See also the discussion on the W3C Web Annotation Community Group mailing list, starting from this message

73 However, having regard to the general structure of Directive 2002/58, the factors identified in the preceding paragraph of this judgment do not permit the conclusion that the legislative measures referred to in Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 are excluded from the scope of that directive, for otherwise that provision would be deprived of any purpose. Indeed, Article 15(1) necessarily presupposes that the national measures referred to therein, such as those relating to the retention of data for the purpose of combating crime, fall within the scope of that directive, since it expressly authorises the Member States to adopt them only if the conditions laid down in the directive are met.

Here

Here

Article 5.1:

Any interference with electronic communications data, such as by listening, tapping, storing, monitoring, scanning or other kinds of interception, surveillance or any processing of electronic communications data regardless of whether this data is in transit or stored, by persons other than the end-users, shall be prohibited, except when permitted by this Regulation.

(the emphasised text is the addition by parliament)

Article 7.1:

..., the provider of the electronic communications service shall erase electronic communications content or make that data anonymous after receipt of electronic communication content by the intended recipient or recipients. Such data may be recorded, or stored or otherwise processeed by the end-users after receipt, or by a third party entrusted by them to record, store or otherwise process such data. Such processing shall take place in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

(emphasis denotes the addition by the Council)

Here

Found here

Here

Published here (direct link to pdf). Version is from 20 September 2018.

Bothering the user directly at installation or first usage may not be the ideal user experience. For privacy settings that become relevant only later on, the questions could at least be postponed to that moment.

Horrible idea. Software could update every day. This requirement would discourage updating frequently.

The requirement would make sense for updates that introduce new features/settings with possible privacy implications. In any case, simple fixes such as security updates should be exempt from having to bother the user.

Are Google Analytics and friends sneaking in again? Are their enough restrictions on their use of the user's data?

"social networks" not counted as interpersonal communications services?! I suppose a particular conception of "social networks" is meant here, e.g. involving only publicly visible messages. However, just putting the general term "social networks" here without further specification seems very confusing.

The related recital 12 remains mostly intact, but with the removal of this item there is no mention of machine-to-machine communications in any article. Is that intended?

But perhaps the Internet is a breeding ground for unnatural monopolies, and should be regulated as such.

Unlike implicitly suggested here, encouraging consumer choice may in fact require quite some regulation. Vendor lock-in and network effects are prevalent patterns in the industry.

At least in the case of Facebook, their closed silo combined with the strong network effect seems a relevant factor that cannot be ignored. Nowadays, people are probably not on Facebook for its product quality, but simply because others are there too.

Rethorically pleasant, but a misleading statement. Until some years ago, you had probably also never heard of a billion-dollar company starting up in someone's garage. The productive potential of garages has risen astonishingly.

http://www.benkler.org/IPOrganizationPub.pdf

http://www.dougengelbart.org/pubs/bi-2120.html#2C2

https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto

media-frags/

annotation

Not supported in Chrome/Chromium anymore. See a discussion about its deprecation here: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/713

blabla

its distribution

to turn

The talk's video recording is viewable here.

Not anymore since v4: use merge instead.

Not anymore since v4: use merge instead.

Note that

this is the

optimally, some

is to train each layer using only its local objective.

This mistakes the right to speak with the right to be heard, which, according to this very same article, you do not possess. The receiver chooses to not listen to the original message, but to a modified version.

While the author applies this argument to the speech of annotators, exactly this point is being ignored in the remainder of the article when it would apply to the web page authors.

Yes there is: lack of consent.

This claim reveals the essential question: should authors have the right to dictate the reader's viewing experience, against their desires?

Activating third-voice is consenting: the reader requests to hear others' comments.

In Ubuntu this should work:

sudo apt-get install docker.io

You may have to add yourself to the docker group first (or use sudo docker...). E.g.:

sudo usermod -aG docker myusername

(and log out & in to let it take effect)

This should do the trick:

sudo apt-get install docker.io
sudo usermod -aG docker myusername

fifth

Strange policy - "acquiring it for you" implies "taking it from someone else". To make a Telegram account and be sure others will not take it from you, you thus have to also check and create accounts on those other services.

This calculation does not make sense to me. Besides assuming purely linear relations between cigarettes sales and population deaths, as well as between PM2.5 particles and population deaths, it also seems to imply the absurd assumption that every member of the population smokes the same amount of cigarettes. If they would take into account that only a quarter of the population they used smokes at all (seems about right), their resulting number of 36 would become 8 instead (and this does not even take into account that not all smokers smoke the same amount). Either I missed something, or this is just a completely meaningless calculation covered up by a smart-looking explanation.

This claim lacks citation or calculation. If, as is more often assumed, microparticles (PM2.5) are the main culprit in air pollution, the claim sounds hugely exaggerated. Even with beyond-index pollution records of almost \(1mg/m^3\) in Beijing (see e.g. Wikipedia), total microparticle (PM2.5) intake would be: $$15,000 liter/day * 1mg/1000liter = 15mg/day$$ This would be a bit more than one cigarette per day, not 30.

See this post or this Q/A for more elaborate discussions on this question.

cubic meter

Juist met verkiezingen lijkt dit me al helemaal het geval. Hoe precies zou verminderde steun van het volk de partij beïnvloeden?

Which? Cannot find it.

Please quantify.

http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/publis/pdf/gregor-icml-10.pdf

Nice metaphor, but I wonder how well it matches, because sand has inertia and would jump around the surface. Would the metaphor be more accurate if the sand has no inertia and would not jump? I am thinking of marbles being squeezed between two sheets, rolling downwards wherever the sheet is at an angle.

Notes by Hugo Larochelle

Notes by Hugo Larochelle

Notes by Hugo Larochelle

Notes by Hugo Larochelle

Perhaps this is worth a reason number 4, or addition to number 3: Colleagues are warned about a problem they might encounter themselves in the future, and will know to come to you when facing a similar issue.

But other sparsity measures than KL divergence are still applicable, e.g. penalising the sum of the absolute activities (\(\sum_i \left|h_i\right|\))

chat to your team would be more accurate, as you will not hear anything back while offline.. (or does it do something magic?)

A ReLU (rectified linear unit) in modern terms.

Note that many sources use the letters P and Q the other way around.

Specifieke bron? Zo te zien tabel 3 uit dit rapport. Dat rapport berekent een de schade gebaseerd op schatting van het aantal voertuigverliesuren van vrachtverkeer, maal €42,92 per uur als 'value-of-time' (genomen uit een ongespecificeerde bron van het KiM).

Waar komt dit getal vandaan? Wellicht berekend met de data uit dit KiM rapport? Maar hoe, precies?

For example Granel in Barcelona appeared around 2011 and seems to have the same concept. Besides, a century ago there may have been plenty too.

De geciteerde paragraaf:

The chilling effect of a growing surveillance potential could also decrease expression and participation. The loss of monitorability and control could increase alienantion and also decrease participation. Sophisticated marketing techniques that rely on profiles of individuals are now being used to manipulate public opinion and elections. The potential exists not only for reversing these problems, but for increasing democratization. For instance, with the kinds of systems presented here, multiparty secure election and polling could be conveniently conducted without centralized coordination and with those expressing their views able to show relevant credentials.

Uit: Chaum, David. 1985. “Security without Identification: Transaction Systems to Make Big Brother Obsolete.” Communications of the ACM 28 (10): 1030–44. doi:10.1145/4372.4373. (pagina 15 van artikel, 1044 van uitgave)

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/1101/6411390a.html

Uit de samenvatting van een krities tegenrapport:

"Until December 31st , 2013, 33 children have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer and 41 more have tumor-suspect biopsies, indicating possible malignancies. Although it is not possible to determine whether a single case is caused by radiation, as cancers do not carry a “label of origin”, the number of cases found so far is unexpectedly high. Japanese cancer statistics suggest an incidence of less than 1 case of thyroid cancer in this population per year."

Report as PDF

encoder

decoder

"geluk" means both happiness and luck; the translation "happiness-seekers" misses part of the meaning.

Case number? Link?

Pocket™

min

Is this superfluous? It's not there after parameter_list in funcdef.

Something wrong here. At least, one unmatched closing parethesis at the end.

Summary of policy gradients using backprop (last ten minutes):

The 'policy' is defined as the probabilities of taking an action given a history of observations: \(p(a_t | h_t)\), with \(h_t = (o_0, o_1, ..., o_t)\).

Reward comes from each action as \(r_t(a_t)\), expected return is: $$ J(\theta) = E[ \sum_{t=0}^{T} r_t(a_t)] $$

The gradient of the expected reward with respect to the parameters \(\theta\) (= "which direction should I change \(\theta\)?") is taken as follows:

Sample (& average over) many action sequences (= play many games), for each sequence \((a_0,a_1, ..., a_T)\) computing:

---- The sum of, for each action \(a_t\) in the sequence:

---- ---- [which direction to change theta to make my action \(a_t\) more (log) probable given history \(h_t\)] * [the total reward gotten from this action and subsequent actions]

The whole thing can be read as: if an action in a game led to high rewards, try to do that action more often when in the same situation.

Too long; didn't watch: Starts with introduction to reinforcement learning. From 20:30 he starts formalising the problem, to derive in the last ten minutes (from 45:00) how to compute policy gradients using backprop - supposedly the same method used by DeepMind to learn to play arcade games.

Forgot to check for attribute's existence?

if (this.dependency) {
    this.dependency.changed();
}

min

Does "everywhere" mean "everywhere in the training data", or really everywhere in the input space?

This user story has an extra requirement: to create a group that others cannot write to. Otherwise, "only my" would become "only my and my readers' "

markup error

'tag' does not appear in the line just below the block

is edited, added or deleted

I think this implies the previous value was "pizza". Perhaps there should be an extra line in the block above:

var data = new ReactiveDict;
data.set("favoriteFood", "pizza");

left-over comment?

Is the definition of a Boltzmann machine not more specific about how \(E(x)\) is calculated from the variables? (constraining it to something like \(E=\sum{w_{ij} x_i x_j}...\)).

above?

relieve

Common Crawl makes most sense to me

Test. An annotation on the edge of the posts content. Will it still attach to the original post?

Test. This was annotated on the article's original publication

See also this blog post: Cache is the new RAM

Would a random orthogonal matrix B perhaps improve the results further?

$$x^{k}$$

$$\phi(x)$$

We are a project with a mission. Should we not mention that first? Being non-profit with these mentioned funders is just how we go about, it's not the core of who we are.

Should a cross-post like this provide a canonical URL, or another way to show the content equivalence?

would not

http://zodb.readthedocs.org/en/latest/transactions.html

This check should not be necessary if the order of json and html were swapped in the list passed to best_match. (see the best_match description)

What if one writes a comment on a document in reply to another annotation? I suppose our reply will have two targets: the older annotation, and the document. How do we express that the annotation is a reply to one target and a comment to the other?