Re: If they ever shut down Trump's account
I'd hoped that when the Secret Service took his phone away to secure it, they'd install a fake Twitter app that didn't actually broadcast ... They could even have hooked up a few AI bots to argue with him!
92 posts • joined 14 Jan 2010
I'd hoped that when the Secret Service took his phone away to secure it, they'd install a fake Twitter app that didn't actually broadcast ... They could even have hooked up a few AI bots to argue with him!
Oh dear. Should be inversely proportional to the SQUARE of the distance between them.
Have you seen it?
It's definitely not a reboot (which I have as little love for as you, by the way - BSG excepted). And the story is definitely not the same as the original. I kept trying to predict the twists, based on movies in general and the original in particular, and failed almost every time.
I suppose you could say the pace is slow - at least for the first half. I very much liked it, and thought it worked well, but that's a matter of preference.
Bear in mind also that if you don't like the direction (I did), Ridley Scott was little more than an executive producer.
Still, in the interests of balance, it's interesting to see my first poor review of 2049.
Sorry AC, but it's worse than that. In money purchase schemes, you pay an excessive amount to the fund managers - in some cases, if you've left a company after only a few years, these fees can actually wipe out your entire fund in short order ...
Ex pensions actuary here ... Lee is spot on. His figures, while based on a couple of naive assumptions, are very close to the more sophisticated actuarial figures. Final salary pensions are completely unsustainable, as younger employees are starting to find (government cuts, pay cuts if you're employed by the government, etc. in large part to finance final salary obligations).
However, what are we going to do about it? Either we carry on paying generous entitlements and the country goes bust - or we go to money purchase pensions, which most non-government employers have already done, and our pensioners can't afford to survive. (This gets even worse when you consider the housing crisis, and the number of future pensioners who will be renting at exhorbitant prices.)
We need an entirely different solution, and I for one haven't heard a good one that seems likely to work. Although I do think Basic Income has a chance.
This occurs in actual journals - somewhere in "Bad Pharma" Ben Goldacre gives an example of a "fact" that was taken as gospel for years because one person got a journal to publish some poor-quality science, a few slightly more reputable people referenced it, then more and more people referenced *those* articles - a snowball effect resulting in the "fact" being "known" by everybody in the field.
Wasn't there also something written as a joke on Wikipedia, picked up by a national newspaper in the 10 minutes before it was reverted, then reinstated on Wikipedia using said national newspaper as a reference?
So, people must learn not to just trust one source, but to seek out many sources and make their own minds up.
Many sources ... of course. Why on earth would you then seek to remove - or at least relegate - one as thorough as Snopes?
I use many sources including Snopes and, if so inclined for the topic in question, follow their links and research their statements. This is made harder, not easier, if Snopes is gone. We know that all sources are biased, which is why good research involves many.
By the way, years ago, the only newspaper in my employer's lunchroom was the Sun (I was on minimum wage and couldn't afford my own). Even in such a poorly-researched and heavily-biased newspaper, I learned how to parse articles for the facts behind them. Snopes is a much better tool for this.
deciding what is 'fact' or 'fake'
Have you ever read Snopes? Their articles explain their reasoning, provide sources, and evaluate the extent and validity of their assessment. It's not just the headline "True/False" gif.
Alternatively, give the car a short, sharp tap with your finger. This gives a greater surface area for the charge to flow through than if you just brush or lightly touch the metal, thus spreading out the current, and reducing the amount through each individual nerve.
Am I the only one who first thought this was a political reference to helping the Maybot win an election?
"Terry 6", our Prime Minister in 2030 after this one's been to the repair shop a few times
Yet another Black Mirror episode coming true!
The Chernobyl radiation monitors:
(1) Run Windows *
(2) Aren't patched
(3) Are Internet-enabled???
* Not bashing Windows (today), but you should not be using a general purpose operating system for any safety-critical systems, and certainly not for nuclear power plants - especially those which have the rather poor  historical safety record of Chernobyl!
** Entirely apt icon use
Donald Trump: "Who's this Julian fellow?"
Jared Kushner: "He's a paranoid nutjob."
Donald Trump: "Great! Make him secretary of state."
Well said. I'd only add that you need SOME initial instruction - animals have the urge to survive, and hunger feels unpleasant so they eat to sate it. An AI gamer needs to be able to identify a goal (eg "more points") and associate that positively.
Once you can start with only "I must win" and "this tells me if I'm winning", and learn how to win, I'd argue that's the goal that MS claim to have achieved.
Also the name of a decent Swedish black metal band.
... why Labour would be dreadful if they were beholden to the Scottish ....
... but Tories are just dandy when they're beholden to the Irish ...?
Seriously, that's your problem? Human artists can only see visible light - a much bigger worry!
I've no problem sending artists, but at least give them a few bees and snakes to broaden their spectrum to UV and IR as well. And preferably some space whales - apparently they can see radio frequencies.
It's really simple if you don't want to be profiled. Just use a separate email for each program you watch.
And, next year, a separate license fee.
I honestly thought I was being overly paranoid by using cash rather than plastic. I mean, sure, technically a shop could record my card info and cross-reference my purchases, but they wouldn't actually do that, would they?
Farcial recognition </joke> is equally scary, but when Tesco tried to introduce that at the tills, I recall a public backlash followed by a "Sorry, we promise we won't do that after all. Or if we do, it definitely won't be surreptitious and for evil purposes."
I really wish we could actually make our own choices. Some of us (probably a minority of people but a majority of commentards) would happily pay slightly higher prices to avoid being profiled.
I still use MP3, for compatibility reasons. I have a lot of music from ages ago in MP3, I have no idea where some of it came from so that's not going to change. The rest of my music is all encoded in FLAC on my NAS box - but FLAC is way too big for an SD card, so I copy all of that to MP3 in a "lo-fi" folder.
Even today, MP3 is the only format you can rely on being able to play on an arbitrary device (certain early Sony players excepted). I'll only get proper equipment that plays FLAC, OGG, etc - but you've always got those friends who insist on using some weird device and then moans that it's not compatible with your standards-compliant kit.
(Yes, I'm looking at you, Apple.)
What evidence do the police have? And before you say 'none' think carefully first and if that fails, site your verifiable sources
That's not how it works. Innocent until proven guilty; it's the obligation of the prosecution's side (that includes you today) to provide the evidence. Verifiable sources of somebody's innocence are not needed until there is verifiable evidence of their guilt.
Or at least - that's not how it used to work.
Use a CD writer, that's how I got my chest scan images. No need for any networking at all.
And don't use Windows. Or, in fact, any operating system most people have heard of. No version of Windows is rated for mission-critical use, in fact many EULAs specify that the software shouldn't be used for anything that can't be allowed to fail (I'm sure I have a DVD player somewhere that explicitly indemnifies the producers if it's installed in nuclear weapons). Windows is a general-purpose operating system, suitably (barely) for a GP's office but not for medical equipment.
Seriously - are people still opening unexpected attachments?
Or, are they still using Microsoft email programs?
Buffer overflow bugs aren't going anywhere, and miscreants will continue to find more. But this is tantamount to rolling out the red carpet for them.
I didn't like the way AC expressed themself, but yeah. Trump is a terrible president, acting more and more as though Nixon is his rolemodel, and this was obvious a year ago - all the DNC had to do was present a candidate more palatable than Trump. And somehow they failed!
"I don't think anyone actually cares whether we borrow money or not."
A thoughtful and lucid answer. YOU WILL BE DESTROYED!
But seriously, I wish you were right. Many people DO care about the borrowing, national debt, etc. as a thing. It's not a thing; it's a couple of numbers, and the economy for real people isn't about some esoteric national financial budgeting deal, it's about whether you can afford to live a decent life, and whether those around you can do so without resorting to crime that affects you.
Unfortunately the Tories and their masters' newspapers have convinced people otherwise. Online and in person, I've heard LOTS of people tell me that the deficit is the most important thing to them - even though most don't understand the difference between structural deficit and national debt.
So now that the Tories have reframed the debate into one of whether we can balance the books, they can win the debate. Of course they have shown over 7 years that they can't balance the books, but as long as they and the Mail say they can, they win enough votes (eg 37%) to inflict their "tax cuts for the rich, austerity for the masses" ideology.
Remember the pre "strong and stable" days? Every time Dave wanted to spend money on his mates, he'd tell us it was possible because we had a strong economy. Every time he wanted to take money away from the plebs, he'd tell us we couldn't afford it because of the mess Labour had left us in.
Labour - and indeed anybody else - struggle to fight this tide, as they talk about what we will spend money on. If Labour pledge a single pound, the Tories fight back with their "where is the money coming from" mantra, amplified by the twin megaphones of Dacre and Murdoch.
As I understand it, that's exactly what already happens.
The TV license tax mess is ridiculous. The amount is set by the Government, not the BBC. Its applicability (eg no fee for over-75s) is decided by the Government. However, the BBC are legally responsible for collection and enforcement.
The money goes to HMRC or whatever they're called this week, and gets dumped into general revenue. Then the government decide how much to give to the BBC, and other broadcasters - meaning the BBC front the money to collect, but don't benefit directly from the income. The amount given out to broadcasters is independent of the amount brought in from the tax.
The license fee has for years been incorrectly and derogatorily called a "tax", mainly by competitors (other broadcasters such as Sky, and other news outlets such as Murdoch's papers), but it was formally reclassified as a tax in 2006 for no other reason than to classify non-payment as tax evasion.
In the Crown Dependencies (I'm originally from Guernsey), it was legally questionable whether payment was necessary. Now that it's a tax that goes to the UK government, it's almost certainly a breach of some law or other to demand payment. As people have pointed out, it's a regressive tax - just like the poll tax or its rebranded name of council tax.
And of course, Crapita. Need I say more?
For the record, I'm very much in favour of the BBC, and I paid my license fee voluntarily for years when iPlayer didn't require it. But the collection has gone from bad (under the BBC) to awful (under Capita). Raise income tax by 1p or whatever; the low-paid get an instant £145 boost to pay, we can sack Capita and let HMRC's collectors sort it all out, saving the BBC a stackload of cash, and there will be no political changes - the BBC will be just as much under the thumb of whoever wins in June as they are now.
I strongly disagree with the principle you're espousing here.
However, you did it so well, I couldn't help but laugh, so have an upvote!
When my bank calls me, I never talk to them, I always politely hang up, then call them back from the number printed on my card (not their website - it could be hacked).
This should be ABSOLUTELY standard. "Good morning Mr X, this is HSBC. We need to talk to your urgently about your account. Please call us back on the number on the back of your card at your earliest convenience."
But no, when I refuse to give out my security information to an unverified rep from a blocked number, and insist on calling back, they just don't get it. One of my favourite lines was "I guarantee I'm really from the bank. I wouldn't lie to you about that."
The automated smoking announcements are annoying. I do love, however, the announcements that say "Passengers are reminded that smoking is not permitted anywhere on the station, especially at the end of Platform 3. This applied to everybody, including four teenage girls wearing hoodies."
Still wondering how a publication which relies solely on advertising money - AND knows that its main userbase uses probably, on average, more than 1 ad-blocker - survives...
I've seen this before ...
An excellent episode of Black Mirror. But don't watch it alone - you need somebody's arms to cry into at the end in despair for humanity.
Which is how I feel after following that FB link. Thanks so much Register...
Judge people on their choices. You don't get to choose your age, race, sex, or intelligence.
You do choose how informed you are. At the top of the political game, regardless of your intelligence and background, things like information, expertise and education are not in short supply; whether you make use of them is your choice, and choosing to remain ignorant should be the political deadly sin. Shame it's not.
The worst recent change Imo is capitalising only the first letter of acronyms, which I first noticed on the Bbc. Idk why they do that.
"a user interface element can't be clicked or keyed when it has only just appeared on the screen"
This exists. When installing extensions in Firefox, the install window needs focus for a couple of seconds before the "Install" button will activate. Until then it sits there greyed out - just long enough so you can't accidentally click to install malicious software, but not quite long enough to annoy you. Very well designed, but nobody else seems to have copied them.
Works with maths too. "I'm bad at maths" or "I hated maths at school" is a badge of honour for many people.
I strongly believe that not only should "none of the above" be an option on the ballot, but it should be a returnable candidate. If we have the choice between a racist Purple Party candidate and an idiotic Yellow Party candidate, and "none" receives more votes, we have chosen to not be represented by either muppet and should leave an empty seat in the House of Commons (or wherever).
Look at the 2012 PCC elections - average turnout 15% (2016 wasn't much better). Did we really vote for Mr Plod to be the police commissioner in our county? Or did we in fact not want an elected police commissioner? Spoiled papers are not counted in calculating winning scores, but are counted in turnout calculations, since whoever wins can claim a stronger "mandate" if the turnout was high - but even in the weakest turnout, government claims to have the full support of the people.
FPTP turns this from a mockery into a farce. In every constituency across the country, exactly 51% of people vote Party A and 49% of people vote Party B. To any sensible person, this sounds like a compromise situation: give slightly more than half the seats to Party A. But to Westminster, this means Party A gets all the seats and Party B collapses like a flan in a cupboard.
This isn't a theoretical extreme, either. 2015 general election: Tories get 36.9% of the vote, 24.5% of the electorate (on a 66.4% turnout), giving them 50.8% of MPs (actually slightly more due to Sinn Féin not taking up their seats) and 100% of the cabinet. And don't even get me started on the 2010 Lib Dems' "kingmaker" debacle...
Panic as the trojan hands control of airport security to terrorist group du jour.
Very interesting, thanks for pointing that out. The cryptomaths is beyond me, but I assume the abstract is supported. It's a very surprising and counterintuitive result.
This is obviously of interest on The Register, but is it actually interesting more generally?
I remember when the very first hash collision was identified, being astonished that it had ever been considered impossible. As several commentards have pointed out, if the hash is smaller than the document, then OBVIOUSLY collision exist (whether or not you can find them in less than 10^n years).
On a separate note, surely you could just use separate hashes. Finding a collision on one algorithm is difficult; finding documents which collide on five or six would be near-impossible.
"how does a 3rd party tell the difference between a mistake and malicious intent sans a confession?"
Various methods - "reasonable doubt" and "a jury of your peers" spring to mind.
I suggest we take amanfrommars' opinions on this very seriously. As the only example I know of an ordinary chatbot that has achieved sentience, it has a very personal stake in this, and a unique perspective - albeit one so stratospherically removed from human understanding that we would need a Rosetta Stone /and/ Sherlock Holmes to understand.
It's called a cargo-cult.
Once I had a cardboard monitor lizard from an 80s computer magazine sellotaped to the top of my monitor.
My brother went a different route - he had a minotaur.
Sounds like an AI to me!
Makes sense to restrict an experimental sentient machine's access to I/O. I'd leave it running for a while, then freeze-dry its memory and inspect in a virtual machine. In a Faraday cage. In a bunker 10 miles down.
I'm a school science teacher, and I've cultivated plenty of these. My favourites include hitting Ctrl+Shift+T when a student quickly closes a browser window while doing "research", and Ctrl+W if they're not fast enough to close it.
I have what adults generally call "great mental arithmetic", but children perceive as "witchcraft"; and until presentation pointers became commonplace, I could wow students by progressing a presentation by clicking my fingers (my other hand, of course, being in my jacket pocket).
And a few years ago, when Acer included a simple button (not a Fn+button) to turn off Wi-Fi, I received several phone calls from friends and relatives who couldn't connect to the Internet. They were pretty freaked out when the first thing I said was just "Press the button with the red light on the top-right of your laptop"...
Only if the packets have mass in the first place, i.e. you're using electronic communication.
Using optical communications means the packets always have zero mass, no matter what you do to them. But it also means they're stuck at the speed of light, meaning that actual, real, meaningful, important laws (laws of physics) restrict their speed, so they're immune to regulation.
Yeah, as a teacher I can see his train of thought:
"Oh, that's my break time gone while I fix it, cos there's no chance if I call IT"
"Maybe I can fix it in class, I'll give the kid a spare in the meantime so he can get on with his work"
"Here you - oh you've fixed it already! I wish all my students were like this..."
"Their mistake was handing him more power than even traditional Prussian absolutism allowed a Chancellor."
Not exactly. Hitler stole that power. His party didn't win a majority, but used thugs and mercenaries to prevent the opposition from turning up to the Reichstag to vote against his "Enabling Act" (the first step toward martial law).
Proof that you don't need popular support, or even a Parliamentary majority, to destroy a country. Just enough people who don't stand against you.
"We really should try and elect honest, competent, morally and ethically principled political leaders, shouldn't we?"
And where in Toyland does one find such a creature?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017