Dammit, Anon, you should know the Commodore 64 Voat is running on couldn't handle the existing flood, let alone that brought by further recommendations. Put's refusal to take donations and upgrade isn't helping. I honestly worry Voat won't be here next year.
I think future self-driving cars will perform maneuvers that will look like magic. They'll know precisely how much grip they have. They'll be able to independently control tire speeds to within one RPM. They'll know where the weight is placed in the car and which loads are likely to shift, and how far. They'll know every object or entity around them and be able to plan to hit or avoid them as necessary. I think you'll have shit like you see in racing movies, like spinning to avoid an obstacle, flipping over obstacles, or deliberately cartwheeling to choose a less lethal form of accident. Unfortunately that time has not yet come.
Also a more expensive good isn't necessarily more expensive because it required that many more man hours. In fact this is rarely the case. A larger house takes more man-hours but a lot of the money goes into buying rarer materials, more materials manufactured by automation, a larger plot of land in a more desired area, and other things that only provide a wage to rent seekers and the most wealthy. A meal at a nice restaurant does require more man hours. The chef had to train longer, there are more people behind the scenes to keep the place clean, and so forth. But the bulk of the cost is due to there being a higher demand because of the prestige. A $10,000 suit took maybe twice as many man-hours as a $500 suit.
A lot of people really do lack the intelligence, memory, mental agility, and so forth that are needed to learn, compete for, and perform the new generation of jobs. As manual labor is phased out these people are being left to collect welfare and die of malnutrition-related diseases.
I'm even more impressed they did so without talking about Deepfakes, or even porn at all. By focusing on the actually important aspects of this technology Slashdot has displayed a bit of journalistic integrity. Good job, Slashdot!
Or maybe you're posting it for guaranteed replies, which would just be sad.
Here's what really happened: People wanting to influence the election purchased ads through Russia, which happened to be selling for the lowest cost. Also the media, including someone who is paying Slashdot, is STILL trying to push the idea that Trump's presidency is somehow illegitimate because "Russian interference". At the same time claims are being made that Russia is somehow related to the DNC leaks. This is being done to avoid discussion of the content of the leaks. You post this on a daily basis, Slashdot, and we're ALL sick of seeing it. But I'm going to keep calling out your bullshit every time because the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Stop spreading propaganda.
If you could log in you still couldn't delete your account. Facebook never, ever deletes information. All you could do is prevent you, yourself from seeing it. And possible your friends. The government and other sponsors of Facebook would still have full access.
Jesus fucking CHRIST. Other people have said this, but I'm so incensed I feel the need to repeat what has already been said thirty times in this very thread. Stop propagandizing at me. The DNC was hacked and their dirty laundry was aired and I don't give a shit by whom. Anyone actually informed knows over half of the Russian "interference in the election" was in support of Hillary. Anyone with a brain knows the contents of the emails are more important than who exposed them. Whether you're trying to make me believe this narrative or just adding headlines for some list of "1,000 headlines that make this claim and therefore it's true", whether you're lying on purpose or just ignorant, I don't give a shit. Stop it! Stop pushing agendas. Your job is not to influence my beliefs or behavior, your job is to present interesting, PERTINENT news for nerds. Take your user profiles, your Shareblue talking points, your bribe money, your demographic maps, and your informal automated polling and shove it so far up your ass that your problem glasses fall off you piece of shit.
Wifi meshnet with clever routing is the obvious answer, but it should be implemented in a way that allows plausible deniability of ownership. Imagine a small, low power, low-observability, multiband pi that anyone can just plug in to an outlet and it starts functioning as a mesh net router offering free wifi for 50 meters in any direction. A dedicated repressive regime could track them down one at a time but it would be more trouble then it's worth, especially if people keep putting up new ones.
focuses on analysis of full-motion video data from tactical aerial drone platforms
Okay, we know it's all AI and neural networkish but WHAT DOES IT DO and since that question isn't answered in the article or in the summary why am I supposed to care about it? How about including a "rave review" that mentions ANY function it has. What is it anyway? A program? I'm guessing it points out instances of trained faces in surveillance software. But maybe it auto-follows a vehicle across disparate surveillance platforms. Or it allows more accuracy. Or it auto checks that no civilians are probably there before a drone execution. Or something else. Or is actually a hardware package.
This summary and article are fluff and utterly devoid of meaningful information. So who paid for what company's stock to go up, and who at Slashdot or Dice got the money?
You sound like you know what you're talking about. What parts of this launch are unrealistic, and to what extent do you think they'll hurt performance, and in what ways?
This allergic reaction gives incentive to murder children who have already been abused, since the sentences are about the same but the murder makes the pedo less likely to be caught. It keeps pedophiles from seeking help before they abuse, since no psychiatrist can be trusted. It encourages further degradation of the constitution, as any abuse is considered acceptable to stop a pedophile. It constitutes a de-facto thought crime. It encourages shortcuts in logic. It prevents scientific arguments about how to best help children. It encourages crime in prison. And it causes more harm to children than it prevents. End the hysteria. End it now.
The world's richest people are rich enough to keep themselves out of the public eye and off lists of the richest people. They own things like countries.
That part of the comment I replied to (in fact the whole comment) was a general statement of support for this type of censorship, not just what Reddit is doing in this case. While the stated intent is to remove illegal and dangerous things (which in practice, in this case at least, mean one side of the political spectrum) the actual result is to provide a powerful tool for censorship. Whether or not this type of censorship, which the parent comment very much directly supports, has the stated intent of promoting Bad Things, this type of censorship actually removes disliked things.
What Reddit is doing and has done is very politically biased. Right wing hate speech is immediately deleted and the user banned, and left wing hate speech is ignored. But even if it were not biased it would be unacceptable because of the downstream implications of providing this kind of tool. I know Reddit is a private company and the first amendment doesn't apply, but freedom of speech is a human right enshrined in the constitution, not a right because it's in the constitution.
No. As soon as you limit freedom of speech to things you like (and yes your proposal damn well is that) you've severely crippled it. "hate speech" starts to obtain the definition of disagreeing with the status quo. "harassment" starts to obtain the definition of vigorous debate. I've seen those examples and more. The question at hand is who decides what hate speech and harassment are. When a certain disliked group on Twitter started to engage those posting a certain hashtag and winning them over that's when lively debate via twitter started to be called harassment. When "hate speech" became illegal that's when opponents of certain points of view defined them as hate speech. When the question of which speech is hateful is politicized the law against it becomes a tool for oppressing certain points of view, and that is unacceptable.
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. -H. L. Mencken
...any civilization or system capable of creating such a complete simulation will undoubtedly have put in to place provisions for "what if the simulation starts questioning reality"
That would render a huge swath of reasons for creating a simulated universe pointless. First you're assuming humans are the focus of the simulation as opposed to a side effect. Second, if humans are the focus limiting cognition in that way would severely limit the usefulness for reviewing historical data, sociology, and anything related to scientific progress. If true the results provided in TFA at least eliminate many, many possible types of simulation.
That's only half of the equation. As jobs are lost to globalization new markets are created. Yes we lose most of the pants industry, but we gain jobs in the farm equipment industry so they can grow their cotton, and the heavy equipment industry so they can transport it, and the information systems industry so the whole system can communicate properly.
The total market for McDonalds burgers is limited by the population. The total market for food is limited by the population. If Mcdonalds sells more with less staff that's great, up to the point where the demand for burgers is exhausted. Meanwhile people eating Mcdonalds aren't eating at Burger king, or the steak house, or at home and those jobs are lost. Overall employment in the food sector must fall.
Technology has always created new jobs but that ceases when technology replaces the human brain. At that point there's no reason to hire a human except to say "we employ humans" or for the relatively few careers just being human trumps a higher-performing robot.
Slashdot Mirror
Now argue against the 90% of UBI proposals that don't involve printing money.
Dammit, Anon, you should know the Commodore 64 Voat is running on couldn't handle the existing flood, let alone that brought by further recommendations. Put's refusal to take donations and upgrade isn't helping. I honestly worry Voat won't be here next year.
It was called the caboose.
I think future self-driving cars will perform maneuvers that will look like magic. They'll know precisely how much grip they have. They'll be able to independently control tire speeds to within one RPM. They'll know where the weight is placed in the car and which loads are likely to shift, and how far. They'll know every object or entity around them and be able to plan to hit or avoid them as necessary. I think you'll have shit like you see in racing movies, like spinning to avoid an obstacle, flipping over obstacles, or deliberately cartwheeling to choose a less lethal form of accident. Unfortunately that time has not yet come.
Between your eloquence and the evidence you already present I'm hesitant to ask, but do you have even more proof?
Also a more expensive good isn't necessarily more expensive because it required that many more man hours. In fact this is rarely the case. A larger house takes more man-hours but a lot of the money goes into buying rarer materials, more materials manufactured by automation, a larger plot of land in a more desired area, and other things that only provide a wage to rent seekers and the most wealthy. A meal at a nice restaurant does require more man hours. The chef had to train longer, there are more people behind the scenes to keep the place clean, and so forth. But the bulk of the cost is due to there being a higher demand because of the prestige. A $10,000 suit took maybe twice as many man-hours as a $500 suit.
A lot of people really do lack the intelligence, memory, mental agility, and so forth that are needed to learn, compete for, and perform the new generation of jobs. As manual labor is phased out these people are being left to collect welfare and die of malnutrition-related diseases.
I'm even more impressed they did so without talking about Deepfakes, or even porn at all. By focusing on the actually important aspects of this technology Slashdot has displayed a bit of journalistic integrity. Good job, Slashdot!
Or maybe you're posting it for guaranteed replies, which would just be sad.
Here's what really happened: People wanting to influence the election purchased ads through Russia, which happened to be selling for the lowest cost. Also the media, including someone who is paying Slashdot, is STILL trying to push the idea that Trump's presidency is somehow illegitimate because "Russian interference". At the same time claims are being made that Russia is somehow related to the DNC leaks. This is being done to avoid discussion of the content of the leaks. You post this on a daily basis, Slashdot, and we're ALL sick of seeing it. But I'm going to keep calling out your bullshit every time because the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Stop spreading propaganda.
If you could log in you still couldn't delete your account. Facebook never, ever deletes information. All you could do is prevent you, yourself from seeing it. And possible your friends. The government and other sponsors of Facebook would still have full access.
How long will it be before I'm turned down for a job because my genes are bad?
Jesus fucking CHRIST. Other people have said this, but I'm so incensed I feel the need to repeat what has already been said thirty times in this very thread. Stop propagandizing at me. The DNC was hacked and their dirty laundry was aired and I don't give a shit by whom. Anyone actually informed knows over half of the Russian "interference in the election" was in support of Hillary. Anyone with a brain knows the contents of the emails are more important than who exposed them. Whether you're trying to make me believe this narrative or just adding headlines for some list of "1,000 headlines that make this claim and therefore it's true", whether you're lying on purpose or just ignorant, I don't give a shit. Stop it! Stop pushing agendas. Your job is not to influence my beliefs or behavior, your job is to present interesting, PERTINENT news for nerds. Take your user profiles, your Shareblue talking points, your bribe money, your demographic maps, and your informal automated polling and shove it so far up your ass that your problem glasses fall off you piece of shit.
Intel's CEO just sold all the stock he legally could sell.
Actually...
Wifi meshnet with clever routing is the obvious answer, but it should be implemented in a way that allows plausible deniability of ownership. Imagine a small, low power, low-observability, multiband pi that anyone can just plug in to an outlet and it starts functioning as a mesh net router offering free wifi for 50 meters in any direction. A dedicated repressive regime could track them down one at a time but it would be more trouble then it's worth, especially if people keep putting up new ones.
Okay, we know it's all AI and neural networkish but WHAT DOES IT DO and since that question isn't answered in the article or in the summary why am I supposed to care about it? How about including a "rave review" that mentions ANY function it has. What is it anyway? A program? I'm guessing it points out instances of trained faces in surveillance software. But maybe it auto-follows a vehicle across disparate surveillance platforms. Or it allows more accuracy. Or it auto checks that no civilians are probably there before a drone execution. Or something else. Or is actually a hardware package.
This summary and article are fluff and utterly devoid of meaningful information. So who paid for what company's stock to go up, and who at Slashdot or Dice got the money?
>There's a lot of smoke and mirrors
You sound like you know what you're talking about. What parts of this launch are unrealistic, and to what extent do you think they'll hurt performance, and in what ways?
This allergic reaction gives incentive to murder children who have already been abused, since the sentences are about the same but the murder makes the pedo less likely to be caught. It keeps pedophiles from seeking help before they abuse, since no psychiatrist can be trusted. It encourages further degradation of the constitution, as any abuse is considered acceptable to stop a pedophile. It constitutes a de-facto thought crime. It encourages shortcuts in logic. It prevents scientific arguments about how to best help children. It encourages crime in prison. And it causes more harm to children than it prevents. End the hysteria. End it now.
The world's richest people are rich enough to keep themselves out of the public eye and off lists of the richest people. They own things like countries.
That part of the comment I replied to (in fact the whole comment) was a general statement of support for this type of censorship, not just what Reddit is doing in this case. While the stated intent is to remove illegal and dangerous things (which in practice, in this case at least, mean one side of the political spectrum) the actual result is to provide a powerful tool for censorship. Whether or not this type of censorship, which the parent comment very much directly supports, has the stated intent of promoting Bad Things, this type of censorship actually removes disliked things.
What Reddit is doing and has done is very politically biased. Right wing hate speech is immediately deleted and the user banned, and left wing hate speech is ignored. But even if it were not biased it would be unacceptable because of the downstream implications of providing this kind of tool. I know Reddit is a private company and the first amendment doesn't apply, but freedom of speech is a human right enshrined in the constitution, not a right because it's in the constitution.
Freedom of speech has pretty simple limits
No. As soon as you limit freedom of speech to things you like (and yes your proposal damn well is that) you've severely crippled it. "hate speech" starts to obtain the definition of disagreeing with the status quo. "harassment" starts to obtain the definition of vigorous debate. I've seen those examples and more. The question at hand is who decides what hate speech and harassment are. When a certain disliked group on Twitter started to engage those posting a certain hashtag and winning them over that's when lively debate via twitter started to be called harassment. When "hate speech" became illegal that's when opponents of certain points of view defined them as hate speech. When the question of which speech is hateful is politicized the law against it becomes a tool for oppressing certain points of view, and that is unacceptable.
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. -H. L. Mencken
That would render a huge swath of reasons for creating a simulated universe pointless. First you're assuming humans are the focus of the simulation as opposed to a side effect. Second, if humans are the focus limiting cognition in that way would severely limit the usefulness for reviewing historical data, sociology, and anything related to scientific progress. If true the results provided in TFA at least eliminate many, many possible types of simulation.
Many thousands of Luddites starved to death before the industrial revolution started to pay off.
That's only half of the equation. As jobs are lost to globalization new markets are created. Yes we lose most of the pants industry, but we gain jobs in the farm equipment industry so they can grow their cotton, and the heavy equipment industry so they can transport it, and the information systems industry so the whole system can communicate properly.
The total market for McDonalds burgers is limited by the population. The total market for food is limited by the population. If Mcdonalds sells more with less staff that's great, up to the point where the demand for burgers is exhausted. Meanwhile people eating Mcdonalds aren't eating at Burger king, or the steak house, or at home and those jobs are lost. Overall employment in the food sector must fall.
Technology has always created new jobs but that ceases when technology replaces the human brain. At that point there's no reason to hire a human except to say "we employ humans" or for the relatively few careers just being human trumps a higher-performing robot.