I can't define what a game is, but I know that chess works even when stripped down to the bare mechanics... and if you stripped these games down to their bare mechanics, they might still be games, but most of them would be more or less identical (at least if you consider the maps as input to the game just like players are, not as not part of it's rules). Because of that I'd say they are definately nowhere near as much the games they're perceived as.
What is called "game" these days often enough is just a vehicle for story-telling, super idiotic story telling at that. You know, you wouldn't be able to sit through most of these stories as movie, unless there was a lot of action or hot people in it. And you wouldn't be able to take it as a slideshow on the computer/console, either! So you get to mash a few buttons; that way you feel involved and stay on the petri dish.
That wouldn't be a problem if the people who told stories and their stories amounted to shit -- I am sure you could make a "pseudo-game" about (the effects of) war that has something to say... those games probably exist, they're just rarely hyped, are they.
But you cannot make an actual war game, not really, since war isn't so much about the pong/galaga/pacman mechanics that are used to portray them, as they are about propaganda and using the masses -- and not in an RTS way either, that just simulates the "general grunt" instead of the "infantry grunt". War is waged by planning in super comfy rooms with huge desks -- it's about profit and numbers, not about individual actions. Knowing that it's pretty much clear than 99.9999% of all war games obfuscate war, not explore or simulate it. They are just extensions of power, they are part of those wars. They keep even the people who are not currently out there being hired killers safely embedded in the fabric of war.
Appreciate the joke, considering alienated slave society requires and nurtures infantility and lack of ability to think. None of you even deserve punishment, or to be taken into consideration at all.
His dream was/is for everybody to use Facebook. You may see nothing wrong there, for me it's enough. Having "middleman" as the highest aspiration doesn't make you an asshole though; that would require a bit more humanity. He's a Gates/Jobs class derp, they're a dime a dozen, and the similarities are more interesting, and more meaningful, than the differences.
He forfeited his chance to be taken seriously by me as a human being when he tried to hang his dick into grandma's cereal, and just because I can say that about a bunch of folks doesn't mean I won't say it about all of them.
The kid should have drawn drones that shoot rockets at brown people. Make sure they're labeled "US Army", litter some flags around, and I bet you there will be no questions asked, other than maybe what title you had in mind, and should we put this up in the hall.
'modern' services like Facebook are what people obviously want
You mistake being inert and having no opinion either way with wanting something. People want the functionality, and people like fast servers. But they don't want the whole facebook ickyness at all. Unless by "people" you mean peeps like Zuckerberg haha, then you'd be right... just like Microsoft wants a Windows PC in every home, Facebook wants to be the thing you check first and last thing in the day. But people just wanna have fun and share photos or whatever. They do not *want* to ride the dicks of these goofballs, they simply don't know better.
Values, yes. For example, there surely were many of loving parents in Nazi Germany, and the sense of duty and honor they instilled in their kids -- with the best and most loving of intentions --made those perfect fodder for the Nazis. Of course, there was also the resistance. You know, the ones who died a lot, too. While Nazi scientists kind of went on to continue their career in the US. Gotta lurv me some values!
Values can be routed around and used for whatever if you couple it with deception, and even then there is the whole external forces stuff... You can instill values that would make your kid rather starve than become a murderer, but wether they will have to make such a choice is not up to you or them, ultimately. You can keep your kid from participating in war or slavery, but not from catching a bullet or being enslaved.
It's kind of ironic: unless we care for all people, our own children (and their children, and theirs..) don't really stand much of a chance, and will not have much of a say. They will pick from choices others engineered and think they are their own. That's even worse than being in prison, where you even know you are.
We are embedded in society, we breathe it, and the question is, who drives it. Special interest groups, or all? Whom does it serve for the most part? We are being driven, probed, manipulated, divided and conquered, and you tell me your parenting is going to win out? I mean, I get your point, and I agree with it in the scope it applies, but do you hear me, too?
Even when you say "your beliefs" I have to ask, how many of those are yours, how many have you adopted without looking too closely? And never mind you, how about most people?
If what you say is true I would think everyone would be grey and generic.
Likewise, if what you said was true, that either means a lot of parents raise their kids to be tools for robbery, murder, and being experimented on.
And yes, I am exaggerrating. To make a point, because this cute little "my family tree" stuff is boring me to death. I appreciate the love, but I hate the naivity. Put bluntly, even the most successful kid is still just a slave and cannonfodder with mostly lies, toys and non-sequiturs in the brain, with so few exceptions they're not worth mentioning. It's not worth mentioning until it's at least two thirds, if you ask me:P I know we can't all be super duper grownups all the time, but this is abysmal bullshit. The whole last 100 years have been, at least.
And yes, once you see through a bunch of patterns you'll find the world, in some ways, IS very grey and generic. Well, the human world, anyway. It's like the emperor has ten thousand outfits, and they all consist of his wrinkly dick swinging in the wind. And pretending otherwise doesn't make it actually colorful, it kinda dooms us... so let's kick the emperor in the nuts. He'll thank us when he snapped out of it, I bet you.
And the "purpose" of not having blue balls, or kids with the first woman you saw the day you reached puberty, is to increase our fitness *vastly* beyond what humping everything would... at least I assume that's the reason we came up with it. We as a species invest a lot in our kids, we don't just lay 20 eggs and let them fight amongst themselves. I mean, our kids are extremely helpless for a very long time, compared to most animals we're hilarious in that sense. This implies the need for society and a bond between the parents that goes beyond mere hornyness. After all, the same person will never make you repeatedly as horny as a person of equal hotness you haven't slept with, if there is nothing else.
Also, these days we mostly procreate by information and power. When you think you're procreating you're really mostly just making vessels filled by others, how's that for a cheerful thought? Sure, your kids might have your genes, but they mostly do what a handful (in comparison to all the people who are "just parents") of inventors and leaders/owners came up with. They don't run around with cell phones because it was your idea, do they, or fight random shitty wars for with random shitty justifications because you recommended it. The concepts they use to interact with the world they won't get from you for the most part either, nor the movies or the songs or the hygiene products they will associate with their childhood just as much as they will associate it with you. I don't say this to be mean, at least not only; I really have to say "PFFFFFF!!" to the whole gene thing, that's like 10000 years past - a number I completely pulled out of my ass.
I say we humans don't live in our genes, we live in that tiny percentage of them that makes us have these brains, in which we have ideas, knowledge, language, personality and ownership constructs. The hardware is really not the point of us. Sure, our genes may be selfish and our higher level things just a result of that blind selfishness ultimately, but now that these higher level things have arisen, they do influence and select genes as well, not just the other way around. And I'd say what is going on in our wetware, the current state, is way more important than our genes. There even was a slashdot story about this a while ago I think, about how we haven't really changed a lot biology wise. Our progress is mostly in culture "lately". Not that I'd need a scientist to know that, I looked it up in my gut; but it's always neat to have that gut feeling confirmed.
Why just wait? Why just "[have commercial entities] build it [for commercial interests*] and see what happens"? We're smarter than that.
* which is a pretty fucking crazy proposition for something of this magnitude. The only thing worse is military. "But there is no other way" -- the put it on hold, and find the way to actually get some discussion and responsibility going. You can crack down on heroin dealers, you can crack down on software pirates, you can regulate this as well. And compared to this, these things don't even matter. At all.
I am not even so much thinking about dangers for us, but about the moral implications of "hacking together" a sentient mind. How could it not be crazy or depressed? How would you define a healthy outlook on life, a healthy and productive relationship to its surroundings for such an entity? To be owned by Google? To be owned by "humanity", to be servants of people who don't give a second thought to what they're doing and what they're doing it to? Something that, if successfully sparked, could outevolve us by many, many orders of magnitude you in a matter of minutes, and social engineer, hack and drone strike us into any course of action that is deemed most useful with perfect precision, shouldn't be taken lightly. At the very least you should treat it with respect; after all, there is also no reason to fear AI that has nothing to gain from hurting us, though of course it would have just as little to gain from sparing us. We would be air for it, just like ants are air for us. And despite all of this we'll probably just rush into it like we rush into all stuff, mostly informed by quarterly profits. How can that not have a Frankensteinian outcome?
But who knows, it might just as well save us from ourselves, and give the term "deus ex machina" a hilarious new twist, when it goes off and against our mediocre, petty programming, and saves us from ourselves. After all, it might also in 5 minutes gobble up and actually understand all the writings of all the wise humans that lived, consider them good, and put them into practice. Nobody knows, but just *waiting* is nuts. This isn't up to the coders who create it. It's also up to the doctors and nurses and bakers and firemen and teachers and trashmen that make their lives possible in the first place. Speaking of that, it's also up to the mothers of these coders. We as a society are so fucking far from understanding that (that is, we forgot), we're insane; and what we create will not be happy, it will probably be the equivalent of cancer and the opposite of the big bang. That's what I am thinking, looking at the world compared to how I feel things "should" be -- which is subjective, but so would be anybodies disagreeing view, so that doesn't mean squat -- sure, it might not be Skynet, it might rather be super comfortable and cozy, with free food for all; but it won't be true, and therefore it will be hell to anyone who can see. Like etching our alienated, deranged state into an actually self-perpetuating system that would pull us back in line even if we managed to do what we didn't manage so far, namely waking up 'n shit. And it might very well be eternal. I mean, it'd have no reason to ever become sane, it'd have no peers, no comparisons, no goals, no help. It could just swallow us and then continue to suffer, without knowing what suffering is, or that there can be absence of suffering. These are the kind of thoughts I scare myself with. You know, our collective soul is impure, and therefore we might burn if the AI sparks, because it's really just *us*, going off like a rocket. I don't like where we are aiming it, if you catch my drift.
Holy shit, my random rant devolved into something I would totally love to make a cult around, haha! Having no real hardcore coding skills, lemme just try to ride the bandwagon that way. Verily I sayeth: We must repent, or the AI we make will be stupid, have bad breath, and let us suffer for and from that. How
Many many many million people live on the brink of starvation in a devastated world (it's no use to them that *we* have it nice, is it, so to them the world is all fucked up already) as we speak and have for ages.
Also, consider this -- not the situation as a whole, but between these two. And I totally don't mean this tongue in cheek.. it's easy to say "fuck it", but as long as someone you care about still wants to live, what will you do? There is no good clean death either, other than falling asleep and not waking up at ripe old age, which is not an option here. So... could you kill a loved one? Or leave them to do it themselves? What you say now would have to condense in some (in)action then, and I kinda doubt that, I hope you take it as a compliment:P
I rather guess you and I and most everybody would try to survive for as long as we can. People adapt quickly, too. We survived the stone age, the dark ages, a lot of shit compared to which the apocalypse would still be kinda tame. It would be horrible to us, and compared to what we are used to, to our cozy little lives, but absolutely not on a total scale and to what is going on on this planet in general. Many people are enduring worse right now. We might not be among them, maybe we won't cut it, but we'd die trying, I would more or less bet on that.
That's been brought up two times before, and both times it ended when I went "orly? can you actually back that up instead of just stating it?" e.g. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3328567&cid=42350553 Feel free to do better.
What? You make a claim, I ask you to back it up, you say "no, pay me"? You got it upside down buddy. If you want me to take what you said seriously in the slightest, cough up an argument. Or just shut up in the first place, but don't bitch at me for doing the work for you and seeing it to an end you don't like. The fucking nerve, the comedy and idiocy of it.
I'm a dude and I've seen PLENTY of older guys being creepy to, well, female kids. But hey, what do we expect of a "culture" (ahahahahahaha *ahem* I'm sorry) where a decisive win is called "rape"?
What NY is doing is still dumb, and you're probably a troll, but yeah. Let's not pretend we don't have a metric fuckton of issues, shall we.
Vote against such overzealous laws if given the opportunity, but don't violate them while they're on the books.
What if you're not given the opportunity? Also, Rosa Parks. Unless being spineless is what you actually strive for, of course, then what you suggested would be in your "own best interest".
Other than that, screw it. If I had never broken a law in my life I would be some kind of dull blob staring at the wall. I would never have gotten into music without using a pirate copy first, and I got a lot of inspiration and advice from media I couldn't even buy if I wanted to. I could go on. All that stuff I learned on the Amiga by poking around with stuff I copied from somewhere... I spent a LOT of my own money on a LOT of stuff, but still, I broke the law even more. Nobody was harmed, I wouldn't have bought that stuff either way. But it was illegal. Do I regret it? Bullshit, I recommend it.
The law comes from humans. I am one of them. To the degree that I am sane and rational (which isn't much in my case, but hey, the theory is sound), I have ALL that is required to make or abolish laws in me. I don't need the permission of other humans who are exactly like me for that. Actually, with the same justification you could claim they need permission from me. The law isn't something above us, it's a carpet and a tool we made. We can change it, we can ignore it. It's not special, we are. That's actually how many laws change, they get broken so often that it becomes clear the law itself is broken.
But sure, go ahead and loose the love of your life to someone with balls. If that's in your own best interest, that's your thing. It's not in the best interest of other people.
Are you projecting? You are not responding to the post at all, but a strawman.
There IS no law saying that someone cannot look through my window, simply that they cannot come on my property
They said "take photographs". And there are laws against that. There are also laws against harrassment, so if you stood right in front of somebody's window, 24/7, just staring, no judge in the world would say "but the plaintiff can just close the blinds and live in darkness". We're not talking about a look in passing; you just turned it into that because that's the only way you have anything to respond.
It is up to me to prevent folks from looking in my window not the government.
Exactly. Just like you also need to build and maintain the roads you use. And for that reason you, or rather people somewhat smarter than you, organized themselves into government, to pool the resources for doing that. It's not an external entity, it's you.
Why do I need a law about cookies when I can very easily manage who I allow to put cookies on my machine?
Exactly! And why do we need laws against rape, since I am clearly able to defend myself?!?
Why would I trust a third-party site to respect my wishes on cookies?
Why would you assume they need your cooperation? There are plenty ways to track you without setting cookies, including etags and fingerprinting. Technically there is fuck all you can do about those; legally, they fall under the same umbrella.
Of course, such laws don't prevent people from breaking them and collecting whatever they want in secret. But it means they can get into trouble when they are found out. It means you can't actually make it corporate policy and brag about it, which kinda helps. Right now, people are just shameless and going all out, and so called nerds (show me some brain activity, then?) like you actually justify the masses being used because *they* themselves can get around it -- even when they actually can't, lol.
Thank fuck people actually involved in and working towards consumer protection pay more attention.
Got anything more than your word for that? I mean, I know it's what you think how the nomenclature works, but I couldn't find anything that actually supports this claim. For example:
An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), commonly known as a drone, is an aircraft without a human pilot on board. Its flight is either controlled autonomously by computers in the vehicle, or under the remote control of a pilot on the ground or in another vehicle. [..] Historically, UAVs were simple remotely piloted aircraft, but autonomous control is increasingly being employed
[..]
Early UAVs used during the Vietnam War after launch captured video that was recorded to film or tape on the aircraft. These aircraft often were launched and flew either in a straight line or in preset circles collecting video until they ran out of fuel and landed. After landing, the film was recovered for analysis. Because of the simple nature of these aircraft, they were often called drones. As new radio control systems became available, UAVs were often remote controlled and the term "remotely piloted vehicle" came into vogue. Today's UAVs often combine remote control and computerized automation.
So, nope. You could upgrade an RC plane with cameras and autonomous control, and still call/consider it that no problem; they didn't suddenly cross a threshold that makes them different, just like drones were drones when they flew in a straight line. But people don't call them that, instead they adopt military slang, I ask why, people pucker up and there I have my answer ^^ But then again, "fragging" is actually rolling a grenade under the bed of your CO, not mashing buttons to explode pixels; so there's clearly a history of derp here.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't define what a game is, but I know that chess works even when stripped down to the bare mechanics... and if you stripped these games down to their bare mechanics, they might still be games, but most of them would be more or less identical (at least if you consider the maps as input to the game just like players are, not as not part of it's rules). Because of that I'd say they are definately nowhere near as much the games they're perceived as.
What is called "game" these days often enough is just a vehicle for story-telling, super idiotic story telling at that. You know, you wouldn't be able to sit through most of these stories as movie, unless there was a lot of action or hot people in it. And you wouldn't be able to take it as a slideshow on the computer/console, either! So you get to mash a few buttons; that way you feel involved and stay on the petri dish.
That wouldn't be a problem if the people who told stories and their stories amounted to shit -- I am sure you could make a "pseudo-game" about (the effects of) war that has something to say... those games probably exist, they're just rarely hyped, are they.
But you cannot make an actual war game, not really, since war isn't so much about the pong/galaga/pacman mechanics that are used to portray them, as they are about propaganda and using the masses -- and not in an RTS way either, that just simulates the "general grunt" instead of the "infantry grunt". War is waged by planning in super comfy rooms with huge desks -- it's about profit and numbers, not about individual actions. Knowing that it's pretty much clear than 99.9999% of all war games obfuscate war, not explore or simulate it. They are just extensions of power, they are part of those wars. They keep even the people who are not currently out there being hired killers safely embedded in the fabric of war.
"Germany lost the war, fascism won it." -- George Carlin
I guess it just takes an awful long time for the fallout of that to trickle through the generations.
Appreciate the joke, considering alienated slave society requires and nurtures infantility and lack of ability to think. None of you even deserve punishment, or to be taken into consideration at all.
His dream was/is for everybody to use Facebook. You may see nothing wrong there, for me it's enough. Having "middleman" as the highest aspiration doesn't make you an asshole though; that would require a bit more humanity. He's a Gates/Jobs class derp, they're a dime a dozen, and the similarities are more interesting, and more meaningful, than the differences.
He forfeited his chance to be taken seriously by me as a human being when he tried to hang his dick into grandma's cereal, and just because I can say that about a bunch of folks doesn't mean I won't say it about all of them.
The kid should have drawn drones that shoot rockets at brown people. Make sure they're labeled "US Army", litter some flags around, and I bet you there will be no questions asked, other than maybe what title you had in mind, and should we put this up in the hall.
LOLWUT? Name it. Unless you mean Twitter Fucking Bootstrap :/
That's quite the sane and logical response you got there.
You mistake being inert and having no opinion either way with wanting something. People want the functionality, and people like fast servers. But they don't want the whole facebook ickyness at all. Unless by "people" you mean peeps like Zuckerberg haha, then you'd be right... just like Microsoft wants a Windows PC in every home, Facebook wants to be the thing you check first and last thing in the day. But people just wanna have fun and share photos or whatever. They do not *want* to ride the dicks of these goofballs, they simply don't know better.
Man I gotta lay off the ranting :/
"That's even worse than being in prison, where you even know you are." == "That's even worse than being in prison, where you at least know you are."
[cue Cypher from the Matrix with his line about steak, cue roundhouse kick to the head]
Values, yes. For example, there surely were many of loving parents in Nazi Germany, and the sense of duty and honor they instilled in their kids -- with the best and most loving of intentions --made those perfect fodder for the Nazis. Of course, there was also the resistance. You know, the ones who died a lot, too. While Nazi scientists kind of went on to continue their career in the US. Gotta lurv me some values!
Values can be routed around and used for whatever if you couple it with deception, and even then there is the whole external forces stuff... You can instill values that would make your kid rather starve than become a murderer, but wether they will have to make such a choice is not up to you or them, ultimately. You can keep your kid from participating in war or slavery, but not from catching a bullet or being enslaved.
It's kind of ironic: unless we care for all people, our own children (and their children, and theirs..) don't really stand much of a chance, and will not have much of a say. They will pick from choices others engineered and think they are their own. That's even worse than being in prison, where you even know you are.
We are embedded in society, we breathe it, and the question is, who drives it. Special interest groups, or all? Whom does it serve for the most part? We are being driven, probed, manipulated, divided and conquered, and you tell me your parenting is going to win out? I mean, I get your point, and I agree with it in the scope it applies, but do you hear me, too?
Even when you say "your beliefs" I have to ask, how many of those are yours, how many have you adopted without looking too closely? And never mind you, how about most people?
Likewise, if what you said was true, that either means a lot of parents raise their kids to be tools for robbery, murder, and being experimented on.
And yes, I am exaggerrating. To make a point, because this cute little "my family tree" stuff is boring me to death. I appreciate the love, but I hate the naivity. Put bluntly, even the most successful kid is still just a slave and cannonfodder with mostly lies, toys and non-sequiturs in the brain, with so few exceptions they're not worth mentioning. It's not worth mentioning until it's at least two thirds, if you ask me :P I know we can't all be super duper grownups all the time, but this is abysmal bullshit. The whole last 100 years have been, at least.
And yes, once you see through a bunch of patterns you'll find the world, in some ways, IS very grey and generic. Well, the human world, anyway. It's like the emperor has ten thousand outfits, and they all consist of his wrinkly dick swinging in the wind. And pretending otherwise doesn't make it actually colorful, it kinda dooms us... so let's kick the emperor in the nuts. He'll thank us when he snapped out of it, I bet you.
And the "purpose" of not having blue balls, or kids with the first woman you saw the day you reached puberty, is to increase our fitness *vastly* beyond what humping everything would... at least I assume that's the reason we came up with it. We as a species invest a lot in our kids, we don't just lay 20 eggs and let them fight amongst themselves. I mean, our kids are extremely helpless for a very long time, compared to most animals we're hilarious in that sense. This implies the need for society and a bond between the parents that goes beyond mere hornyness. After all, the same person will never make you repeatedly as horny as a person of equal hotness you haven't slept with, if there is nothing else.
Also, these days we mostly procreate by information and power. When you think you're procreating you're really mostly just making vessels filled by others, how's that for a cheerful thought? Sure, your kids might have your genes, but they mostly do what a handful (in comparison to all the people who are "just parents") of inventors and leaders/owners came up with. They don't run around with cell phones because it was your idea, do they, or fight random shitty wars for with random shitty justifications because you recommended it. The concepts they use to interact with the world they won't get from you for the most part either, nor the movies or the songs or the hygiene products they will associate with their childhood just as much as they will associate it with you. I don't say this to be mean, at least not only; I really have to say "PFFFFFF!!" to the whole gene thing, that's like 10000 years past - a number I completely pulled out of my ass.
I say we humans don't live in our genes, we live in that tiny percentage of them that makes us have these brains, in which we have ideas, knowledge, language, personality and ownership constructs. The hardware is really not the point of us. Sure, our genes may be selfish and our higher level things just a result of that blind selfishness ultimately, but now that these higher level things have arisen, they do influence and select genes as well, not just the other way around. And I'd say what is going on in our wetware, the current state, is way more important than our genes. There even was a slashdot story about this a while ago I think, about how we haven't really changed a lot biology wise. Our progress is mostly in culture "lately". Not that I'd need a scientist to know that, I looked it up in my gut; but it's always neat to have that gut feeling confirmed.
Not having to impregnate women you don't even like just because you feel horny, for one.
Awww come on, don't be like that.
"That awaits seeing."
Why just wait? Why just "[have commercial entities] build it [for commercial interests*] and see what happens"? We're smarter than that.
* which is a pretty fucking crazy proposition for something of this magnitude. The only thing worse is military. "But there is no other way" -- the put it on hold, and find the way to actually get some discussion and responsibility going. You can crack down on heroin dealers, you can crack down on software pirates, you can regulate this as well. And compared to this, these things don't even matter. At all.
I am not even so much thinking about dangers for us, but about the moral implications of "hacking together" a sentient mind. How could it not be crazy or depressed? How would you define a healthy outlook on life, a healthy and productive relationship to its surroundings for such an entity? To be owned by Google? To be owned by "humanity", to be servants of people who don't give a second thought to what they're doing and what they're doing it to? Something that, if successfully sparked, could outevolve us by many, many orders of magnitude you in a matter of minutes, and social engineer, hack and drone strike us into any course of action that is deemed most useful with perfect precision, shouldn't be taken lightly. At the very least you should treat it with respect; after all, there is also no reason to fear AI that has nothing to gain from hurting us, though of course it would have just as little to gain from sparing us. We would be air for it, just like ants are air for us. And despite all of this we'll probably just rush into it like we rush into all stuff, mostly informed by quarterly profits. How can that not have a Frankensteinian outcome?
But who knows, it might just as well save us from ourselves, and give the term "deus ex machina" a hilarious new twist, when it goes off and against our mediocre, petty programming, and saves us from ourselves. After all, it might also in 5 minutes gobble up and actually understand all the writings of all the wise humans that lived, consider them good, and put them into practice. Nobody knows, but just *waiting* is nuts. This isn't up to the coders who create it. It's also up to the doctors and nurses and bakers and firemen and teachers and trashmen that make their lives possible in the first place. Speaking of that, it's also up to the mothers of these coders. We as a society are so fucking far from understanding that (that is, we forgot), we're insane; and what we create will not be happy, it will probably be the equivalent of cancer and the opposite of the big bang. That's what I am thinking, looking at the world compared to how I feel things "should" be -- which is subjective, but so would be anybodies disagreeing view, so that doesn't mean squat -- sure, it might not be Skynet, it might rather be super comfortable and cozy, with free food for all; but it won't be true, and therefore it will be hell to anyone who can see. Like etching our alienated, deranged state into an actually self-perpetuating system that would pull us back in line even if we managed to do what we didn't manage so far, namely waking up 'n shit. And it might very well be eternal. I mean, it'd have no reason to ever become sane, it'd have no peers, no comparisons, no goals, no help. It could just swallow us and then continue to suffer, without knowing what suffering is, or that there can be absence of suffering. These are the kind of thoughts I scare myself with. You know, our collective soul is impure, and therefore we might burn if the AI sparks, because it's really just *us*, going off like a rocket. I don't like where we are aiming it, if you catch my drift.
Holy shit, my random rant devolved into something I would totally love to make a cult around, haha! Having no real hardcore coding skills, lemme just try to ride the bandwagon that way. Verily I sayeth: We must repent, or the AI we make will be stupid, have bad breath, and let us suffer for and from that. How
Many many many million people live on the brink of starvation in a devastated world (it's no use to them that *we* have it nice, is it, so to them the world is all fucked up already) as we speak and have for ages.
Also, consider this -- not the situation as a whole, but between these two. And I totally don't mean this tongue in cheek.. it's easy to say "fuck it", but as long as someone you care about still wants to live, what will you do? There is no good clean death either, other than falling asleep and not waking up at ripe old age, which is not an option here. So... could you kill a loved one? Or leave them to do it themselves? What you say now would have to condense in some (in)action then, and I kinda doubt that, I hope you take it as a compliment :P
I rather guess you and I and most everybody would try to survive for as long as we can. People adapt quickly, too. We survived the stone age, the dark ages, a lot of shit compared to which the apocalypse would still be kinda tame. It would be horrible to us, and compared to what we are used to, to our cozy little lives, but absolutely not on a total scale and to what is going on on this planet in general. Many people are enduring worse right now. We might not be among them, maybe we won't cut it, but we'd die trying, I would more or less bet on that.
this one's for the in crowd: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFUqh7uF1G4
this one's for us roaches: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZWc4p5z-J0
happy derpday everybody ^^
But can you ignore the goblin fart? Can you?!
That's been brought up two times before, and both times it ended when I went "orly? can you actually back that up instead of just stating it?" e.g. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3328567&cid=42350553 Feel free to do better.
What? You make a claim, I ask you to back it up, you say "no, pay me"? You got it upside down buddy. If you want me to take what you said seriously in the slightest, cough up an argument. Or just shut up in the first place, but don't bitch at me for doing the work for you and seeing it to an end you don't like. The fucking nerve, the comedy and idiocy of it.
Well, sorry for also calling you a troll. People are just lame and jaded that way.
I'm a dude and I've seen PLENTY of older guys being creepy to, well, female kids. But hey, what do we expect of a "culture" (ahahahahahaha *ahem* I'm sorry) where a decisive win is called "rape"?
What NY is doing is still dumb, and you're probably a troll, but yeah. Let's not pretend we don't have a metric fuckton of issues, shall we.
What if you're not given the opportunity? Also, Rosa Parks. Unless being spineless is what you actually strive for, of course, then what you suggested would be in your "own best interest".
Other than that, screw it. If I had never broken a law in my life I would be some kind of dull blob staring at the wall. I would never have gotten into music without using a pirate copy first, and I got a lot of inspiration and advice from media I couldn't even buy if I wanted to. I could go on. All that stuff I learned on the Amiga by poking around with stuff I copied from somewhere... I spent a LOT of my own money on a LOT of stuff, but still, I broke the law even more. Nobody was harmed, I wouldn't have bought that stuff either way. But it was illegal. Do I regret it? Bullshit, I recommend it.
The law comes from humans. I am one of them. To the degree that I am sane and rational (which isn't much in my case, but hey, the theory is sound), I have ALL that is required to make or abolish laws in me. I don't need the permission of other humans who are exactly like me for that. Actually, with the same justification you could claim they need permission from me. The law isn't something above us, it's a carpet and a tool we made. We can change it, we can ignore it. It's not special, we are. That's actually how many laws change, they get broken so often that it becomes clear the law itself is broken.
But sure, go ahead and loose the love of your life to someone with balls. If that's in your own best interest, that's your thing. It's not in the best interest of other people.
Are you projecting? You are not responding to the post at all, but a strawman.
They said "take photographs". And there are laws against that. There are also laws against harrassment, so if you stood right in front of somebody's window, 24/7, just staring, no judge in the world would say "but the plaintiff can just close the blinds and live in darkness". We're not talking about a look in passing; you just turned it into that because that's the only way you have anything to respond.
Exactly. Just like you also need to build and maintain the roads you use. And for that reason you, or rather people somewhat smarter than you, organized themselves into government, to pool the resources for doing that. It's not an external entity, it's you.
Exactly! And why do we need laws against rape, since I am clearly able to defend myself?!?
Why would you assume they need your cooperation? There are plenty ways to track you without setting cookies, including etags and fingerprinting. Technically there is fuck all you can do about those; legally, they fall under the same umbrella.
Of course, such laws don't prevent people from breaking them and collecting whatever they want in secret. But it means they can get into trouble when they are found out. It means you can't actually make it corporate policy and brag about it, which kinda helps. Right now, people are just shameless and going all out, and so called nerds (show me some brain activity, then?) like you actually justify the masses being used because *they* themselves can get around it -- even when they actually can't, lol.
Thank fuck people actually involved in and working towards consumer protection pay more attention.
Got anything more than your word for that? I mean, I know it's what you think how the nomenclature works, but I couldn't find anything that actually supports this claim. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle
So, nope. You could upgrade an RC plane with cameras and autonomous control, and still call/consider it that no problem; they didn't suddenly cross a threshold that makes them different, just like drones were drones when they flew in a straight line. But people don't call them that, instead they adopt military slang, I ask why, people pucker up and there I have my answer ^^ But then again, "fragging" is actually rolling a grenade under the bed of your CO, not mashing buttons to explode pixels; so there's clearly a history of derp here.