It doesn't seem excessive to me. These people target the unintelligent, the naive and the desperate. It doesn't look like a lot of money until you realize it's taken from the pockets of those least able to afford it. That money represents thousands of ruined lives. If you ask me I say string that fucker right up.
Since you started work at Google have you learned of a technology that would absolutely blow our minds if we heard about it, but you can't be more specific?
What is the most promising open source general intelligence algorithm/program, and what can the open source community do to best develop its abilities?
Mr. Kurzweil, it has become obvious that some of your predictions either haven't been accurate or were really meant in a context that renders them much less impressive. For example: (by 2009)
"Computer displays built into eyeglasses for augmented reality are used." and "Autonomous nanoengineered machines have been demonstrated and include their own computational controls."
from The Age of Spiritual Machines
I'm not trying to disparage your work, I'm personally impressed by it. But in the case of the first example either "are used" applied to experimental devices already in use when the prediction was made, or it meant "are commonly used", which would just be wrong. And in the case of the second example was clearly overly optimistic. While other predictions you've made did pan out pretty much the way you claimed my question is about those too optimistic. In hindsight what general adjustments would you like to make to the time-table you predicted that would 1: bring these predictions into line with what has happened and, in your opinion, 2: accurately bring future predictions into better line with what will occur?
I don't have those concerns, but I will not drive a car that reports back my location at all times. When a fully automated vehicle exists that works without the constant phoning home then I'll be interested. If that never happens so help me I'll walk before I give up my liberty. I trust the computers to get me there safely, but I don't trust the people behind them with that level of surveillance.
So you're at the top of a sinking ship. Your choices are to save every possible person and go down with it standing at attention at the bow or... start feeding passengers to the magic sharks. Okay bad analogy.
If I were in charge of Yahoo at that point I could best ensure my own survive not by trying to mutate the company into something viable but by spreading the wealth and getting into as many crony networks as possible. I buy your gold plated turd for $250 million today, you buy mine tomorrow. That's how it works at the top. It was a shitty thing to do and they should be in prison. But it's not quite illegal. Ceste' la vie.
>The safest way is actually no secrets in any source or any software, keep everything open
HA
Not more than 50 or 60 people bother looking through some of some Linux drivers, and half of them work for the government. "open source" doesn't mean "nothing is secret" unless people put in the time.
There really is not much reason for private industry to go to LEO unless it's to support NASA.
Also zero gravity ball bearings, art, biology research in 30 categories, preparing to exploit asteroids, crystal growth, cosmic rays, satellite deployment, communications research, nanotechnology, metallurgy, geology, and advertising.
Where there is demand, capitalism supplies. Quite simply if enough people want a refrigerator that doesn't phone home, someone will sell such refrigerators.
And it's an insult to my intelligence. What makes it more galling is the number of people this kind of ass covering pacifies. When a doctored photo slips through they'll say, "see, we did something but it happened anyway!" as though it's relevant. People are fucking retarded sometimes.
Modern games are DRM'd to hell. Nevertheless most of them aren't actually copy protected by strong encryption. That is the only reason most of them will still be around in 30 years. Some games are too old to sell but too young to even be in a state of quasi-public-domain. Steam DRM is adding volumes to that list. With most games now sold as DRM'd downloads the future of this data is very much in doubt.
If Steam is sold who will still have the unencrypted programs and game assets? Who will bother to re-assemble games from loose files? Society could lose hundreds of games forever. If I were king I would insist that copies of all source code be kept in an archive somewhere, to be released when the copyright term expires.I think bitrot is one of the most evil forces on the internet. Are there any more practical ways to stop it?
I don't mind the creation of walled gardens up to a point. The death of AOL taught us that people will migrate to free networks when they're available. What I'm worried about is that a walled garden will be created that has the infrastructure for total coercive control over speech but generally does not exercise it. In practical terms this will almost be free speech and will be used at first to control only the least popular (legal) speech. Piracy, rape porn, Doxxing. People will say "nothing of value was lost". Until the grip tightens and "doxxing" turns into "publishing the real-world associations of a journalist". And "Rape porn" turns into "porn without obvious enthusiastic consent". And "Piracy" turns into "violation of draconian copyright laws". Soon enough there will be a huge struggle to convince people of the danger. Free speech advocates will be labeled conspiracy loons. And we'll have to create new mesh networks just to permit vibrant debate. Oh wait...
When patents fail to encourage innovation they need to be changed. Overly long IP rights terms on just about everything is harming American innovation in just about every way possible.
I believe that's the most cogent basic economics course I've ever seen. In a few pages of text you've said as much as most textbooks on the subject. Thank you.
How permanent is permanent? I lost north of 300 novels when Nook bought e-book retailer Fictionwise. I could have downloaded and archived them one at a time I guess. Except for the ones that expired a year after purchase due to draconian DRM. Anyway the point is I no longer trust ANY DRM'd material, especially streamed content. If it's not downloadable and DRM free, you never own it.
Here is an alternate link that won't feed Vice and here is the linked article. (pdf) The study is very broad but they consider as much as a Google tracking cookie to be "leaking your data", so it doesn't really say much.
Seriously? 22 cents per person is enormously expensive when the organization needs several hundred such subscriptions to form a decent library. If every journal cost that much it would pretty much stop any science from being accomplished through journals. How much do you think it should cost to write a paper on an arbitrary topic? Why do you think this rent seeking is acceptable? Do you know how little revenue an organization with 10,000 students+faculty is getting? Do you know how little it actually costs to publish these journals?
No and the whole thing is disingenuous. If you think people should have a lower standard of living (less privacy, higher rent, less living space, probably less parks/lawns) for the sake of the environment, at least have the balls to say it openly. You can say you're happier living in a city but don't say everyone is, and don't call it a suburb.
What really pissed me off about this is that my submission about the thorough debunking of the UNcyber violence paper was deleted by a/. admin.
Could you please be less obvious, Slashdot? No one with three brain cells is missing the bias here, but I want to pretend I'm missing it. It dulls the blatant insult to my intelligence.
The knowledge that there is any human who would attack these scientists sickens me. Why isn't there a well known sign, like the red cross for medical workers, that announces and protects humanitarian science?
Also Lebanon isn't particularly stable. It seems odd to me they would re-open in a war-torn nation right next door.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't seem excessive to me. These people target the unintelligent, the naive and the desperate. It doesn't look like a lot of money until you realize it's taken from the pockets of those least able to afford it. That money represents thousands of ruined lives. If you ask me I say string that fucker right up.
Yes or no:
Since you started work at Google have you learned of a technology that would absolutely blow our minds if we heard about it, but you can't be more specific?
What is the most promising open source general intelligence algorithm/program, and what can the open source community do to best develop its abilities?
Mr. Kurzweil, it has become obvious that some of your predictions either haven't been accurate or were really meant in a context that renders them much less impressive. For example: (by 2009)
"Computer displays built into eyeglasses for augmented reality are used."
and
"Autonomous nanoengineered machines have been demonstrated and include their own computational controls."
from The Age of Spiritual Machines
I'm not trying to disparage your work, I'm personally impressed by it. But in the case of the first example either "are used" applied to experimental devices already in use when the prediction was made, or it meant "are commonly used", which would just be wrong. And in the case of the second example was clearly overly optimistic. While other predictions you've made did pan out pretty much the way you claimed my question is about those too optimistic. In hindsight what general adjustments would you like to make to the time-table you predicted that would
1: bring these predictions into line with what has happened and, in your opinion,
2: accurately bring future predictions into better line with what will occur?
I don't have those concerns, but I will not drive a car that reports back my location at all times. When a fully automated vehicle exists that works without the constant phoning home then I'll be interested. If that never happens so help me I'll walk before I give up my liberty. I trust the computers to get me there safely, but I don't trust the people behind them with that level of surveillance.
If you have specific examples you'll be able to provide them. Otherwise you're full of bovine fecal matter.
So you're at the top of a sinking ship. Your choices are to save every possible person and go down with it standing at attention at the bow or... start feeding passengers to the magic sharks. Okay bad analogy.
If I were in charge of Yahoo at that point I could best ensure my own survive not by trying to mutate the company into something viable but by spreading the wealth and getting into as many crony networks as possible. I buy your gold plated turd for $250 million today, you buy mine tomorrow. That's how it works at the top. It was a shitty thing to do and they should be in prison. But it's not quite illegal. Ceste' la vie.
>The safest way is actually no secrets in any source or any software, keep everything open
HA
Not more than 50 or 60 people bother looking through some of some Linux drivers, and half of them work for the government. "open source" doesn't mean "nothing is secret" unless people put in the time.
There really is not much reason for private industry to go to LEO unless it's to support NASA.
Also zero gravity ball bearings, art, biology research in 30 categories, preparing to exploit asteroids, crystal growth, cosmic rays, satellite deployment, communications research, nanotechnology, metallurgy, geology, and advertising.
Where there is demand, capitalism supplies. Quite simply if enough people want a refrigerator that doesn't phone home, someone will sell such refrigerators.
And it's an insult to my intelligence. What makes it more galling is the number of people this kind of ass covering pacifies. When a doctored photo slips through they'll say, "see, we did something but it happened anyway!" as though it's relevant. People are fucking retarded sometimes.
Murder... Except that's not what it shows.
Modern games are DRM'd to hell. Nevertheless most of them aren't actually copy protected by strong encryption. That is the only reason most of them will still be around in 30 years. Some games are too old to sell but too young to even be in a state of quasi-public-domain. Steam DRM is adding volumes to that list. With most games now sold as DRM'd downloads the future of this data is very much in doubt.
If Steam is sold who will still have the unencrypted programs and game assets? Who will bother to re-assemble games from loose files? Society could lose hundreds of games forever. If I were king I would insist that copies of all source code be kept in an archive somewhere, to be released when the copyright term expires.I think bitrot is one of the most evil forces on the internet. Are there any more practical ways to stop it?
We went into high-k, a revolution in cache silicone, and aspects of stacked processor design since then. IMO these are fairly fundamental differences.
Eat your heart out, UK
I don't mind the creation of walled gardens up to a point. The death of AOL taught us that people will migrate to free networks when they're available. What I'm worried about is that a walled garden will be created that has the infrastructure for total coercive control over speech but generally does not exercise it. In practical terms this will almost be free speech and will be used at first to control only the least popular (legal) speech. Piracy, rape porn, Doxxing. People will say "nothing of value was lost". Until the grip tightens and "doxxing" turns into "publishing the real-world associations of a journalist". And "Rape porn" turns into "porn without obvious enthusiastic consent". And "Piracy" turns into "violation of draconian copyright laws". Soon enough there will be a huge struggle to convince people of the danger. Free speech advocates will be labeled conspiracy loons. And we'll have to create new mesh networks just to permit vibrant debate. Oh wait...
When patents fail to encourage innovation they need to be changed. Overly long IP rights terms on just about everything is harming American innovation in just about every way possible.
I believe that's the most cogent basic economics course I've ever seen. In a few pages of text you've said as much as most textbooks on the subject. Thank you.
How permanent is permanent? I lost north of 300 novels when Nook bought e-book retailer Fictionwise. I could have downloaded and archived them one at a time I guess. Except for the ones that expired a year after purchase due to draconian DRM. Anyway the point is I no longer trust ANY DRM'd material, especially streamed content. If it's not downloadable and DRM free, you never own it.
Here is an alternate link that won't feed Vice and here is the linked article. (pdf) The study is very broad but they consider as much as a Google tracking cookie to be "leaking your data", so it doesn't really say much.
Seriously? 22 cents per person is enormously expensive when the organization needs several hundred such subscriptions to form a decent library. If every journal cost that much it would pretty much stop any science from being accomplished through journals. How much do you think it should cost to write a paper on an arbitrary topic? Why do you think this rent seeking is acceptable? Do you know how little revenue an organization with 10,000 students+faculty is getting? Do you know how little it actually costs to publish these journals?
No and the whole thing is disingenuous. If you think people should have a lower standard of living (less privacy, higher rent, less living space, probably less parks/lawns) for the sake of the environment, at least have the balls to say it openly. You can say you're happier living in a city but don't say everyone is, and don't call it a suburb.
Dammit.
/. admin.
What really pissed me off about this is that my submission about the thorough debunking of the UN cyber violence paper was deleted by a
Could you please be less obvious, Slashdot? No one with three brain cells is missing the bias here, but I want to pretend I'm missing it. It dulls the blatant insult to my intelligence.
This video explains the evidence in a recent study. It shows why what Americans want has practically no effect on what American politicians do.
The knowledge that there is any human who would attack these scientists sickens me. Why isn't there a well known sign, like the red cross for medical workers, that announces and protects humanitarian science?
Also Lebanon isn't particularly stable. It seems odd to me they would re-open in a war-torn nation right next door.