
Good on the cops
I look forward to hearing how the cops are hunting down the registered scum that subsidized those jackasses.
18221 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Apr 2007
You can mix and change titles as much as you wish, the function of DBA and the function of Dev (Ops or not) are not going to change.
As either one of these functions is quite complex and requires specialization, it is a very rare person who can reliably pretend to be both, therefor each should listen to the other.
"The techies claim to have experienced a greater rate of accuracy using the game data to train their AI than relying entirely on the real-world stuff from CamVid."
Game data is obviously great for AI training. You have a virtual world created by a computer used as training grounds for another computer. Advantages ? No clutter, no useless noise, and faces are polygons with textures stretched on. No pimples, no puffiness under the eyes, no 5-o'clock beard. The only things shown are the things that have been calculated. No wonder it's easier for a statistical analysis machine (what we currently call AI) to recognize and classify.
Unfortunately, Real Life (TM) is messier than that. Granted, it may be advantageous to train a not-AI on such data before turning it loose on actual, real images, but there's also a chance that we are just fooling ourselves into thinking that we are making this work. It's the Hall of Mirrors effects for the Mentats of Dune.
Yet.
There is always a grace period after a purchase during which the buyer pretends to not want to touch anything, to reassure the paying customers - and give themselves time to find out how everything actually works.
Then, one day, out of the blue (once they have properly mapped the existing functionality) they will suddenly have a blinding flash of a brainstorm, and changes will be announced.
Always for good, obviously.
That right there is one of the hardest things to do. If you look at the history of humans, I'm sure that you will find many, many more instances of people covering up their goofs rather than admitting them and working on fixing the issue.
I think it is a case of misplaced pride. We act as if we are perfect, we strive to impose that image on people around us, and anything that might tar that image must be suppressed.
Before the Internet, you could maintain the illusion because nobody who didn't know you had any way of finding out. That time is over now. Maybe our species is going to learn ?
It most definitely is. It's the Management Complex - lower ranks exist only to bulk up the salaries, it's Management that does all the hard work.
Funnily enough, that's not something that happens in the building industry. There the managers used to be the grunts, lugging bricks, sloshing pails and working out whatever the weather was. When they get to manager levels, they're quite happy keeping the grunts because that's what keeps them from the pickaxe.
Maybe managers should take charge of the Helldesk every now and then - just to remind them exactly what it is they pay us for.
Step by step, minute advancement by minuscule improvement, we will some day attain the lofty 21st Century promised to us by Hollywood fifty years ago.
But right now wireless charging is something that Greenpeace should be as much up in arms about as nuclear power, because with all the energy loss in transmitting in such a fashion, we're going to need more nuclear reactors, and soon.
Anyone else should make their case to their local LEA which will judge if it is actually justified, then look it up immediately if it is.
But access for anyone else should be made difficult. It is time we made personal data something that is just as valuable for the consumer as it is for FaceBook & co.
So, images can be modified in a way that the human eye cannot perceive, but pseudo-AI does and reacts accordingly.
That means that an attack on the system would possibly take a long time to discover if nobody is checking the actual images but just working on post-analysis data.
It is already frightening to imagine that in a medical environment, but since Big Data is digging deep into our societal fabric, the consequences of such actions could really become terrifying.
And nobody will understand because everyone already trusts the machine.
It is time that the InfoSec community create an Official Security Charter. Define once and for all the required measures to ensure privacy and data security, and publish it.
Everything else should then be measured against those points, in a checklist manner.
That would even allow for grading a company's promises. So, your latest blah ranks 2 on the Total Security Checklist ? Try again.
You are FaceBook ? Don't even check, just try again.
What I fail to understand is how the Tax Office can accept that MS USA pay fees to "another entity", while MS lumps profits and cash flow from all entities when it makes its earnings declaration to Wall Street.
Sorry, if it's "another entity" for tax purposes, then you don't the right to rope in that entity's profits for your earnings statement.
Either that, or it's the same entity and your "fees" are bunkus.
Come on, Tax Man, wake up !
Getting a cheap website does not get you known. Plus you have the hassle of needing to manage said website, overhaul it every now and then, keep it fresh. Not many people have the knowledge, or the time, to do that. Then there's the fact that nobody can Like your website. You have to fight PageRank to get yourself up in the search engines and become visible. That's hard work, without any guarantee of success.
FaceBook is practical, free and easy. There is literally no other platform that can get you known faster, and getting Likes is easy-peasy.
I hate FaceBook, I hate Zuckerberg, but I am not blinded by that hate. I acknowledge that FaceBook is here to stay, much as I would prefer it to die, and it is useful to a great many people in more ways than one.
Indispensable ? Probably not, but in the current lazy state of our society, it is pretty much the easiest option, so it wins. Every time.
They didn't get what they expected, so IBM gets punished.
It's never the analysts that get told to sharpen their skills, no. It's the company's fault that it didn't perform to expectations.
Alanysts should be graded on the exactitude of their forecasts. That would balance the situation somewhat.
But the NSA was 100% certain their data was secure.
Add administrative complacency to that state of mind and bingo, you have a perfect blind eye environment.
Proper data security is hard. The NSA has demonstrated that even spooks whose job it is to be secure can still goof it up.
Initially, that is.
Then "terrorism" will be applied to journalists they don't like.
Objectively, there are obvious good reasons for this kind of requirement. It's the potential for overreach I don't like.
Plus the fact that we are doing more to damage our liberties than terrorists could hope for in their wildest dreams.
Of course, you're absolutely right.
He has a long history of insulting other countries, threatening with nuclear armageddon and pathetically calling people names like "Rocket Man".
Oh no, wait, that's Trump.
You were saying ?
As for fuck nugget, I cannot possibly comment on your tastes. My wife would agree he does look rather fetching, though.
I'm guessing we're going to see them get a whole lot bigger as well, then.
Because smarts is based on data these days, not on AI, so they're going to need some sort of data storage. Even SSDs will add some bulk to a camera that doesn't have storage now.
My Android is on Nougat, and I have zero options to upgrade outside of rooting the phone, which I have no intention of bothering with.
On the other hand, after having checked, I found that the security package is dated February of this year - so there's that at least.
Not true and not entirely fair. Coders are very accountable to their management - fail to bring a module out on time and on spec and you risk the pink slip, especially if it happens regularly.
Having warned that security is insufficient and risks are present just makes you a nuisance, an obstacle in the way of the PHB who wants to brag and show off his new toy, or wants to look good to the board.
I doubt very much that there are that many developers who don't give a fig that their application can be compromised and used against the user. I think most devs would react to such news if they had the chance.
Most, that is. I know a few who really, honestly don't care as long the money keeps rolling in.
I don't talk to them.
No, it certainly won't, but the fine is still in the millions, not in the tens of thousands, so there's that.
Then there's the fact that it represents a day and half of not raking in the dough, which always makes the board wince.
Finally, there's the fact that they got fined, and a repeat offense will likely cost more (at least, one can hope).
Personally, I'm just glad that a company screwing its customers got a multi-million dollar fine. There's not enough of that.
Signature-based protection is an after-the-fact approach - you have to have the virus locally before a signature-base AV can scan it, and that means you run the risk of triggering it before the AV can check out the file.
Instead of using signatures, an activity-base approach might be better. On a clean system, the AV creates a record of legitimate programs and kernel programs. After that, anything trying to modify those files is stopped cold, with a warning. Any process trying to access memory it shouldn't is frozen and quarantined. Any new application installed is sandboxed until its activity has been thoroughly analyzed and found acceptable, then it stands a chance of being whitelisted. Any whitelisted program trying to modify the kernel generates a warning for the user before the modification is allowed to complete.
Of course, the problem with this approach is that security is basically user-based, so the user has to know what he is doing.
And with that I realize that I have just shot down my own theory. Bugger.