vectorEQ

businesses aren't on trial. it's their owners / directors / responsible parties who are on trial, and those are 'private individuals' - they might be held accountable for their business or business practices, but the idea a business is on trial is silly. and now we know 'people' are actually on trial, it's more logical to say they should be treated as individuals....

no where it states if this is actually hazardous or not, if its a common thing which might happen to other vendors too or anything. just 'found some stuff which didn't pass the checks.' ok, thats what there are checks for..., good job... such reporting. just post some random piece of information about some buzzword or google trend without any background or context to put it in.

people went with HTTP and other shitty models. now we live with the pain. good for selling new hardware tho, so who really cares!

There could be tons done to still have our modern looks, but have old skool performance. issue is mainly in how we store and subsequently use data.

tons of people still use DOS era softwares just due to this very fact. their old programs they can perform the same work 1000 times faster due to how data is stored / presented. It generally doesn't go through 1000 layers of processing each click, and a lot of data is stored as a 'view', not some raw binary blob to be parsed out again on demand..

its a telnet but you need to activate it first. often backdoors are simple shells like telnet or such services. but it usually requires some 'magic packets' or such things to open the port to it or start the service. if you look at the POC you see it's not simply making a telnet connection to a port, but it does some other stuff first to prepare for it.

agree. it's more a problem of lack of critical thinking&reading (because this is generally not taught during education) than anything else.

The problem with these kinds of censorship actions is that there is literally no end to it, and it will never solve the real root cause of the problem. It will just suck up resources and people/institutions will keep complaining that they got into trouble because someone took a tweet as a truth...

:')... don't adapt yourself to other peoples standards. be yourself regardless of people around you.

i think that due to the fact all humans carry imperfect information, their opinions on good/bad/ethical varies, and that will ensure that never a system can be made which 'behaves 100% ethically'. it might behave in such a way with respect to the opinion of the person claiming that, but to another person it can seem completely unreasonable/unethical...

since you can't create an AI which takes into account all the flaws of all humans present in their knowledge and consciousness, a system which has such perfection is impossible to make. (even these flaws are often just perceived flaws and them being a flaw is an subjective matter based upon other subjective matters.)

it's not about having all the data for an AI, it's more about understanding what lack of data means to humans and how it affects their decision and interpretations, and about how the same data can be interpreted in many ways.

Even if all humans were exposed to the same data as each other exactly, they would likely still carry different opinions and interpret the same data differently leading to a completely different decision making process... I think this at the moment is inherently impossible to create within or take into account in current computers or programming.

If you would reverse it, and have humans take all their morals and ethics from computers, what is left of humans? Isn't that what makes a human? the ability and/or inability to do this themselves. i think no one is looking for a world or working towards a world where only 1 human exists in multitude. i think the work should be focused on preserving the uniqueness of identity while maximising its potential within that uniqueness. That also makes me of the opinion that AI should thus be specialised within domains of operation, and not attempted to be implemented in a general fasion.

perhaps an AI system could exist which comprises of many specific AI systems, which would make it more generally applicable based upon many input from specialised AI systems, who knows. But 1 system and 1 data set will never be able to cover inherent uniqueness within humans.

you can argue about some rotten apple humans who have 'bad behaviour', but even the good people you know, are wildely different from you. admit it. you are not them, and they are not you and that's how it should be.

i'm wondering if that robots.txt might then get you sued due to blocking scrapers / bots?

aaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaa aaa , looks more like exploit than virus code :'D

soon the first genetically engineered human is released onto the streets. to reproduce and spread their self-limiting genes. everyone will always be happy, and happily consume :O :D

don't see why ppl are surprised about this from an ad company. its not a search engine company and never as been, despite having a large search engine...

Thanks a lot for the response. Even though admittedly I can hardly comprehend what it means, it certainly gives me finally some topics and concepts to dive a bit deeper into to try and get my head around such a complicated topic, especially your points on the logic gates used. i've always looked at it more from a down to up approach, but this explains exactly why that has gotten me no where so far. thanks a lot. :D

half of what world? certainly not earth?

a bit off topic shot in the dark here, but no one seems to be able to tell me so far. what kind of machine code a quantum computer would execute. is it a instruction set like any computer or does it contain a lot of weirdness (instructions mapping to insane kind of micro-op sequences or something?) is there any information out on that topic at all? i am assuming it would still be mapping some electrical 1/0 kind of values to machine code up to higher level languages, but the concept just makes my brain fart a bit when i think about it. it would be super interesting to learn about or read up on