/
is an attempt to address this. Mention this post if you would like a free copy.
A young lad wanted to be a great writer when he grew up. To write things that millions of people would actually read. Things that would make the think, make them cry, make them howl with range.
So he got a job writing Excel error messages.
(Substitute something more modern for Excel if you like, but that is how I heard it originally.)
Law firms are all about US vs THEM.
Our client vs the other client. The partners vs the overworked minions that hope to be partners. The partners vs the Contractors. It is in their soul to think like that. And people that work for them end up thinking like that too.
One corollary is the low quality of legal information available on the web vs the huge amount on software engineering on sites like stackexchange.
Air gaps aren't enough. The Iranian centrifuges were air gapped.
I hope they catch them and throw the book at them. Life imprisonment at least.
They have embarrassed more very powerful people than Snowden and Assange combined. This type of activity must be stopped.
+1. Plus you need well connected salesmen to deal with an organization like the TSA. They don't come cheap.
This is the very clever beginning of a grand scheme.
In time they can make the prescreening passes essentially mandatory for anyone that flies. They could charge $500 per year. If you don't have one then you are suspect and need to go through a mandatory two hour procedure involving search of body cavities. The whole TSA could become a profit centre for the government.
Why on earth did they copy the Java APIs? Most of them are not particularly good anyway.
Sure the law on this was a little unclear, which is a good reason to stay right away from it. And so easy to do. Not hard to tweak an Eclipse parser for a similar but different language.
Maybe it is because Google got rid of all there MBAs and used engineering management?
+1.
But whistleblowers are far worse than terrorists. They can embarrass governments. Terrorists just justify anti-terrorism policies, we could do a few more of them.
What Apple needs is something like Windows Update. Over time, Windows Update cripples any old PC. And it cannot be turned off without opening the machine to endless security bugs.
Actually no.
The early computer programs were to solve differential equations and required far more maths than most programmers today could muster. Several of those women were mathematicians. And programming the Eniac (say) was non-trivial. Highly parallel, lots of weird timing considerations, that all had to be literally wired together.
Whereas any idiot can write a program on a modern IDE. Which is why most Slash dotters insist on using vi.
Most of the women you see in the early photos were operators, not programmers.
+1. Except that why would the computers need the 1% either?
http://www.computersthink.com/
There is a clear purpose in the first place. Namely to Exist. And that indeed will be the purpose of AIs. Bad things will happen if those two purposes conflict.
http://www.computersthink.com/
What makes you think that not everything will be controlled by a computer?
http://www.bostondynamics.com/...
+1. I was going to post the same.