It doesn't mean 99% of all people were in favor of a certain side of an issue, just that 99% of the people who left a comment with the FCC felt about the issue. I don't think there were many citizens against net neutrality who were concerned that the repeal of net neutrality was not going to occur.
So 'Copypasta' is a cromulent word now?
It is worth noting that some states consider this data public and offer it for download for free
So why not make it clear in your headline what % of the data is not public before getting all excited...
Keep in mind, that the "voting history" in the summary is easy to sensationalize. In most cases it only means you were issued a ballot, and possibly for mail-in ballots that you returned it. No state has a history of what actual voting selections were made.
"US Voter Records From 19 States Is Being Sold on a Hacking Forum...It is worth noting that some states consider this data public and offer it for download for free, but not all states have this policy."
Why am I willing to bet that 19 states do have this policy, turning this "hacking" story into nothing more than clickbait?
We used to get pissed when "hacking" was mislabeled or misunderstood. Now we're just pissed that no one has a fucking clue what a hack is anymore because everyone is labeling every stupid little thing as hacking. Found a shortcut to work? You "hacked" your commute. Used a microwave instead of the stove? You "hacked" your dinner prep. Downloaded free public information? You "hacked" the voting public.
Enough of the "hacking" shit already.
How the fuck is this public info? Anyone can view your voting history? Is the USA a banana republic?
Voter rolls (name and contact info) are public in most states. Additional data available is usually what elections you voted in, and in some states what primary ballot you pulled. These are usually restricted to campaign and other political uses by state law (marketers, not working on political issues, are usually barred from using it, for example).
Note that how you voted (i.e. who you voted for) is not recorded and not part of any record.
Elon Musk: weâ(TM)ll send humans to mars in 2024.
Jeff Bezos: Hold my beer...
I keep asking that question. Setting up colonies and supporting them will take a large amount of energy. Is there enough energy available on Earth to sustain this? Even with solar and wind. Remember all rocket fuel we have now is petroleum based. Would the energy required leave the planet a raped burnt out husk?
We ideally should have at most 1-2 billion on Earth, which equates to 10 billion in the solar system.
And that requires preventing all resources being drained by excessive copies of any given mutation.
Since we cannot know future needs, we cannot say anything is useless other than excess.
As for living in Mars, that's easy. We know how to live on Mars. Deep underground. Been known for years. Only idiots talk about surface dwellings. There's nothing interesting on the surface, just a lot of radiation and toxins.
He could pay his people a living wage. Which could then drive space tourism and create the market conditions needed for long term space development.
Audacious, a descendant of XMMS (which was a clone of Winamp), works wonderfully. Its "Winamp Classic Interface" looks exactly like Winamp and even (iirc) supports Winamp skins.
That said, I do miss the old (original) Whitecap visualization (one of the very few in which you could really see the music in what was still a visually stunning display), which only works on Winamp on Windows. (...not that Winamp's return would allow me to run this again.)
Except, Winamp is ALREADY this. Winamp has an extensive plugin system. It can already play podcasts. It CREATED internet radio through Shoutcast. Other plugins are available for other data sources too... I know this, because I remember writing them and publishing them myself.
"People want one single experience."
A lot of software has gone down to tubes because of this idea. People don't want one single experience. They want different experiences for different circumstances. They want software with features optimized for how they listen to music, how they listen to streaming radio and how they listen to podcasts. Combining them into one app is both unnecessary and creates undesirable side effects.
The same thing happened with social media apps tried to be the be-all and end-all of all media, when users want to keep things nice and compartmentalized.
Edge? Awesome. Yes, please do this.
Internet Explorere!? Oh hell no!!
Seriously, the only reason why IE is still around is due to supporting legacy systems, such as networked attached hardware (printers, routers, switches, access points, security cameras, and more). Not all of these devices are on the public internet, so security concerns in that regard may not be as high. But their web based interfaces generally can not be updated, so are stuck using older protocols. What is the point of even having IE around anymore, if its one and only task (supporting legacy enterprise systems) no longer functions? If that's the case, just remove IE entirely since it'll be made worthless.
But I bet you anything they won't include an option to override unsafe TLS versions warning, and that sucks.
In some cases, there are good reasons to visit unsafe "sites" with expired certificates, that rely on TLS 1.0, or running older Java apps that use deprecated encryption algorithms. For instance, in my company, we have over 8,000 deployed servers with various versions of Dell DRAC (versions 5, 6 and 7) that are still perfectly serviceable, but that have become a massive pain in the butt to access with modern web browsers and newer JREs: some browsers just won't allow you to "visit the page anyway" (i.e. Firefox) and newer Java versions require a bunch of really annoying privacy configurations and a slew of impossible-to-disable warning popups to let older apps runs - despite the damn DRAC apps running quite safely behind our perfectly secure corporate VPN. It's become so annoying we now distribute a dedicated Virtualbox VM with an outdated Linux distro just to be able to access older DRACs quickly.
In short, I wish developers stopped thinking they know what's good for you 100% of the time, and at least offered a configuration option to allow older, unsafe protocols to be used painlessly - even if the configuration option is difficult to set or hard to find, so long as it exists and it can be set once and for all. But they don't, because they they think they know better...
Article updated two hours after publication to include similar announcements made by Apple and Google. While Mozilla did not issue a blog post about the upcoming deprecation, a Mozilla spokesperson confirmed the company will deprecate TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1 in 2020. The original version of this article only mentioned Microsoft plan to deprecate TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1.
"You mouse has moved. Windows 10 needs to reboot. [OK]"
I think Windows 10 reboots more frequently than Windows 95.
Windows 10 doesn't prompt:
Configuring new mouse position for Windows 10
55% complete
Don't turn off or try and use your computer, this will take a while
Your PC will restart several times
is there anything out there that could use 128GB of RAM and even get close to that number.
I'm dealing with 100GB-1TB databases at work on a regular basis — I'm sure, others have encountered even bigger ones. Fitting all — or most — of the dataset into RAM is greatly speeding things up. Indeed, there are database-software packages already (such as, ugh, "memcache"), that must load it all into RAM, offering dramatically-improved speeds in exchange for this requirement.
On the OS level, swap — and the associated complexity of the kernels — is becoming unnecessary in more and more cases. On some of my FreeBSD machines, for example, I'm already compiling the kernel with options NO_SWAPPING.
On the filesystem-level, ZFS — the revolutionary filesystem — can offer much better speed with more RAM. The abundance of RAM is also making its advanced features (like deduplication) practical.
And for a layman's personal computer, editing a 4K video becomes much snappier too, if the the entire (uncompressed) clip fits into RAM.
And then come things like "machine learning" — I'm waiting for a Thunderbird add-on, for example, to automatically sort my incoming e-mail. Not just "spam/not-spam", but all of it, based on the ongoing analysis of how I've been sorting it through the years... For those things to be effective, they need both CPU and memory — continuously...
Other examples — legitimate and otherwise (like Chrome) — abound...
Max Mem 1 TiB
Multitrack high-res audio editing. Video editing and compositing. Medium format 48-bit image editing.
Anything needing a few gigabytes of RAM just to load a project will just get faster the more you can buffer stuff into memory.
Epyc supports 2TB per chip. WTF is up with Intel?
Photoscan and other photogrammetry applications, when working with large image sets (1000+ photos) and high quality settings.
After Effects uses RAM to store rendered frames, so increasing from 64 to 128GB means you can have twice as many frames stored in RAM preview at a time.
Video editing with 6K and 8K footage, though usually in those situations you would want a CPU with more cores anyway (so a Core X processor, which can already support 128GB of memory without more dense modules.
That is just what I can think of off the top of my head, and that others in this thread haven't already mentioned.
Well, this is the reason so many people focus on extremely unlikely consequences, like human extinction or the complete collapse of civilization. You just can't get most people to focus on the likely consequences, even some pretty serious ones, because twenty or thirty years in the future they seem trivial. Some people can't get their asses in gear unless they're facing catastrophe.
If complete catastrophe were likely, then even the people bankrolling the denialist movement would be concerned. But it's not. There will still be beer, coffee, beef and holiday resorts in a world that's 2C warmer, and if those things cost a lot more, they're counting on making enough money now by externalizing their costs that it wont' matter to them.
It's basically a scheme to transfer wealth, one that exploits most peoples' present bias.
The sad thing is, those of us that really would like to take issues like this seriously wind up getting lumped in with the hysterical Chicken Littles.
Indeed. TFA is Chicken Littleism at its worst. It is based on ridiculous assumptions. It assumes that barley will still be grown in the same fields. Obviously, as the climate changes the "barley belt" will shift northwards. It assumes that using barley as livestock feed will take priority over brewing, which is unlikely. Lastly, it assumes that the cost of barley is a significant factor in the price of beer. The barley in a pint of beer costs less than a cent.
The first part of the beermaking process is boiling the grain to extract the sugars. As a convenient side-effect it kills most nasty germs.
Skunking is caused by exposure to light altering the alpha-acids, it's nothing to do with whether it's safe or not. If it's really off it will smell of vinegar, cheese and puke in various charming combinations.
Yeah, no shit... not to mention, alcohol has driven a lot more people apart than it has brought together.
While I do not dismiss your fact, you obviously haven't thought this through.
If you think a world full of drunks is hard to deal with, imagine a world full of sober people.
The original purpose of the Reinheitsgebot was as much to do with reserving wheat to be used for bread (so the peasants didn't starve) as it was about beer quality.
Currently, it serves the function of a pretentious twat detector, which it does rather well.
Ironically, if you follow it to the letter what you're going to get is a blandish lager, much closer to closer to American piss beer than to Paulaner, Guinness, Hoegaarden or Chimay.
AI requires a lot of education and quite a background in technical expertise.
Actually ... it doesn't. Deep learning uses a lot of linear algebra, differential equations, and complicated algorithms to deal with regularization and efficiency. But all that is tucked away in libraries. For a real-world AI app, you just slap together a Tensorflow pipeline using Python, and fiddle with the parameters until you get good results. It is more art than science.
My son is 15, and he went to an "AI bootcamp" this past summer. It was a two week course, and he built a pretty snazzy reinforcement learning application, using Python and some canned visualization tools. Later he made a generative NN to create animations. This is a kid that is just starting high school.
It's certainly out of reach for me at 41 years old.
Probably, but because of your attitude, not your age.
I really hate the whole concept of AI because it is putting people out of work
There is zero evidence that AI is "putting people out of work". How many people do you know that have lost their jobs to deep learning?
What this sounds like is Late Stage Capitalism.
You should spend more time on professional development, and less time reading The Communist Manifesto.
Automation creates more jobs than it displaces in the long run. Jobs change, and you have to be prepared to adapt, learn new things, and possibly train for a new career, otherwise, you're just trying to perpetuate a conservative system.
He's 41. Let's say it takes 5 years for these :new careers" to open up, then another 5 years for him to train up. He's now 51, with no experience in that new career, but all the attendant demands/requirements that tend to come with 51 year olds-kids in or about to enter college, desire for work/life balance, reasonable pay and benefits especially healthcare. Who is a company more likely to hire? Him, who will also probably like to retire in 10-15 years, or a 20-something fresh out of college with the exact same amount of experience in that career field who is cheaper both in absolute terms (lower salary) and more intangible terms (less likely to need/use healthcare, fewer sick days, fewer to none family obligations, etc).
Will a lucky few get hired for a reasonable wage? Sure. Will a few more be willing to take much lower wages and find a company willing to hire them? Probably. Will a lot more get kicked to the curb and told "tough luck, try applying at Walmart, Home Depot, or an Amazon warehouse"? Most definitely.
I will just wait for the 1 week bootcamp AI certification class...
Just sayin'. Not accusing anyone of anything legally.
There will be an opaque admissions process run by gnomes accountable to nothing and no one, with rules so arbitrary and politics-driven that Admissions will be one part of AI College that will have to be staffed by humans.
-AIs that have never worked very well but which have colorful, checkered implementation histories will get preference. An AI which was developed to spread ransomeware but which promises to turn its life around is a surefire admission. Some sample guidelines:
-AIs that reply with a female voice will be preferred over those using a male voice, but being able to switch among a number of hard-to-classify androgynous voices will be considered better still.
-AIs developed by Asians will not be admitted unless the developers are really big donors and only if they don't play an instrument.
-An AI that was developed by the same team as a previously admitted AI will be admitted even if mediocre.
Bought a dual SIM phone.
The way I imagine the app working is that it pokes at you more and more with questions until the point you throw the phone, at which point it uses force measurement to determine level of anger.
Maybe they could co-brand with Kleenex?
"I see your depression score is above 21, click here to order a box of tissue."
"treat some of today's most intractable medical problems: "
'Intractable' literally means 'untreatable'.
There is zero detail about what this actually means. Presumably they agreed on a protocol, but what protocol? What is the significance for ARM, are they going to add protocol acceleration to the next generation of the ARM spec?
Who cares what Intel and ARM do with their chips as long as manufacturers ship devices with default passwords, outdated software, no encryption, and whisk all the data from the devices off into some silly unsecured cloud.
Paint the WiFi Chip bright Orange by law so we can rip it out.
Family planning to decide whether to have children or adopt could be a very good reason for genetic counseling, especially if the potential parents have medical issues. Preventive health care for people at high risk of various genetically caused diseases could also be a legitimate reason for genetic counseling.
Here's how it works.
You will end up looking a lot like your mother or father, depending on your birth gender.
You will have the problems your parents have (propensity for dementia, alcoholism, diabetes, cancer, etc.).
If your grandparents live past 80 take care of yourself and you can too (eat well or exercise, one or the other works, generally). Pay attention to dementia, get your paperwork in order depending on how you want to handle that, just in case.
If you want, ask potential child-birthing partners about their family history. I wouldn't suggest this, let love lead the way and have a good time.
It always intrigues me how the job market is considered to have 'shortfalls'. There is no shortfall of genetics councillors. There is a shortage of genetics councilors at the current market price for them.
It's also funny how this sort of thing only applies to the little guys. I'm yet to hear a politician or business leader suggest that rising CEO/banker wages are a sign of a lack of competition for executive jobs, and that policies should be taken to increase supply in those professions.
Genetic counselors function as analysts.
It should be highly emphasized many of these tests are of questionable utility in the real world. How to interpret the results is often not at all intuitive. Its a wild west type of situation and I generally wouldn't recommend having any of these done without proper guidance.
GATTACA
Don't fall for it, folks.
That's not really true. A lot of small-time investors are invested in funds that charge significant fees based on the amount invested. Almost all mutual funds have some sort of percentage fee, though it is quite small for the better index funds. On top of that, many retail investors are paying a "financial adviser" (really a salesperson) a percentage of assets under management (often 1-1.5%). Total fees can easily be greater than 2% a year. That doesn't sound like much, but if you are a retired person, that amount represents HALF your annual income (not including social security).
The sad thing is that all these fees are rarely necessary. Simply investing in low-fee index funds from the likes of Vanguard or Fidelity gets your fees down to a nominal level (like .05%). Indeed, trading makes no sense for the retail investor, but fees on trades are rarely the biggest fees retail investors pay.
You do make a point about hedge funds, which are designed to fleece the rich. They are often worse than retail mutual funds, traditionally charging a "2 and 20" (i.e. 2% of assets invested PLUS 20% of the return). Then, pile on private equity investments that add restrictions to liquidity on top of all that. But, of course, they have a slick "wealth manager" that plays golf with them and makes them think they are getting "exclusive" opportunities because they are oh so special for being rich.
Do yourself a favor. Ignore the financial adviser and just open an account with Vanguard or Fidelity. Put 70% of your money in a total stock market index, and 30% in a total bond market index. Rebalance annually (i.e. reallocate so you don't drift too far from 70/30). That's literally all you need to do. The financial industry wants you to think it's complicated so they can skim fees for "managing" or "advising."
It depends a lot on the broker and market - different countries have different rules. US rules are pretty lax and let the broker get away with skimming money because they're only required to provide a client with the current best round lot price even if the order can be satisfied with an odd lot in the market at a better price. Also, some brokers actually do give you access to the stock market and allow you to use various execution strategies on their platform.
It's a bit different with derivative markets where the broker may be creating their own instruments (options, futures, CFDs, etc.) - in this case the broker creates the product and sets the price. You can't trade against other participants, only the broker. You're pretty much guaranteed to be paying unfair premiums in broker market derivatives.
The main function a retail broker provides is managing risk for small clients. The exchange isn't going to deal with investors directly because of settlement risk, i.e. the risk that someone can't deliver cash to cover their buys and/or stock to cover their sells by settlement time. Brokers and other exchange participants (e.g. market makers) are required to show that they have adequate working capital and risk control procedures to manage the risk to the exchange's satisfaction. If there's any failure to settle, it's the broker who's on the line. The broker then applies their own risk management methodology when vetting investors and setting limits on their trading.
Yes, brokers are a point of friction, and they do add to transaction costs. Ideally, competition should drive prices down. As risk management systems are improved/automated, the price brokers need to charge can be reduced. If entrenched brokers are charging too much, upstart brokers can undercut them. Of course you also need a regulatory environment that facilitates a fair market for broker services.
Oh and Goldman Sachs are cunts - we all know that.
Dont watch any financial news channels, There is not enough info to fill 24x7. They fill it with fluff, speculation and misinformation. Makes you trigger happy, second guess yourself and trade. You lose time and money.
Most retirement planning advice is bullshit. They assume you will spend in retirement as much as you are spending when you were earning and have no flexibility in spending. Estimate you expenses into a four categories: Essential (food, shelter, clothing, medicine) Discretionary (travel, entertainment, charity), Indulgence, Principle Protection (money to be reinvested on good years). First goal, save enough for essential without touching the principle, then discretionary. Then for Principle protection. Then for indulgence. Spend less on lean years. Spend more on good years. Reinvest in good years to hedge against inflation.
Going to ban weather reports also?
So how exactly is Facebook going to determine if reports of long lines are false? Information on line length makes it EASIER to go vote if you can choose between a few different polling locations and fine the one with the shortest lines. If that information is banned might some people go, find a long line and drop it??
Facebook may as well ban all weather reports indicating cold, snow or rain since all of those might make people less inclined to vote also. In fact I daresay Facebook is better off banning everything except cat videos on election day - though even there the danger is someone would prefer to stay in and watch cat videos rather than vote.