_ trust is such a subjective concept, that lots of people inherently trust certain sources over others even when those sources have long histories of being full of crap._
Most MSM outlets have a reputation for being trustworthy - which survives right up to the point where they report on something where you have actual first hand knowledge about - then you realise how bad they actually are - and you never trust them again.
It is not a matter of trusting some outlets - it is a matter of using the output of multiple sources, where you know at least roughly what their bias and expertise is - and then forming your own opinion.
Of course the solution that many people out there believe to be the best - human moderators - is actually the worst - because the people they use are going to be paid peanuts - and will probably do an even worse job than an algorithm.
The whole point of AI is that you don't use algorithms anymore.
Err no - the point is that they use a different type of algorithm - but it is still an algorithm.
Most currently popular AI Algorithms involve some kind of "training" process during which a set of internal data (originally random) is refined so that it can solve a problem.
Maybe I could patent that basic structure and get royalties from EVERYONE!
The way patents are written makes that entirely plausible.
"A system and method comprising a datastore, as problem and a set of training data whereby the data in the datastore can be refined through a training process to solve the problem.
So, if I copy a photo from a freely accessible website and burn it to a CD and sell those CDs, it's wrong because I might be depriving the photographer of income.
But if I copy software to a CD and sell those CDs it's different?
Wrong analogy.
Here is the corrected version.
IF I copy an encrypted photo from a freely accessible website and make copies of it and then sell them - but in order to view those copies the buyers have to pay the photographer for the encryption key - then that is exactly analogous to the microsoft situation.
Microsoft don't just allow you to view online - they allow you to make a copy. BY implication they also allow you to make a copy for someone else (otherwise children and disabled people can't have access).
By implication they also allow you to charge a fee for doing so (otherwise disabled peo0ple can't employ professional help.) So everything he did is alllowed by Microsoft.
Yes - your quote about Ayn Rand is quite telling - because in the end, when push came to shove, she failed to live up to her own ideals.
Personally I have come to increasingly dislike and distrust the right/left spectrum and labels. There is an economic dimension and then there are various social and cultural dimensions. Personally I'm firmly on the left economically - and I deplore the way the right assumes that it has won the argument in that sphere.
On the other hand I'm dismayed by the way that many on the left have been suckered by some interest groups in the social/cultural arena and often promote things that are quite the opposite of its core values.
In some places the left/right thing has been very confusing.
Take France for example. Who was on the left there?
Le Pen, who wanted to keep the French holidays and pensions - but was demonised as a Fascist or Macron whose tax giveways to the rich probably exceed those of Donald Trump?
Well it does seem to be a start in the right direction.
Whilst I actually agree with our resident troll that the bias against the right is not really fully debunked by that link*, I would like to point out that in earlier times and in other places where the MSM has been controlled mainly by the right it never made any real effort to be even handed either.
Both sides complain like crazy when they perceive that the other one is making an unfair use of power .... and then behave exactly the same when the roles are reversed.
*It's probably not a bias against the right as such - but rather the casual enforcement of an accepted wisdom on certain specific issues. These issues shouldn't really be left-right ones at all - but it just so happens that the people who have picked up on them are mostly on the right.
My statement is consistent with the evidence presented in the Wikipedia article on the subject, when you take overvotes into account as well as undervotes..
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. .
those of us who might have voted Democrat because the only other choice was Republican are realizing that's not going to make the changes the nation needs to hold together and return to being a nation for the people.
And that is also the result of the electoral rule that make the rise of a third force well nigh impossible.
Except the people haven't spoken. Trump only won on a technicality,
Not so. Trump won according to the rules as they stood at the time of the election. Had the rules been different then the Trump campaign would have been run differently. You have no means of knowing what would have happened had the popular vote been the official criterion.
Now as it happens I totally agree that the rules are wrong and unfair (and the ones here in the UK are even worse - we had a referendum here a while back to try and change them but of failed abysmally).
The problem is that the time to recognise that the rules are wrong and change them is when you just won according to the existing rules. Problem is that that never seems to be a priority.
Bush won on that same technicality
Strictly no - although Gore also won the popular vote he did in fact also win the election according to the prevailing rules - as was discovered when the votes were finally counted properly. Bush didn't win on a technicality - he didn't win at all and stole the presidency by bullying the courts. Gore gave up too easily.
Not really. There is a principle of sovereign immunity in US law. Now a few US laws may override this -eg JASTA which finally allowed the lawsuits against Saudi-Arabia to proceed.
However the case against Russia does not seem to fall into one of those categories, and of course the US post cold war attitude towards Russia has ensured that it stayed outside the set of countries who might have paid attention to a US legal claim.
On the post: Facebook Ranking News Sources By Trust Is A Bad Idea... But No One At Facebook Will Read Our Untrustworthy Analysis
Re: Re: MSM Trust
This "getting stuff all screwed up" isn't exactly unique to traditional "main stream media". It's a function of the people in the system.
True but what is unique to MSM is that some people DO trust them.
On the post: Facebook Ranking News Sources By Trust Is A Bad Idea... But No One At Facebook Will Read Our Untrustworthy Analysis
Re: Re: They Openly Admit It.
In addition you would expect them to do exactly that - because that is what everyone (including the conservative media) does exactly that.
More worrying is how Facebook is cowtowing to the most illiberal regimes on the planet:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/19/facebook-pakistan-blasphemy-laws-censorsh ip
On the post: Facebook Ranking News Sources By Trust Is A Bad Idea... But No One At Facebook Will Read Our Untrustworthy Analysis
Re: Re: They Openly Admit It.
Googling the source of that "quote" certainly does say it all.
Dismissing a story because of the messenger without bothering to check further says something about you.
On the post: Facebook Ranking News Sources By Trust Is A Bad Idea... But No One At Facebook Will Read Our Untrustworthy Analysis
MSM Trust
Most MSM outlets have a reputation for being trustworthy - which survives right up to the point where they report on something where you have actual first hand knowledge about - then you realise how bad they actually are - and you never trust them again.
It is not a matter of trusting some outlets - it is a matter of using the output of multiple sources, where you know at least roughly what their bias and expertise is - and then forming your own opinion.
On the post: Facebook Ranking News Sources By Trust Is A Bad Idea... But No One At Facebook Will Read Our Untrustworthy Analysis
Human moderators
On the post: USPTO Suggests That AI Algorithms Are Patentable, Leading To A Whole Host Of IP And Ethics Questions
Re: Uhm - USPO forgetting something?
On the post: USPTO Suggests That AI Algorithms Are Patentable, Leading To A Whole Host Of IP And Ethics Questions
Re: AI vs. "algorithms"
The whole point of AI is that you don't use algorithms anymore.
Err no - the point is that they use a different type of algorithm - but it is still an algorithm.
Most currently popular AI Algorithms involve some kind of "training" process during which a set of internal data (originally random) is refined so that it can solve a problem.
Maybe I could patent that basic structure and get royalties from EVERYONE!
The way patents are written makes that entirely plausible.
"A system and method comprising a datastore, as problem and a set of training data whereby the data in the datastore can be refined through a training process to solve the problem.
There - I think I've got that covered.
On the post: Innocent Man Charged With Murder Because His DNA Was Found On The Fingernails Of Victim, Whom He Had Never Met
Simple solution
If DNA is used to locate a suspect then it cannot be used in evidence.
On the post: How Microsoft Convinced Clueless Judges To Send A Man To Jail For Copying Software It Gives Out For Free
Re: Re:
On the post: How Microsoft Convinced Clueless Judges To Send A Man To Jail For Copying Software It Gives Out For Free
Re: Re:
Yeah - Microsoft was really interested in not allowing these refurbished computers to exist.
Not really - otherwise why make the download available.
This looks more like left hand not knowing what right hand was doing (or maybe even not liking what right hand is doing).
Microsoft is unlikely to be monolithically consistent.
On the post: How Microsoft Convinced Clueless Judges To Send A Man To Jail For Copying Software It Gives Out For Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, if I copy a photo from a freely accessible website and burn it to a CD and sell those CDs, it's wrong because I might be depriving the photographer of income.
But if I copy software to a CD and sell those CDs it's different?
Wrong analogy.
Here is the corrected version.
IF I copy an encrypted photo from a freely accessible website and make copies of it and then sell them - but in order to view those copies the buyers have to pay the photographer for the encryption key - then that is exactly analogous to the microsoft situation.
You appear to be being deliberately stupid.
On the post: How Microsoft Convinced Clueless Judges To Send A Man To Jail For Copying Software It Gives Out For Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
BY implication they also allow you to make a copy for someone else (otherwise children and disabled people can't have access).
By implication they also allow you to charge a fee for doing so (otherwise disabled peo0ple can't employ professional help.)
So everything he did is alllowed by Microsoft.
On the post: Facebook And Google Finally Take First Steps On Road To Transparency About Content Moderation
Re: Re: Well it's a start
Personally I have come to increasingly dislike and distrust the right/left spectrum and labels. There is an economic dimension and then there are various social and cultural dimensions. Personally I'm firmly on the left economically - and I deplore the way the right assumes that it has won the argument in that sphere.
On the other hand I'm dismayed by the way that many on the left have been suckered by some interest groups in the social/cultural arena and often promote things that are quite the opposite of its core values.
In some places the left/right thing has been very confusing.
Take France for example. Who was on the left there?
Le Pen, who wanted to keep the French holidays and pensions - but was demonised as a Fascist or Macron whose tax giveways to the rich probably exceed those of Donald Trump?
On the post: Facebook And Google Finally Take First Steps On Road To Transparency About Content Moderation
Well it's a start
Whilst I actually agree with our resident troll that the bias against the right is not really fully debunked by that link*, I would like to point out that in earlier times and in other places where the MSM has been controlled mainly by the right it never made any real effort to be even handed either.
Both sides complain like crazy when they perceive that the other one is making an unfair use of power .... and then behave exactly the same when the roles are reversed.
*It's probably not a bias against the right as such - but rather the casual enforcement of an accepted wisdom on certain specific issues. These issues shouldn't really be left-right ones at all - but it just so happens that the people who have picked up on them are mostly on the right.
On the post: Democratic National Committee's Lawsuit Against Russians, Wikileaks And Various Trump Associates Full Of Legally Nutty Arguments
Re: Re: Re: "the people have spoken"
My statement is consistent with the evidence presented in the Wikipedia article on the subject, when you take overvotes into account as well as undervotes..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florid a#County-by-county_standards_for_write-in_overvotes_in_2000
On the post: Democratic National Committee's Lawsuit Against Russians, Wikileaks And Various Trump Associates Full Of Legally Nutty Arguments
Re: Re: Re: "the people have spoken"
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. .
Didn't work in 2016 - did it?
On the post: Democratic National Committee's Lawsuit Against Russians, Wikileaks And Various Trump Associates Full Of Legally Nutty Arguments
Re: "the people have spoken"
those of us who might have voted Democrat because the only other choice was Republican are realizing that's not going to make the changes the nation needs to hold together and return to being a nation for the people.
And that is also the result of the electoral rule that make the rise of a third force well nigh impossible.
On the post: Democratic National Committee's Lawsuit Against Russians, Wikileaks And Various Trump Associates Full Of Legally Nutty Arguments
Re: "the people have spoken"
Except the people haven't spoken. Trump only won on a technicality,
Not so. Trump won according to the rules as they stood at the time of the election. Had the rules been different then the Trump campaign would have been run differently. You have no means of knowing what would have happened had the popular vote been the official criterion.
Now as it happens I totally agree that the rules are wrong and unfair (and the ones here in the UK are even worse - we had a referendum here a while back to try and change them but of failed abysmally).
The problem is that the time to recognise that the rules are wrong and change them is when you just won according to the existing rules. Problem is that that never seems to be a priority.
Bush won on that same technicality
Strictly no - although Gore also won the popular vote he did in fact also win the election according to the prevailing rules - as was discovered when the votes were finally counted properly. Bush didn't win on a technicality - he didn't win at all and stole the presidency by bullying the courts. Gore gave up too easily.
On the post: Democratic National Committee's Lawsuit Against Russians, Wikileaks And Various Trump Associates Full Of Legally Nutty Arguments
Re: His Name Was Seth Rich
What could Russia possibly do that they couldn't more easily do themselves?
If what they planned to do was "dodgy" why would involving Russia make it any less dodgy?
On its ace it would simply make things worse if they got found out - and make no difference whatsoever if they didn't.
Russia is a complete red herring either way - so what is it being used to deflect attention away from?
On the post: Democratic National Committee's Lawsuit Against Russians, Wikileaks And Various Trump Associates Full Of Legally Nutty Arguments
Reasonable claims - not really
So... reasonable claims, impossible target.
Not really. There is a principle of sovereign immunity in US law. Now a few US laws may override this -eg JASTA which finally allowed the lawsuits against Saudi-Arabia to proceed.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-judge-allows-911-lawsuits-against-saudi-arabia-proceed -242046471
However the case against Russia does not seem to fall into one of those categories, and of course the US post cold war attitude towards Russia has ensured that it stayed outside the set of countries who might have paid attention to a US legal claim.
Next >>