I think it was fairly clear what was going on, the neural networks latch on to conditions that are necessary but not sufficient because they found common characteristics of real images but never got any negative feedback. Like in the peacock photo the colors and pattern are similar, but clearly not in the shape of a bird but if it's never seen any non-bird peacock colored items how's the algorithm supposed to know? At any rate, it seems like the neural network is excessively focusing on one thing, maybe it would perform better if you divided up the work so one factor didn't become dominant. For example you send outlines to one network, textures to a second network and colors to a third network then using a fourth network to try learning which of the other three to listen to. After all, the brain has very clear centers too, it's not just one big chunk of goo.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you. Then you lose and kill yourself."
- Hitler (well, not really)
I never understood what that Gandhi quote is so popular, sure that's what a victory looks like out the rear view mirror but most defeats start just the same.
It was the 1960s. You were lucky to have a 300 baud modem, they wanted to save two bits by chopping the "19" off 1960 and encryption was regulated as munitions. Heck, even in the 1990s they wanted to restrict my browser to 40 bits so I didn't have "export grade" cryptography. I still hear cost for servers and battery life on clients as an argument for why sites don't move to HTTPS, The very idea to build the Internet with strong encryption by default was ridiculous on technical merits and I don't recall anyone even suggesting it so feel free to quote some sources.
Yes, MITM attacks are possible. But unlike wiretapping they're also detectable and I don't just mean in the theoretical sense. You could still use CAs to "boost" the credibility of an IP encryption key fingerprint (The CA signs my cert, I sign a message saying my IP uses fingerprint aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff), you can verify by proxy (connect to your server from friends/family/open wifi/proxy or ask a third party to what certificate fingerprint they see) or you can use in-band ad hoc verification. For example you're in a chat and it says at the top "finger print for this session is aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff" you might say "reverse it and you get ff:ee:dd:cc:bb:aa" or "third pair is a double c" or "last two are 255 in hex" as part of the conversation. Even better if it's voice communication, think they can MITM a buddy saying the fingerprint?
MITM only works if there's a protocol you can use to automatically block/filter any information about the key. For example imagine you take a photo, overlay the fingerprint semi-transparently and display it on your website. Now they have to create a very custom solution for your site to create an identical photo to replace it with. Transparent MITM in an interactive process - not just your cell phone checking your mail - is going to be really tough to do on a mass scale. It won't have the perfect theoretical characteristics, but it sure will work for most people most of the time.
If so, this boils down to can a court compel a property owner to direct his property to do something (such as forward a document in that properties possession), even if the property happens to be in another country?
That depends. For example many countries have laws regarding historical artifacts, you can own them but you can't take them out of the country. Or you can legally buy cryptography chips in the US that needs an export license. Just because Microsoft Ireland can legally possess the customer data in Ireland, doesn't mean they're free to ship it around the world or provide access to it in violation of Irish law.
The fact here is that the individual(s) are refusing to provide access to the data voluntarily which requires the authorities to obtain it by force. This tells me there's something incriminating in the data which is why they didn't just hand it over.
So either you comply "voluntarily" or your lack of compliance is used as a reason do to if forcefully, either way the cops get to do whatever they want. Maybe they should start at home and repeal the 4th amendment first?
Any concepts "lost in translation" could be easily appended as a new word to a common tounge, there's an absurd amount of redundancy in that there are hundreds (thousands?) of ways to express simple concepts like "yes". The English say yes, the French oui, the Germans ja, the Spanish si, the Russians da, the Japanese hai, the Portugese sim, the Polish tak... is there a value to this? Language barriers are sand in the machinery for any kind of human endeavour in science, technology, commerce, travel, communities and so on. The Internet has enabled me to reach billions of people but I don't know how to talk to most of them. What they have to contribute to the global village isn't easily available to the rest and they can't access the global resources we're building. I think I read once that more than half the world's science papers are now written in English.
Sure I'd probably keep my own language for all those other reasons but I'd welcome a world where everybody could talk to everybody. Sometimes a particular concept just takes a little longer in English, that's all. For example the word "dumsnill" in Norwegian, it means something like naive but that usually implies that you're simple or gullible while this word in particular means your generosity is being exploited to taken advantage of you. I might need half a sentence to explain it in English, I don't need a whole language for that. I think the idea that some concepts are only expressible in one language is rather silly, I speak three and there's always a way of getting what I want across. Even with a simple vocabulary you can usually explain more advanced concepts without looking it up in a thesaurus.
Remote activated tazer/stun-gun sounds interesting. Tear gas canister would also be possible I suppose... Wonder when the hostage crisis teams of the world will start to send in telepresence robots with active weapons systems...
Why? SWAT teams are already armed and armored to the teeth and will assault with massive force, it's extremely rare that any of them are killed relative to the hostages. Sending in a robot to stir the hornet's nest would only lead to a massacre, either you go in full force or you don't. It could end non-hostage situations sooner but just waiting it out until the nutcase with the gun surrenders (or suicides) seems to be pretty efficient too. I guess you could have a telepresence hostage negotiator, but a smart hostage taker wouldn't give the police a live video stream to plan and time their raid with.
Are you certain of that? Bear in mind, when interpreting the Constitution of the United States, judges do look at other influencing documents from the time, like The Federalist Papers, which are not themselves legal documents.
True, but ignorance of the law is no defense. Which basically means that not only must you know the text of the law, but the entire applicable body of law, relevant precedents and current interpretation of the law. Heck, you can still end up losing a trial because the Supreme Court will disagree with your reading of an ambiguous and previously unsettled area of law so being a psychic or clairvoyant could be quite useful. They'll try interpreting the law as intended and you bear the burden if they decide your gray area is on the illegal side.
In contract law you're not assumed to know anything about the background or history of the license except as written. Sure, if you've been negotiating a contract then that communication is relevant for the interpretation as you're one of the parties but developers and users of GPL software aren't generally in contact. You download a piece of software, accept the agreement and any ambiguity in a take it or leave it license will be almost certainly be interpreted in disfavor of the one who wrote it. Unlike the lawmaking it won't be assumed that their way to read the contract is the authoritative one.
Well, that part is actually not up to the GPL to define it's a key part of copyright law, if it's not derivative it's not covered by copyright so the GPL wouldn't apply.
I've always kind of wanted a bank account with built-in credit-card functionality. No overdraft fees possible, rather you pay credit-card style interest when your balance is negative, and earn bank-style interest when your balance is positive. Of course, this is unlikely to be offered for just that reason... to the banks, overdraft fees are a profit center
That's fairly common here in Norway if you apply for it, they call it "account credit" though you typically don't get the 30 day free delay, you pay credit interest from day one but at least your payments don't bounce. With most terminals being online it's actually pretty hard to overdraft a debit account these days, if there's no money in the account the transaction will usually be refused.
More like the inverse debit card. When I pay with a debit card, money is withdrawn online there and then. Why can't we do the same for deposits and transfers? I just checked here in Norway and money only transfers between banks four times a day, 05.35, 11.05, 13.35 and 15.35. I guess that's fast enough for my uses, but if I pay a buddy at 4 PM why can't he buy a beer with it at 7 PM? It's not like it takes three hours to make a transaction. I understand that settling balances is hell when things change 24x7 but surely there must be some way to deal with that.
As for your getting a DVD or better is difficult. No it's not. For example, I had a conversation earlier today that went like this. "I download the 1080p of The Equalizer last night, 9gb" "how? That isn't out yet." "Ya, almost all movies get released to the scene about a month before you can get them in the store." "Oh really, how was the movie Lucy?" In other words, almost all movies make it to the various torrents/usenet/whatever about a month before they get released, unless you get a DVD screener of it out first.
But it's usually far more than a month between theaters and DVD release. For example The Equalizer was released September 26th, DVD release is December 30th. So you get to watch it a few weeks before the others waiting for the disc, but you're still long after those who saw in in theaters stopped discussing it. Not to mention the chance of accidentally reading or hearing major spoilers, a month after release people don't put up the big spoiler warnings anymore. It sucks more for some kind of movies than others, for some that's really a downer.
If someone posts a photo taken by me I have a copyright claim.
If someone posts a photo taken of me by a hidden camera in the shower it's under a different law.
If someone posts a biography written by me I have a copyright claim.
If someone posts a biography written about me it might be libel, but not copyright infringement.
I really don't understand what kind of twisted logic they used to arrive at the conclusion that the actor has any kind of copyright claim, it's always belonged to the one pointing the camera or holding the pen. Assuming the cameraman is making a work for hire it'll pass from him to the company who hired him, the subject never had a claim nor was ever given a claim. It sounds like they wanted to arrive a conclusion and made bizarre leaps of logic to make it happen. I'm sorry but she should have filed a lawsuit and gotten a court to take it down, this copyright claim is simply fraudulent and to add insult to injury she should probably be prosecuted under the "penalty of perjury" clause.
The whole "if we offer better conditions than sweatshops, we will be run out of business by sweatshops" argument is bullshit. It's used by the economic elite to argue why you should slave all day for table scraps while they make millions and by "learning the rules" you mean "bend over and take it like a good boy". We can demand basic environmental conditions just like we demand worker health and safety, no child labor, minimum wage and a bunch of other conditions and a few might bugger off but you won't miss working there. If you squeeze too hard it will all go away though, it's not like grabbing water maybe more like pudding.
Besides, what you're talking about is not really capitalism it's human nature, of course we adapt how we play to the rules of the games. That's what they're trying to do, give people the right incentives. And yes, that is hard in a dynamic system and if you don't have a good enough model what you do might end up being counterproductive. Some of it is just ridiculous, like here in Norway we export gas and import coal-based power, because then the emissions didn't happen here. That makes no sense at all. But just because some things environmentalists do is facepalm-worthy, doesn't mean that it all is.
Sure, picking the right horse to begin with. But if you've made one kick ass movie and the studio is offering you $millions to do a sequel because you are that character and the audience is practically cheering you on before you even make a performance, don't you think he'd be a little bit interested in an easy gig whether or not the script sucks donkey balls? He's 72 and his glory days where in the 70s and 80s, I doubt he's looking for the next big thing just riding this one all the way home. Like the Rolling Stones touring even though they're soon senior citizens, I doubt they need the fame or the fortune either but it doesn't stop them replaying old hits.