I can only speculate, but since there are a number of cities on that peninsula, that would mean building a bridge as well. Also, blasting out all that extra mass would not be cheap either, and I expect the walls would still need to be secured to avoid the risk of ships being pelted by boulders.
Even if none of those considerations were financially relevant, it's unlikely that such a visual impact on the generally pristine Norwegian nature would have been approved. You're talking about a nation that'll build a tunnel under a fjord rather than a bridge over it, because bridges be ugly.
Yet you absolutely refuse to even consider anything religious.
That's profound ignorance, or an outright lie. E.g. there are several published experiments regarding the efficacy of prayer (summary: praying doesn't help). At least one of the studies was funded by the alleged pro-religious Templeton Foundation.
There seems to be some confusion in superstitious circles about what "keeping an open mind" actually means. It does not mean "accept anything you're told without evidence," or "accept anything you're told unless you can prove the opposite." It does mean "be open to evaluating new evidence when presented with it."
In other words, present your evidence for your religious claims. If the evidence holds up to scrutiny, the claim will be accepted. To my knowledge, this has yet to happen.
Judging by this election and its aftermath, it seems more likely they will do little but keep on cheering until that is all they are left with the power to do.
We'll have to wait and see. It's very hard to imagine a western democracy reverting to authoritarian, but on the other hand the notion seems a lot less ridiculous now than it would have a year ago.
Inoculation only works _before infection_, does it not? To make the obvious parallel to the US election: it's too late now. They would've needed to have read it before the election, seen the parallel at that time and changed their vote because of it. Considering the entire world saw that Trump's direction was authoritarianism, and he still got elected, it seems doubtful that would have happened. The ones buying that book now are probably those that did not vote for him to begin with, while those who did are doubling down and finding a way to justify his behavior in order to validate their choice. At least that's the gist of what I'm getting from my US friends.
All that remains now is to hope the worst predictions don't come true. E.g. that we have witnessed the final proper US election.
My guess would be the answer is no. There seems to be a fair amount of software involved in charging these days. iDevices turn on fully the moment you plug them in, while several generations of my Android devices take a while before they turn on the display to show charging status from a powered down state. I'm guessing whatever they are doing to disable charging, goes into whatever piece of software is running while the device is charging.
But, as I said, that's just a guess. I'm sure someone in the comments has some first hand knowledge of what goes on in phones during charging these days.
... $1000 quadcopters back here on Earth ship with multiple IMUs for redundancy, since the bloody things are about as trustworthy as your average politician.
Having made that glib remark, I'm sure it either did have redundancy, or if it didn't that was for a good reason (e.g. risk of failure deemed too low to warrant the weight penalty in adding redundancy). I would also like to think that they're using somewhat more reliable IMUs than those found in quads.
Any links to research backing up that 2 hour claim? Cause in my experience, the average user is still on the phone to their 10 year old nephew asking them "how do I get on the internets?" at the two hour mark.
From Microsoft's FAQ: "Enforcement only happens on fresh installations, with Secure Boot on, and only applies to new kernel mode drivers"
In other words, disable secure boot and it's business as usual.
From my point of view, this increases security for the vast majority of users who just buy a computer in a store and need to be protected from themselves. If you don't know enough to disable secure boot, you probably have no business installing unsigned kernel mode drivers anyway. But if you do, you can.
Yeah, this, although my take on it would be slightly different.
Five seconds is what they have to let me know what the ad is for, so I'll know if it's something I'd consider watching all the way through. If I can't tell what the ad is for (game, movie, shampoo, whatever) before I can click it away, it's gone. I've noticed some text, or at least a logo, tends to show up more often now than it used to. I can only guess the reason's related.
A number of video editing solutions require it for functionality, though. Which was lazy of them to begin with, I'd agree, but it is what it is.
On the other hand, I don't see much reason to panic. Avoid the browser plug-in, use a different player for any video files, and I don't see what attack vectors might remain.
Another way of looking at it is that predictability is an important factor. Almost regardless of speed, someone behaving unexpectedly can cause issues. Human drivers ironically tend to offer clues of their unpredictability, allowing other drivers to flag them for extra attention, while self driving cars probably does a lot less of that (stuff like weaving a bit, acting uncertain, blinking the wrong way etc.).
Of course, if all cars were self driving, the issue would vanish. I suppose it would also lessen as more and more self driving cars arrive on the roads, effectively training other drivers in how they behave.
Except there are observations supporting what we'd expect to see if it were a simulation. Kinda. It's highly speculative and involves string theory, but still.
never put anything valuable in checked in luggage.
I have one of the old "non-TSA" locks on my suitcase. I have a label on it where it states "code is 0000 while in transit", since I want to set the code wheels to something else in order to avoid accidental openings.
I'd never dream of going on a flight with something of real value to me anywhere but in my carry on. If they want to steal my socks or razor, they're welcome to them.
I wish they would focus on shifting ads away from the current "be as annoying and in your face as possible" trend, and over to more non-intrusive forms of ads. I'm sure the reason ads have become so obnoxious is that it leads to more clicks, but that so many now choose to block them might be a good indication it's time to reevaluate.
My adblocker accepts non-intrusive ads by default. Get your ads on that whitelist and the problem is solved. Personally, I don't care about a static image or text box. I do care about blinking pop-overs with audio. Whenever I get a "we see you are running an ad-blocker, would you mind telling us why?" questionnaire from a website, I tell them the same thing.
I hope I won't be disillusioned by someone who has done research into Woz, but what I have heard of Woz has pretty much been all good. Seemingly kind hearted, personal integrity, not all about the money. While Jobs is the guy who lied to his supposed friend about how much he got paid for a project so he could embezzle money from said friend. I know which person I'd rather my children emulate.
Why the assumption that the AI would realize and acknowledge that humans created it? We have no conscious awareness of the maintenance of our internal organs, why assume that an AI would discern its own silicon? Sure, it has temperature sensors, but our body regulates itself as well without us being able to tell the exact temperature we are currently running at.
Do I think the most likely course of action for an AI would be wanton destruction? Not really. But I find it likely that it wouldn't have any real concept of how its actions affect others. Which means that if it should gain the ability to reach out in some way, there could be collateral damage through no ill will. Who knows. And that was rather my point. We simply can't claim to know how such an event as an AI becoming self aware might play out.
Yes, because that assumption is the premise for the article we are commenting on.
As for the rest of your post, that was pretty much the point of my own. We are so far away from achieving this, that we cannot fathom how it might turn out if we should.
If we were, it still wouldn't matter unless we had good reason to claim knowledge of his actual abilities once created.
That's how I see things when it comes to an AI. Believing we can say anything about how a self learning machine will decide to behave, seems to me a bit like saying the first to invent the wheel had the ability to imagine it being used on a Mars rover. That's how far away we are from creating an actual AI.
That's assuming morality is in any way relevant for an AI. Human morality is ever evolving and under discussion. It's not something that sprang up overnight. I see no compelling reason to take for granted that an AI would spend a single cycle considering whether its actions are "good" or "bad".
"To say that AI will start doing what it wants for its own purposes is like saying a calculator will start making its own calculations"
I so don't agree with that. The type of AI we are talking about here ("true" AI, as opposed to the stuff we see in games today), would need to be self learning. At least I don't see how it's realistic to believe we'll ever be able to sit down and code a fully functional proper AI. So we create the programming allowing it to learn and grow, and after that all bets are off. We have zero experience with what might happen, and can barely begin to speculate.
That's not to say I'm necessarily worried. But I am highly skeptical of anyone claiming to actually know how it will play out.
Saying "not teaching cursive" is equal to "not teaching handwriting", is like saying "not teaching spoken poetry" is equal to "not teaching your child to speak".
Cursive is _a form of_ handwriting. You know, as in not all handwriting is cursive, but all cursive is handwriting (funky fonts notwithstanding).
Does anyone even edit this place anymore? Wait, don't answer that.
I suspect you are being willfully obtuse, but in case you're not: dial-up and ISDN have always referred to specific technology. Broadband has meant "not dial-up" and "fast".
For that matter, dial-up has never meant high speed unless including the actual speed.
And we're full circle. Returning to my original post, what was considered fast way back when, is no longer so today. For the term broadband to retain its meaning of "fast Internet", it needs to refer to speeds that can be considered fairly snappy in today's reality, otherwise you might as well just call it "Internet connection". Which brings me back to my proposal of 10Mbit as a reasonable minimum. Rewind 10 years, and I would've been fine with 4Mbit.
That may be the technical definition, but the colloquial use as pertaining to Internet access is something else. From Wikipedia: "Finally, the term became popularized through the 1990s as a marketing term for Internet access that was faster than dialup access, the original Internet access technology, which was limited to 56 kbit/s. This meaning is only distantly related to its original technical meaning."
Slashdot Mirror
I can only speculate, but since there are a number of cities on that peninsula, that would mean building a bridge as well. Also, blasting out all that extra mass would not be cheap either, and I expect the walls would still need to be secured to avoid the risk of ships being pelted by boulders.
Even if none of those considerations were financially relevant, it's unlikely that such a visual impact on the generally pristine Norwegian nature would have been approved. You're talking about a nation that'll build a tunnel under a fjord rather than a bridge over it, because bridges be ugly.
Yet you absolutely refuse to even consider anything religious.
That's profound ignorance, or an outright lie. E.g. there are several published experiments regarding the efficacy of prayer (summary: praying doesn't help). At least one of the studies was funded by the alleged pro-religious Templeton Foundation.
There seems to be some confusion in superstitious circles about what "keeping an open mind" actually means. It does not mean "accept anything you're told without evidence," or "accept anything you're told unless you can prove the opposite." It does mean "be open to evaluating new evidence when presented with it."
In other words, present your evidence for your religious claims. If the evidence holds up to scrutiny, the claim will be accepted. To my knowledge, this has yet to happen.
Judging by this election and its aftermath, it seems more likely they will do little but keep on cheering until that is all they are left with the power to do.
We'll have to wait and see. It's very hard to imagine a western democracy reverting to authoritarian, but on the other hand the notion seems a lot less ridiculous now than it would have a year ago.
Inoculation only works _before infection_, does it not? To make the obvious parallel to the US election: it's too late now. They would've needed to have read it before the election, seen the parallel at that time and changed their vote because of it. Considering the entire world saw that Trump's direction was authoritarianism, and he still got elected, it seems doubtful that would have happened. The ones buying that book now are probably those that did not vote for him to begin with, while those who did are doubling down and finding a way to justify his behavior in order to validate their choice. At least that's the gist of what I'm getting from my US friends.
All that remains now is to hope the worst predictions don't come true. E.g. that we have witnessed the final proper US election.
My guess would be the answer is no. There seems to be a fair amount of software involved in charging these days. iDevices turn on fully the moment you plug them in, while several generations of my Android devices take a while before they turn on the display to show charging status from a powered down state. I'm guessing whatever they are doing to disable charging, goes into whatever piece of software is running while the device is charging.
But, as I said, that's just a guess. I'm sure someone in the comments has some first hand knowledge of what goes on in phones during charging these days.
... $1000 quadcopters back here on Earth ship with multiple IMUs for redundancy, since the bloody things are about as trustworthy as your average politician.
Having made that glib remark, I'm sure it either did have redundancy, or if it didn't that was for a good reason (e.g. risk of failure deemed too low to warrant the weight penalty in adding redundancy). I would also like to think that they're using somewhat more reliable IMUs than those found in quads.
Any links to research backing up that 2 hour claim? Cause in my experience, the average user is still on the phone to their 10 year old nephew asking them "how do I get on the internets?" at the two hour mark.
From Microsoft's FAQ: "Enforcement only happens on fresh installations, with Secure Boot on, and only applies to new kernel mode drivers"
In other words, disable secure boot and it's business as usual.
From my point of view, this increases security for the vast majority of users who just buy a computer in a store and need to be protected from themselves. If you don't know enough to disable secure boot, you probably have no business installing unsigned kernel mode drivers anyway. But if you do, you can.
Yeah, this, although my take on it would be slightly different.
Five seconds is what they have to let me know what the ad is for, so I'll know if it's something I'd consider watching all the way through. If I can't tell what the ad is for (game, movie, shampoo, whatever) before I can click it away, it's gone. I've noticed some text, or at least a logo, tends to show up more often now than it used to. I can only guess the reason's related.
A number of video editing solutions require it for functionality, though. Which was lazy of them to begin with, I'd agree, but it is what it is.
On the other hand, I don't see much reason to panic. Avoid the browser plug-in, use a different player for any video files, and I don't see what attack vectors might remain.
Another way of looking at it is that predictability is an important factor. Almost regardless of speed, someone behaving unexpectedly can cause issues. Human drivers ironically tend to offer clues of their unpredictability, allowing other drivers to flag them for extra attention, while self driving cars probably does a lot less of that (stuff like weaving a bit, acting uncertain, blinking the wrong way etc.).
Of course, if all cars were self driving, the issue would vanish. I suppose it would also lessen as more and more self driving cars arrive on the roads, effectively training other drivers in how they behave.
Except there are observations supporting what we'd expect to see if it were a simulation. Kinda. It's highly speculative and involves string theory, but still.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
never put anything valuable in checked in luggage.
I have one of the old "non-TSA" locks on my suitcase. I have a label on it where it states "code is 0000 while in transit", since I want to set the code wheels to something else in order to avoid accidental openings.
I'd never dream of going on a flight with something of real value to me anywhere but in my carry on. If they want to steal my socks or razor, they're welcome to them.
I wish they would focus on shifting ads away from the current "be as annoying and in your face as possible" trend, and over to more non-intrusive forms of ads. I'm sure the reason ads have become so obnoxious is that it leads to more clicks, but that so many now choose to block them might be a good indication it's time to reevaluate.
My adblocker accepts non-intrusive ads by default. Get your ads on that whitelist and the problem is solved. Personally, I don't care about a static image or text box. I do care about blinking pop-overs with audio. Whenever I get a "we see you are running an ad-blocker, would you mind telling us why?" questionnaire from a website, I tell them the same thing.
Having 148 games in his Steam account doesn't mean he's played them all.
For comparison, I have 228 in mine, 67 currently installed. When I'll ever get around to playing half of them, I have no idea.
I hope I won't be disillusioned by someone who has done research into Woz, but what I have heard of Woz has pretty much been all good. Seemingly kind hearted, personal integrity, not all about the money. While Jobs is the guy who lied to his supposed friend about how much he got paid for a project so he could embezzle money from said friend. I know which person I'd rather my children emulate.
Why the assumption that the AI would realize and acknowledge that humans created it? We have no conscious awareness of the maintenance of our internal organs, why assume that an AI would discern its own silicon? Sure, it has temperature sensors, but our body regulates itself as well without us being able to tell the exact temperature we are currently running at.
Do I think the most likely course of action for an AI would be wanton destruction? Not really. But I find it likely that it wouldn't have any real concept of how its actions affect others. Which means that if it should gain the ability to reach out in some way, there could be collateral damage through no ill will. Who knows. And that was rather my point. We simply can't claim to know how such an event as an AI becoming self aware might play out.
Yes, because that assumption is the premise for the article we are commenting on.
As for the rest of your post, that was pretty much the point of my own. We are so far away from achieving this, that we cannot fathom how it might turn out if we should.
If we were, it still wouldn't matter unless we had good reason to claim knowledge of his actual abilities once created.
That's how I see things when it comes to an AI. Believing we can say anything about how a self learning machine will decide to behave, seems to me a bit like saying the first to invent the wheel had the ability to imagine it being used on a Mars rover. That's how far away we are from creating an actual AI.
That's assuming morality is in any way relevant for an AI. Human morality is ever evolving and under discussion. It's not something that sprang up overnight. I see no compelling reason to take for granted that an AI would spend a single cycle considering whether its actions are "good" or "bad".
"To say that AI will start doing what it wants for its own purposes is like saying a calculator will start making its own calculations"
I so don't agree with that. The type of AI we are talking about here ("true" AI, as opposed to the stuff we see in games today), would need to be self learning. At least I don't see how it's realistic to believe we'll ever be able to sit down and code a fully functional proper AI. So we create the programming allowing it to learn and grow, and after that all bets are off. We have zero experience with what might happen, and can barely begin to speculate.
That's not to say I'm necessarily worried. But I am highly skeptical of anyone claiming to actually know how it will play out.
Saying "not teaching cursive" is equal to "not teaching handwriting", is like saying "not teaching spoken poetry" is equal to "not teaching your child to speak".
Cursive is _a form of_ handwriting. You know, as in not all handwriting is cursive, but all cursive is handwriting (funky fonts notwithstanding).
Does anyone even edit this place anymore? Wait, don't answer that.
I suspect you are being willfully obtuse, but in case you're not: dial-up and ISDN have always referred to specific technology. Broadband has meant "not dial-up" and "fast".
For that matter, dial-up has never meant high speed unless including the actual speed.
And we're full circle. Returning to my original post, what was considered fast way back when, is no longer so today. For the term broadband to retain its meaning of "fast Internet", it needs to refer to speeds that can be considered fairly snappy in today's reality, otherwise you might as well just call it "Internet connection". Which brings me back to my proposal of 10Mbit as a reasonable minimum. Rewind 10 years, and I would've been fine with 4Mbit.
That may be the technical definition, but the colloquial use as pertaining to Internet access is something else. From Wikipedia: "Finally, the term became popularized through the 1990s as a marketing term for Internet access that was faster than dialup access, the original Internet access technology, which was limited to 56 kbit/s. This meaning is only distantly related to its original technical meaning."