Free movie critique Essays and Papers - 123HelpMe
The third point is that the argument "threat X kills more people than threat Y, therefore we need to concentrate on threat X" is one of my pet peeves in security analysis. I personally call it "the bean counter fallacy": the usage of techniques designed for inanimate or unreactive data sources against an intelligent and malicious opponent. You usually hear it in the form "we spent more money on the night watchman's salary than we lost from burglary, so it is not economical to keep a night watchman." The conclusion might or might not be correct, but it certainly doesn't follow from the premise. To do that we need to better understand how the opponent is likely to react to some of our possible actions. Unfortunately the genuinely scientific way to approach this sort of question is often not practicable or ethical, so it often comes down to argument from opinion.
Free optimism Essays and Papers - 123HelpMe
Data mining, on the other hand, is a set of tools to help you *discover* what profiles you should be looking for, assess how reliable they are, and decide whether or not they are going to be worthwhile to pursue. It isn't an automated process. It *always* involves a human analyst in the loop, operating the tools, examining the results, modifying and trying again. In short, it is close to what you are asking for when you said "We'd be far better off putting people in charge of investigating potential plots and letting them direct the computers, instead of putting the computers in charge and letting them decide who should be investigated."
On the contrary, that is one of the few things that *is* clear. Every independent analysis of intelligence economics that has ever been done -- and there have been many -- shows that SIGINT is so far ahead of all alternatives in cost-effectiveness that it introduces the danger of the bean counters under-funding everything else to get more SIGINT. This is, indeed dangerous, because different forms of intelligence collection tend to be complementary.
Centre Pompidou Málaga - Museos de Málaga
This one sentence contains quite a wealth of points that I feel need to be addressed. First and foremost, data mining is not a surveillance program. It is an analytical technique. To the extent that it might be used to detect terrorists or stop armed robbers, we are not talking about more surveillance, but more effective use of existing surveillance -- and possibly even reducing surveillance by identifying some forms as not being useful for crime prevention. It still has civil liberties implications if there exist current sources of surveillance data that have historically been permitted because they were regarded as unusable, but have recently been rendered usable by more powerful analytical methods. But frankly, I don't think that all that many things fall into that category; on the contrary, the usual tendency has been to exaggerate effectiveness by assuming that once data has been collected, the analysis will be almost perfect and will be able to extract every possible nuance of meaning from it. This is of course completely untrue (if you've ever worked in a large scale data processing environment, you know that probably around 90% of all data collected is never analysed at all!), but it makes for a reasonable, conservative assumption on which to base a safe level of oversight -- at least for compact data sources that are easily stored. This is because even if they will not be analysed now, they may be eventually. (The assumption is not so reasonable for very bulky data sources, such as video footage, because the overwhelming majority of this data is not even *retained* except in the event of recording a crime.)
Museos de Málaga presents Centre Pompidou Málaga
It would be too simple to say that Deleuze (or Hardt/Negri) offers an anarchist/spontaneist alternative to Zizek’s Leninism; this is one case where I have difficulty with both alternatives. But part of what I am trying to do, both in this blog and in my more formal academic writing, is to think through how works like V for Vendetta (either the comic or the film) themselves theorize such issues, in ways that might provide a slightly different perspective. And that is the sense in which I am looking at V.’s superhuman abilities as a revolutionary agitator, and his harrowingly educational or psychoanalytical role vis-a-vis Evie, and his deliberate self-abdication towards the end, as raising all these questions in a disturbing and potentially revelatory way.
Film Essays | English 245: Film Form and Culture | Page 3
I figured that what was sticking for you was ‘authorization.’ I read Zizek as emphasizing that revolution (as well as the outcome of analysis) cannot be authorized in advance–precisely because the destitute subject is not the same as the subject who went into the process/was a victim of it in the first place. And this seems important for politics as we acknowledge that the outcomes of political engagements change those who undertake them in ways we cannot predict and that the more extreme the engagement the potentially more dramatic the change.