pms

It is a scary vision. However, the scary part seems to come not so much from the increasing data availability, but rather from the increased likelihood of discriminatory uses of such data. Enforcing non-discriminatory uses of data sounds like a hard problem to tackle, especially if we realize how diverse is the space of possible missuses (e.g., in law enforcements, business, and politics) and that this problem affects both humans and computer systems. As hard as this problem sounds, the article provides a great motivation for research that defines computationally what "discriminatory" means, as well as for the research aiming to design systems (both human and computer) that are privacy-protecting and non-discriminatory.

It seems that the articles is not available any more... Here is a copy: https://www.evernote.com/shard/s5/sh/cb87dfea-7551-46e7-a162...

Also, here is one of early comments: http://musicfordeckchairs.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/wider-les...

This sounds like a comment from the Apple design team itself.

The Apple watch looks very common and cheap; the only good thing about its look is that it is highly personalizable.

Could you provide any arguments, instead of just bashing Wikipedia?

It's funny to see all scores being 0-0, 1-0, or 2-0... ;)

The assumption of the gamers being a minority is incorrect, at least for young male adults [1].

[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28101518/ns/technology_and_science...

There is a bigger system than Google/Facebook here: all the engineers that work for these and other companies. It's not just this one person who is affected. There are all these engineers whose wages and opportunities are lower that they could be.

Maybe this kind of taxation could be a way of coping with NSA surveillance of European citizens? (That's just a provocative sentence, so please keep on reading.) Currently, Europe is at data disadvantage comparing with USA, and this disadvantage is used by USA not only for security reasons, but also to protect interests of USA. (That's what Snowden claims himself.) In such case, shouldn't Europe also protect its interests? I think the only two ways out are:

1. Imposing taxation on foreign Internet giants in Europe. Needless to say, that would lead to divisions of the Internet, which we all want to avoid.

2. There should be an international act signed between Europe and USA providing Internet companies certain degree of independence from national-level surveillance, which would protect privacy of citizens of each country involved in the act to the same extent.

Simply brilliant video.

I think that people who pay for these guys are miserable. It's up to them to choose what's "fun" for them. If playing this kind of game is "fun" for them, then it's fine for me. I'll play a different game. As long as there will be people like me, there will be indie games and a lot of fun for us.

How can you call it a better solution? I totally don't get it.

I realize :)

Well, it is damn boring.

I follow Starcraft 2 pro scene and it is not so bad, although, many players are young, so immature behaviors happens sometimes. I guess that competitive strategy games are different from competitive FPS.

Well. That's obvious.

The question is if we need it, and if it won't be abused?

I think we were doing pretty fine without monitoring phone calls, so why do we want to monitor on-line services? Because it's simpler is not a good answer.

Actually... Why do they want to pass this bill in the first place?

I mean... The things they want to do are comparable with monitoring all phone calls. Listening to all phone calls and trying to catch dangerous words in the conversations. Why nobody tried to do this with phone calls, but now they try to do this with on-line messaging and social networks?

Sure, but reviews are not transparent, nor accessible to the public. Why not? Wouldn't it be nice to see what other people think about the article before reading it? Currently there are citations, but that's about it.

Well, a technical solution is needed to make changes faster and even better, namely: 1. Provide for the papers a system of transparent reviews and ratings accessible and readable to the public. 2. Provide a recommender system and a search engine based on the reviewed and rated papers available publicly.

This would add real value to the scientific publishing and simply help the researchers to find what they need.

Sounds really good. Could you link me to some material about this?

Well, the coercive component is the unified reputation that you gain in this site, just like the reputation that you gain in SO. Obviously, the higher reputation you have, the more recognizable you are and more people read about what you do.

Why not, if you would get reputation points for it? The idea is to review the papers which you want to read anyways, or perhaps you have already read them and you want to express your feelings about these papers, hopefully in a way useful to other viewers of the paper. Nobody tells you to do it, so you do it by heart, this surely would increase reviews quality.

Could you give me examples? Thanks!

I think that there should be something like SO (Stack Overflow) for scientific papers, with anonymous user-generated reviews and ratings of the papers, and reputation being acquired by the users, both based on papers and their reviews. I wrote 'anonymous' because it's a more heavy-weight business than posting and assessing questions about coding. To avoid the situations when scientists get angry because of bad reviews, and try to revenge on their reviewers, it should be at least in the first years anonymous. The reviews would be voluntary, and also would be rated, just like answers to question in SO. I am a scientist, and I know that reviews have very low quality because of many reasons, such system could perhaps help improving the reviews, while keeping the reviewing process automatized, and reducing its cost to the minimum. In fact, costs of storing papers are low (Arxiv), reviews are free (nobody pays to the scientists anyway, they do it for the community and reputation), and the only cost that is high is the cost of managing the reviews. But if reviews could be automatized then we have a system that is as cheap as Arxiv is, and peer-reviewed :)

In the long run I see such system emerging and being successful, and eventually replacing everything else. Needless to say it will take a lot of time though to popularize it.

What do you think? Could this be done?

Didn't he?

He is tackling the issue head-on, and he is verbose about it. This is the way many politicians are. Not very sophisticated, to say the least. This is his strategy, let's see how will he take the jail time though.

I'm not sure if this is the future. Perhaps for the masses, to some point, as you write. However, I already find myself uninterested in any large productions, cause in the end they are indeed all the same... I gamed a lot in the past. Nowadays, I am buying Humble Indie Bundles, and I am truly excited about Kickstarter funded games. It seems to me, that the real creativity is transitioning to there.

Perhaps, "free speech" is the best term to use here. I think you refer to free culture, and/or free knowledge.

The stuff you write is bullshit.

If we treat the law the way you treat it then we violate the rule of proportion again. How can you talk about "criminal intent" when we are talking about copyrights protection? It's extremely different to murder somebody, than to violate copyrights. The first is widely perceived as morally wrong among all nations. What about the second? How can you, therefore, talk about "criminal intent" in case of copyright protection? The intent here is quite obvious, the intent is to CHANGE THE LAW. This is "criminal intent" for you? If intent to change the law were "criminal intent", because it hurts some specific businesses, then the law would never change for the good of nations, instead it would change for the good of people with power. Or, it would change, but like it has happened historically, with a bloodshed. This is right for you?

Think about it, use your brain, please!

Actually... I don't get why he was doing circles on the parking lot...

I mean, think about it. Why he was doing it? I guess to check if the car will get discharged in next few minutes to write in the review that car got totally discharged after just few more minutes. Well, it didn't happen. Why then he didn't write that the car actually still held some charge? I mean, he was trying to show something negative about the car, but when he found something positive, he was no longer interested in showing it?

Why on earth this is the first news on the front page? In the end this article is rumor-like and just speculating on the cause of his death...

> "As federal prosecutors, our mission includes protecting the use of computers and the Internet by enforcing the law as fairly and responsibly as possible."

Protecting? Just like they protect "free knowledge"?

"Real reform of the CFAA requires two steps (1) a comprehensive rethinking of the statute, esp. since solving the Lori Drew problem would not have saved Aaron and (2) engaging not with the White House, but with Senator Leahy, who is the policy maker most likely to understand and support these efforts. Nevertheless, I'm going to sign this petition. The White House can know what I think." https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reform-computer-fr...