Supreme Court Ruling Relaxes Warrant Requirements For Home Searches
that's interesting. I opened a new tab to read this forum, and in the background, the browser was making dozens of requests to various "ad" sites. I don't know if it was a poisoned existing ad on the page firing these background requests off, or if there is some sort of script injected or if this is what Dice does in the background for ad revenue. Using Ubuntu 13.10, Firefox 27.0.1. It did not occur on other forums.
Weapons Systems That Kill According To Algorithms Are Coming. What To Do?
It's not so much killer terminators in the classic sense.
A trifecta of air/sea/land operations is what's being done. Autonomous drones across the three game surfaces to eliminate the massive expense of physically present wetware, even remotely is the long term benefit. Being able to classify, analyze, and respond accordingly allows continuous intelligence and strike operations to be maintained 24/7 in any theater we need to be in.
You want to be able to move your troops in the area, send a signal to stop active guard while you traverse the area based on the pause code updated constantly by satellite so there's not more "thunder!" "Flash!" type of counter signing, you just want to click and go, and enable it again when you've cleared the area. You want to be able to throw a drone up in the air to target enemies when you're pinned down. You want a small sniper patrolling an area constantly while you're stuck in a forward area.
Classification of enemies isn't difficult, when you define it as anyone that should be there. It's the benefit of a mine field without the mines that blow up children 10 years later. Classification is much better when you are determining vehicles vs. people vs. children vs. animals, and is not that hard to do as it is already being done.
Can casualties occur? Civilian ones? Sure. The goal is to eliminate civilian casualties or infrastructure destruction is possible. That's not good war. Good war is eliminating he ability for the bad guys to make war against you. It's a lot easier to deny more and more territory from bad guys mixed with special forced who can move in and out of any territory without being ripper to shreds, while denying it to the bad guys.
Who wants to deal with all the political lash back of dead soldiers or civilians, when you can remotely guide assets for specific missions, and switch to autonomous target elimination or intelligence gathering or force protection on a whim?
A war with 5000 of our soldiers against an entire nation's army or insurgents in street to street fighting and winning because we had intelligent technology and having a dozen casualties is better for us and for them. It costs a lot less to tell the citizenry "don't be in this location" while it's cleared, as well as boxing a know civilian area to not be touched. It costs a lot less to granulate the destruction down to the actual baddies who are being tracked by constant intelligence streaming assets who work all day and night while spitting out a report in Alabama. Military engagements involving the first world are mostly politically won or lost, not militarily so. Eliminating soldier deaths and civilian deaths allows you more money and time and ability to politically win a conflict rather than spend those resources trying to handle lash back.
In an increasingly networked battlefield, these technological abilities are a godsend for keeping "good guys" alive and able to perform effectively. Having much more of an idea if an area is clear or you can sleep at night rather than burning out troops from psychological stressors is a nice thing.
Backdoor Targeting Apache Servers Spreads To Nginx, Lighttpd
I knew this was a mistake. Secure my ass. I'm going back to Windows.
A Mask That Can Give You Superhuman Abilities
Based on the demo, this appears to be a digital way to experience taking hallucinogenic mushrooms. Timelapse trails behind movement? Sharp sound focus? Are we creating an electronic ability to simulate pharmacological effects?
AI System Invents New Card Games (For Humans)
Thinking of branching out to simple arcade games, like Bubble Bubble or Pacman? I'd love to see a video of a computer mastering those...
Interesting you mention arcade games. As changes are made to the framework and some of the subsystems, we have a variety of benchmarks that are run that help evaluate breadth and depth of the learning process and quality of the strategies.
One of the benchmarks is a version of Asteroids. Depending on the strategy goals, it measures length of life without firing a shot (movement only while learning about spatial relationships of the asteroids), length of life based on cost of fuel (the ship is a floating platform for directing fire while using as little movement as possible), and stealth opposition, where its goal is to kill the enemy UFO while interacting with as few asteroids as possible, which is multi-objective, involving firing upon as few asteroids as possible and using spatial information to avoid asteroids until the UFO arrives, which involves it's own evolvable tactic for destroying it, while also must fit into it's overriding goal to not shoot asteroids and run into one.
AI System Invents New Card Games (For Humans)
I'm not sure you misunderstood as much as my poor explanation. Although rules of many games specify what winning is, in some cases strategy solutions don't necessarily have a clear definition of winning. Sometimes winning isn't defined as well as treating it as an optimization problem. There are rules of the game, and goals of the game.
As a simple example, take tic-tac-toe. There are rules (you can only put your marker, a X or O in a blank space) which specify what you can do. There are goals that evaluate your play, such as you win with three in a row in various directions, a draw where no one has three in a row, and a loss if your opponent gets three in a row.
There is no other real knowledge of how to play. An expert player will never lose, they will either win or draw based on known strategies that are unbeatable. The basic rules don't define how to do that.
What the learning system does is create strategies. A basic strategy might be, randomly put your X or O in an empty square. You could occassionally win against novice opponents that way. But it would not be an optimal strategy and would regularly lose. Evolve that strategy a bit and you find the system putting its X or O in a proximity which increases its ability to put three in a row. Evolve it a bit more and it can recognize that its opponent is trying to put three in a row and will block it. Evolve it a bit more, and it will block its opponent putting three in a row at the same time putting that block in an advantageous placement to benefit itself to win.
Nothing in the rules specifies this, but is the result of experience or math or research or intuition. The rule is just "The placement rules say you can do 'this'. The measurement of winning is defined as 'that'." The system "learns" from it's mistakes and successes.
Optimization problems are a little different, certainly multiple objective problems. In a more complex "game", you might be trying to optimize solutions for (really we're just talking about a problem domain and a solution space) the stock market, military strategy, chess, TTT, whatever.
The rules of military strategy for an objective can be unique. The rules of the game may be, minimize civilian casualties, you can only use certain type of weapons systems based on political situations, total cost must be under such-and-such, distances must be capable of being reached by units involved, certain enemy units must be captured rather than killed, etc.
Nothing in that tells you HOW to win, it just says, "Here are the rules you must follow, find the best way to do so that comes with the best chance of winning, costs the least, limited friendly-fire situations, etc."
So I guess that's what I mean when I say we don't tell it how to win. We measure winning as what our definition is and how close the strategy solution came to that goal. If it was poker, we would say, "here's the rules of texas hold 'em". The only measurement of winning would be amout of money won. We wouldn't tell it what the hand values were, what were considered good hole cards, or anything else. It would evolve the concept of when to win, bet, bluff, fold, how much to bet at a time, recognizing if it was being bluffed, when do do so based on how many players are in the hand, even what the values of the hands are, etc. At the end a few hundred games, we'd tell it, "Hey you were the best poker playing strategy or you were the worst strategy". That's it. The system evolves 'good' play on its own.
That's what I mean by not telling it how to win. We tell it how it measured against other strategies. It doesn't know what's going on.
AI System Invents New Card Games (For Humans)
Portions of it were influenced on a couple of works done.
Chellapilla and Fogel's 2001 work on Anaconda which built a completely evolved checkers program, which did similar techniques at the broad level. The checkers playing strategies in their case were building neural networks which regulated play. Our similarities are in the way that the strategies evolved and that no game specific knowledge was needed, other than movement rules and an aggregation of strategy fitness across competition rather than individual competition values,
Other techniques are in Kewley and Embrechts 2002 work on military strategy which was interesting in that the evolved strategies were good military strategy (with emergent doctrinal tactics) which beat military experts strategies in a simulation, in additional to beating it's own strategy when military experts modified it. This also used evolutionary concepts to evolve its solutions.
Unfortunately I can't divulge our own specific information above and beyond what I've discussed, but we certainly have been influenced by previous work on the subject, and made a few new additions to it in our own work.
AI System Invents New Card Games (For Humans)
We use several forms of evolutionary programming in several sections of the learning systems' areas.
There are hybridized genetic algorithms in the portions involving the strategy blending evolution system, which does a few different forms of strategy selection pressure and evolution controls, which is critical due to training time to not cause premature convergence or genetic instability.
Additionally, we introduce additonal factors such a genetic drift and migration so that out competing strategies can evolve independently as the explore the strategy plane.
There are macro level evolution techniques to handle the complexity growth of the strategy species, so that the complexity can be altered depending on how "advanced" the system needs to be. In a simple sense of a turn based game, it would equate to the number of plies or analysis depth you would go. For more complex multiobjective systems, like military tactics involving minimizing casualties, civilian losses, maximizing kill or capture of enemy units, minimizing structural damage to infrastructure, etc., then it modifies the strategy complexity. For example, you could send eveyone with guns to kill everyone, or you could parallel it on intelligence gathering with drone units to direct fire, long range snipers or diversionary tactics, or factoring logistical support costs.
A lot of the core work is maximizing the efficiency of the evolutionary strategies, as they are the biggest fator in learning time. It's really easy to write inefficient logic that ends up taking much longer to arrive at good solutions without getting lost due to too much noise or oscillation in the system.
Another method that is used is a version of PSO, which is used to optimize subsections of the strategy (depending on what we are trying to find a solution to) that further get to optimal solutions.
So a lot of bachelors level CS is used. Although a lot of customization has been done, the benefit is it uses a lot of basic concepts, and utilized processing power rather than trying to algorithmically come up with solutions. Also, it can be continuously adaptable so it adjusts to situational changes. The strategy isn't locked, it can be reacts based on changes to frontier so to speak. If your opponent changes what they're doing, or doing something new, it can adjust itself to that.
AI System Invents New Card Games (For Humans)
Let me clarify that, as that statement was misleading.
We don't program what winning is as any function of the strategy. The system comes up with several strategies, which all play against each other. At the end of a series of competitions, a strategy is told "Hey, you played against a bunch of different people, you won more than the rest. We don't define what winning is, how it won, or even what winning is, we just tell the system that strategy 1532 was the best. The system knows what strategies work better than others, so it can learn what methods are more successful. The system doesn't know why it won, just that when it made certain decisions it won more often. We don't even tell it on each game, we tell it after an aggregation of multiple competitions how it did. By comparing all the strategies it tried, then it develops better and more complex ways to win (which we didn't tell it how to do).
Even more interesting is when it comes up with what is considered doctrinal tactics that humans have arrived at to win as well (or statistically increase the chances of such) although no such logic was included in the programming.
The benefit to this is that although it takes a LONG time to develop "good" strategies, it comes up with completely unique and novel approaches to winning, even though it doesn't know how exactly it won, only that its strategy wins more than everyone else.
The benefit to us is we just tell it the game rules, we don't have to come up with any specific playing algorithm, the learning system figures that out. We just tell it the rules, whether they are concrete like in chess (bishops move diagonally, pawns move one, or start with two, etc) or variable rules based on other complexity factors. Whether its poker or chess or military tactics, the systems job is to come up with the strategy. How good or complex that strategy is allowed to be, is a function of how much processing time we want to give the system to learn the best way to win.
AI System Invents New Card Games (For Humans)
On a tangentally related idea, we're working on a project of machine learning to take games and the rules of play, then derive strategy based on the rules.
Nothing particularly new, except we don't define what winning is, just the rules of the game. No hint is given to what constitutes good play, or even what "playing" is. Although it is a very slow process depending on game complexity (learning can take weeks and sometimes months of processing time), it requires no real programming effort, beause we don't have to know what "good" play is or some series of algorithms; it produces better and better tactics and strategies of play during the learning process, by experimenting with the rules, how to play, and such.
What's cool about this, is that you can watch it teaching itself different strategies and tactics. Some of the "tactics" it creates are many times counter intuitive or plain bizarre, but based on the overall strategies it develops, allows for some really different playing experiences as it doesn't follow human game logic based on experience with "similar" games or "intuition".
Threats Posted On Your Own Facebook Page Are Crimes, Florida Court Rules
I have concerns about laws like this, much like hate-speech laws, free speech laws, zero-tolerance laws, and anyting of that type.
If someone steps up to you, and tells you they're going to kill you, then that's a issue that requires some form of legal action because it represents enough of a significant clear and present danger, then you should be able to act on that without legal penalty, and someone should be prevented from doing that with legal penalty. Because it crosses enough of a line from a thought to a probable danger to life.
To me, sitting in my house across town, and yelling, "If Tom ever does 'X' again I'm going to kill him!" to a friend of mine, and a neighbor hears me, and tells someone else, and then they tell Tom I said it, that doesn't constitute a clear and present danger. Not enough to be against the law. Now it can certainly be used as evidence in some way if the asshole gets killed mysteriously as circumstantial evidence that *I* may have wanted to kill him, but there's not necessarily an immediate threat, as you aren't in proximity for me to act on that thought in a reasonable amout of time.
If I get a paper target of a president, and use it for target practice, I don't see why that should be considered illegal. To me I'm exercising free speech, because the threat is too far away to be clear and present danger. If I'm within 50 yards of the president, and I point a gun at him and claim I'm just "practicing" with my loaded gun, that sounds like a clear and present danger.
By saying that I, on my facebook page, say that, "I want to kill that damn asshole who keeps raising my taxes", that doesn't mean I'm guaranteed to go kill the local city councilperson. Perhaps I'm blowing steam. Perhaps I really mean it. It isn't clear.
My issue is by basically saying "Well since anything you put in any digital communication, that anyone else can see, then by the six-degrees-of-separation Kevin Bacon rule, you've told this other person you threatened to kill them even if they actually never received it and it was never meant to be directed toward them." Even the orginal post was "U better watch how the fuck you talk to people. " Already that, to me, is saying, 'don't do it again', so is it clear and present? Is the person just blowing off steam and has put in a "next time I'm gonna count to three" so they can sound like a badass while being no threat because they're a pussy? Was their misspelling because they were drunk and didn't know what they were expressing? I have no idea. But apparently it's important to put them in jail to be sure.
To me, I feel that creates a chilling effect of any type of language deemed 'illegal', to be defined now or later. There is no room for mistakes, blowing off steam, conveying hyperbolic thought, expressing emotion, anything, above an amount allowed by government. The internet is world wide, so me threatening someone, or a group, or a race, or a political group, can be considered sent directly to them, and therefore 'illegal' and I must be imprisoned.
So that's why I have a problem with this. It punishes thought and expression. Just like 'hate speech' or 'hate crimes' punish thought and weighs one victim to another based on government's opinion of what you're doing and what protected class you're doing it do.
More and more laws are based on a perceived expression. It's dangerous to be able to puish someone across space and time to being a "threat" to society based on the government assertion.
North Korea Declares a State of War
I was browsing the library the other day and looking at, of all things, congressional record minutes which is utterly boring as hell. I was only in that section because, for some reason, in the opposite aisle was the book I wanted, about Samuel T. Cohen. I've never understood why university libraries are always set up in bizarre ways.
So I browsed one of these old congressional record books, and saw a section, ironially, about neutron bombs being discussed, with a fascinating discussion of the neutron bomb in committee. The best part was by a young Al Gore FOR neutron bombs (rather than against as I would have thought), and quite stridently so.
I thought it was maybe because of the environmentally friendly nature of such weapons, originally designed to irritate soviet tank blitzes, but I highly doubt he was even into environmental concerns that much in the past.
Twitter Sued For $50M For Refusing To Identify Anti-Semitic Users
Exactly. This is an issue for France vs. Internet. Not France vs. Twitter.
If France decides it really doesn't want to hear tweets about Blue vs. Red states in the U.S., then they can bloody well create Le Carnivore on their own dime and filter those evil horrid thoughts that makes Jews or activists or whiners who never learned to deal with the world go Boo Hoo..
This is like your little sister crying to mom because you said 'girls have cooties' instead of her cowgirling up and learning to deal with it. Don't want to hear about cooties? Solve your own problems. Don't like people being anti-semitic because it twists your nads? Handle your own homeland. Don't complain because someone, somewhere, is saying something you find "offensive". And stop bowing down to every sociopathic "activist" who thinks words kill rather than actual violence.
Clearly France needs to hire Adria Richards to manage their twitter relations.
41 Months In Prison For Man Who Leaked AT&T iPad Email Addresses
A Moon Base Made From Lunar Dust
I know all about how the Apollo program went.. The moondust will just walk off, then kill everyone. Screw that.
Caffeine Improves Memory In Bees
But does this increase bee's productivity? Can we improve that productivity with 6-sigma? Let's have discussion during the break-out.
Google glass will identify people by clothing
Google glass: Identifying contact "Sally". Google glass reports there's a tiger in them tight fittin' jeans.
Scientists Have Re-Cloned Mice To the 25th Generation
I'd been hoping for a live action Clone Wars on Ice.
Global Temperatures Are Close To 11,000-Year Peak
Finally, winter has been a bitch.
Also, thanks to prudent home buying I'll get ocean front property while getting it at cut rate prices.
Why do I care if the earth gets warmer, say, to Jurassic levels?
Benefits: We get great new places to live in northern Canada, Siberia, Greenland, etc. Billions of tons of food will be able to be grown where it never has been before. Due to outcry, really polluting industries clean up their act so I don't have to smell there disgusting dumping all over the neighborhood.
Cons: Whining rich people with ocean front property go Wah Wah because my house is the new ocean front property. New Jersey is eliminated to make new cleaner beaches. New York returns to New Amsterdam and is a beautiful playground of water traffic like Venice and is still irritating as hell. Doomsday preppers act smug around everyone else. Florida is eliminated, easing political issues from there, but at the same time frees up billions in social security liabilities and 401K assets.
Sounds like an even push to me. It's going to happen whether we want it to, attempt to stop it, go back to the stone ages and live in caves, or pray to Allah. 11,000 years after that there will be glaciers down all the way into the Socialist Republic of New Texas.
So calm the fuck down about religion, deniers, AGW, man made causes, SUVs, smug ass Californians, and Al Gore. Just realize accordingly, spend less money on ski equipment and more money on boats.
Most Doctors Don't Think Patients Need Full Access To Med Records
Some doctors will argue that by allowing the patient full access to the notes in the system, a doctor may be less frank about the mental condition of the patient or be reluctant to place information in the record which reflects poorly on the patient's demeanor, such as cooperativeness, a tenancy toward hypochondria, or just plan belligerence. In their defense, this honesty could lead to lawsuits (in the worst cases).
If they are less frank, then doctors are adding opinions and personal biases, not facts. If they don't stand behind their diagnosis or professional medical opinion, then they are a failure and it should be well known to everyone, especially the patient. If doctors are able to say "Patient is non-cooperative" that's an opinion with no context that can cause the patient immeasurable harm by other doctors looking at that and either denying treatment or not moving forward with a dagnosis because they are led to believe the patient is a problem. "Bitch didn't show me her tits, she's 'non-cooperative', and probably 'bipolar'." No doctor should have any power like that, and it sure as hell shouldn't be hidden in some "permanent" record that the patient doesn't get to see.
Now, the best way to combat this is to allow comments on the records by patients. It will keep some of the sillyness out of records (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/The-Last-Page-UBI-in-the-Knife-and-Gun-Club.html) and will allow legitimate differences of opinions.
How will I, as a patient, be able to have a legitimate difference of opinion if I'm not allowed to see what's in there? If the doctor secretly noted that I was "refusing to take pain medication, patient is masochist" or "patient didn't accept pain is in their head", how can I comment on this information?
Another item of concern is from the insurer's side. There will be people who attempt to expunge their records of items which decrease their insurability or increase their rates (and this will only get worse with mandatory insurance without cost caps or guaranteed rates).
...and that's the whole problem with obamacare, universal healthcare, and insurance in the first place. I should be able to have whatever facts are in my history for the sole purpose of discussing treatment with medical professionals in a secured, private way. All the idiots were convinced that a law that now forces everyone to buy insurance whether they want it or not, now guarantees that you'll be screwed as maximally as possible. Believe it or not my life is more important that a bureaocrat's agenda, and insurance company's profit margin, or some doctors psychotic break. I don't mean in the case of insurance fraud, I mean in the case of "Well, you admitted that in 1972 you smoked 3 cigarettes, so you are not covered for lung cancer decades later." or "based on the fact that you privately admitted you tried marijuana in college, you are ineligible for a liver transplant since most likely drinking caused you liver damage because all out social scientist bureauocrats say that its a gateway drug. And we need to cut funding that anyway because of the recent political weather tells us that we need to shore up the banking industry."
Pretty much all this is going to do is drive people to cash only doctors, fake identities, outright lying, and, as you said, editing and falsifying medical records, because "permanent record" no longer screws you out of a job in your city, it now screws you out of life anywhere in the country.