Re: El Reg Headlines
I've yet to see a deadline which is about ‘delivering the work you promised’. They are arbitrary dates set by someone for you -- and then changed several times.
199 posts • joined 15 Mar 2016
Close to 100% false positive rate is exactly what one should expect -- the watch lists do not contain a substantial fraction of the population (so far) and the people on them are more likely to take precautions.
See base rate fallacy/false positive paradox (if any el Reg reader needs reminding). Even detection methods we actually consider working have high false positive rates when the thing they detect is rare.
Your examples are unnecessarily too complicated to illustrate why Google is failing. They involve knowledge of which name is used for which gender, general knowledge of gender in grammar (BTW that's the only gender -- do not confuse it with sex), the often confusing conventions for animal gender, etc. AFAIK the basic problem is that it just translates sentence by sentence, with no context whatsoever.
Two girls arrived. They brought apples.
Two boys arrived. They brought apples.
the second sentence is Google-translated the same -- to all languages I know where there should be a difference. There is no knowledge of things like names necessary and the gender matches the sex. There may be even enough similar fragments in the corpus for both sexes. But the translation still fails.
> If you click the link, you've failed to protect yourself and others on your network.
I assume -- at least for all people commenting here -- ‘clicking the link’ means copying the linked URL and opening it in a sandbox which exists for this purpose, not actually just clicking on the thing.
AI Machine learning can predict kind of guess the structure of chemical compounds thousands of times faster than after being extensively trained on results calculated using actual quantum chemistry.
What always annoys me is that if they did not have a large database of results obtained by the oh-so-slow real DFT calculations, their ‘AI’ would be utterly worthless. People had to do all the DFT calculation -- and still have to do them for anything unusual the thing has not been trained for.
text could be re-written to allow a layperson to better understand the meaning of something highly technical
No, it couldn't. If a technical text isn't crap (and then AI rewriting would not fix that) problems with understanding always originate in inability to think in the respective problem domain. Essentially, a lack of context.
You can replace the name of a chemical compound with any other name, drawing or biblical story. It will not magically make the reader able to think about its functional groups, how it might react, ... You still need chemistry background for that. Sure, the text has to explain things interesting/important in the particular case, but if you don't get the basic concepts and can't think about them correctly, there is no substitute for that.
A map app is a map. Why would anyone not blind need verbal instructions when he has a
perfectly good map piece of modern art Google or Apple hallucinated up, rendered on a tiny screen? Anyway. It's not like you are moving at speed 130 km/h and when you miss an exit you get another chance in 30 km. You are bloody walking. Just look at the map occasionally.
We clearly need more of that, not less.
I am always confused by mentions of servers in articles not about restaurants, wonder why would people keep data in aerosol formations kilometres high in the sky and never understood how rodents are supposed to connect to computers. And who is General Failure and why is he reading my disk?
As if it was not enough that many sites do not render reasonably to text -- what you get if you can see? Tiny grey text on a bit lighter background. After you scroll through pages of pointless huge images.
After writing this I checked Apple's website (didn't know what it looks like). And guess what I found there?
There is only way to fix copyright on photographs is to abolish it, with a few (rare!) exceptions. And it needs to happen soon.
Did you finish screaming murder? OK, we can continue now. Photographing is no longer art. It is an automated process. We are quickly getting to the point when everything worth photographing (and most of things not worth it) will be photographed. It will be photographed from all possible angles, with all possible settings and processing, also filmed many times -- and large part of this likely not even deliberately by humans. It will happen in some just-capture-stuff mode.
Of all the the photos I have made, I consider maybe a dozen worth copyright protection. And the number may actually decrease over time as technology progresses, making previously difficult or special shots easy.
Cases like the red bus should not even exist. My bloody camera has a filter which automatically creates this effect! And the bus is an obvious target for. Each year, thousands of people leisurely create images the court would find infringing if the defendant made them...
Kind of agree with you, except the ‘make everyone feel needed while dealing with a potentially ever decreasing total amount of work’ part. You put ‘potentially’ there, though. So, maybe.
There is no shortage of work. We, the human race, are messing up things at an ever accelerating rate -- and although we are also fixing them faster, the gap does not decrease. We accumulating problems and creating more work as we go. That's not the issue with progress.
It's the incentive structure. For every stupid job killed by automation, the replacements are invariably even more bullshit. We have failing infrastructure, and none of the people who moved from dog hairstylists to live-streaming opening pizza boxes delivered to them will fix it. They might even feel needed if they were doing something useful, but the incentives against are too strong. I just hope Hari Seldon is out there somewhere, already working...
> Might he be a bit biased
I would classify 70% of his writings as ramblings of a raving lunatic. Depends on the topic a bit. Anyway, even though he often approaches intellectual ’property’ stuff from a starting point somewhere between devil's advocate and absurdly reductionistic, at least he argues his position well enough to make you think and figure out where exactly where he parted with reality. And he does bring up interesting issues, even though you can only roll your eyes reading his conclusions...
The thing that worries me is that I can extrapolate -- without too much effort -- the current technology and society to a state in which ‘ban computers’ would be a reasonable proposition.
Sure, it would break lots of things. Awful lots of things.. One big problem is the inability to re-create intermediate technologies. We might go back to middle ages, or Renaissance, but 70s technologies are much harder. They require too many resources that need other technologies and too many other things working to be re-created from scratch.
So, in essence, once we might never [for some value of never] be able to get back to the current technological level after a global disaster/breakdown/war/ban/... And yet, I can imagine banning computers being the lesser evil. Barely, but still.
> Maps is one that comes to mind where Google is far ahead of anyone else
Sorry, but if you think this, you have never seen a good map -- or at least one that's not utter shit. I often see people first trying to find something using Google's Maps, which is of course prominent on the phone, realising after while that it is useless and switching to a proper map app.
> With the much harder job being for the "ones who write checksum catchers" in this example.
They can make their jobs easier by aggressively marking anything and everything as copyright violation if at least a remote possibility exists it might be one. And by ‘can’ I mean they are already doing it. There is no penalty for false positive copyright harassment, so why not. And few are able or care to challenge ‘computers says no’...
Probably depends on where you live... I have 100Mbps (symmetrical) because that's simply the cheapest option my ISP offers (14 €/month) and really see 90+ every time I measure it or transfer huge data from/to the uni (anecdotal evidence this one).
But most of the time I would hardly notice half or even slower speed. Do really half of people need 100Mbps? For what?
What's your problem with bloody ID cards?
They don't track you, they cannot be read from distance, the number of people who can request your ID is pretty limited. Yes, and they solve much of your overcomplicated nonsense like voter registration. I took mine out twice this year, once for elections and once at the post office because of delivery that had to be to me personally. You have mobile phones, CCTV and all kinds of sensors and systems tracking you automatically -- and you are still terrified of ID cards?
The part where consumers were asked to download data-collecting apps evidently was not. If you have (a) phone as a purely utilitarian device (b) any remaining sanity, you will not do that. Provided that you even can do that -- my phone for phone calls cannot download their apps for sure...
Grikath: That's not what indispensable means. Facebook does not bring anything unique -- it just has lots of users. However, ‘lots of users’ is something that can and will change over time. The only question is how long it will take.
But most importantly: Stating that it is indispensable and discouraging from looking for alternatives is a self-fulfilling prophecy -- and exactly what Facebook wants you to do. So stop saying that for start.
Ah, Harvard architecture. It separates CPU instructions and data and so prevents things overwriting native code in memory, etc.. However, even pure Harvard architecture (which is IMO unsuitable for general purpose computer) does not really separate code and data if any kind of command interpreter (shell, scripting language, Excel formulas, TeX, ...) exists. So you can still instruct users to run stupid things.
> But, don't quote me; I'm no radiologist.
No, please don't.
Sievert is simply J/kg, i.e. absorbed energy per mass. Getting the absorbed energy right makes it a bit more complicated, but this does not change the basic idea.
Why you decided to write the ratio 350/30 as ‘something between 2^3 and 2^4’ is beyond me (even though technically it is indeed between 8 and 16).
> Each combination is hashed and the hashes stored together with a note of the positions of the characters of that combination.
This certainly provides *more* information about the password than a single hash if it leaks. Might need some new clever rainbow table tricks or something, but anyway: do not attempt home-baked security based on ideas you gave about 20s of thought...
> claiming that those who slept in a north-south orientation generally had a better sense of direction than those who slept in an east-west orientation.
Interesting, as I've been always (well, when there was a choice) sleeping in east-west oriented beds. Not west-east, mind you. That would be just wrong and I might rotate 180 degrees during the night. I have a pretty good sense of direction and tend to confuse people by diving directions using NSEW even inside buildings -- but the bed orientation thing may have more to do with some light/darkness cycle. Who knows. I am willing to participate in a rigorous scientific study, especially if it involves me sleeping a lot without disturbance...
> until someone else steals your own money spinning idea and rips you off
So you are the guy who patented ‘offering products and/or services in exchange for money’?
You cannot steal ideas. Even according to the most moronic IP laws which protect much more than they should, mere ideas are not protected.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019