Derka Lerka Lerka

When California see's the CO2 map and realizes their entire central valley, LA and San Fran are THE hottest spots in the nation...
will they actually DO anything about it? laughable....

I've read every comment and didn't see the word 'harm' used other than in your post twice, are you projecting?
Your personal opinion about Ken Paxton has no bearing on the legitimacy of the lawsuit being discussed, try a concrete logical argument based on the facts of the case and you might actually lend credence to your position.

So, in your world, Senators represent acres, not people, eh? Because Humboldt County has 16K people, while Middlesex County, MA has 1.6M people.

IF you actually read my comment, I am NOT making weapons tech or anything related, and even state we should _of course_ limit such uses - but the technology has a ton of other uses and is everywhere in the modern world. To limit all use and export of it just because it has some military uses is asinine - like limiting the export of aluminum - which every country in the world has access to - just because the Chinese might use some to make some weapons. The might also make your dishwashers.

Learn to read.

I regularly do work for overseas clients using open source imaging libraries. Libraries that are _already_ available in those countries.
So, a company in China could hire local developers to download and use the same NN (Neural Network) libraries I would use, and it would be legal. But if they hire me, overseas, to use the same libraries, that would be regulated as a technology exchange and possibly not allowed? That HURTS commerce. In an open source world, this sort of thing is ridiculous. It limits american companies by preventing them from competing internationally with already existing technologies - image classification, for example, is a Widely discussed topic, and many of the original theories and the techniques we use came from people outside the US - but thanks to international scientific sharing and open source, we - like everyone else - get to use and benefit from these techniques.

And these technologies are everywhere - they are not militarily purposed/used. These days - Our cellphones use NN to determine what sort of 'scene' we point the camera at and adjust the exposure/brightness/contrast appropriately - whether for a selfie or a food shot. Snapchat and many apps use facial recognition that uses Neural Networks - AI image classification and recognition - to implement filters. So, you're telling me a company in China can develop a new fox-face filter for their snapchat-alike app using the same techniques and libraries we can all download, but it would be bad/wrong for an american company to make such a filter and sell it on the Chinese market? No, if such regulation were to be used, the stipulations must be much more specific than just including image classification and other broad AI techniques. _OF course_ we don't want American developers making weapons for foreign regimes - but to limit ALL uses of these technologies is asinine and bad for our tech sector as it cuts off a broad swath of the global market - a swath that _already_ has access to these techniques.

The dept of commerce document linked in the article lists the following contact information:
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
through either of the following:

  Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:///
www.regulations.gov. The identification
number for this rulemaking is BIS 2018–
0024.

Address: By mail or delivery to
Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of
Industry and Security, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Room 2099B, 14th Street
and Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20230. Refer to RIN
0694–AH61.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kirsten Mortimer, Office of National
Security and Technology Transfer
Controls, Bureau of Industry and
Security, Department of Commerce.
Phone: (202) 482–0092; Fax (202) 482–
3355; Email: Kirsten.Mortimer AT
bis.doc.gov.

Considering the original poster used the term "hate" in quotes, you seem to be really overreaching. And to assume anyone who doesn't want to see hate speech is a leftist totalitarian is sadly very, very shortsighted.

Go pet a puppy, it will make you feel better.

How would that fraction even be deemed significant?

Anyone who counts the Nazis as leftists has just invalidated everything they have to say, much like seriously supporting the tooth fairy. News from the real world - Hitler lied! Guess you didn't know that.

What's left that one should not do?

Cowboys vrs. Aliens

You keep saying that and the next 10' x 10' room will have 50,000 orcs with uzis in it (and a chest with 3 copper pieces).

If there are any legitmate files hosted on those servers Sony's hired guns are DOSing, a "second amendment analogy" means Sony just fired back at both their opponents and some innocent bystanders. How about that, posters defending Sony's right to use such tactics - does that right include unlimited collateral damage to random bystanders? If sony isn't breaking the law, then does that make the law right even if innocents get caught in the 'crossfire'?

I'm far from sure this is just about protecting the public image of MIT or saving face. It's hardly outside the realm of possibility that MIT gets some economic benefits from having those videos on Youtube and has a contract with the professor that passes some of them on to him. For example, the videos are probably calculated in MITs taxes each year as an IP asset, and that makes some of the costs of producing them part of research credits and such that affect MITs filings for years after they are made.Actions such as giving things to the community create real good will, and something called goodwill for taxes, and while both will be reduced if some people find the misbehavior disturbing enough to offset the normal good feelings towards MIT this produces, the impact on the tax version is a real economic consequence.
      I think we are looking at a borderline case, particularly if this is just a single incident of online harrassment. Like where two 16 year olds send naughty photos of themsleves to each other and then a prosecutor says it's technically distribution of pedophilic images and we should immediately try both participants as adults. This situation at least technically counts as triggering a lot of consequences, now should it trigger all of them without any descression.as to whether it's really serious enough for that whole automatic process to be just? Or is that what we mean by zero tolerance - borderline cases all trigger maximum consequences.