Restaurant and taxi regulation are mature and have a long history of fixing people getting around them. Uber:taxi regulations=first railroad company:car regulations
If the state doesn't have a monopoly on violence the most violent in the state will come to control it, at which point there will be a new state with a monopoly on violence.
All regulation isn't bad, and ignoring regulation (breaking the law) generally is bad. But some regulation, especially that brought on by corporate-government alliances, can be harmful. I'm torn.
Have you heard of keiretsu? In post World War II Japan they had an era of robber-barons much like that the US experienced, at the same time they were industrializing. Which makes me think some of what we're seeing in China is just what happens during and immediately after any industrial revolution, but that's a different topic.
Part of Japanese culture, the idea that a business owner is responsible for the welfare of the families of his employees, allowed massive business conglomerates to form and ally with the Japanese government without taking too much advantage of workers. In the US unions had the same balancing effect. But what I'm getting at is that in both countries there was significant regulatory capture and the building of infrastructure was funded by government-corporate alliances. New technologies: railroads, the telegraph, and port systems were erected for mutual benefit by companies that were allowed free reign.
I'm not going full fascist here, but it's undeniable there were some mutual benefits from these forms of cooperation, making up for some to all of the problems the same entities caused, depending on your political point of view. What does this have to do with Uber?
This amount of lobbying in the present corrupt US congressional state of existence is sure to lead to regulatory capture, which is sure to lead to something I'm going to call infrastructure.
Rapid ad-hoc commercialization of immediately available resources is an immensely powerful technology. It's not recognized yet, but Uber is at the front of a wave of change. Cars are just the beginning. You can rent driveways now, for a single day. Collaborative reputation-based commerce and ubiquitous internet access is allowing the closest thing that fits a consumer's need to be provided. It's oil for the capitalist machine.
How many people have a bicycle they haven't used for years? A lawn mower they use only every two weeks? Computer cables? Rent out your CPU to a Bitcoin mining group? Need to rent a generator for the weekend? Need a cup of sugar? People don't know their immediate neighbors anymore but they'll soon have a reputation on their mesh network.
As a tool of commerce this is every bit as powerful as the railroad was in its day. And it needs just as much support, recognition, and regulation. The government just doesn't have the tools yet to cope. But Uber's regulatory capture will create the framework. It's going to be corrupt, wasteful, and poorly written but that will change over time in the same way regulations written for railroads changed over time.
Government always gets worse, fnar fnar. No, it doesn't. Do you see Chinese chain gangs building railroads today? Do you see corporate-owned towns with single all-powerful individuals built to service trains? Do you see a single company wholly controlling access to one rail line? No. Government doesn't always get worse and over time as technologies mature and knowledge disseminates regulation of an infrastructure improves.
This doesn't need to be regulated.Yes it does. I believe in free enterprise. I really do. I've read enough history to see the power free association and free ownership brings. I believe anonymity should be a protected right. I believe in all-but-absolutely free speech. But I've also read enough history to see the harm unfettered capitalism brings. If the government doesn't regulate this new form of commerce networks will form into net-negative predatory entities. They'll lie, cheat, and steal from the naive, even from their own members. Just as a traditional company is forbidden from false advertising, cheating their customers, and breaking con
Actually, I want to ask a slightly better question too. Given all you know about AI, this particular AI, and Google's efforts: if hardware keeps improving at its present rate for another 20 years will that alone probably suffice to turn Google's program into strong AI?
You're right! Some coral will survive, and its progeny will be able to better survive.
But I don't care about that, because that's going to take thousands of years. What I'm worried about NOW is whether the ecosystem in 20 years will be able to support another 500 million people. You didn't address that at all. And stop thinking your opinions make you better than others. It's arrogant and creates ignorance.
I don't think the problem is people letting themselves be manipulated by advertising. I think the real problem is news networks letting themselves be pressured into bias in the 'news" by the threat of removing advertising. So you have news networks pushing whatever agenda anyway, but with even more pressure to maximize shareholder value by essentially lying to the masses. THAT'S the problem with advertising dollars in elections.
Disclamer: I will not research how well they keep their promises, or acts they voted for and against or sponsored. I do not endorse or oppose any of these candidates.
I looked at their website, mayday.us It referred me to a different site, repswith.us describing five proposals they support. The plan of Democrat Mr. Sarbanes was first. His site seems to directly address various issues, with little double-speak. The Government By the People Act is its own section of his site, listed under "issues", but in its own section. The plan hinges on a tax credit for political donations to encourage small donors. Also this:
"Allow candidates to earn additional public matching funds within 60 days of the election so that citizen-funded candidates can combat Super PAC"
which doesn't explain how superpac donations won't apply to the matching funds. To be fair I didn't look into it.
Next is Democrat David Price. His site isn't as straight-forward, but does present mostly solid stances on the issues. I couldn't find the Empowering Citizens Act(pdf warning) without using the search function, which tells me he's not staking his reputation on it. This one is more complicated but the main theme seems to be limiting per-donor donations. Obviously loopholes that allow present donors to give more than they need to declare (such as giving bonuses to employees who promise to donate most of the bonus) remain. It also limits total public funds available to candidates, which my intuition tells me will have the opposite effect. This plan looks pretty slimy to me. Your opinion may vary.
Republican Jim Rubens plan, Political Money Reform Proposal" isn't on his site at all, so the link is back to repswith.us. It involves a larger tax rebate for donations and "Require searchable, realtime online reporting of contributions above $200" and removes all political spending and contribution limits.
Republican Richard Painter literally wrote the bookon ethics reform. His site is his university's site, so wouldn't naturally have details on supported initiatives. According to repswith.us the Taxation Only With Representation Act involves a $200 tax rebait for private donations and nothing else.
Because doing it right involves a full fail-over test including transferring loads or test loads, DNS auto-reconfiguration, and possibly even paying extra to bring up extra capacity elsewhere. You need to make sure it happens right when it's needed. Extra paperwork, overtime, it's all in there.
Crystal meth is widely given out (especilly in the bad years) to starving people in North Korea, often enough as a curte-all. It helps keep the hunger pangs at bay if nothing else.
But that's what it is. They're taking their shitty Beta ideas from months ago, eliminating most, but not all, of the bugs, and putting them back in one at a time. Probably related to selling off Slashdot. The real idea is to give admins complete control over content and comments, which can't happen until they've screwed over the UI completely.
Little is more Orwellian among our government's many exploits than its attempts to break into our computer systems.
The ever-present security camera? That's bad, but it's still out in public. It's on the street, maybe in the stores. They're not in your home, not yet. Rubber stamp warrants? That's worse: It allows targeted invasions of privacy. But at least it requires a the resources of a human with a paycheck and his own sense of morals. But breaking into computer systems? They're in our pockets, in our homes, and have access to every bit of our modern lives. From shopping lists to love letters to medicine prescriptions they contain whole lives. Snippets from every trip you've taken are encoded there.
And a program doesn't have a sense of right and wrong. It will never refuse to spy on ethical grounds. It won't bring things up to the attention of oversight committees. It won't make anonymous calls to the ethics line. It won't refuse to work, leak information, or demand orders in writing. A program will quietly do as its told, wherever it can. Above all prying surveillance I believe ubiquitous IT access by the government needs to be contained.
People were poopooing the virus, but I think that's because they didn't read the report.
This is a highly sophisticated polymorphic virus using multiple forms of encryption in multiple layers against multiple attack vectors. It's really a piece of work. I don't know why someone would write it and then use it directly against Kaspersky but whoever did it had the cash to hire some very clever people, or was a team of programmers with a genius at the helm and amazing opsec.
Considering the sophistication of the virus I think it would be silly to speculate about who wrote it: whoever it is had to spend a good deal of effort covering their tracks and could easily have compromised multiple third parties just to create red herrings.
It's been extremely slow since this all started. I hope the finances work out such that they can get the capacity they need in time to scoop up freedom-loving users.
There's a certain critical mass of dissatisfaction in a user base/community. Until that point the site can be salvaged. It takes more than an unpopular move by admins/community leaders. There has to be BOTH:
A significant percentage of users dissatisfied with admins. Not with something else, with the way the site is being run. It can't be external and it must be administrative.
Administration unresponsive enough to make users even more unhappy
I think it can be generalized to other communities but for web sites in particular there has to be enough dissatisfaction to create a feedback loop of angry users being ignored leads to leadership blunders leads to more angry users. When meta-conversation overwhelms normal conversation there's a tipping point. Slashdot has almost been there. coughcoughbetacough But it takes more than that. At the tipping point administration must demonstrate such disregard for the users concerns that a revolt becomes meta-shared knowledge. Many users knowing isn't enough. They need to know that other users know. Only if that happens the site will descend into a digg-esque melt-down and hemorrhage users until admins capitulate or the site collapses.
I don't think Reddit has reached that point. In fact, I think this will serve as a safety valve. Users who strongly value freedom of expression will go to voat and everyone else will stay, and not see as many complaints. Obviously this makes the culture more brittle. Reddit is not in danger now but will lead to other problems down the road.
This is a big step toward Reddit becoming an echo chamber. New users will be less likely to stay and it will create its own cultural feedback loop. Those unwilling to toe the party line will find themselves shunned. Users will pretend to go along, hiding how they really feel, leading to a more intense echo chamber. Soon there will be prescribed viewpoints on almost any topic. Reddit will die then. Not with a bang but with a whimper.
Honest question: In the end does it seem likely robots that succeed at these tasks mostly do so because, as in other DARPA challenges, they're the ones with high-end hardware?
Some real science has been done on DNA data storage as relates to evidence of panspermia. The theory goes that if intelligent life deliberately seeded the universe it may have used DNA or RNA sequences that could be decoded into a message. So far science's tendency toward conservatism has prevented anyone from coming out and saying it but I think available evidence is more than sufficient reason for optimism and intense study.
As I said on another site, Not as bad as they try to make it sound. The red cross initially committed to building homes but when that didn't work out due to them not being able to buy land they spent the money on improving some homes, building a hospital, and helping out elsewhere as possible. It's true there was a lot of administrative waste, but that waste was due to careful management. The article echos complaints of hiring "lazy" locals. Then it criticizes them for hiring expensive ex-patriot workers. Then it criticizes them for contracting the work out to other companies causing high administrative costs. Well how the fuck were they supposed to do it? If they had advertised for volunteers they would have been criticized for spending the money in another country.
It can cost a lot to assure money is spend effectively. Maybe they erred too far on the side of caution on this one, maybe they got as much done as was possible. I don't know. Neither do you.
This is making a chicken out of a feather and makes me wonder what real news I'm missing out on.
It may be, but it's damned impressive technology. Have you seen the demo? A guy with an accent asks at normal (faster than normal for most people) speed for a statistic requiring some deductive reasoning (the population of the capital of the country with the Space Needle) and is given only the required answer.
I really don't mind a slashvertisement for a sweet bit of technology like this. It's informative as to the industry state-of-the-art. It helps me track the progress of AI. And it's cool.
We just don't know what the future holds. You may want to run fiber or a new wireless standard may make that moot. You may want to swap out your heating unit without much expense, or install a battery. I wouldn't focus on individual new technologies, but give the house an electrical and mechanical infrastructure that makes it easy and cheap to make changes. I would also install extra, easily accessed conduits for new cables or pipes of whatever kind.
It's not about this case. I have no sympathy for the man. None. But if they can indict his cash they can indict mine, and I want every legal protection (in particular the fourth amendment) to apply. If the constitution doesn't apply in every case it doesn't apply at all.
Anything handed to IEEE will become like Firewire, and anyone who doesn't agree is clueless. That's what you're saying? Or were you just looking for spurious correlations and pretending they're significant to look smart?
Maybe you could think about what you say instead of milking other idiots for that sweet Slashdot karma.
Slashdot Mirror
Restaurant and taxi regulation are mature and have a long history of fixing people getting around them. Uber:taxi regulations=first railroad company:car regulations
If the state doesn't have a monopoly on violence the most violent in the state will come to control it, at which point there will be a new state with a monopoly on violence.
All regulation isn't bad, and ignoring regulation (breaking the law) generally is bad. But some regulation, especially that brought on by corporate-government alliances, can be harmful. I'm torn.
Have you heard of keiretsu? In post World War II Japan they had an era of robber-barons much like that the US experienced, at the same time they were industrializing. Which makes me think some of what we're seeing in China is just what happens during and immediately after any industrial revolution, but that's a different topic.
Part of Japanese culture, the idea that a business owner is responsible for the welfare of the families of his employees, allowed massive business conglomerates to form and ally with the Japanese government without taking too much advantage of workers. In the US unions had the same balancing effect. But what I'm getting at is that in both countries there was significant regulatory capture and the building of infrastructure was funded by government-corporate alliances. New technologies: railroads, the telegraph, and port systems were erected for mutual benefit by companies that were allowed free reign.
I'm not going full fascist here, but it's undeniable there were some mutual benefits from these forms of cooperation, making up for some to all of the problems the same entities caused, depending on your political point of view. What does this have to do with Uber?
This amount of lobbying in the present corrupt US congressional state of existence is sure to lead to regulatory capture, which is sure to lead to something I'm going to call infrastructure.
Rapid ad-hoc commercialization of immediately available resources is an immensely powerful technology. It's not recognized yet, but Uber is at the front of a wave of change. Cars are just the beginning. You can rent driveways now, for a single day. Collaborative reputation-based commerce and ubiquitous internet access is allowing the closest thing that fits a consumer's need to be provided. It's oil for the capitalist machine.
How many people have a bicycle they haven't used for years? A lawn mower they use only every two weeks? Computer cables? Rent out your CPU to a Bitcoin mining group? Need to rent a generator for the weekend? Need a cup of sugar? People don't know their immediate neighbors anymore but they'll soon have a reputation on their mesh network.
As a tool of commerce this is every bit as powerful as the railroad was in its day. And it needs just as much support, recognition, and regulation. The government just doesn't have the tools yet to cope. But Uber's regulatory capture will create the framework. It's going to be corrupt, wasteful, and poorly written but that will change over time in the same way regulations written for railroads changed over time.
Government always gets worse, fnar fnar. No, it doesn't. Do you see Chinese chain gangs building railroads today? Do you see corporate-owned towns with single all-powerful individuals built to service trains? Do you see a single company wholly controlling access to one rail line? No. Government doesn't always get worse and over time as technologies mature and knowledge disseminates regulation of an infrastructure improves.
This doesn't need to be regulated.Yes it does. I believe in free enterprise. I really do. I've read enough history to see the power free association and free ownership brings. I believe anonymity should be a protected right. I believe in all-but-absolutely free speech. But I've also read enough history to see the harm unfettered capitalism brings. If the government doesn't regulate this new form of commerce networks will form into net-negative predatory entities. They'll lie, cheat, and steal from the naive, even from their own members. Just as a traditional company is forbidden from false advertising, cheating their customers, and breaking con
Actually, I want to ask a slightly better question too. Given all you know about AI, this particular AI, and Google's efforts: if hardware keeps improving at its present rate for another 20 years will that alone probably suffice to turn Google's program into strong AI?
You seem like someone informed. Can you tell me where to look to find out that actual likely abilities of the program the article is about?
You're right! Some coral will survive, and its progeny will be able to better survive.
But I don't care about that, because that's going to take thousands of years. What I'm worried about NOW is whether the ecosystem in 20 years will be able to support another 500 million people. You didn't address that at all. And stop thinking your opinions make you better than others. It's arrogant and creates ignorance.
That's what I'm reading. That AMD is willing to go the extra mile to offer what its customers are looking for.
I don't think the problem is people letting themselves be manipulated by advertising. I think the real problem is news networks letting themselves be pressured into bias in the 'news" by the threat of removing advertising. So you have news networks pushing whatever agenda anyway, but with even more pressure to maximize shareholder value by essentially lying to the masses. THAT'S the problem with advertising dollars in elections.
Disclamer: I will not research how well they keep their promises, or acts they voted for and against or sponsored. I do not endorse or oppose any of these candidates.
I looked at their website, mayday.us It referred me to a different site, repswith.us describing five proposals they support. The plan of Democrat Mr. Sarbanes was first. His site seems to directly address various issues, with little double-speak. The Government By the People Act is its own section of his site, listed under "issues", but in its own section. The plan hinges on a tax credit for political donations to encourage small donors. Also this:
"Allow candidates to earn additional public matching funds within 60 days of the election so that citizen-funded candidates can combat Super PAC"
which doesn't explain how superpac donations won't apply to the matching funds. To be fair I didn't look into it.
Next is Democrat David Price. His site isn't as straight-forward, but does present mostly solid stances on the issues. I couldn't find the Empowering Citizens Act(pdf warning) without using the search function, which tells me he's not staking his reputation on it. This one is more complicated but the main theme seems to be limiting per-donor donations. Obviously loopholes that allow present donors to give more than they need to declare (such as giving bonuses to employees who promise to donate most of the bonus) remain. It also limits total public funds available to candidates, which my intuition tells me will have the opposite effect. This plan looks pretty slimy to me. Your opinion may vary.
Republican Jim Rubens plan, Political Money Reform Proposal" isn't on his site at all, so the link is back to repswith.us. It involves a larger tax rebate for donations and "Require searchable, realtime online reporting of contributions above $200" and removes all political spending and contribution limits.
Republican Richard Painter literally wrote the bookon ethics reform. His site is his university's site, so wouldn't naturally have details on supported initiatives. According to repswith.us the Taxation Only With Representation Act involves a $200 tax rebait for private donations and nothing else.
Because doing it right involves a full fail-over test including transferring loads or test loads, DNS auto-reconfiguration, and possibly even paying extra to bring up extra capacity elsewhere. You need to make sure it happens right when it's needed. Extra paperwork, overtime, it's all in there.
Crystal meth is widely given out (especilly in the bad years) to starving people in North Korea, often enough as a curte-all. It helps keep the hunger pangs at bay if nothing else.
>inb4 beta
But that's what it is. They're taking their shitty Beta ideas from months ago, eliminating most, but not all, of the bugs, and putting them back in one at a time. Probably related to selling off Slashdot. The real idea is to give admins complete control over content and comments, which can't happen until they've screwed over the UI completely.
Little is more Orwellian among our government's many exploits than its attempts to break into our computer systems.
The ever-present security camera? That's bad, but it's still out in public. It's on the street, maybe in the stores. They're not in your home, not yet. Rubber stamp warrants? That's worse: It allows targeted invasions of privacy. But at least it requires a the resources of a human with a paycheck and his own sense of morals. But breaking into computer systems? They're in our pockets, in our homes, and have access to every bit of our modern lives. From shopping lists to love letters to medicine prescriptions they contain whole lives. Snippets from every trip you've taken are encoded there.
And a program doesn't have a sense of right and wrong. It will never refuse to spy on ethical grounds. It won't bring things up to the attention of oversight committees. It won't make anonymous calls to the ethics line. It won't refuse to work, leak information, or demand orders in writing. A program will quietly do as its told, wherever it can. Above all prying surveillance I believe ubiquitous IT access by the government needs to be contained.
People were poopooing the virus, but I think that's because they didn't read the report.
This is a highly sophisticated polymorphic virus using multiple forms of encryption in multiple layers against multiple attack vectors. It's really a piece of work. I don't know why someone would write it and then use it directly against Kaspersky but whoever did it had the cash to hire some very clever people, or was a team of programmers with a genius at the helm and amazing opsec.
Considering the sophistication of the virus I think it would be silly to speculate about who wrote it: whoever it is had to spend a good deal of effort covering their tracks and could easily have compromised multiple third parties just to create red herrings.
It's been extremely slow since this all started. I hope the finances work out such that they can get the capacity they need in time to scoop up freedom-loving users.
There's a certain critical mass of dissatisfaction in a user base/community. Until that point the site can be salvaged. It takes more than an unpopular move by admins/community leaders. There has to be BOTH:
I think it can be generalized to other communities but for web sites in particular there has to be enough dissatisfaction to create a feedback loop of angry users being ignored leads to leadership blunders leads to more angry users. When meta-conversation overwhelms normal conversation there's a tipping point. Slashdot has almost been there. coughcoughbetacough But it takes more than that. At the tipping point administration must demonstrate such disregard for the users concerns that a revolt becomes meta-shared knowledge. Many users knowing isn't enough. They need to know that other users know. Only if that happens the site will descend into a digg-esque melt-down and hemorrhage users until admins capitulate or the site collapses.
I don't think Reddit has reached that point. In fact, I think this will serve as a safety valve. Users who strongly value freedom of expression will go to voat and everyone else will stay, and not see as many complaints. Obviously this makes the culture more brittle. Reddit is not in danger now but will lead to other problems down the road.
This is a big step toward Reddit becoming an echo chamber. New users will be less likely to stay and it will create its own cultural feedback loop. Those unwilling to toe the party line will find themselves shunned. Users will pretend to go along, hiding how they really feel, leading to a more intense echo chamber. Soon there will be prescribed viewpoints on almost any topic. Reddit will die then. Not with a bang but with a whimper.
Honest question: In the end does it seem likely robots that succeed at these tasks mostly do so because, as in other DARPA challenges, they're the ones with high-end hardware?
Some real science has been done on DNA data storage as relates to evidence of panspermia. The theory goes that if intelligent life deliberately seeded the universe it may have used DNA or RNA sequences that could be decoded into a message. So far science's tendency toward conservatism has prevented anyone from coming out and saying it but I think available evidence is more than sufficient reason for optimism and intense study.
As I said on another site, Not as bad as they try to make it sound. The red cross initially committed to building homes but when that didn't work out due to them not being able to buy land they spent the money on improving some homes, building a hospital, and helping out elsewhere as possible. It's true there was a lot of administrative waste, but that waste was due to careful management. The article echos complaints of hiring "lazy" locals. Then it criticizes them for hiring expensive ex-patriot workers. Then it criticizes them for contracting the work out to other companies causing high administrative costs. Well how the fuck were they supposed to do it? If they had advertised for volunteers they would have been criticized for spending the money in another country. It can cost a lot to assure money is spend effectively. Maybe they erred too far on the side of caution on this one, maybe they got as much done as was possible. I don't know. Neither do you. This is making a chicken out of a feather and makes me wonder what real news I'm missing out on.
America: If you can't afford lawyers, fuck you.
What US Prosecutors say is quite irrelevant to the law. Thank Goddess there are still a few checks on their kind of power.
It may be, but it's damned impressive technology. Have you seen the demo? A guy with an accent asks at normal (faster than normal for most people) speed for a statistic requiring some deductive reasoning (the population of the capital of the country with the Space Needle) and is given only the required answer.
I really don't mind a slashvertisement for a sweet bit of technology like this. It's informative as to the industry state-of-the-art. It helps me track the progress of AI. And it's cool.
We just don't know what the future holds. You may want to run fiber or a new wireless standard may make that moot. You may want to swap out your heating unit without much expense, or install a battery. I wouldn't focus on individual new technologies, but give the house an electrical and mechanical infrastructure that makes it easy and cheap to make changes. I would also install extra, easily accessed conduits for new cables or pipes of whatever kind.
It's not about this case. I have no sympathy for the man. None. But if they can indict his cash they can indict mine, and I want every legal protection (in particular the fourth amendment) to apply. If the constitution doesn't apply in every case it doesn't apply at all.
Anything handed to IEEE will become like Firewire, and anyone who doesn't agree is clueless. That's what you're saying? Or were you just looking for spurious correlations and pretending they're significant to look smart?
Maybe you could think about what you say instead of milking other idiots for that sweet Slashdot karma.