And yet Tesla is, apparently, in the habit of giving unfettered access to its entire codebase to low-ranking coders or analysts in whose career plans and movements it has no plans to take much interest.
2349 posts • joined 25 Mar 2010
All that means is that the data was very easily available, chucked up in response to some very common back-end queries. It doesn't mean that any of those users were actively trying to get that information or that they did anything improper with it.
Of course, it does imply that it'd be very hard for FB to find out even if they did. And my bet is, they're currently trying hard not to find out.
The other EU governments know that if the UK crashes out without a deal, the rest of the Union won't last another decade, probably much less.
That's why they have been to such pains to make sure "revoke article 50" is always on the table, no matter what else happens. They think that if the choice comes down to "remain" vs "no deal", the British will choose "remain". I used to think that too, but after the last three years of EU "diplomacy" I'm not so sure.
(It's easy enough to blame this whole fiasco on Cameron, and to be sure he deserves a lot of that. But Merkel also played her part. She was the one who, first, gave the Eurosceptics a talking point by inflicting needless austerity on the Greeks, and then backed the EU to send Cameron home with his tail between his legs when he came to them for "concessions" ahead of the referendum. If the EU does go down, she'll occupy a place in history as one of the major architects of its collapse.)
There's no doubt that Brexit will result in the reunification of Ireland, so Sinn Fein should be happy.
Of course that will in turn result in more bloodshed in Ireland, and an influx of refugees, mostly to Britain. The post-Brexit government will take them in because how can they not? So everyone who voted for Brexit in the hopes of reducing, or at least controlling, immigration will find it a most spectacular own goal.
Over 2 million now. And since the site has been down persistently for the last two hours, as well as intermittently before then, it's likely that a large number of people are still trying to sign.
You're right, it's never going to outweigh the absolute number of people who voted "leave". (We'll never know how many would have signed it, if the site had decent hosting. But on the other hand, we'll also never know how many signatories are, genuinely, unique British voters, so the results would be taken with a large bag of salt anyway.) What it does suggest is that there is more, let's call it, "public concern" over this issue than over any other issue in recent history. By a margin of at least one order of magnitude, probably two.
The "manifesto" has not (yet) been banned. Ardern has (politely) asked people not to share it, but there is no crime in possessing it or even sharing it at present.
Personally I feel about it the same as about "true crime" TV: it's rather gross, rather disturbing, rather sad, and I'd rather not waste my life reading it. Specialist psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, spooks and cops might get something from it. I'm not in any of those categories, so I'll leave it to them, thanks.
If you think you are gaining understanding from it - well, just keep in mind that the killer wanted you to read it. Some of the arguments presented there may represent sincerely held beliefs, but I'll warrant that not all of them do, and I'll further bet that you can't reliably tell the difference.
That "Philip Neville Arps" is a man who, three years ago, turned up at one of these same mosques and dumped boxes of pigs' heads on the grounds, before making a Heil Hitler salute. He was quoted as saying at the time: "White power, I don't go to a mosque often, it should be f***ing molotovs."
For that event, at the time, he was fined $800.
When he heard about this attack, he posted "Excellent". So let's not waste too much time worrying about his true motives or sympathies.
There's certainly a debate to be had about the appropriate response to acts of excessive hatred that fall short of actual violence. But it's a debate, with arguments to be made on several sides. Let's not assume that "everything short of actual violence must be permitted, else you're no better than Stalin" is the only possible rational position to take. Or indeed, that it's any kind of rational position at all.
Neither Oz nor NZ are "nations", in the sense that "nationalists" understand it. They're countries. It's a different thing.
nation, n.: a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.
A "country", on the other hand, is a political unity defined by its government, not its people.
On one level, it's ironic that an Australian white nationalist chose to commit these murders in a foreign country. But once you understand what "nation" means in this context, it makes sense. (Hint: it would exclude Aborigines and Maori, as well as Muslims.)
Straw man argument. We are not forbidden from watching "for our own benefit", but for the distress and fear it is likely to cause to some innocent people who may be exposed to it, and for the aid and comfort it gives to our enemies (terrorists).
And how do you work out this is "the first time in history" people are being directly forbidden from accessing primary sources? What about, e.g., all those Isis beheading videos that have been repeatedly and systematically taken down from YouTube and elsewhere for the past five years?
It is a considerable reach to go from "classifying a video as 'objectionable'" to "the only 'true' source of information being government approved media", and you have made no attempt to justify the leap. You seem to be implying a "slippery slope" argument, without actually using the words, but you haven't said anything about either the gradient or the coefficient of friction of the slope. Without which, it's not an argument.
There's a joke that's been going around in aviation circles for a while now, that the ideal flight crew on a modern passenger jet is one pilot and one dog. The pilot is there to feed the dog, and the dog is there to bite the pilot if he tries to touch the controls.
It doesn't "determine erroneous outputs", that's kinda the whole point. It could, easily enough, calibrate the sensor while the plane is taxiing toward takeoff, when it knows for a fact that the angle of attack is zero, but apparently that wasn't deemed necessary or useful.
There's an excellent and detailed account of the whole sad ballsup here. (If you get a message about ad blocking, try revisiting with a mobile device.)
This isn't hard. Let users request what ads they want to see.
If I want to search for a job as a dental receptionist in Walla Walla, or a short-term lease on a two-bedroom apartment in Chicago, then show me all the ads relevant to my query. ALL of them, regardless of any preferences expressed by the advertiser.
Campaigning in a referendum has rules. If you break those rules, you can expect the courts to punish you. What is undemocratic about that?
In this case, the rule doesn't even relate to campaigning: it's a blanket rule that applies to everyone, all the time. It's as if a politician's tour bus had been clocked doing 60 m.p.h. down a residential road and parking across six disabled spaces. Would it be an "attack on democracy" to punish that, too?
The only way that might work is two referendums, maybe a week apart. The second one would be "should we stay or should we go?"
The first one would be "which version of 'go' should be on the ballot in next week's referendum - May's deal, or no deal?"
That would let everyone vote with their eyes open. It might even persuade a significant number of the losers to accept the result, which is the only useful purpose of referendums.
The good news is, "your view" is largely in line with most European legislation.
The bad news is, in America no-one gives a flying fart about it.
As for Brexiters, who knows what they think. If it's ever even occurred to them, my guess is that they'd be more sympathetic to the American view.
if you really, really want to keep using obsolete kit, then fine, carry on. But I venture to suggest, that doesn't apply to all that many people, and supporting exclusively those people - sounds like a very small market niche.
Me, I'm feeling more smug than ever about my decision to install 8.1. Seriously, it's probably the last "good" Windows version.
"Business as usual", you might say.
But really, it isn't. This kind of perpetual grandstanding is a relatively new phenomenon. As recently as the Clinton administration, legislators were capable of working together to actually legislate about things. (Usually the wrong things, but that's extra.)
I blame 24 hour news, and Newt Gingrich. In that order. (24 hour news created the climate in which every viewer thinks they're some kind of fucking expert on everything they watch, and Gingrich weaponised that mass-Dunning-Kruger-effect to create the attitude that bipartisanship is basically treason. But if he hadn't done it, someone else would have. It's mostly crap journalism that got us here. Unfortunately, the WWW actively penalises every other kind.)
To be fair, it's also harder for a human driver to see a dark skinned pedestrian at night. I'm trying not to be racist here, but I don't see any way around that.
Unless it's telling people what my parents told me, as a pasty-faced child - to wear light-coloured clothing when I went out at night. Yep, that's right - I'm blaming the victims. If you walk into the road without taking reasonable precautions both to check for traffic and to make sure that drivers can see you, then I'm sorry but that's Darwinism at work.
Financial advice, I am convinced, is obfuscated on purpose. It's job security for the whole industry of financial planners and fund managers,none of whom are doing anything you couldn't easily do for yourself if only you could bring yourself to learn what it is.
IT security is probably often in the same boat. It's really not that hard, but if users realise that, sysadmins will lose a portion of their power.
No. Statements of opinion are not slanderous, no matter how well or poorly founded or thought out they may be.
In addition, statements can only be slanderous (or libellous) if it is possible to identify who they are referring to, and the person/group in question is small enough and clearly enough defined that it can credibly be described as potentially affecting their reputation.
"Steviebuk is a tit" - statement of opinion, fine.
"No commentard has an IQ above 85" - a large and vaguely defined group, fine.
"veti has an IQ below 85" - framed as a statement of fact, directed at a specific person - potentially actionable, except that even under UK law you can't libel yourself...
Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Ireland - basically, most of northern Europe is still reasonably healthy. I'm pretty sure all of those countries have at least a couple of decently equipped conference venues.
No shortage of options, if you want to move. Frankly I can't imagine why anyone would try to organise an international event in the USA nowadays.
The mere fact that someone like Torshin even emailed her at all is enough to cast serious doubt on her "innocent student trying to form bonds with Americans" story.
It's like a random American student in Russia receiving an email from John Bolton. Wouldn't that look kinda suspicious?
If you were really interested in critiquing the WaPo story, you could have linked directly to it. Among other things, that would have told your readers who the heck this 'Torshin' guy is, which is something I doubt more than one American in a thousand would know off the top of their head.
Nah, nobody believes there's spyware in the inverters. (For one thing, what would they spy on, exactly? How much do you think that data is worth to Huawei or the Chinese gov't - enough to risk losing such a market? Yeah, right.)
This is just plain old-fashioned protectionism. American firms have complained that Huawei's kit is better and cheaper than theirs, so please to stop it from competing with them.
Of course they've been doing that for years, but pre-Trump, senators (as a group) mostly believed in commercial competition and told them "if the competition's product is better than yours, that's the market's way of telling you to make a better product". Now, it's all about "protect American jobs, no matter that they're making worthless tat that just can't hack it unless the market is rigged".
You're saying that we need to understand exactly what intelligence is, before we can create it?
Counterpoint: your mother.
I have yet to see anyone define intelligence in any form that holds water past a couple of rounds of analysis, and so I'm not willing to dismiss AI as readily as some people who seem to believe that intelligence is some kind of magic that's inherently impossible to create.
That rollout cost is - not very well audited, I think would be the polite way to put it.
The actual meter costs well under £100. The only way to get to £374 is to include the cost of calibrating, testing, installing and certifying it. But the thing is - you'd have to do that with a dumb meter as well, if you were replacing it, and meters do have to be replaced every so often anyway - so it's more than a little dishonest to count all that money as "the cost of a smart meter'.
Or you could, y'know, ask someone.
Here in New Zealand, it costs about $6 to get a routine manual meter read - that is to say, one where the reader just stops by on his usual daily round. (Out of cycle reads cost more like $20-25.) That compares with the cost of a smart meter, which is about $4/month more than a dumb one, so there's an immediate saving there.
But more importantly, there's a much bigger saving in reducing uncertainty. Because if the meter reader can't get at your meter one visit (for whatever reason - hey, it happens all the time) - then it's going to be a full month before he gets round there again. If he misses two, three in a row, the errors in estimation stack up surprisingly quickly. With a smart meter you get a read every day, so there's much less uncertainty bumming around.
Yes, meter makers and owners love it, of course they do. Customers don't appreciate it so much. But you know what customers really hate? Estimated bills. If you don't have smart meters, you need to employ a whole department whose job is to do nothing all day but listen sympathetically to customers whinging about how their bills are 'wrong". It's worth it just to shut those fuckers up.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019