Posts by Charles 9

'Nobody's got to use the internet,' argues idiot congressman in row over ISP privacy rules

Re: "Nobody's got to use the internet."

Ever heard of "an offer you can't refuse"?

But you'll NEVER get rid of lobbyists. Every time you try to outlaw them, they'll just find ways around them. For example, how do you deal with lobbyists when they hire a congressperson's spouse, sibling, or child? Now you've created a dilemma, as families are expected to communicate with each other in order to stay functional, and the lobbyists are exploiting this to make it impossible to get away from them completely. They can also employ "sister-of-a-friend-of-a-friend" methods to conceal bribes and their sources. It's basically like a siege: the attacker tends to have the advantage over time, and they can eventually reach "an offer you can't refuse" levels.

Re: Benefit of the doubt? "Notas Badoff" might not be American?

I thought it was more a case of him asking, "What did we do BEFORE the Internet?" After all, what did Depression-era people do to get by without even electricity or running water at times? Without access to any form of healthcare and so on? These are the kind of people who make Archie Bunker look tame...and consider it a GOOD point.

Regulate This! Time to subject algorithms to our laws

Re: Also...

And there are some who WANT that. Slow down the rat race, control the population and the exploitation of the Earth, and all that.

Re: Could this idea be more backwards?

Except every single method you propose has fatal flaws.

1-2) People will CHEAT and then hide the fact they're cheating. Humans will be bastards if it'll give them a leg up on their neighbors. It's damned near instinct.

3-4) NOTHING scales well for 7 billion (and direct democracy pretty much doesn't scale past tribal size), and unless you have a system that can encompass EVERY human, one side or the other's going to feel slighted and want revenge.

5) Eventually, two such blocs will end up at odds. Usually over resources like arable land or women. If it can happen to two people, it can certainly happen to two blocs of people. Geography WILL matter at some point because the Earth is finite. EVERYTHING is finite at some scale.

6) Except when there are too many people. You eventually end up with a "Baker's Dozen in an Egg Carton" situation: too many people for whatever geography can accommodate. At that point, war isn't just desirable, it's inevitable. Either SOME die or ALL die from sheer exhaustion of resources.

7) And many humans hold grudges. If you screw someone, you risk an act of revenge, and some people see Mutual Assured Destruction as an acceptable scenario in that context.

"Minimum sentences rules were introduced because tabloid-fearing politicians didn't want judges exercising any intelligent discretion based on the evidence presented."

I thought it was out of fear a charismatic criminal would get off light.

Re: Could this idea be more backwards?

But then comes the armor-piercing question.

"Can you think of any better without changing the human race as a whole?"

In other words, what you describe sounds like the absolute pits...until we start looking at the alternatives.

Otherwise, we may be better off just waiting for the Taelons or whatever to come and become "beneficent guardians" for our own protection.

Re: But more importantly...

"As Ken has hinted at already, algorithms can also run on neurons instead of silicon."

I think the problem here is there's no assurance it'll run consistently and precisely on neurons.

Re: No, no they don't.

"[1] The "Code of Ur-Nammu" dates to ~2100-2050 BCE and specifies punishment for (among other crimes) murder, robbery, adultery and rape. Spoiler alert - the penalty for all of them is death."

I suspect given the conditions of that society (no such things as jails, for example, and no practical destination for an exile, etc.), death was basically the only option that would stick.

PS. In the end, laws are just ink on a page. What matters law to a charismatic sociopath able to raise a army big enough to overrun you?

Re: Sounds like the makings of a witch hunt to me.

And if many of them CAN answer the question accurately? Wouldn't that be even scarier?

"We should not be using algorithms to determine sentences for criminals, the judiciary is there for that to determine the facts of the case and the intent of the criminal. I understand it is still an opinion but its better than something that does not know or see what is in front of it and is basing it's opinion based on information fed in to it."

But if you depend on humans, what happens with a charismatic suspect?

"Mortgages are based on ability to pay so I have no problem with them, money in - money out = amount you can afford with an adjustment to factor in interest rate changes."

But since mortgages tend to be long-term things, they also have to take vulnerability into account. How likely is the borrower to suffer a significant event that severely alters his/her ability to fulfil his/her end of the deal (say, the industry he/she is in is prone to collapse leaving him/her not just unemployed but unemployABLE).

"Googles algorithms should be open to scrutiny by a legally backed watchdog because they can make or break a company/product/person/opinion."

But Google is multinational. They can probably play foreign sovereignty against you. What will you do then? Block Google and get complaints up the wazoo?

"The key principle is that everything two entities - companies, people, Governemnts, whathaveyou - do together must be voluntary (they must both agree to it) and well-informed (they must know what they're agreeing to). So you can't coerce, and you can't deceive. The sole exception of self-defence and then all bets are off."

Which is usually never the case. Each side is usually trying to hide things from the other: either to outplay the other or as a defense against the other trying to backstab them. Confidence is something that usually only comes with trust, and trust is the exception, not the rule. Unless there's a crisis, one man usually doesn't trust the other and will tend to act in competition. That's why theoretical things like pure capitalism don't work in reality (asymmetry of knowledge) and why you have thought experiments like the Prisoner's Dilemma.

"In such situations then you are in fact being coerced, at one remove; all bets are off. You are free to act in whatever ways are necessary to ensure you are not coerced or deceived. Hack the meter."

Nope, because the electricity companies tend to have government mandate on their side. IOW, if all bets are off, what do you do when it's the OTHER side that has all the guns? Oh, and a willingness to use scorched earth tactics?

Microsoft raises pistol, pulls the trigger on Windows 7, 8 updates for new Intel, AMD chips

Re: Same Here

"I really think MS execs would be truly shocked at the level of hatred Microsoft engenders in ordinary users let alone those of us who have had to work with (or around) their products and watched their shameless, offensive, marketing shenanigans."

Compared to the millions of sheep out there who just go about their lives, we're probably just noise. Otherwise, they would've listened to us by now. But we don't represent enough money to them.

Re: If Microsoft was an airline...

"I would rather walk"

Sorry, but I'd rather the world didn't come to an end just yet since I don't recall anyone else able to walk on water.

Re: Windows 10 Creators Update CU (NT) system.

Belgium's also about the size of Rhode Island. Now imagine if a country like China (nearly two billion people, heavily male, and with nukes) had to run without a functioning government for a few years. I don't know if the world would survive the experiment.

And given the attitude of the average human being, I believe YES you DO need a beneficent sociopath to lead them or things get ugly.

Re: Two words - Linux Mint

"Yes yes as you keep saying ad infinitum... Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... Pushing an agenda much?"

Yes, if a company as motivated as Valve (they knew this was coming) can't convince the likes of ZeniMax (parent of Bethesda), that tells me the market simply isn't there. And millions of people are still paying in the neighborhood of $10 per month to keep playing a game that's still pretty much supported on only one platform. Like I said before, trying WINE is risky as you risk a ban last I heard. Like you said, not everyone's a gamer, but plenty are, and some are even professional gamers. They do it for a living. And that pretty much means Windows machines. Yet pro gaming leagues don't seem too concerned about Windows. Put it this way; I'll be convinced Windows is fading when the firms that do this for real life money (IOW, people with actual skin in the game, so to speak) defect. And I haven't seen that yet.

"And with MS making it harder and harder for games writers to get customers"

Oh? DirectX 12 ring a bell? Haven't heard much of a counter from the Kronos group yet with Vulkan.

"And before you waffle on about "too entrenched" have a good look at history. Lots of "too entrenched" technologies have quickly gone from being the be-all and end-all to a mere memory."

Like what specifically? I seriously doubt anything can upend a market that quickly. Especially a very mature market? I mean, many places still run coal power plants, for crying out loud. If Windows is a cart with square wheels, the ground's probably sandy and the dog's actually a mastiff cross (think ancient Egypt; they knew about wheels but didn't use them as much).

Re: Stupid

"The more Microsoft does these kinds of shenanigans, the more people will defect even if it means forgoing some windows-only software."

The problem with your theory is that, for many, that Windows-only software isn't just some nice little thing; it's the linchpin to their whole operation. This is especially true of expensive custom jobs that will be expensive again to replace (probably TOO expensive to afford).

Like I said, captive market.

Re: The new world where you own nothing - you are the "revenue item"

And you're saying this like it's anything new. This is pretty much standard human behavior because, in the end, barring crisis, we'll find a way to gain a leg up on our neighbors so that it's OUR kids in the next generation, not THEIRS. It's damned near instinct. And it has a historical basis.

Re: Stupid

Unless you need a lot of RAM, which leaves little for the host to run, or your job is 3D-heavy as 3D virtualization (especially on Windows guests) isn't all that mature (passthrough is only available for Linux guests). This pretty much precludes Windows gamers since performance-intensive games will probably require BOTH.

Re: Two words - Linux Mint

And TF2 and all that, I know. But the Linux Steam library is but a pale imitation of the main Windows library, and most of the new games will never see a Linux version (like Fallout 4, Bethesda has sworn off Linux as too fragmented), and WINE on them can be very hit or miss. As for Blizzard games like WoW and Overwatch, I hear caution is advised because while WoW can work, there are conflicting reports concerning Overwatch, plus the rumors that Battle.net will ban WINE users.

Re: Stupid

But for those stuck with Windows-ONLY software (that isn't WINE-friendly), they're kinda stuck, you know? Microsoft figures they've got a captive market, and from the looks of things, they're at least partially right given there hasn't been a tidal wave of defections yet (for the aforesaid reasons).

Re: Two words - Linux Mint

You can't play WoW on a console, and the likes of Overwatch separate by platform, and none of the console versions support KB/M input essential if you're a pro. IOW, NOT an option.

Re: If only...

"Instead MS seem hell bent on this demented trajectory of 'We want your data! All of your data! Now!'"

Probably because they can get more out of the data than we can ever afford to pay. Why do you think Google and Facebook NEVER provide the option to do telemetry-free browsing for a price? Because practically no one would be able to afford it.

Re: Year of the Linux desktop, finally, from Microsoft

"Microsoft is really hurting themselves by using these strong-arm tactics to force everyone onto Windows 10. While it's been free up to now, I'm guessing Microsoft ultimately wants to implement a yearly subscription. Count me out."

They'll do it because they have a captive market. Too many people are stuck on Windows-ONLY software that has no viable substitutes (like gamers--too many won't work on Linux even with help from WINE--or those with custom jobs that can't afford a redo).

'Tech troll' sues EFF to silence 'Stupid Patent of the Month' blog. Now the EFF sues back

Re: RE Should someone point out to the EFF that the US constitution for free speech ...

"so they'd should at least be able to express an opinion. No more than that, but having a view is not interfering."

It is if you're shouting down everyone else in the process so they can't get a word in edgewise. See "bullhorning". That's why FREE speech should not be confused with FAIR speech.

Re: So this patent dates from 1999 and is therefor 18 years old.

Besides, they can get around the physical limitation by simply implementing it in an IC. The issue isn't that it's an idea. Ideas can be novel, unique, and very useful. It's the fact that the electronics industry moves very, VERY fast, such that derivatives and successors can come along pretty quickly. If you have a great idea and want to take advantage of it, I don't see why it can't be protected for a LIMITED length of time. Like I said, if push came to shove, I could implement it physically (like in a chip) just to dot the I's. But let's focus on the LIMITED part. If the industry you're in moves very quickly, limit the term of an algorithm patent accordingly. I'd much rather let them have, say, three years of fame and then it becomes public domain than they keep the idea in their heads and then take it to the grave.

Re: So this patent dates from 1999 and is therefor 18 years old.

Patenting algorithms isn't necessarily bad, but it's terms should reflect a fast-moving industry. If they were no longer than three years, they'd be much more acceptable.

Alert: Using a web ad blocker may identify you – to advertisers

Re: Corner shop

It isn't just the newsagents and small shops. EVERY retailer has to pay to process card transactions (that's how the processors make their living), and it's usually the larger of a certain percentage of the sale (say %2-3 if your sales are slow) or a flat minimum fee. Because of that, most firms pay too much for small transactions which is why the minimum transaction. Larger retailers have the benefit of a lower percentage because of higher overall sales (economies of scale, basically) and the balancing effect of that high activity making small transactions bearable (somewhere there'll be a big transaction to offset small ones). Plus many retailers if they can do it will prefer bank debit to credit transactions (the percentage is lower).

Re: Blocking at the firewall, then?

Doesn't it use an encrypted connection?

Re: Duh

Why wouldn't they? Plus I'm not talking the drivers themselves but the sites on which they're hosted: packed full of mandatory scripts and so on ripe to be drive-by'ed with no viable alternatives if they don't provide high performance drivers to kernels (kernel can't do that themselves many times due to patent-based black-boxing, and as for Windows...).

Re: Duh

What about a manufacturer's website for drivers? You can't trust anyone else to not insert malware/aware and the only other alternative would involve plunking down money (maybe A LOT of money).

Re: Duh

If they know you're using an ad-blocker, they'll profile you as a leech and perhaps start using ad-gates. Either that or they'll see that as a cue to get more aggressive with the ads by triggering the original website to insert inline same-domain ads, which will be tougher to block without collateral damage. Plus since they'll be able to track you across websites, they can wait for other opportunities to bombard you which you may not always be able to block. Heck, if they can tie you to a social account or e-mail address, they can probably use them to get to you as well.

Deeming Facebook a 'publisher' of users' posts won't tackle paedo or terrorist content

Re: Logic Failure on your part.

"So, because Murdoch owns the Times, and you don't like Murdoch, that makes their article about Facebook getting a free pass to continue to do nothing about users posting child porn totally unacceptable?"

Not totally unacceptable, just hopelessly biased due to the skin at stake for Murdoch. Facebook's essentially a rival firm. ANYTHING coming from a rival needs to taken with significant salt due to the inherent bias of being a rival.

Re: bad dog, no cookie for you

"Until the governments of the world decide to stop having their little turf war over who gets to own the internet, there's only one of three viable answers: Don't get involved. Get involved, but only with the government where your server(s) are located... and convince the many-headed fuckbeast of world government to write a goddamn treaty already about this and setup a proper way of streamlining and handling these requests and what people's rights and responsibilities are when running a website, server, service, etc."

The governments will NEVER stop getting involved because too much is at stake to them (to some, their very sovereignty may be at stake, an existential threat). And many times, not getting involved is not an option; just ask Blackberry. Which leaves option three: essentially trying to beat a fireproof hydra whose heads keep snapping at each other.

Re: Maybe it's because Facebook's moderators simply refuse to look.

You forget about Asymmetry of Knowledge and smear campaigns. People who REALLY hate you can go to rather great lengths to get other people to hate you and can just start using false identities and other techniques to pile on bad votes on you, effectively silencing you with no recourse. You post anything at all, they complain and then flood the vote to get your post removed.

"Illegal material is, well, illegal,"

That depends on the jurisdiction, though. What if the post is being made in a country that has no laws on the books concerning the subject?

"Instead of targeting Facebook with new laws, as The Times would, we should instead target those who misuse the platform to promote illegal things."

But what does the law do when "those" are hiding themselves behind hostile sovereignty? How does Scotland Yard go after a paedo, for example, who happens to be posting from, say, Cambodia?

FCC kills plan to allow phone calls on planes – good idea or terrible?

Re: Carrot and Stick

Yeah, and then we get the situation where the caller is a boxer/bouncer/martial artist. He/she gives you "the look" and you wonder if it's worth it...

Re: Bah!

Point is, if you want to go transoceanic in any practical sense, you basically have to bend over. Same if you want to take a long trip, like across the United States from New York to San Francisco. It may be cramped and limited, but you can cross the country in a plane in ~5-6 hours. Any other way and you're looking two days at least, and for many time is more important than money due to hectic lives.

Three indicted over sex trafficking operation run on Backpage.com

Re: Suppressing prostitution never works

And I think part of the problem is the stigma of the profession: legal or not. Most don't go into it by choice; rather they're coerced or do it out of desperation. Either way, the agent/madam/pimp knows he/she can control prostitutes through their hardships. They're also usually not the most attractive-looking as the pretty ones would've been scouted by modeling agencies (even gravure or nude modeling would probably be preferable as you won't have to "get dirty").

Be careful. He could be a Top man with the cojones to assert that. He could even start a ring IN prison.

Too easy to abuse that way. My opinion is to save for the worst of the worst: the likes of a bin Laden or an El Chapo (the last one I felt met the criteria was Oklahoma City Bomber Timothy McVeigh).

Big Internet warns FCC's Pai: We will fight you all the way on net neutrality

Re: Something's coming

Why are you saying it's not such a bad thing? Unless you're saying that humans simply can't have nice things at all?

Burger King's 'OK Google' sad ad saga somehow gets worse

Re: Burger King

If they don't, who does?

Re: How much brand awareness does the Whopper need?

"To give just two or three common examples of sugar use in non-desserts: brown barbecue sauces (and BBQ rubs or marinades), pickles, or leavened breads."

Adding a touch of sweet to something spicy tends to produce nice complementary effects. That's why you have such things as honey mustard sauce (sweet honey complements the spicy mustard), and as mentioned, a bit of sugar can actually be a good addition to a spicy meat rub. Have you heard of Bread & Butter pickle brine. That's a sweet brine. And sugar is absolutely essential if you intend to have a risen (leavened) bread, as the yeast needs the sugar to feed. In fact, yeast needs sugar to ferment into alcohol to produce your favorite drinks (where the sugar comes from depends, but for example rum comes from molasses).

Unless continuing to distribute the materials could put them in legal trouble due to the potential for false advertising charges or the like. Sending off-season T-shirts to foreign parts could result in culture-clash misunderstandings and so on.

As the saying goes, "It's complicated."

The smartphone among other things. Social media like Twitter combined with the Internet and ubiquitous cameras held by lots of people is creating a perfect storm for instant rumor mills. What would normally take time as rumors bounce from person to person now can spread at the speed of electricity (not quite the speed of light, but close). This combined with echo chamber mentality creates the electronic equivalent of flash mobs.

Re: Please Sir?

It's called "doubling DOWN" because you're gambling double on a card you can't even see (it's dealt face-down and not revealed until after the dealer's hand is resolved). List most things blackjack, there's a time and place for it. Doubling down on a ten or eleven (especially if the dealer's up card is in the middle) is generally a good idea: odds are the dealer will either bust or have a weak stand. If the dealer's up card is a five or six (the most likely to result in a bust), doubling down when you know your next card can't bust you (you're no higher than 11 or soft) can be worth a chance.

The $1/$2/$4 pattern is known as the "double or nothing" pattern. All you need to get back to zero is ONE win, and depending on how the table plays, it may not take that many hands to do it, making it worthwhile especially on a game like Blackjack where a player with reasonable knowledge of the game has a fighting chance on any given hand.

Re: American phrase book

A spate of heart attacks and strokes would, though.

I thought the quote was, "There's no such thing as bad publicity."?