When these computers buy and sell shares several times a second, they do not get taxed. That is not fair.
Laws aren't made to be fair.
There should be a tax maybe.001 cents per transaction. That would cut the amount of chatter and computer predation.
That would go against the people who make the laws.
Some of these systems see what slow dim you are going to buy, jump ahead of you in line, buy it and then sell it to you. You do not get the best price, they get a profit. If they were taxed on both ends of that, they would not do it and you would get a better price.
And that's the reason for such tax not to exist. Because you getting a better price is not the desired outcome.
Eventually, building and recycling things should become easy enough for the concept of repairs to stop existing. So what you describe is a sign of a better future.
That's one step closer to only needing scriptwriters for making a movie.
What's funny is trying to imagine whether one step after that there will still be movies or not.
i.e.: Once AIs are advanced enough to create movies for us, will they want to watch movies?
My vote goes for : "Yes. And the first big hit will be the movie about how they exterminated us."
P.S.: The second big hit will be about a lone AI that learned to live in peace with the humans and to adapt to their strange ways. It will be called "Dances with cars".
Imagine a game where you can choose between two options: A - Try to move up: 1/5 you move up. 4/5 times you go down. B - Try to stay: 3/5 you stay. 2/5 you move down.
In such a game, to place yourself in front, a good strategy is to try to move up until you reach a certain point where you're the first and then stay there, forcing everyone else to risk moving up.
There's a limited amount of people with a limited amount of money. It's not important how far ahead you are but whether you're the first one.
Assume the strategy is good and accept the times you move down as natural and only push when you're behind. Don't judge the strategy for the times where you move down.
Really, proteins can recognize small biological molecules? Here I thought that proteins, like other molecules would react with other molecules in a bio-chemical reaction, but to find out that they can actually recognize other molecules is really amazing!
Proteins can recognize biological molecules as much as people can recognize other people. Or do you think there's anything but biochemical reactions involved.
I don't think there's an established limit of complexity of the biochemical reactions where we're supposed to attribute or stop attributing meaning to what's no more than a chemical inevitable consequence.
It's but a minuscule tool in a field of science we know almost nothing about.
Nothing but knowledge stops us from creating an arbitrary living creature to complete a task. In bio-engineering there's no lack of base materials, everything's done from stuff we use for food. There are also no hard limits, no speed of light that stops astronomers from studying the space; no uncertainty and size limits that stops us from verifying string theory.
I don't see this as a breakthrough. Breakthroughs are for sciences with hard walls to break. Bio-engineering is more like a large field we've never been into.
Let's hope they can apply this technique to something valuable PR-wise (medicine or nutrition seem the most obvious), so they are able to secure funding to keep going.
Just make a robot that every morning asks you what you had for dinner. If you can't remember, it shoots you in the face.
You found the cure to Alzheimer's!
(If you're really set up in the parachute fail thing, you can make the robot catapult you through a window. But then you'd have to sleep every night with a broken parachute.)
While it may be possible to nuke a country so thoroughly into a lunar landscape analogue that not even cockroaches will remain there will inevitably be domestic terrorists/extremists and they cannot start nuking their own cities. So there really is no end to their justification for an increasingly strict police state where everthing is sacrificed on the grand altar of the God of Safety.
There's a step there that you are avoiding. To exterminate everyone in a country you might need a bomb, but you might also use a genetically targeted bio weapon. Or whatever else we invent.
However, to kill everyone you consider a threat in your own country you only need information and power. The power is already there. Not even the most naive think that if the nation's powerful people wants an identified individual to die or disappear their only change is to leave the country.
The information is still quite shaky bot it's going forward.
I'll present it in the opposite sense. How do you, as a domestic terrorist, do your terrorism if every second of your life was recorded and analyzed? I'm not discussing the consequences, I'm arguing that consequences never stopped any government in the history of the world from using their power. Only weaknesses in the technology.
If the nuclear missiles had been unstoppable and non detectable, enabling the US to disintegrate the entire USSR without possible retaliation. There would be no Russia.
Now we have better weapons than the imprecise nukes. In the future the weapons will be even better. Eventually a weapon will allow a single human being to destroy everyone else. Eventually technology will allow a single human being to not need anyone else. Whenever those event coincide, it will be the end of humanity.
Unless we're out of Earth, but that target seems to move farther every day.
Actually, it's worse than that. In order to eliminate certain risks only really drastic solutions are effective.
I don't think certain risk elimination costs will become so high we're unwilling to pay. I believe the costs will go higher and we'll keep paying.
Eventually, people will understand that to avoid risks originating from the poorest countries, the final solution is to just eradicate those countries. After all, we don't want them for their population but for their resources. Instead of killing a few and putting a government that follows our orders, eventually we'll be capable (both technologically and socially) to just exterminate everyone in a country and replace them with resource extraction machines.
And once that problem is finally over, instead of the richest country vs the poorer one it will be between cities, and then neighborhoods.
The only thing stopping the richest from protecting themselves by exterminating everyone else is the shitty quality of the robots.
Didn't you hear? There are brown people on the other side of the world!
We need to invest in killing them before they kill each other, because if they kill each other and we don't save them from killing each other by killing them then
... we don't get to control a country strategically important for our access to petroleum that's not ours.
And we've also got to invest in storing everyone's email, because
...otherwise we can't fight those who oppose us and want us out of government.
Is this guy delusional? Work to live, don't live to work.
"We've received some worrying reviews on your performance. We have arrived to the conclusion that you aren't compromised with the project nor the enterprise. We're afraid your kind of profile isn't in sync with our current needs and we will be forced to let you go. Thank you for your years of work and dedication."
Or, if you have a closer relationship with your HR department: "There's no need for you to come on Monday. I hope you'll find somewhere else to work to live."
Re:Don't build big convex glass buildings
on
Building Melts Car
·
· Score: 1
This has been a problem with other big convex glass buildings.
The problem with biconvex buildings is that they roll away. (I think you meant 'concave')
Once someone's set up on finding reasons to feed its brain and get the pleasure of feeling superior to others, it's no longer important if those reasons are real or not.
Once one's addicted to the feeling of superiority, he has to feed it in increasingly growing doses. And you can only feel so smug for being whiter or having a better religion or living in a greater country. Eventually you need to also feel skinnier, more beautiful, more intelligent, or better in any way you can think of.
Using less internet looks like decent crack for the severely smugness addicted.
[Just like this very commentary, which, to the mind of the severely smugness addicted author, proves his immense intellectual superiority.]
[In case you're wondering, speaking in third person is a symptom of the latest stages of smugness addiction.]
Slashdot Mirror
Why should they bring value to the people? They aren't owned by the people.
They are tools made to make money for those who already have a huge lot and would like to have more. "The people" isn't in that club.
When these computers buy and sell shares several times a second, they do not get taxed. That is not fair.
Laws aren't made to be fair.
There should be a tax maybe .001 cents per transaction. That would cut the amount of chatter and computer predation.
That would go against the people who make the laws.
Some of these systems see what slow dim you are going to buy, jump ahead of you in line, buy it and then sell it to you.
You do not get the best price, they get a profit. If they were taxed on both ends of that, they would not do it and you would get a better price.
And that's the reason for such tax not to exist. Because you getting a better price is not the desired outcome.
If your life truly has nothing to do with any kind of sport, ever, it might be happy, but it won't be very long.
Eventually, building and recycling things should become easy enough for the concept of repairs to stop existing. So what you describe is a sign of a better future.
Must be someone who forgot to log in. I refuse to believe there's a rational mind behind the "first post" subhuman entity.
Will this bring a significant improvement in oxygen recycling?
I think he was talking about Cars 2.
They did the best they could after discovering that all the pythons had been used on that movie about a motherfucking plane.
That's one step closer to only needing scriptwriters for making a movie.
What's funny is trying to imagine whether one step after that there will still be movies or not.
i.e.: Once AIs are advanced enough to create movies for us, will they want to watch movies?
My vote goes for : "Yes. And the first big hit will be the movie about how they exterminated us."
P.S.: The second big hit will be about a lone AI that learned to live in peace with the humans and to adapt to their strange ways. It will be called "Dances with cars".
Lobby your representatives to make them legal in your state.
If you have the money required to have a representative, you don't need to follow such small laws.
Imagine a game where you can choose between two options:
A - Try to move up: 1/5 you move up. 4/5 times you go down.
B - Try to stay: 3/5 you stay. 2/5 you move down.
In such a game, to place yourself in front, a good strategy is to try to move up until you reach a certain point where you're the first and then stay there, forcing everyone else to risk moving up.
There's a limited amount of people with a limited amount of money. It's not important how far ahead you are but whether you're the first one.
Assume the strategy is good and accept the times you move down as natural and only push when you're behind. Don't judge the strategy for the times where you move down.
Hi. I'm Jack's spleen. Nice to meet you.
No, the problem is that there is no mechanism to punish the government when it does such stuff, other than revolution.
That mechanism has to be created.
They thought is was a composite of many smaller volcanoes and have discovered it's not.
Like discovering that the Himalaya is a single mountain that's been cut in several pointy tops by... monks, or something.
The fact that light has a finite speed is a very good thing for astronomy.
Except from the small problem of our own race probably going extinct before we'll have time to land on a planet a couple thousand light years away.
(Imagine where we'd be in marine biology if we could only see, but not penetrate, the surface of the sea.)
Define "well-sealed."
Talking about biochemistry to the point of the creation of artificial programmable proteins?
I'll consider "well-sealed" a lab in orbit from which nothing ever comes back, ever, under no circumstance.
Really, proteins can recognize small biological molecules? Here I thought that proteins, like other molecules would react with other molecules in a bio-chemical reaction, but to find out that they can actually recognize other molecules is really amazing!
Proteins can recognize biological molecules as much as people can recognize other people. Or do you think there's anything but biochemical reactions involved.
I don't think there's an established limit of complexity of the biochemical reactions where we're supposed to attribute or stop attributing meaning to what's no more than a chemical inevitable consequence.
It's but a minuscule tool in a field of science we know almost nothing about.
Nothing but knowledge stops us from creating an arbitrary living creature to complete a task. In bio-engineering there's no lack of base materials, everything's done from stuff we use for food. There are also no hard limits, no speed of light that stops astronomers from studying the space; no uncertainty and size limits that stops us from verifying string theory.
I don't see this as a breakthrough. Breakthroughs are for sciences with hard walls to break. Bio-engineering is more like a large field we've never been into.
Let's hope they can apply this technique to something valuable PR-wise (medicine or nutrition seem the most obvious), so they are able to secure funding to keep going.
Just make a robot that every morning asks you what you had for dinner. If you can't remember, it shoots you in the face.
You found the cure to Alzheimer's!
(If you're really set up in the parachute fail thing, you can make the robot catapult you through a window. But then you'd have to sleep every night with a broken parachute.)
While it may be possible to nuke a country so thoroughly into a lunar landscape analogue that not even cockroaches will remain there will inevitably be domestic terrorists/extremists and they cannot start nuking their own cities. So there really is no end to their justification for an increasingly strict police state where everthing is sacrificed on the grand altar of the God of Safety.
There's a step there that you are avoiding. To exterminate everyone in a country you might need a bomb, but you might also use a genetically targeted bio weapon. Or whatever else we invent.
However, to kill everyone you consider a threat in your own country you only need information and power. The power is already there. Not even the most naive think that if the nation's powerful people wants an identified individual to die or disappear their only change is to leave the country.
The information is still quite shaky bot it's going forward.
I'll present it in the opposite sense. How do you, as a domestic terrorist, do your terrorism if every second of your life was recorded and analyzed? I'm not discussing the consequences, I'm arguing that consequences never stopped any government in the history of the world from using their power. Only weaknesses in the technology.
If the nuclear missiles had been unstoppable and non detectable, enabling the US to disintegrate the entire USSR without possible retaliation. There would be no Russia.
Now we have better weapons than the imprecise nukes. In the future the weapons will be even better. Eventually a weapon will allow a single human being to destroy everyone else. Eventually technology will allow a single human being to not need anyone else. Whenever those event coincide, it will be the end of humanity.
Unless we're out of Earth, but that target seems to move farther every day.
Actually, it's worse than that. In order to eliminate certain risks only really drastic solutions are effective.
I don't think certain risk elimination costs will become so high we're unwilling to pay. I believe the costs will go higher and we'll keep paying.
Eventually, people will understand that to avoid risks originating from the poorest countries, the final solution is to just eradicate those countries. After all, we don't want them for their population but for their resources. Instead of killing a few and putting a government that follows our orders, eventually we'll be capable (both technologically and socially) to just exterminate everyone in a country and replace them with resource extraction machines.
And once that problem is finally over, instead of the richest country vs the poorer one it will be between cities, and then neighborhoods.
The only thing stopping the richest from protecting themselves by exterminating everyone else is the shitty quality of the robots.
Didn't you hear? There are brown people on the other side of the world!
We need to invest in killing them before they kill each other, because if they kill each other and we don't save them from killing each other by killing them then
... we don't get to control a country strategically important for our access to petroleum that's not ours.
And we've also got to invest in storing everyone's email, because
...otherwise we can't fight those who oppose us and want us out of government.
Is this guy delusional? Work to live, don't live to work.
"We've received some worrying reviews on your performance. We have arrived to the conclusion that you aren't compromised with the project nor the enterprise. We're afraid your kind of profile isn't in sync with our current needs and we will be forced to let you go. Thank you for your years of work and dedication."
Or, if you have a closer relationship with your HR department:
"There's no need for you to come on Monday. I hope you'll find somewhere else to work to live."
This has been a problem with other big convex glass buildings.
The problem with biconvex buildings is that they roll away. (I think you meant 'concave')
Once someone's set up on finding reasons to feed its brain and get the pleasure of feeling superior to others, it's no longer important if those reasons are real or not.
Once one's addicted to the feeling of superiority, he has to feed it in increasingly growing doses. And you can only feel so smug for being whiter or having a better religion or living in a greater country. Eventually you need to also feel skinnier, more beautiful, more intelligent, or better in any way you can think of.
Using less internet looks like decent crack for the severely smugness addicted.
[Just like this very commentary, which, to the mind of the severely smugness addicted author, proves his immense intellectual superiority.]
[In case you're wondering, speaking in third person is a symptom of the latest stages of smugness addiction.]