"AI" = Fake News daily
Shoddy and generally useless research does not merit a press release. Wake me up when Winter starts.
421 posts • joined 11 Jul 2007
The sting used the IRA's own tax details to confirm that the ad buyer was who it said it was. Google accepted these.
The sting used images and text already known to have originated with the IRA operation. Again, no problem for Google. No filters were tripped.
In fact, Google said "Great stuff guys" and even chose a picture to make the ads more wonderful.
Whenever Google PR says, "Look over there, Oracle!" you know they've really fscked up.
"But eventually he came around to the idea, although continued to defend what he saw as his intellectual property."
An author's work is by law very much his own IP, and it's recognised as such as a human right. What Harlan saw or imagined has nothing to do with it. Harlan defended his author's rights like a bulldog.
Sorry to see The Register's prejudices spoil an otherwise well written and affectionate obituary.
"During the initial Galileo negotiations one EU member insisted on a clause excluding non-EU states from access to certain capabilities of the system. Would you like to have a guess which one it was?"
Let me guess. Is it one with a powerful space lobby, a history of shafting the UK, and a lot of runny cheese?
I would not want to make the case that the market is truly competitive. In many places it is not.
But if the broadband market is competitive enough to support a $30 premium giving the consumers nothing but a promise, then the market does not need Title II regulation. Supporters of Title II argued that ISPs have oligopolistic power but the 2015 Order did not actually say they did.
If the market is not competitive then the $30 is simply a tax on consumers. Logic does not seem much in evidence here.
"The Pai order was based on zero evidence, and no public support. Nothing had changed since 2015. Thus the change was 'arbitrary and capricious', and as such, is not a valid change. "
2015 was the aberration. Many people wanted net neutrality not the whole of Title II (with huge chunks of "forebearance" like price control). We're back to where the internet was 1993-2015.
You need to follow your opponents arguments more closely if you are going to rebut them effectively.
That even one person was "duped" by a Twitter Putinbot? You should have a look at what these accounts were Tweeting. Most couldn't even spell "Clinton" correctly. Let alone "Hillary".
People who thought HRC evil had already made up their minds. This is one conspiracy that seems completely implausible. (But perhaps not to journalists).
" So how is this going to work now with TOR, the dark web, foreign registrars and hosting sites?"
Are you suggesting we shouldn't try and do anything about it, just because it is On The Internet? Or that until there's international agreement, nobody should do anything at all?
You seem to have conflated "difficult" with "impossible", which is very convenient if you're a sex trafficker.
Johnson's original quote:
"And yes – once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350 million per week. It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS, provided we use that cash injection to modernise and make the most of new technology."
"[Boris] is technically right: the UK will take back control of £350m which it could, if it chose, apply wholly to the National Health Service."
Do you see the problem here?
The ONS thought he was saying something else. Jane then waffles on, padding out the word count by giving The Register what it wanted, presumably, some Boris-bashing.
"Pointing to the small print – to the scale on the left, to the explanatory footnote – simply will not do. "
It is quite sufficient here since the ONS misread Johnson's quote, or didn't read it at all.
Post-truth journalism. Orwell would be proud.
"probably due to factors such as the tendency towards an abysmal work-life balance (all work- no life), pointless hyper-competitiveness, and extreme greed of the vultures. The net effect is to create a hostile work place not just for women but also many men who value an outside life"
Damore made this point. If he had said there were cultural reasons for sane, well rounded human beings to avoid working in Silicon Valley no one would have noticed. Instead he tried "because science" and it triggered the lynch mob. I don't think group biological differences should be used to justify prejudice, but then nobody here seriously does - this is a straw man. Damore could have made his point differently.
So no, Google has not had a good week. But then neither has El Reg.
"Nonsense. Books, radio, TV and CDs were easy to copy and didn't contain DRM, yet artists (and especially publishing companies) still made billions of dollars with them. "Piracy" is an overblown problem."
Try talking to some people write books or make TV programmes. Even Graham Linehan went ballistic when his C4 show was Torrented before it had been broadcast.
Some of us predicted what would happen to culture if you didn't fix piracy - welcome the world of Kardashians and clickbait.
If my Auntie had balls she'd be my Uncle.
"Looks like" doesn't cut it. Encryption has not been banned in the UK. The UK has reserved the right to punch a hole in it whenever it wants to, and it will probably be unsuccessful.
This is a disturbing development, but not a surprising one.
Are you confusing the Universal Service Fund which has been around for years and which subsidises voice services, every the Connect Broadband initiatives, an Obama initiative that gives money to Telcos to provide broadband?
You are right that Big Telco collected money from consumers and spent it very efficiently creating voice services. Then it collected money from the taxpayer and spent it very inefficiently on broadband. It kept quite a bit along the way for itself.
But both funds are a drop in the ocean compared to the $1 trillion spent on internet infrastructure privately. Do you think the public owns this private infrastructure? Maybe you don't, but I see this argument being used to justify government control, as if the taxpayer paid for everything. Perhaps you can clarify.
"The sci-fi scenarios are mostly over, too. We’re already seeing the backlash articles as it slides into Gartner’s trough of disillusionment."
"It’ll emerge from the other side of that, too, and be met by a sensible base of programmers who understand its capabilities, and how to use it."
This usually happens about 20 years later.
"At that point, it’ll be making its way into business tools without anyone having to slap a label on it, and delivering significant benefits. Then, the real magic will happen."
Don't stop believin'
Hold onto the feelin'
"It is hard to imagine the TCO of Linux has gone up" etc
Linux is still sufficiently different that it is unfamiliar to 99 per cent of the population.
Of those 99 per cent maybe a third in my experience won't need the training at all, they are smart and figure stuff out. That still leaves two thirds asking the dumbest questions.
Retraining is a fact. It isn't a judgement on Linux being any harder to use than Windows or Mac - we know well configured and locked down isn't harder to use. It just that's Linux is different. Anything different causes problems.
"Although DeepStack’s opponents aren’t the best poker players, the result is still impressive"
As other commentards have pointed out, poker is a lot less complicated than Chess, and a computer can beat a human at Chess. If you make the goalposts wide enough, you can't fail to score.
This is more PR masquerading as "news". Where do I need to go to find someone Biting The Hand That Feeds AI?
* IT wages will go up
* Manufacturing exports will increase
* We rebalance the economy away from The City - maybe
And yet all the author can do is whinge about the possibility that angel slices might get more expensive. Might being the operative word, as the competitive retail market has absorbed most of the wholesale price rises so far.
No tech angle here, just clickbait for Remoaners.
Which part of "there is no plan" did you not understand?
All of it apparently. So here's a dictionary definition:
a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something:
Trump mouthed off campaigning. There is not yet a plan. But since Trump is not yet President, this is not surprising. Whether there ever is a plan remains to be seen. Like you, I would expect it to be illegal.
The rest is you bloviating.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019