So what you want is a traceable untraceable currency, so that you can make anonymous registered purchases and receive anonymous fully recorded payments.
Who said anything about untraceable? I thought these transactions were entirely traceable. Anonymous maybe, but not untraceable.
It's way too early in the morning for me to exert this much brainpower trying to decipher such a poorly worded summary.
The summary. Posted to slashdot's front page. Added quietly by an admin. Which then asks for your time to parse it. You'd be hard pressed to come up with a more comically villainous thing for a news site, or an admin, to pull on its users.
I think that all that matters is whether this change reflects the world in the story or the world of the writers.
I'm not sure this change should reflect anything other than having another actor in the shoes. It's not as if they're going to revolve an episode around the Doctor having her period or getting knocked up (I hope). I'm sure there will be a couple of jokes made about the gender switch, but I'm not expecting any major shift in story telling.
It's difficult to follow a story with continuity depending on what decade's production you're currently watching.
That's what you get for trying to follow the story. The only real stories that cross decades are the backgrounds of the other races (e.g. Daleks, Cybermen). The "new" Dr Whos take the stories a little more seriously than the original series, but if you're watching Dr Who hoping for story integrity, you're watching it wrong.
By comparison, Bill has been very subtle and matter of fact.
A couple of scenes that showed her on a date with a woman were very subtle and matter of fact. I can think of at least a couple of examples that were less subtle: * A Roman soldier that treats Bill as a prude for not going with men. He's "normal" - Men and women. * The Doctor recalling a "man crush," unable to remember whether he was a man or woman at the time. Remarking that time lords have "moved past" gender.
That said, I don't really have a problem with it. It might seem a little forced, but it doesn't get in the way of the story line. It's just a minor distraction while they try to share a point.
The definition of terrorism Google gives me is, "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." This definition doesn't preclude genocide. Even your M-W definition doesn't make coercion a necessary component.
It wasn't an act of terrorism, but it may have been an attempt at genocide with bioweapons...
I'm not sure I see the distinction. If I mail you an envelope full of anthrax, that's terror, right? But if my ultimate goal is to kill everyone "like you", it's now an attempt at genocide but not terror? Why are terrorism and genocide attempts mutually exclusive?
Quit letting people from terrorist prone countries or parts of the world into YOUR country...where they refuse to assimilate and become pots of festering terrorist ideology waiting to unleash itself into the host country.
Someone should have told the Aboriginals & Native Americans that a long time ago
It wasn't until I read this that it occurred to me that handing out smallpox infected blankets was an act of terrorism.
Humans may infer causation, but that's not the fault of AI.
Correct, it's the fault of the developers.
I don't know that it's the "fault" of anyone. Nobody here is saying that there is a causal relationship, they're saying that past correlation suggests future correlation. The problem is using that prediction, however accurate it may be, to act in a prejudicial manner toward people who don't deserve it.
AI, like humans, makes mistakes like "correlation = causation".
AI doesn't care about "correlation == causation". It only cares about "correlation == correlation". Humans may infer causation, but that's not the fault of AI.
Besides, we as their creator are flawed beings so inherently, our creations will be also flawed.
I'm not sure this is a flaw. If the data shows a gender or race bias, the AI will reflect that. Some biases based on gender and race exist, regardless of what the PC version of existence is. You can call it unfair, but not inaccurate.
We can't kill the lawyers yet. It failed to answer my question. Q: "I'm suspected of treason. Should I tweet incriminating e-mails?" A: "I'm sorry to hear that. Here's how I can help:", with blank space and a box offering "Extra help within 24 hours."
An AI will be terrible at playing soccer, because you can put 11 computers on a soccer field running whatever program you want, and no matter how good the AI they are running, they will just sit there.
WTF is "an" AI?
An AI is a program, running on a computer, that simulates intelligence and/or solves problems in the way an intelligence solves them.
So once you attach a motor to "an AI", it ceases to be "an AI"?
...predefined actions when something appears... Eg A Goalkeeper would be inactive until the ball is so many pixels away. Then it will move to to try to intercept the ball... An AI Goal Keeper may choose to leave the confines of the box, and help with defense.
Choosing to leave the box and help with defense has nothing to do with whether or not the goal keeper posses AI. It just depends on the constraints placed on the problem he's presented and the logic he uses to resolve it. Are you suggesting that true AI will break loose of its programmed parameters?
An AI will be terrible at playing soccer, because you can put 11 computers on a soccer field running whatever program you want, and no matter how good the AI they are running, they will just sit there.
WTF is "an" AI? Yes, if you put a computer on a field, it will sit there. If you set it to run a simulation, it will simulate playing. If you set it to control soccer-playing robots, it'll play a game. Its strategy will be determined by what is being referred to as AI.
But what the article is talking about is not AIs that can play soccer, it is AIs that can play a soccer-themed online video game.
No, it's about AI that can manage the decisions involved with playing soccer. Those decisions are being tested by simulating a game. You could test them by taking the steps to make that game physical. I don't know what "an" AI is capable of because I don't know what "an" AI is.
If you have to "develop" AI for a specific task (play games) or whatever then in my view it's not AI. I think AI should learn to do what ever task you throw at it.
Hey, I couldn't perfect my soccer game either. Does that make me not "naturally intelligent"?
Obviously you're not naturally intelligent - You had to be taught to play soccer. If you'd possessed intelligence as sophisticated as OP describes, you would have just started playing.
To my palate, it was indistinguishable from hot chocolate. There's nothing wrong with gourmet fudge-pinon by itself, but it doesn't belong in the communal coffee carafe. I like hot chocolate, but I rely on coffee to fuel my coding.
I hold no ill-will. I still had the Keurig to turn to and the rules around here relax considerably on Fridays. He was doing something nice.
Slashdot Mirror
Either that, or everyone is going to have to start wearing body cams.
which will simply "go missing" after the cops assassinate you
Hopefully deleting the recorded video is more complicated than "accidentally" losing the camera.
So what you want is a traceable untraceable currency, so that you can make anonymous registered purchases and receive anonymous fully recorded payments.
Who said anything about untraceable? I thought these transactions were entirely traceable. Anonymous maybe, but not untraceable.
It won't be in the same area. Not once we have our solar-powered, transparent border wall. How many square miles is that?
...we dont take kindly to tyrants
I see a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Unless this is being ran through government records and you have to verify your identity in some fashion...
One proposal is to require credit card information. Apparently, in the U.K. a credit card indicates 18+. This, of course, presents some concerns.
And what a difference it's made!
It's way too early in the morning for me to exert this much brainpower trying to decipher such a poorly worded summary.
The summary. Posted to slashdot's front page. Added quietly by an admin. Which then asks for your time to parse it. You'd be hard pressed to come up with a more comically villainous thing for a news site, or an admin, to pull on its users.
I think that all that matters is whether this change reflects the world in the story or the world of the writers.
I'm not sure this change should reflect anything other than having another actor in the shoes. It's not as if they're going to revolve an episode around the Doctor having her period or getting knocked up (I hope). I'm sure there will be a couple of jokes made about the gender switch, but I'm not expecting any major shift in story telling.
It's difficult to follow a story with continuity depending on what decade's production you're currently watching.
That's what you get for trying to follow the story. The only real stories that cross decades are the backgrounds of the other races (e.g. Daleks, Cybermen). The "new" Dr Whos take the stories a little more seriously than the original series, but if you're watching Dr Who hoping for story integrity, you're watching it wrong.
By comparison, Bill has been very subtle and matter of fact.
A couple of scenes that showed her on a date with a woman were very subtle and matter of fact. I can think of at least a couple of examples that were less subtle:
* A Roman soldier that treats Bill as a prude for not going with men. He's "normal" - Men and women.
* The Doctor recalling a "man crush," unable to remember whether he was a man or woman at the time. Remarking that time lords have "moved past" gender.
That said, I don't really have a problem with it. It might seem a little forced, but it doesn't get in the way of the story line. It's just a minor distraction while they try to share a point.
Where will I spend my Bitcoin now?
Dream Market for one. They're not as big as AlphaBay, but they're big enough. Lop off one head...
Luckily I still have cash to eat this week...
Only eat the bills. The change is terrible for your teeth.
There is plenty of "black" music I enjoy
The music equivalent of "But I have a black friend"?
I'm not racist - I watch The Daily Show. Just last week I had a black waiter and didn't use the n-word once.
The definition of terrorism Google gives me is, "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." This definition doesn't preclude genocide. Even your M-W definition doesn't make coercion a necessary component.
It wasn't an act of terrorism, but it may have been an attempt at genocide with bioweapons...
I'm not sure I see the distinction. If I mail you an envelope full of anthrax, that's terror, right? But if my ultimate goal is to kill everyone "like you", it's now an attempt at genocide but not terror? Why are terrorism and genocide attempts mutually exclusive?
Quit letting people from terrorist prone countries or parts of the world into YOUR country...where they refuse to assimilate and become pots of festering terrorist ideology waiting to unleash itself into the host country.
Someone should have told the Aboriginals & Native Americans that a long time ago
It wasn't until I read this that it occurred to me that handing out smallpox infected blankets was an act of terrorism.
He was showing off that grammar can be creative. Theirs no raisin too bicker.
Humans may infer causation, but that's not the fault of AI.
Correct, it's the fault of the developers.
I don't know that it's the "fault" of anyone. Nobody here is saying that there is a causal relationship, they're saying that past correlation suggests future correlation. The problem is using that prediction, however accurate it may be, to act in a prejudicial manner toward people who don't deserve it.
AI, like humans, makes mistakes like "correlation = causation".
AI doesn't care about "correlation == causation". It only cares about "correlation == correlation". Humans may infer causation, but that's not the fault of AI.
Besides, we as their creator are flawed beings so inherently, our creations will be also flawed.
I'm not sure this is a flaw. If the data shows a gender or race bias, the AI will reflect that. Some biases based on gender and race exist, regardless of what the PC version of existence is. You can call it unfair, but not inaccurate.
We can finally begin killing all the lawyers.
We can't kill the lawyers yet. It failed to answer my question.
Q: "I'm suspected of treason. Should I tweet incriminating e-mails?"
A: "I'm sorry to hear that. Here's how I can help:", with blank space and a box offering "Extra help within 24 hours."
Within 24 hours? I needed this advice DAYS ago.
An AI will be terrible at playing soccer, because you can put 11 computers on a soccer field running whatever program you want, and no matter how good the AI they are running, they will just sit there.
WTF is "an" AI?
An AI is a program, running on a computer, that simulates intelligence and/or solves problems in the way an intelligence solves them.
So once you attach a motor to "an AI", it ceases to be "an AI"?
...predefined actions when something appears... Eg A Goalkeeper would be inactive until the ball is so many pixels away. Then it will move to to try to intercept the ball... An AI Goal Keeper may choose to leave the confines of the box, and help with defense.
Choosing to leave the box and help with defense has nothing to do with whether or not the goal keeper posses AI. It just depends on the constraints placed on the problem he's presented and the logic he uses to resolve it. Are you suggesting that true AI will break loose of its programmed parameters?
An AI will be terrible at playing soccer, because you can put 11 computers on a soccer field running whatever program you want, and no matter how good the AI they are running, they will just sit there.
WTF is "an" AI? Yes, if you put a computer on a field, it will sit there. If you set it to run a simulation, it will simulate playing. If you set it to control soccer-playing robots, it'll play a game. Its strategy will be determined by what is being referred to as AI.
But what the article is talking about is not AIs that can play soccer, it is AIs that can play a soccer-themed online video game.
No, it's about AI that can manage the decisions involved with playing soccer. Those decisions are being tested by simulating a game. You could test them by taking the steps to make that game physical. I don't know what "an" AI is capable of because I don't know what "an" AI is.
Hey, I couldn't perfect my soccer game either. Does that make me not "naturally intelligent"?
Obviously you're not naturally intelligent - You had to be taught to play soccer. If you'd possessed intelligence as sophisticated as OP describes, you would have just started playing.
To my palate, it was indistinguishable from hot chocolate. There's nothing wrong with gourmet fudge-pinon by itself, but it doesn't belong in the communal coffee carafe. I like hot chocolate, but I rely on coffee to fuel my coding.
I hold no ill-will. I still had the Keurig to turn to and the rules around here relax considerably on Fridays. He was doing something nice.