|
It would be funny if someone used IBM Watson to prove that the older workers were targeted 
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: "Old man, look at my life, I'm a lot like you were"
Okay Kent, 'fess up. How many years is that song older than you?
(very meta of you, BTW )
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I’m old enough to have heard it on the radio when it first came out. But probably not, as we never listened to “shakey rock and roll” stations as a child (I would have been 10)
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: I’m old enough to have heard it on the radio when it first came out.
Cool; CP hires geezers! 
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: "OldYoung man, look at my life, I'm a lot like you werewill be"
Fixed for anyone who thinks it can't happen to them.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin's blockchain can be loaded with sensitive, unlawful or malicious data, raising potential legal problems in most of the world, according to boffins based in Germany.
In a paper [PDF] presented at the Financial Cryptography and Data Security conference on the Dutch Caribbean island of Curaçao – "A Quantitative Analysis of the Impact of Arbitrary Blockchain Content on Bitcoin" – researchers from RWTH Aachen University and Goethe University identified 1,600 files added to the Bitcoin blockchain, 59 of which include links to unlawful images of child exploitation, politically sensitive content, or privacy violations.
You might get sued when having the blockchain on your local disk.
|
|
|
|
|
Implying that using a blockchain can infect your PC? Blockchain data isn't executed, so mallware is just "data".
The paper on which the article is based: "Since all blockchain data is downloaded and persistently stored by users, they are liable for any objectionable content added to the blockchain by others," the paper says.
No, they can't; you cannot be responsible for stuff outside of your sphere of influence. They are assuming you'd be responsible for what you download and store on your machine, but AFAIK, you're not responsible for actions of stuff that you don't download (ie, malware installed via Windows update).
Again, more a piece that tries to influence the image of BitCoin. The fact that you can add data to the chain was already known, that's why 1.4% includes them in the first place.
To hit back at the so-called researchers; I can hide malware in a JPG, which you could accidentally display in a browser. Easily. Not a problem, since the extra payload is not executed by a browser or MSPaint. How does this differ?
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: No, they can't; you cannot be responsible for stuff outside of your sphere of influence.
The courts disagree to an extent and, absent other evidence, a jury would probably acquit if the sole objectionable content was something in a block chain. However, a counter argument is that IF you voluntarily downloaded content, you are obligated to know, and are liable for, what that content is.
What I wonder is, say you download an e-currency. You do your due diligence and discover objectionable content, what then is your recourse?
|
|
|
|
|
Dutch courts would not have it.
When downloading a BC, you're not volutarily downloading the "attached data"; you don't know what the attached data is until it is displayed. Also, the reasoning of those idiots would mean that everyone who displays my JPG is a criminal, because they might downloaded illegal content which was hidden in the file.
So no, no court would accept it.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: So no, no court would accept it.
I respectfully disagree, at least in regards to US jurisprudence. In most, if not all, jurisdictions in the United States, possession of certain types of things, including some images, is illegal. If a person is charged under these laws, the only legal basis (beyond procedural issues) the judge would have to throw the case out is if the prosecution presents no evidence that the possession is more than entirely passive and limited. Otherwise, if the defendant doesn't otherwise plead guilty, it would go to trial. It is there that a jury may determine that the possession was passive, even if the defendant actively downloaded or acquired the illicit material.
Let's say I buy a car and am shortly thereafter stopped by the police and consent to a search, during which they discover drug paraphernalia. One factor in determining my guilt or innocence in the eyes of the law will be whether I could have known about such material. Were it sitting on the backseat or under a front seat, I'm toast. Were it hidden under the back seat, which would require it's removal to discover, absent other evidence, odds are good that the judge would have thrown the case out, but if not, that I'd be found not-guilty by a jury. Neither assumption, however, is guaranteed.
modified 23-Mar-18 13:06pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Aight, so you disagree.
Since you probably hovered with your mouse over my name, my picture is downloaded. You think I can now sue you?
It's that simple 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Your example makes no sense. Moreover, we (and the article) were discussing criminal law, not civil law.
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Woodbury wrote: Your example makes no sense.
It does, you're failure to understand the link is probably based on you not reading my prior post in this thread, or not understanding what was written.
Doesn't matter if it is criminal or civil law; law is based on logic. Logic states I can hide an illegal payload in a JPG. One which is on your computer, so you are liable for it by your own words.
Also, people will still accept a 100$ bill if it has the picture of a swastika on it. It may be illegal, but ownership doesn't make liable for the sentiment of the author.
More examples? You bring your MP3-player to North Korea, and one of the tracks contained meta-data (from a another user where you copied the file from illegaly) that breach their law about their great leader. Should you be executed? According to you, yes.
At which point point does the argument posed become rediculous enough? It is third-party data that you cannot verify or clear before downloading.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps when their own "profile" gets "block chained" by a 3rd party, they'll be less blase.
Permanent bathroom graffiti.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
Pressing a button appears easy, but the brain needs a probabilistic internal model to control a press. A new theory exposes significant improvements to button design that help gamers and musicians. boop
|
|
|
|
|
With modern programming languages and proof technology, developers can make use of formal methods at various levels, ranging from enforcement of safe language features to proof of compliance with formally specified requirements. "Proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing"
|
|
|
|
|
First you have to prove to me that the proof "technologies" work.
Second, you have to prove to me that your proof is correct. Given that (last time I checked) proofs only really work with functional programming languages, and you have to use CoQ to write the proofs, and it's so arcane...
tl;dr - who tests the testers?
Latest Article - Contextual Data Explorer
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: tl;dr - who tests the testers?
The developer. Final proof on paper with a pencil, validated by a coworker.
..and it's no reason to delay the deadline ofcourse 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Except "proving" software works ultimately fails because it assumes that the conditions of the proof are constrained. Further, even if it operates properly within the constraints, it doesn't establish that the design is valid or usable.
Unfortunately, far too much automated testing essentially takes this approach and fails to test paths which may cause failure. For example, if the specification states that the user shall enter upper case letters, what happens when they don't? Or what if they enter Cyrillic upper-case letters?
|
|
|
|
|
Google is working on blockchain-related technology to support its cloud business and head off competition from emerging startups that use the heavily-hyped technology to operate online in new ways, according to people familiar with the situation. "If all the other kids jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"
|
|
|
|
|
Google is working on....everything!!!
Latest Article - Contextual Data Explorer
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
If you're bucking for a new job that requires cloud security skills, here are the five technical certifications most likely to get you noticed, along with a bunch more money. "No one knows the lonely one whose head's in the clouds "
|
|
|
|
|
For one brief shining moment, Yahoo was the king of all it surveyed. To some (small) value of glory
|
|
|
|
|
I predict Facebook is next. Not because of the recent data gossip, but because trendy things tend to rise fast and fall even faster; especially with young people.
The article says that that Alibaba is a 160 billion dollar company; in fact it is currently a 500 billion dollar company. And Yahoo owned 16% of it before the merger with AOL, leaving the 1 billion dollar Alibaba investment worth 75 billion to current shareholders. One of few things they did well.
|
|
|
|
|
Do developers have an adequate understanding of the ethical considerations of their work? "Grub first, then ethics"
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
