I read "select" as meaning specific fields (as in, select types of data), not deliberately selected subsets of data... got a quote that helps clarify things?
In other words, they took everything they gathered and pulled a subset that matched criteria that would back the claim that they could detect future crimes.
While it's possible that they did in fact pull a biased sample, this methodology is what I was taught in academia as a legit way to test machine learning. If you have one sample set, first split it into two. Use one set, usually much smaller, to train the neural network. That data set, because it's tuned to find those specific correlations, obviously produced really good predictions. So you use the second data set to test whether the inputs correctly predict the outputs.
Especially considering that said "information sharing" leads to a mere 8% increase in accuracy.
Well, closer to 22%. While it's true that 8% of the predictions are more accurate, what is important is that ~22% of the predictions that used to be wrong are no longer. In much the same way as if it went to 100% accurate, you don't get to bitch about it being only a 38% increase in accuracy. You get to talk about whether it's worth the cost, and how we can get something only 62% as accurate without the cost.
This is one of the reasons why it's going to be such an uphill battle for Microsoft when it comes to tablets and phones. They were late to the game.
They really weren't. I remember using a Windows tablet/laptop convertable back in 199? And a Windows phone (with Office, etc. ) before the first iPhone dropped.
I'm actually not sure why neither one took off. My assumption would be that both were too large, and that probably had most to do with either non-low-power chips or battery technology.
because of the hoover dam.
Which is all green energy, so it's easy for Tesla to live up to their claims.
The same formula is used by Hollywood when someone messes with the occult. The dire, yet vindicated, warning. The monster in the second act. Etc.
I guess what I'm saying is that Hollywood honestly doesn't know the difference between science and magic. Although computers even more so.
I'm far more concerned about the effect of "cops bend the rules because they sooo hate the evil killer and need to get him off the streets" shows. Cops actually do get influenced by that. I think there was a study about that, but it may have been not published because it was too groundbreaking....
Risky to who, exactly?
The research bearing fruit. No one is suggesting removing protections from actual subjects. The article is about funders wanting to fund "successful" (that is, hypothesis affirming) and "publishable" (that is, less contraversial) experiments.
His goal is to somehow shift the funder's incentives so high sucessful completion risk/high reward (either in basic knowledge or specific benefit) stuff gets made.
And I agree. The shit that gets funded at any real level is often piecemeal and uninteresting. Hell, even "we want money to try a similar study with N>35 so we can test a lot of spin off research of this promising study" get shot down for being too out there.%lt;/rant>
there is no incentive to solve the misogynistic trolling "problem" (assuming it even exists
Well, that depends on who is solving the problem. Certainly, some games do in fact see a drop in subscriber base. These companies have incentive to stop the problem.
For instance, XBox saw a lot of women not re-upping their XBox Gold accounts.
In this case they did lock the gate, I assume. By which you mean use passwords.
However, that doesn't help if the gate is set in a 4 foot high picket fence
There's no such thing as a right not to be offended
There certainlly is, within some contexts. There is a right not to be offended in your home. There is a right to limit what asshats say on your blog.
Now, that doesn't give you the right to shut down channels where people say what you don't like, unless that channel is too difficult to avoid. Protests in front of your house. Calls at 2am. Etc. But free speech does not give you a right to force yourself to be heard.
Youâ(TM)ll note the celebs arenâ(TM)t in the above list of people who share in the blame here. I donâ(TM)t even expect them to know enough to use good passwords. Theyâ(TM)re ordinary humans whose focus should be on things not related to IT security.
I expect them to know enough to use good passwords, because I expect all people to know that. I expect them to know enough that they are a high-profile target. And I expect them to know enough to know that computer security is often shittily done.
That is, I expect them to know enough not to trust anything. I don't expect them to know enough to choose to trust anything.
If the fucking system worked like it's supposed to, people could put anything anywhere. Blaming the victim for a broken system is not logical.
It is if the victim, exercising a reasonable amount of care, would have known the system was broken. Now, what is reasonable is up for debate. I think everyone agrees if you ignore the "Beware of the Leopard" sign that everyone agrees you don't get to complain when you don't get a super-awesome adventure (possibly also mauled by a leopard). And I think if the breaks in your Prius go bad, then no one would think you could have predicted that (unless you are the Woz; because he did and told Toyota...)
I would say that it is perfectly reasonable to blame the victim for not realizing that nothing you put on the internet can ever hope to be private. If you are leader of a country, you should expect other countries to tap your phones. If you are a celebrity who makes a lot of money off your sexiness, you should expect people will want nude pictures of you.
You may disagree. And it is distasteful to blame the victim. But there is some point, which different people can have a discussion about, when it is starts becoming their fault.
Is it that journalism doesn't exist, or that you just don't know how to use google?
If you can easily Google more information about a topic than the journalists put in their articles, does that really support the contention that journalism exists?
Why? It doesn't happen now.
We fucking make it happen. We pass a law that says that says that they cannot. And that the defense can bring it up if they do.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you'll notice that there is not footage of the alleged stop. That's because, after we requested the footage, Officer McPoopyPants deleted it. Does that sound like the behavior of an officer who legitimately gave my client a ticket for going 1 mph over the limit?
You mean something like this?
No, I think he means something that is actually followed... and possibly enforced.
As a rule, if you say "but there is a standard; let me link to the documentation" there isn't a standard.