Companies can be and are sued for giving to charity. It's not illegal because it can be in the (financial!) best interest of shareholders in a variety of ways (encouraging further investment, improving the corporation's image to customers,... many more) Of course shareholders have other interests, but those interests are not why they are investing. They might choose to invest in one company over another for those reasons, but they are investing in the first place to make a profit. Otherwise it's not investment, it's giving to charity.
What, besides profit, is in the best interest of all of the shareholder of a publicly traded corporation? Giving to charity and sponsoring events are examples of enlightened self-interest. Take it too far and you will be sued by your shareholders..
If you don't want anyone to see it, don't photograph it in the first place.
For every file stolen from the cloud, many more are stolen directly from the user's machine. For all intents and purposes, anything "digital" equals world access.
As a senior engineer today, I'm responsible not only for knowing...
I thought the exact same thing when I started as a software engineer in 1996, almost 20 years ago. Only back then we actually generated HTML in C++ on the server (with home-brewed "html template" processors.) And we had to deal with things like COM, and browsers were far less standardized. We also had to deal with database design, only we had to make home-brewed Object-Relational Mappings, because the frameworks for that weren't that good either. Marshalling an object from the database through the business logic and onto the client and back required all kinds of hand-written code. We also had to worry about deployment, but we could only dream about something like WiX. I don't want to hear any complaining about build systems if you haven't been subjected to the horrors of makefiles. We had source control way back then too, but it was less flexible, less salable, and more difficult to use.
And check this out. If we didn't know a tool or API or algorithm or data-structure (oh yeah, we wrote our own back then), you couldn't just google the answer. You had to actually find it in a book, or learn it from a friend or colleague.
They problem is not that they don't know what they're talking about. The problem is that they think they do. There's no excuse for it. Journalists aren't expected to be experts in the things they write about. They're just expected to not be full of shit.
This is a holdover from C where you have to declare all your variables at the beginning of the scope. In C++ (and IIRC now in C) you can wait until you have the initializer before you declare the variable. Uninitialized variables should almost never be used, and always commented.
Well, with copy/paste templates, you can understand the error messages. With C++ templates, the error messages are each kilobytes of jibberish, written in a strange dialect of lisp using angle brackets instead of parentheses.
Also, you don't need half a whiteboard to write the full name of a type.
If you assume that the fossils we find are equally likely to have come from any time in the past, you would expect a continuum of fossils. The tiny percentage of fossils that have survived are not equally distributed though. So you get little slices of times/places where fossils survived, and the rest are gone forever.
Poke all the holes you want/can in evolutionary theory -- it won't improve the alternative theories at all.
The system most certainly is self regulating. So is my living room. If I light my sofa on fire, my air conditioning will kick in. I don't think it'll do much to prevent my house from burning to the ground though.
There is no "supposed to be." Supposed to be according to whom?
Maybe what you mean is "what is the temperature compared to what it would have been without humans?" If so, the answer is clear if not precise: warmer.
I don't (and wouldn't) have a JVM installed so that probably explains why I don't notice it on my desktop. It used to be useful on the server side, but every month that goes by it falls further behind. Java 8 is not going to be significant enough to change that. At this point, the only reason to use Java is because that's what you've always used.
You're doing it wrong. The biometric data is not like a password -- it's like a username. Do you change your username whenever you change your password? Of course not. You don't want it to be changeable or revocable. The password is separate from the biometric id. That's what you change. And obviously permissions associated with the id are modifyable/revocable. If the biometric id is compromised, you change the password, and perhaps flag the account to notify security if it is used (and the swat team if it's used with the old "revoked" password.)
I've heard that kind of argument before, and I don't find it convincing. First of all, We don't really know all that much about embryonic development, compared to what we know we don't know about it yet. We know even less about consciousness. We certainly do know something, and we're learning more about it all the time. I just think we have a long way to go before we can do anything like emulating consciousness in a computer. And I think there are good reasons to be skeptical that it can be done in a digital computer at all. But assuming that it is possible, we will have much more than enough computing power laying around long before we know enough to use it effectively to that end. Creating something that can create something to do it for us is not going to make it that much easier, in my opinion. If we knew how to do that, we'd be most of the way toward just finishing it ourselves.
I agree that it is strangely likely that we will "invent" AI without really understanding how it works. There are a few ways that that could happen. But if it happens that way we can't really claim to have "figured it out." Maybe we could ask it how it works:)
By the way, I didn't mean to sound so critical of Dennett's book -- I loved it. Anyone interested in the subject should read it. Come to think of it, I'd recommend just about anything he's written.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe they are only allowed to burn bunker fuel out in international waters anyway.
Companies can be and are sued for giving to charity. It's not illegal because it can be in the (financial!) best interest of shareholders in a variety of ways (encouraging further investment, improving the corporation's image to customers, ... many more) Of course shareholders have other interests, but those interests are not why they are investing. They might choose to invest in one company over another for those reasons, but they are investing in the first place to make a profit. Otherwise it's not investment, it's giving to charity.
What, besides profit, is in the best interest of all of the shareholder of a publicly traded corporation? Giving to charity and sponsoring events are examples of enlightened self-interest. Take it too far and you will be sued by your shareholders..
But they're both named K-vowel-consonant-consonant-vowel-nski.
That can't be a coincidence.
Have you published your understanding of human nature somewhere? I'd love to see the equations.
A fiduciary duty is a legal duty to act solely in another party's interests. [...]
Examples of fiduciary relationships include [...] a director and her shareholders.
source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex... (aka the first google result for "fiduciary duty")
If you don't want anyone to see it, don't photograph it in the first place. For every file stolen from the cloud, many more are stolen directly from the user's machine. For all intents and purposes, anything "digital" equals world access.
As a senior engineer today, I'm responsible not only for knowing ...
I thought the exact same thing when I started as a software engineer in 1996, almost 20 years ago. Only back then we actually generated HTML in C++ on the server (with home-brewed "html template" processors.) And we had to deal with things like COM, and browsers were far less standardized. We also had to deal with database design, only we had to make home-brewed Object-Relational Mappings, because the frameworks for that weren't that good either. Marshalling an object from the database through the business logic and onto the client and back required all kinds of hand-written code. We also had to worry about deployment, but we could only dream about something like WiX. I don't want to hear any complaining about build systems if you haven't been subjected to the horrors of makefiles. We had source control way back then too, but it was less flexible, less salable, and more difficult to use.
And check this out. If we didn't know a tool or API or algorithm or data-structure (oh yeah, we wrote our own back then), you couldn't just google the answer. You had to actually find it in a book, or learn it from a friend or colleague.
They problem is not that they don't know what they're talking about. The problem is that they think they do. There's no excuse for it. Journalists aren't expected to be experts in the things they write about. They're just expected to not be full of shit.
I think this conversation has gone off the rails. Does that make it actually on-topic?
This is a holdover from C where you have to declare all your variables at the beginning of the scope. In C++ (and IIRC now in C) you can wait until you have the initializer before you declare the variable. Uninitialized variables should almost never be used, and always commented.
I'm guessing you mean W-h there
But how can you subtract hours from watts?
Well, with copy/paste templates, you can understand the error messages. With C++ templates, the error messages are each kilobytes of jibberish, written in a strange dialect of lisp using angle brackets instead of parentheses.
Also, you don't need half a whiteboard to write the full name of a type.
If you assume that the fossils we find are equally likely to have come from any time in the past, you would expect a continuum of fossils. The tiny percentage of fossils that have survived are not equally distributed though. So you get little slices of times/places where fossils survived, and the rest are gone forever.
Poke all the holes you want/can in evolutionary theory -- it won't improve the alternative theories at all.
Apple isn't Alice, the owner of the phone is.
The system most certainly is self regulating. So is my living room. If I light my sofa on fire, my air conditioning will kick in. I don't think it'll do much to prevent my house from burning to the ground though.
what is the normal temp supposed to be
There is no "supposed to be." Supposed to be according to whom?
Maybe what you mean is "what is the temperature compared to what it would have been without humans?" If so, the answer is clear if not precise: warmer.
I don't (and wouldn't) have a JVM installed so that probably explains why I don't notice it on my desktop. It used to be useful on the server side, but every month that goes by it falls further behind. Java 8 is not going to be significant enough to change that. At this point, the only reason to use Java is because that's what you've always used.
You're doing it wrong. The biometric data is not like a password -- it's like a username. Do you change your username whenever you change your password? Of course not. You don't want it to be changeable or revocable. The password is separate from the biometric id. That's what you change. And obviously permissions associated with the id are modifyable/revocable. If the biometric id is compromised, you change the password, and perhaps flag the account to notify security if it is used (and the swat team if it's used with the old "revoked" password.)
There are no good biometric systems because keys can't be revoked.
That's not a flaw, it's a feature. And it's not a key, it's an ID.
That's the whole reason that people get so worked up about belief -- it affects your actions. What would be the point of belief otherwise?
In that sense, everything "actively uses" quantum mechanics. Perhaps he meant something else?
I've heard that kind of argument before, and I don't find it convincing. First of all, We don't really know all that much about embryonic development, compared to what we know we don't know about it yet. We know even less about consciousness. We certainly do know something, and we're learning more about it all the time. I just think we have a long way to go before we can do anything like emulating consciousness in a computer. And I think there are good reasons to be skeptical that it can be done in a digital computer at all. But assuming that it is possible, we will have much more than enough computing power laying around long before we know enough to use it effectively to that end. Creating something that can create something to do it for us is not going to make it that much easier, in my opinion. If we knew how to do that, we'd be most of the way toward just finishing it ourselves.
:)
I agree that it is strangely likely that we will "invent" AI without really understanding how it works. There are a few ways that that could happen. But if it happens that way we can't really claim to have "figured it out." Maybe we could ask it how it works
By the way, I didn't mean to sound so critical of Dennett's book -- I loved it. Anyone interested in the subject should read it. Come to think of it, I'd recommend just about anything he's written.
Well that's just it. Nobody knows. Or else they spend 511 pages claiming that experience doesn't exist.
Every form of life we have ever encountered uses DNA. Are we to conclude that life without DNA is impossible?