(b) changing airline passenger awareness on how to respond to a terrorist-
This was not an awareness campaign. It was a change in doctrine. Prior to 2001, flight attendants were told to cooperate with hijackers (because it was always a kidnapping/hostage situation), and to instruct passengers to comply with the hijackers.
because when I was a kid, the big thing was the coming ice age in our life times
preached by the science of the times.
Actually, the peer reviewed science in the 1960's and 1970's said the earth was warming. News media may have said differently, but even that is being exaggerated - for instance that Times magazine cover from 1977 is a fake.
We've been measuring temperatures since at least the 1800's. And you expect the records to actually fall off fairly quickly. For instance, you would expect a d20 to max out after 14 rolls.
I could go on, but these numbers indicate rising temperatures.
Probably not. As part of the chip card push, liability arrangements changed. I doubt many box stores will accept chipless cards or manual impressions for that very reason. At least for big items.
The plus side for that is all illegal migrants have to get another layer of new photo ID and interact with banks and who pays them for work.
Illegal immigrants can already (legally) get bank accounts and taxpayer id numbers. In fact, not only will the IRS give them numbers to pay taxes/get a job, but they are forbidden from law to tell any other agency of the government
I'm confused. You said "Forget wall street, it benefits fascists". Who do you think is going to freeze the accounts? And do you think they'll only do it when the government asks, or also when it benefits them?
. I don't think anything a video camera in a public location can learn about you CAN be considered private information, really.
Even the US Supreme Court (which isn't exactly a bastion of privacy) disagrees with you. Sensors that exceed normal human wavelengths, sensors that track you or your car 24/7, and probably other rulings are all "invasions of privacy" that require a warrant if done by the police.*
I agree that a minute is probably too long to expect an AI to trick you. But the context of this was "should bots (by which the Author means Google Duplex) be forced to identify as a such when they call you." Which is a real life thing that probably is 30 seconds with a bored assistant, or similarly transaction-based exposure. The OP said "well, if I cannot tell the difference, we should just treat them as humans".
I also should have been more precise in stating, "I can write AI that tricks the vast majority of people."
But you "having a desire to talk to it" isn't what Google Duplex is about. It's about completing a transaction, and moving on. If Google Duplex was capable of having an hour conversation, one of the first things the developers would add would be how to politely get off the phone.
He's certainly done a lot of other testing. I'm not saying it's not dangerous, but he's done less dangerous tests (vacuum chambers, underwater, 25,000 ft in the air.)
I'm not sure what your point is. The number of times I talk about phase transitions of water - pretty low. And then I really only care if there may be ice on the road. Number of times I pay attention to the outside weather, or the thermostat, pretty often.
To review, the idea of network effects is that more users of the network increase the value of the network, often more than linearly.
Nitpick, it must be more than linear. But yes, exponential increases are usually considered. To those who wonder why Microsoft is still so valuable, it's network effects. And there, unlike social media, the costs to getting everyone to switch are almost impossible.
I could see some value in Twitter, but I couldn't (and still don't) see a way for them to retain any of that value.
Ummm.. I can write an AI that tricks you into thinking it's a person, for a reasonablish amount of time.
The Turning Test is trivial to pass on a short enough timeline, especially if (A) I get to control where and when the conversation occurs, (B) That conversation is usually formulaic anyway (arranging an appointment), and (C) The human in the loop doesn't care that much (e.g. the person taking the appointment at the salon wants off the phone).
Here's the Unified Theory of Everything in octonions using x formulae that explain everything.
Now that that's done, we can simplify them into the fewer equations in quaternions.
The number of quaternion equations will probably be greater than the octonion or vector versions. Which is why they were avoided for a while.
Each equation will be quite simple, but the number will grow pretty dramatically. Compare how simple motion is taught pre and post calculus. Pre-calculus, you're taught dozens of equations for every possiblility. Like, when you have time, initial speed and acceleration, use an equation to get distance. Etc. Once you know calculus, you're down to one equation you modify and solve for
The problem isn't an equation producing two results (although as a rule the number of solutions are equivalent to the order of the equation, so division or reals having two would be an issue.) The problem is "infinity" isn't a number. It's like saying 5 divided by 1 = red/green cabbage . I mean, it's nonsense, but not because it returns two types of cabbage.
Or better, don't connect it to the network. There's no reason for most devices to be on the network. And, frankly, I'm willing to accept a lot more security holes in something if step 1 is "sit down at the device"
If you have committed murder why on earth do you deserve privacy?
Well, for one, we allow criminals to have some, but not all, rights that people have. For instance, the right to medical autonomy, etc.
But more importantly, if you're accused of murder, you haven't necessarily committed murder. We allow some violations of your rights in the accused state (warrants, pretrial detention) because they are necessary. But they also certainly are violations.
Firstly we need to reduce the consequences of minor offending in a digital age where all evidence can be stored permanently... Secondly drug offending needs to become a medical issue
These are probably good policies. However, the purpose of constitutional rights isn't to enforce good policies, it's to prevent dictators (who will knowingly use bad policies)
ailure to provide access to an encrypted system needs to be a reverse onus situation where failure to provide evidence against yourself is deemed an admission of guilt.
Why stop there? Why not say their refusal to confess is an admission of guilt?
Slashdot Mirror
This was not an awareness campaign. It was a change in doctrine. Prior to 2001, flight attendants were told to cooperate with hijackers (because it was always a kidnapping/hostage situation), and to instruct passengers to comply with the hijackers.
Not in the peer reviewed journals. But in pop-sci media.
The employer match for SS&Medicare is 7.5%, not 15.
.
I haven't seen any evidence that they weren't, why?
What makes you think they weren't.
Actually, the peer reviewed science in the 1960's and 1970's said the earth was warming. News media may have said differently, but even that is being exaggerated - for instance that Times magazine cover from 1977 is a fake.
We've been measuring temperatures since at least the 1800's. And you expect the records to actually fall off fairly quickly. For instance, you would expect a d20 to max out after 14 rolls.
I could go on, but these numbers indicate rising temperatures.
Probably not. As part of the chip card push, liability arrangements changed. I doubt many box stores will accept chipless cards or manual impressions for that very reason. At least for big items.
Fun fact, those old manual impression machines are being phased out. They don't even raise the numbers on (some) credit cards anymore.
Illegal immigrants can already (legally) get bank accounts and taxpayer id numbers. In fact, not only will the IRS give them numbers to pay taxes/get a job, but they are forbidden from law to tell any other agency of the government
I'm confused. You said "Forget wall street, it benefits fascists". Who do you think is going to freeze the accounts? And do you think they'll only do it when the government asks, or also when it benefits them?
No one would assume 5 degrees. Commercial temperature controls for reptiles in a terrarium are more precise about that.
Yup. A lot of cooking recipes have either converted Celsius or converted and rounded Celsius in them. They start standing out once you notice them.
Even the US Supreme Court (which isn't exactly a bastion of privacy) disagrees with you. Sensors that exceed normal human wavelengths, sensors that track you or your car 24/7, and probably other rulings are all "invasions of privacy" that require a warrant if done by the police.*
*IANAL, so you want to validate.
I agree that a minute is probably too long to expect an AI to trick you. But the context of this was "should bots (by which the Author means Google Duplex) be forced to identify as a such when they call you." Which is a real life thing that probably is 30 seconds with a bored assistant, or similarly transaction-based exposure. The OP said "well, if I cannot tell the difference, we should just treat them as humans".
I also should have been more precise in stating, "I can write AI that tricks the vast majority of people."
But you "having a desire to talk to it" isn't what Google Duplex is about. It's about completing a transaction, and moving on. If Google Duplex was capable of having an hour conversation, one of the first things the developers would add would be how to politely get off the phone.
He's certainly done a lot of other testing. I'm not saying it's not dangerous, but he's done less dangerous tests (vacuum chambers, underwater, 25,000 ft in the air.)
I'm not sure what your point is. The number of times I talk about phase transitions of water - pretty low. And then I really only care if there may be ice on the road. Number of times I pay attention to the outside weather, or the thermostat, pretty often.
Nitpick, it must be more than linear. But yes, exponential increases are usually considered. To those who wonder why Microsoft is still so valuable, it's network effects. And there, unlike social media, the costs to getting everyone to switch are almost impossible.
I could see some value in Twitter, but I couldn't (and still don't) see a way for them to retain any of that value.
The reason websites don't want bots is because it leads to abuse. Robocalls are already aggravating as fuck. I don't want them to improve.
And I never understood the "AI as a personal assistant".
Ummm.. I can write an AI that tricks you into thinking it's a person, for a reasonablish amount of time.
The Turning Test is trivial to pass on a short enough timeline, especially if (A) I get to control where and when the conversation occurs, (B) That conversation is usually formulaic anyway (arranging an appointment), and (C) The human in the loop doesn't care that much (e.g. the person taking the appointment at the salon wants off the phone).
And you thought the ghost flights from heathrow was bad. Wait until you get ghost ubers.
The number of quaternion equations will probably be greater than the octonion or vector versions. Which is why they were avoided for a while.
Each equation will be quite simple, but the number will grow pretty dramatically. Compare how simple motion is taught pre and post calculus. Pre-calculus, you're taught dozens of equations for every possiblility. Like, when you have time, initial speed and acceleration, use an equation to get distance. Etc. Once you know calculus, you're down to one equation you modify and solve for
The problem isn't an equation producing two results (although as a rule the number of solutions are equivalent to the order of the equation, so division or reals having two would be an issue.) The problem is "infinity" isn't a number. It's like saying 5 divided by 1 = red/green cabbage . I mean, it's nonsense, but not because it returns two types of cabbage.
Most people should have a computer that they cannot control. It should definitely be an option.
Or better, don't connect it to the network. There's no reason for most devices to be on the network. And, frankly, I'm willing to accept a lot more security holes in something if step 1 is "sit down at the device"
Well, for one, we allow criminals to have some, but not all, rights that people have. For instance, the right to medical autonomy, etc.
But more importantly, if you're accused of murder, you haven't necessarily committed murder. We allow some violations of your rights in the accused state (warrants, pretrial detention) because they are necessary. But they also certainly are violations.
These are probably good policies. However, the purpose of constitutional rights isn't to enforce good policies, it's to prevent dictators (who will knowingly use bad policies)
Why stop there? Why not say their refusal to confess is an admission of guilt?