No, I'm not going to play that game. You can google yourself.
If you can't be bothered to support your statements don't expect anyone to be bothered to care about what you have to say.
It's a matter of such renowned concern that you'd have to be willfully ignorant to not be appraised of it.
See above.
Stop using the word insider. It's a weasel word. There's nothing insider about this.
Insider is not a weasel word. The president providing advanced notice of material policy decisions to people who pay him so they can exploit the markets is of course insider trading.
Imagine someone finds out that the SEC is going to ban the trading of cryptocurrencies.
Imagine he tells the world.
Everyone who trades on that is guilty of insider trading
For insider trading to be insider trading it has to be an insider doing the trading or disclosing and it has to be material non public information. Your example fails both tests.
Everyone who trades on that is guilty of insider trading....
Given your example is not insider trading conclusions drawn from your incorrect assertion are themselves also invalid.
Meanwhile the Democrat lemmings here ignore people like Nancy Pelosi. Multiple people in both houses having been doing this crap for decades and you so called educated folks ignore that very obvious fact.
But but but Trump.
This is exactly why I rarely post here anymore. Your TDS has blinded you. Just like how you ignore that the DSA is taking over the DNC while you aren't paying attention.
Do you believe it is possible to ever focus on a given topic without being required to evaluate every other instance of any other situation that could be remotely construed to be similar having ever occurred in human history?
If you were in court defending a client from a murder charge would you chastise the court for their failure to enumerate all the other murders who murder too? Would you drone on about how it is unfair to single out your client while asserting the court is suffering from MDS (Murderer Derangement Syndrome)?
Astra correctly answers all 10 questions in the $2000 lightning round!
And now on to the final round. To win $32,000 cash, a brand new Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser, and an all-expense paid vacation for two to Puerto Vallarta, all you have to do is answer this single question to the satisfaction of our judges:
The Riemann Hypothesis: True or False?
Good or bad is irrelevant. What AI is, is inevitable, as technology advances always have been. Fighting it means you're spending your time doing that instead of preparing for it, which means . . . you're unprepared when it happens
Trying to block the road of progress will just get you steamrollered.
This is a load of BS. Everyone gets a vote. Technology is merely a means to an end.. a tool to get shit done. What constitutes progress is both subjective and distinct from technology. They are completely different concepts and should never be confused.
For example technological means to nullify the strong force using $20 worth of materials from your local electronics store would certainly constitute "technology"... yet unless your idea of progress is randos with nothing better to do vaporizing entire cities such "technology" would constitute regression not progression.
Likewise if all AI ultimately brings is aggregation of power into ever fewer hands enabling tyranny and devaluing everyone there are likely to be many who would not consider this to be "progress". Technology does not in and of itself constitute progress.
Bad AI includes AI that infringes copyrights during the training phase. If this AI has been trained (even partially) on content found on the Internet, then it's bad AI. (*)
Copyright concerns only the performance or (re)production of works and derivatives. It expressly does not constrain any other use, facts, styles.. etc embodied in a work including learning by a person or machine from that work. Training AI is clearly transformative and so there is no copyright interest. While it is possible to violate copyright during training by for example making "fixed" reproductions of copyrighted material in the training workflow it is also possible to train an AI on copyrighted works without having done so. Thus the argument is effectively reduced to quibbling over pointless technical modalities.
What I'm waiting for is people to start training up models against known data sets in a bit for bit reproducible manner. When the aggressive derivative work complaints roll in from IPR groups you would have something that can be taken to court to demonstrate production was done without knowledge of infringing work. AI use then becomes a means of reducing legal liability.
It's hard to parse sentences some of the words are.
Do not the cat.
The EFF wrote, "The Senate Commerce Committee is set to consider S. 737, the SCREEN Act,
This is the wrong tool for the job. Zero knowledge proofs are simply a means for both parties to agree they possess the same secret information without divulging any secrets to an eavesdropper in the process. There always has to be some OOB means of both parties selecting which set of secrets they will be agreeing upon.
The technology that would be used looks more like an authorization token. The Internet site has a trust anchor comprised of public keys of age verification services. The user gets an authorization token from the verification service and hands it to the Internet site which uses the trust anchor to verify authenticity. The authorization token would simply be constructed in a way that does not divulge identity.
This would deny the Internet site access to the users identity while concurrently just as importantly never requiring any communication between the Internet site and age verification service itself.
The problem with this approach is the user would either keep having to get new tokens from the verification provider or such tokens themselves would end up effectively serving as tracking cookies. I think it could be largely solved by the provider belching out a bunch of different tokens at once the user could rotate between before getting more.
This leaves collusion with the age verification service which I can't think of a single reason anyone should ever trust. Even if they could the system would be completely worthless in practice given the effectively infinite pool of over age people identities could be lifted.
To say nothing of the obvious political issues with these schemes being fundamentally incompatible with a free society.
Music charts died with Casey Kasem.
You greatly underestimate the EU. I know it's hard to imagine politicians that aren't working for corporations first, but the way the EU is set up it's very difficult for them to gain traction. Look at all the pissing and moaning about GDPR, RoHS and so forth. The EU made it happen anyway.
This isn't saying much. GDPR has improved neither privacy nor security. EU regulation has the same effectiveness of CA cancer warnings.
It is none of Google's business what software any of us run on our own computers.
Models and meteorologists want a *vertical* sample of the atmosphere. The ideal sensor would not bend, deflect, or drift off with the winds aloft. Balloons do a *lot* of drifting.
The soundings returned by the balloons are all skewed to some degree or another.
And now they are publicly boasting about it expecting to be rewarded for their efforts.
Tim Waltz is a criminal mastermind. He's been hacking other states' water so that he can keep all 10,000 of his lakes topped off at the expense of hard working Americans.
Bell Labs Unix -- Reach out and grep someone.
