Perhaps the problem is that the kind of people who can bring about large changes in society tend to be egotistical, ambitious, dictatorial personalities. Those who desire power are often the least likely to use it well. That doesn't mean that such a society is impossible, but merely that the kinds of people who are capable of bringing it about without turning into dictators are so rare that such a person has not yet been born.

Really? What's different? (Yeah yeah: someone will tell me I should buy the book... I'll add to my book list and get to it by 2047).

This is just a friendly reminder that the purpose of Facebook games is to get your personal information. When you "install" the game you get a EULA that grants the game access to your profile. But, as far as I know, clicking on a Facebook ad should not give them your profile. The article mentions OAuth, but that should not be relevant to an advertisement.

It is a big factor.

First, a clarification: They aren't talking about making small community police forces. They are talking about having the one central police force patrol with some consistency, so they get to know the community and build relationships. I'm imagining that officer Joe patrols Elm street every Monday, rather than seeing Elm street once a year.

Here in Maryland, both of the candidates for Attorney General were fighting over who could address this problem with the police force better. They talked about how difficult it is to conduct an investigation in a Baltimore City neighborhood when even the people you are trying to help don't know you and don't trust you. Previously, the department was organized by specialty. So there is a homicide investigator, a fraud investigator, a drug investigator, etc. They covered those crimes regardless of geography. Now they are saying each investigator gets a district, regardless of the type of crime. So the community gets to see the same face over and over again. That investigator learns who they can go to, who to believe, etc. Patterns form.

It's the realization that crime is about people and places not statistics.

Is London as diverse as NYC?

Bingo!

I worked for a company that had secure online backup software, and these kinds of things are exactly what they did. The original software really honestly didn't have the key. They even sent it to an escrow service whose contract said they could never ever give us the key. But later, features were added to the system: The server could transcode mp3 files and stream them to your phone - how could it decrypt the mp3 files to transcode them for streaming, if they didn't have the key? And the install.exe had the secret key embedded in it, because customers didn't like having to type it themselves. And the web site would give you your files inside a password-protected ZIP. The password on the ZIP file was the key. How could it decrypt the file, then ZIP it up, then set the password on the ZIP file if the server didn't know the key?

This could turn into a real micropayment system.

About 7 years ago I (incorrectly) predicted that ISPs could bootstrap micropayment systems by allowing users to put money into an account with their ISP. When the user visits a site with ads, the site could "bill" the customer via the ISP anonymously, transparently to the user, and cheaply. The payment system would essentially live in the ISP's HTTP proxy server.

The Google model sounds like a variation of that, with Google collecting the money and distributing the micropayments to the web site via the ad network.

A similar ad-free subscription-oriented option will be available for YouTube soon. I am surprised to see this announcement without it connecting to that one.

The lander doesn't need to operate continuously!

So instead of powering the lander directly with a big 20kg 32-watt RTG, how about a much much smaller RTG that slowly recharges the battery over a period of days or weeks? Replace the solar panels with perhaps a 2kg 2-watt RTG. (Yes, I made-up those numbers for illustration purposes). That would allow a 32-watt lander to wake for ~10 hours every week.

This really only works if the client is open source. Otherwise, you don't know that the client doesn't send the keys through a side channel or store them somewhere.

When creating comparison images, use PNG not JPG. One of the images compares the texture detail on the face, but the "more detailed" PC image just shows more JPEG artifacts. That indirectly shows there was probably detail there, but you can't really see it. If you do JPEG it, use the ridiculously high settings.

The "researchers" did not prove anything to do with what the article claims. What the article really proved is that it is impossible for a robot to make an ethical decision, if that ethical decision is based on analyzing source code.

They created a scenario where the "robot" must determine if a computer program was written correctly or not. An ethical decision hinges on that. If the program is written correctly, it must do one thing, and if the program is written maliciously then it must do another. Then they point out that the halting problem makes it impossible to guarantee that the computer program was written correctly or not. And since the computer program involves a life-or-death decision, therefore, robots can't make life-or-death decisions.

Using that logic, I can prove that a robot can't do anything. Let's try it: I will prove that a robot car cannot decide if it is safe to make a left turn or not at an intersection. I do this by imagining a scenario where the software for the traffic light might be written incorrectly. So my robot car must first analyze the software for the traffic light, determine if it is written correctly, then only make the left turn if the traffic light software is correct. Since the halting problem shows that it is impossible to create a general purpose robot car that can analyze the source code to all other pieces of software, it cannot be guaranteed to make the right decision about the intersection in this case. Ergo, robot cars are impossible and we should not make them.

Actually, all I proved is that a robot can't decide if it is safe to make a left turn if that decision is based on analyzing the source code to the traffic light.

P.S. Yes, I simplified of what the halting problem says. It doesn't say the robot absolutely can't analyze the software. It says that it may not be able to analyze the software, because the software may never end, and the robot can't determine that. I didn't want to go into that subtle difference in my TLDR analysis.

A few other people chimed in and pointed out quotes indicating that the lawsuit might have been based on antitrust claims. That makes more sense than the first amendment thing.

Okay, I stand corrected. So they invoked antitrust law. Maybe first amendment angle was just to get people riled up. Arggh, I think legal reporting is almost as bad as technology reporting. Although overall arstechnica is pretty good on that.

Not it was not. No one claimed Google broke any law, and the government was not on either side of the case. This was a civil case, where someone thought Google was treating them unfairly.

While I agree with the ruling, I don't see how the first amendment applies. It states that "Congress shall make no law..." but since this was a civil case, and did not involve congress, how does the first amendment apply? Google should win the case simple because Google can do whatever they want in their search results. It is as simple as that. Applying the term "free speech" or "first amendment" to a computer generated algorithm seems like a slippery slope to me.

  I just read the ruling: the case was dismissed because "the claims asserted against it arise from constitutionally protected activity..." so nothing to get excited about here...