I agree that they don't have morality on their side. Nevertheless, they'll do whatever they can get away with - which in general is not unlike their targets.
Advertisers only know what they're doing within their own frame of reference. Outside of that they are utterly incapable of providing a useful service. Targeted ads are just another example of something that doesn't work, but the advertisers are not cognizant of that.
I wonder if the Indian government will make this technology available to the rest of the world. We could certainly use a bit of help here in Canada where government investment in agriculture is coming to an end.
That last part implies a computer driver would be safer, because it would not drive off the cliff.
It might still hit the deer, but it should be better at braking and steering accurately than an average driver so is more likely to avoid an obstacle as long as it can detect it.
Probably not Stig quality, but most drivers are not that good.
That's a good point. In this case it is indeed the human aspect which fails. But now you've got me worried about animal rights activists lobbying for "improved" software. :) Seriously, it is the differentiation between deer and people that has me worried. Hence my conclusion that this system will be generally an improvement in city driving, but we're still going to have human intervention - if nothing else to prevent logical loops hanging you up on your way.
You are correct and the question is indeed a practical one. However, I don't want to be one of those numbers. It's not that I don't trust computers, it's that I don't trust the motor vehicle authorities with them.
As an example I would point out that in several Provinces in Canada, we have many deaths from collisions with wildlife on the road. Around here we see groups of deer along the highways. As you approach them, one or two will usually wait until you get right up to them, then they will panic, and run right in front of the car. No problem, a human sees a deer and slows down or stops until it is clear that none of them are going to run. Perhaps a computer can visually tell the difference between a deer or moose and people, but it will probably be difficult and the driverless car would logically not be applied to this area. In reality what is likely to happen is that we would get more auto related deaths in this area than in cities and that it would be averaged out. So, we end up with more deaths here and lots less in the cities. Such are the ways of bureaucracy where "accident rates are just numbers".
BTW: Just so you can visualize the reality of wildlife problems. Many deaths caused by deer are from people swerving to avoid hitting the animal. This does not work when there is a 200 foot drop beside you.
Also where was the car driven? I can't really see a computer driven car interpreting UK roads built around the 60s. Hell I can't even believe it will manage a busy roundabout.
I suspect these are city cars for local use only. Around here, and many places outside of cities, you would have to trust that the car knows when to cross the yellow line because of rocks in slide areas. It would also need to make decisions based on how steep the cliff beside the road is and how close you can reasonably get. I'm not saying a computer can't learn to second guess wide load logging trucks travelling at high speed and taking up the whole road, but the driver/steering-wheel combination probably isn't going to disappear any time soon.
The US is mainly concerned about drug smuggling, diseases, and people coming here and using the public services without the ability to pay the costs involved.
I suspect that the IP and security industries disagree with that and will be lobbying the government to consider their issues to be more important. My guess is that we'll see problems once the first little bit of friction develops with big media.
Can't we get at least one really insightful or perhaps hilariously funny comment on this one? Or is it just too hard to think of something in this case?
Re: would somebody please explain why this is bad?
So why can't google drive around listening to broadcasts that make it out into the public street?
Because these broadcasts are invisible and the people that are doing the broadcasting are not aware that they are doing it. Much of modern technology is basically invisible to many people. They're not stupid. They probably have expertise that you and I don't have. In fact many of them could probably take advantage of me in some area where I didn't have any expertise or awareness. I wouldn't like that though.
> The issue is just contentious because idiots like to leave their wifi networks unencrypted.
These are average users who don't know what you're talking about. You many be on top of this, but they shouldn't have to be. In fact they're probably your customers. Have a little respect.
Finally somebody said it! I find it interesting that so many people continue to discuss the pros and cons when the reason the average Joe, Microsoft's largest market, uses Windows is that it was on the box when he bought it and he doesn't know what to do about that - or that he even could do something.
Can the lawyers bag Microsoft another 20 years of success? That is the question.
"Tablets aren’t the most powerful computing gadgets," says Gillett, "but they are the most convenient."
It seems to me that once a person gets to the age where they can sit still in one place and get some work done, then that "convenience" is no longer needed.
"Here's a proof of concept someone made to show how easy it is to tell what people downloaded: youhavedownloaded.com"
The trouble is that site is pure BS. I haven't used a torrent client in nearly two years and haven't downloaded any movies, yet they have a long list of titles that I've supposedly downloaded recently. They clearly just make it up. Of course, that might be a perfectly workable concept in their eyes.
"The absence of any compelling evidence of a deterent effect suggests that the prime motivation for capital punishment is either revenge or financial considerations."
This bears repeating. Also, on the surface I tend to think that revenge is the prime motivation. However the whole business is financially rewarding for so many people that one could guess that there are subtle forces keeping the whole thing going.
There's a lot of uses for a proxy, such as caching or controlling access policy in a large company. If it's as black and white as you suggest, then there is indeed a huge problem. However I'm not clear on whether there isn't some other stipulation in the ruling besides just "proxy site".
"So, he'd need to do that for every 'social networking' site ?"
I'm suggesting he ignore it all together. There is a difference between the military danger posed by guns and that posed by gossip - but perhaps that's just me.
"Overall, people are happy with the accuracy of whichever search engine they choose."
How does the word "accurate" apply to search results? Lately I've been searching for circuit designs and ideas. How can the "accuracy" of Google results help me with that? I don't know, but what they could do is filter out anything that has to do with sales so as not to obscure the results I am lookin for. As for presenting something that I'm interested in buying right now, they always get it wrong anyway. In fact the harder they try, the worse they do.
In these parts, Google has renamed some streets and moved part of the main highway onto a small insignificant dirt road that is usually a dead end, depending on the time of year. Sometimes I look out my window and I see a shiny city car coming at great speed on the highway and continuing onto the dirt road without making the left turn that most locals would do. That's when I wonder if Google is their friend - since that would be the most likely explanation.
Presumably the government has a way to verify all views individually. I see many times more pageviews than any reasonably likely number of human readers for my small-time offerings. Sometimes I doubt I would even need any text in a story.
I understand your point. From a legal point of view there is no difficulty. I would, however, suggest that there is another way to look at it as well.
Can you ignore the reality that people will tick tick boxes without knowing what they are agreeing to? Ask some Facebook users what they think the user agreement looks like, or what it might mean to them. I honestly don't think that many people are very cognisant of what they are agreeing to on-line. This is a similar situation to getting consent from children who are under age - they don't understand the ramifications and hence are incapable of giving consent. When it comes to on-line activity,I think many people are co-opted by social pressures into agreeing to documents which they have not read and may in fact be unable to understand. Is that really consent?
"Using deception to obtain personal information or selling it on without permission are serious offences ..."
I'm a little confused about what constitutes "deception" here, and how do you get permission from users who are not knowledgeable enough to even give consent? Oh well, I guess there's some phrase in there that excludes Google and Facebook.
Register
365 posts • joined Friday 27th April 2007 08:22 GMT
Page:
Re: Already had a social network
If Usenet is a Social Network, then my bicycle is a Ferrari.
Well . . . is it?
democratic oversight
I agree that they don't have morality on their side. Nevertheless, they'll do whatever they can get away with - which in general is not unlike their targets.
Drain on society
Advertisers only know what they're doing within their own frame of reference. Outside of that they are utterly incapable of providing a useful service. Targeted ads are just another example of something that doesn't work, but the advertisers are not cognizant of that.
One more
At the event, your correspondent nestled a Pi into his iPhone 3G case. We've dubbed the result the PiPhone
Now stick that in a guitar and you'll have an Epiphone.
Policy-makers
if policy-makers are only informed by the catchphrase and not the definition, they will make bad policy.
I suspect policy-makers don't feel any need for a definition.
Tabloids
I think of PsyStar as a content producer. Quite successful really.
Re: Shirley not
Where the hell do you meet these women?
First you have to ask for a day pass.
Government supporting agriculture
I wonder if the Indian government will make this technology available to the rest of the world. We could certainly use a bit of help here in Canada where government investment in agriculture is coming to an end.
Cliff vs Deer and logical loops
That last part implies a computer driver would be safer, because it would not drive off the cliff.
It might still hit the deer, but it should be better at braking and steering accurately than an average driver so is more likely to avoid an obstacle as long as it can detect it.
Probably not Stig quality, but most drivers are not that good.
That's a good point. In this case it is indeed the human aspect which fails. But now you've got me worried about animal rights activists lobbying for "improved" software. :) Seriously, it is the differentiation between deer and people that has me worried. Hence my conclusion that this system will be generally an improvement in city driving, but we're still going to have human intervention - if nothing else to prevent logical loops hanging you up on your way.
When is a victim not a victim?
TPB have become a victim of their own ideology. The article is merely highlighting the irony.
Neither TPB nor their ideology is suffering, so they are not a victim - and hence there is no irony.
Re: Partly, it's the patent sytem.
I don't know what I'd replace it with, though. Ideas, anyone?
Work.
@Filippo
Accidents rate are just numbers.
You are correct and the question is indeed a practical one. However, I don't want to be one of those numbers. It's not that I don't trust computers, it's that I don't trust the motor vehicle authorities with them.
As an example I would point out that in several Provinces in Canada, we have many deaths from collisions with wildlife on the road. Around here we see groups of deer along the highways. As you approach them, one or two will usually wait until you get right up to them, then they will panic, and run right in front of the car. No problem, a human sees a deer and slows down or stops until it is clear that none of them are going to run. Perhaps a computer can visually tell the difference between a deer or moose and people, but it will probably be difficult and the driverless car would logically not be applied to this area. In reality what is likely to happen is that we would get more auto related deaths in this area than in cities and that it would be averaged out. So, we end up with more deaths here and lots less in the cities. Such are the ways of bureaucracy where "accident rates are just numbers".
BTW: Just so you can visualize the reality of wildlife problems. Many deaths caused by deer are from people swerving to avoid hitting the animal. This does not work when there is a 200 foot drop beside you.
Interventions
Also where was the car driven? I can't really see a computer driven car interpreting UK roads built around the 60s. Hell I can't even believe it will manage a busy roundabout.
I suspect these are city cars for local use only. Around here, and many places outside of cities, you would have to trust that the car knows when to cross the yellow line because of rocks in slide areas. It would also need to make decisions based on how steep the cliff beside the road is and how close you can reasonably get. I'm not saying a computer can't learn to second guess wide load logging trucks travelling at high speed and taking up the whole road, but the driver/steering-wheel combination probably isn't going to disappear any time soon.
Re: There will be new treaties
You lazy old trolls really should come up with a new insult.
Why? They're still collecting royalties on the old one.
Re: The thing is.
The US is mainly concerned about drug smuggling, diseases, and people coming here and using the public services without the ability to pay the costs involved.
I suspect that the IP and security industries disagree with that and will be lobbying the government to consider their issues to be more important. My guess is that we'll see problems once the first little bit of friction develops with big media.
Aw come on
Can't we get at least one really insightful or perhaps hilariously funny comment on this one? Or is it just too hard to think of something in this case?
Re: would somebody please explain why this is bad?
So why can't google drive around listening to broadcasts that make it out into the public street?
Because these broadcasts are invisible and the people that are doing the broadcasting are not aware that they are doing it. Much of modern technology is basically invisible to many people. They're not stupid. They probably have expertise that you and I don't have. In fact many of them could probably take advantage of me in some area where I didn't have any expertise or awareness. I wouldn't like that though.
Idiots?
> The issue is just contentious because idiots like to leave their wifi networks unencrypted.
These are average users who don't know what you're talking about. You many be on top of this, but they shouldn't have to be. In fact they're probably your customers. Have a little respect.
Re: $25,000 fine?
In any case, calling it a "slap on the wrist" is over exaggeration.
Mars bars?
On such a dry planet I imagine any kind of drinking establishment would do a brisk business.
Re: If they really want better search results...
@h4rm0ny: I think you missed the joke. The point is that Google does not index Facebook. Bing doesn't have anything to do with that. :)
Re: It never was about the software
Finally somebody said it! I find it interesting that so many people continue to discuss the pros and cons when the reason the average Joe, Microsoft's largest market, uses Windows is that it was on the box when he bought it and he doesn't know what to do about that - or that he even could do something.
Can the lawyers bag Microsoft another 20 years of success? That is the question.
Convenient?
"Tablets aren’t the most powerful computing gadgets," says Gillett, "but they are the most convenient."
It seems to me that once a person gets to the age where they can sit still in one place and get some work done, then that "convenience" is no longer needed.
What concept?
"Here's a proof of concept someone made to show how easy it is to tell what people downloaded: youhavedownloaded.com"
The trouble is that site is pure BS. I haven't used a torrent client in nearly two years and haven't downloaded any movies, yet they have a long list of titles that I've supposedly downloaded recently. They clearly just make it up. Of course, that might be a perfectly workable concept in their eyes.
Re: Just an opinion
"The absence of any compelling evidence of a deterent effect suggests that the prime motivation for capital punishment is either revenge or financial considerations."
This bears repeating. Also, on the surface I tend to think that revenge is the prime motivation. However the whole business is financially rewarding for so many people that one could guess that there are subtle forces keeping the whole thing going.
Re: Cat and mouse game
There's a lot of uses for a proxy, such as caching or controlling access policy in a large company. If it's as black and white as you suggest, then there is indeed a huge problem. However I'm not clear on whether there isn't some other stipulation in the ruling besides just "proxy site".
Opportunity knocks
". . . there are more than one million clicks on our system every second."
A little pay per view ad could be a goldmine.
Re: A marvelous way to fly?
Indeed, running and flapping 'til near exhaustion doesn't seem that marvellous. Perhaps I'm just getting too old for that sort of thing.
Re: Or...
In this case the keyword would be Microsoft.
Yep, karma's a bummer.
Otherwise the list is indeed well prioritized. And yes please, definitely NO avatars.
Re: Windows 8 will shape the future of Microsoft!
"Thus far thirteen people's sarcometers clearly need replacing. It's not even irony FFS."
It's up to 19 now. For some reason certain subjects seem to bring in more of the linguistically impaired.
Re: Perhaps we can help the poor Admiral
"So, he'd need to do that for every 'social networking' site ?"
I'm suggesting he ignore it all together. There is a difference between the military danger posed by guns and that posed by gossip - but perhaps that's just me.
Perhaps we can help the poor Admiral
127.0.1.1 www.facebook.com
eBay here I come
Maybe it's time to grab some chunks of Greenland ice as souvenirs. Here's your chance to own a piece of history.
This is bizarre
"Overall, people are happy with the accuracy of whichever search engine they choose."
How does the word "accurate" apply to search results? Lately I've been searching for circuit designs and ideas. How can the "accuracy" of Google results help me with that? I don't know, but what they could do is filter out anything that has to do with sales so as not to obscure the results I am lookin for. As for presenting something that I'm interested in buying right now, they always get it wrong anyway. In fact the harder they try, the worse they do.
Works for me
1) Openness to experience
I like to experience the world, so I don't use Facebook.
2) Conscientiousness
I'm a conscientious user of the internet, so I don't use Facebook.
3) Extroversion
I like to interact with real people, so I don't use Facebook.
4) Agreeableness
I'm discriminating in what I agree to, so Idon't use Facebook.
5) Neuroticism
I'm not neurotic, because I don't use Facebook.
Google is special
In these parts, Google has renamed some streets and moved part of the main highway onto a small insignificant dirt road that is usually a dead end, depending on the time of year. Sometimes I look out my window and I see a shiny city car coming at great speed on the highway and continuing onto the dirt road without making the left turn that most locals would do. That's when I wonder if Google is their friend - since that would be the most likely explanation.
What's a pageview?
Presumably the government has a way to verify all views individually. I see many times more pageviews than any reasonably likely number of human readers for my small-time offerings. Sometimes I doubt I would even need any text in a story.
Re: Re: Re: Linux is just a kernel
> I would not let him provide a fix to "Hallo World".
OK, I will then. It's "Hello World".
Re: Novel solution
Winning comment!
Liberte. Egalite. Fraternite.
"I'm engraving it on my cufflinks."
You have three sleeves?
It's a goo thing
I applaud any attempt to add new possibilities for internet search. I don't care if it's not perfect.
Freudian sip?
I wouldn't have thought that "passive drinking" deserved quite so much weight in this article.
An insult button?
"First thing I did after reading this was insult the Thai royal family."
Perhaps there should be another button - right beside the "like".
myface
I'm from Canada and we have year books, but here in the west calling it a "facebook" is unknown. I'm with LaeMing, it's just a name.
I understand your point. From a legal point of view there is no difficulty. I would, however, suggest that there is another way to look at it as well.
Can you ignore the reality that people will tick tick boxes without knowing what they are agreeing to? Ask some Facebook users what they think the user agreement looks like, or what it might mean to them. I honestly don't think that many people are very cognisant of what they are agreeing to on-line. This is a similar situation to getting consent from children who are under age - they don't understand the ramifications and hence are incapable of giving consent. When it comes to on-line activity,I think many people are co-opted by social pressures into agreeing to documents which they have not read and may in fact be unable to understand. Is that really consent?
Occasion
I don't see how someone who doesn't believe that a prostitute can become a donkey would necessarily be an atheist.
To whom does this apply?
"Using deception to obtain personal information or selling it on without permission are serious offences ..."
I'm a little confused about what constitutes "deception" here, and how do you get permission from users who are not knowledgeable enough to even give consent? Oh well, I guess there's some phrase in there that excludes Google and Facebook.
It's not a mistake
and they already did learn. They've learnt to say: "we should have been more clear". So far that seems to work for them.
I am old
I might agree on the videos, but they weren't made for me and my opinion doesn't count. I'm still cheering for the kid.
Page: