But remember, if people FEEL safe, they will fly, and the economy will roll on, and THAT will keep the terrorists from winning!
Also, an update from the Bush administration:
We are not at war with Oceania. We have never been at war with Oceania. Miniplenty has upped the quality of their cigarettes this year by 30%, and has doubled our chocolate output! Hail, Big Brother!
No. He can't burn other people's property, he can't burn other people. He can't really burn animals under animal cruelty statues - he could for some kind of religious ritual, I suppose.
Just another example of where there exists a religious hypocrisy and inbuilt defense of religion in our system. It needs to be systematically exposed and removed.
Why does anyone still interview reverends? They've been saying the same shit for thousands of years, and we've ignored them on everything from the use of condoms, to sex before marriage, to drinking.
Millions work on Sunday. Nobody believes in stoning adulterous women to death (and those who do are obvious nut cases).
If they want a preacher's opinion, why don't they just get any generic sermon of theirs and replace the words "Elvis' hip gyrations..." or "(such and such) destructive cultural phenomenon" with whatever the current 'evil' is?
Like gay marriage. Take most preacher's rants on that, pick one, and use it as a template to get their opinion on new developments without even asking them.
Its time we jettisoned faith as a guiding force in this country, and everywhere.
Who will they turn to when they need inaccurate video game 'murder simulation' fear mongering news pieces?
Who will yell, "Think of the children!" (when the obvious answer should be "Their parents, not your goddamn nanny-state...."
Who will attach pornographic images in unrelated cases?...This is a sad day. Its like losing the local bum who says crazy shit but it is always funny, ya know?
Obviously you don't know how the rules used to be.
A married couples on TV didn't share a single bed until about the 70's. There used to be rules that if one of the two was sitting on a bed, the other had to be standing-they couldn't even SIT on the same bed.
Elvis' hip gyrations used to cause TV stations to only portray him...from the waste up! How pathetic are all of those manipulations, considering where we are in TV today?
There was an episode of South Park that said shit, what, 147 times or something?
Wasn't it recently ruled that you're allowed to show pornography after 10 pm on public airwaves? I can't seem to find a link right now, maybe that decision was reversed. Anyone know?
Music is only censored on the radio by some radio stations - they do it so they don't receive complaints by dumb ass ministers (like what happened in the 60's). But popular stations, especially big ones in LA, play what they want because they have the money to fight that kind of crap.
Just like prohibition, any government body that tries to regulate morality eventually fails. We should just see the trend, and start writing the FCC and calling shinanegans. Unless you're willing to live in a wholly repressive state, like Communist China or some oppressive Islamic regime.
Well if there were enough nodes, we wouldn't need an internet connection. It would be its own pseudo-internet. Those who wanted a website to be broadcast, could set their servers up directly connected to their own little tower.
The cost argument is true - right now. The cost is coming down on all wireless broadcast technology, and the performance is going up. How long will it be, really, until something like this is entirely do-able?
Your right, getting my neighbors on board would be the hard part. If the government got behind it, it could be done much quicker. Maybe they could provide a small tax break for those willing to participate in it? That would get people on it right quick.
Hah! I never thought I'd see a 'Protect the CHILDREN, think of the CHILDREN!' argument on Slashdot!
Obscene material is a joke. The FCC tried to regulate 'bad language' as obscene on the radio. Then they tried to do it on TV. They fail, and fail, and fail, yet they try again.
What you essentially posted is that the Government can't back free speech because free speech contains obscenity. The constitution has something to say about that.
Why do you want the government raising your children? Why don't you watch what they listen to, or monitor their use of the computer? You're probably the same kind of person who blames TV when their kid learns something vulgar, when in reality the kid learned it from some other kid at school.
Trying taking responsibility for what your kids are doing, and let the government worry about free speech, not obscenity.
And your red herring arguments get you nowhere here.
On the FCC front page, there is a link to all the members of the board, and their emails.
I say we email them.
Lets turn the./ effect upon our government, and see if maybe, just maybe, we can convince them not to make the same dumb ass mistakes they make every 30 years trying to censor new formats.
At first, reading the title, there was amazement! An FCC chairman, pitching FREE internet?!?!
Then there came reality: no 'obscene' content.
What the fuck is this, 1953? Hey, while we're at it, why don't we go beat up some Commies and re-segregate the South, then fine anyone who says dirty words on these gosh darn 'radios'??
Thats like giving someone a car with no wheels, engine, gas tank, doors, windows, seats or seat belts, and wondering why nobody wants your gift.
Essentially this amounts to severe packet filtering or an Orwellian 'approved' list of websites. Whats worse, is who's doing the filtering, and how deep? I'm sure there are Wikipedia articles that would classify as 'obscene'.
Fuck this. I can't wait for the day when I can go buy an open source mesh broadcast tower, put it in my house, and get a truly FREE internet.
The FCC, just like the patent office, hasn't been able to cope since the 90's. When are we going to fix this broken shit, and WHY are all of our government offices run by morons? (As far as I know - I apologize to any/. readers who run a government office and are intelligent and make good decisions).
Lots of people are making posts about this vs. skynet, terminator, etc. But there are some problems with that (overly simplistic and totally misguided) comment.
There are numerous formal logic solvers, that are able to come to either the correct answer (in the case of deterministic systems, for instance) or to the answer with the highest degree of success. The difference between the two should be made clear: Say if I give the computer that:
A)All Italians are human.
B)All humans are lightbulbs.
What is the logical conclusion? The answer is that all Italians are lightbulbs. Of course, the premises of such an argument are false, but a computer could work out the formally correct conclusion.
The problem these people seem to be solving is that there needs to be a unified way to input such propositions, and a properly robust and advanced solver that is generic and agreed upon. Basically this is EXACTLY what is needed in order to move beyond a research stage, where each lab uses its own pet language.
I mentioned determinism, because the example I gave contained the solution in the premises. What if I said, "My chest hurts. What is the most likely cause of my pain?" An expert system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system) can take a probability function and return that the most likely cause is... (whatever, I'm not a doctor!). But what if I had multiple systems? The logic becomes more fuzzy! So there needs to be an efficient way to implement it, AND draw worthwhile conclusions. Such conclusions can be wrong, but they are the best guess (the difference between omniscient and rational, or bounded rational).
None of these things are relating to some kind of 'skynet' intelligence.
IF you DID want to get skynet like intelligence, having a useful logic system (like what is planned here) would be the first step, and would allow you to do things like planning, for instance. If I told a robot, "Careful about crossing the street." it would be too costly to try to train it to replicate human thought exactly. But it records and understands language well (at this point), so what can we extract from that language?
Essentially, this is from the school of thought that we need to play to computer's strengths when thinking about designing human like intelligence, rather than replicating the human thought processes from the ground up (which will happen eventually, either through artificial neurons, or through simulation of increasingly large batches of neurons). On the other hand, if such simulations lead to the conclusion that human level consciousness requires more than the model we have, it will lead to a revolution in neuroscience, because we will require a more complex model.
I really can't wait to get more into this, and really hope it isn't just bluster.
Also:
'Thinking Machines' title is inflammatory and incorrect, if we use the traditional human as the gauge for the term 'thought'. It is a highly formalized and rigorous machine interpretation of human thought that is taking place, and it will not breed human level intelligence.
Not to be premature, but if they are able to cure viruses, there is going to be a second sexual revolution.
No condoms, ever again? HOORAY! Everyone throw your HATS IN THE AIR! (Jim-hats, that is).
Then all we need is a safe version of the male 'pill', and everything is set, set, set!
..The right to file share is in the constitution?
Come on don't bullshit me.
Nothing gives us the right to share the work other people own. We do it anyway, because we're starting to believe it is more inline with the freedom and ease of distribution of information.
Good point, although does anyone really care about sharing non-copyrighted files? Really? I can download books from Gutenberg.org without a decentralized P2P file sharing network. Get my drift?
The distribution mechanisms of the web are just fine for stuff that you own. You can make a computer science argument and say that it would be a more efficient use of bandwidth or server time if things were done with P2P networks, but is that necessary?
No.
I thought they didn't mention sharing non-copyrighted works because that isn't what companies and artists are all pissed off about.
Freedom of your OWN speech is protected. Not to share other people's speeches without their consent.
There is a big difference there. Of course these people own what they say (or in the case of music, what they produce). They produced it. Just because you say it out loud once (or sing it at a concert) does not mean it instantly belongs in the public domain.
I'm FOR music sharing and I think you have a poor argument.
Where in the constitution is the right to file share?
Constitutional law isn't my field, but saying file sharing is a subset of freedom of speech seems like a stretch.
I do agree though: this is closing the barn door after the horse gets out.
Slashdot Mirror
May it stay long, and prosper, right next to teaching intelligent design in public schools.
I mean, without such advanced measures, how did the world ever see us as scientific before? end:sarcasm
Fantastic!
Also, an update from the Bush administration: We are not at war with Oceania. We have never been at war with Oceania. Miniplenty has upped the quality of their cigarettes this year by 30%, and has doubled our chocolate output! Hail, Big Brother!
Just another example of where there exists a religious hypocrisy and inbuilt defense of religion in our system. It needs to be systematically exposed and removed.
Millions work on Sunday. Nobody believes in stoning adulterous women to death (and those who do are obvious nut cases).
If they want a preacher's opinion, why don't they just get any generic sermon of theirs and replace the words "Elvis' hip gyrations..." or "(such and such) destructive cultural phenomenon" with whatever the current 'evil' is?
Like gay marriage. Take most preacher's rants on that, pick one, and use it as a template to get their opinion on new developments without even asking them.
Its time we jettisoned faith as a guiding force in this country, and everywhere.
That is, after we fight off the Nazis that inhabit it [http://www.ironsky.net/site/]
I wonder if I can get a patent on a 'for' loop and then declare all software that uses it to be violating my patent?
Fucking ridiculous.
Only in America.
Who will they turn to when they need inaccurate video game 'murder simulation' fear mongering news pieces? Who will yell, "Think of the children!" (when the obvious answer should be "Their parents, not your goddamn nanny-state...." Who will attach pornographic images in unrelated cases? ...This is a sad day. Its like losing the local bum who says crazy shit but it is always funny, ya know?
Obviously you don't know how the rules used to be.
A married couples on TV didn't share a single bed until about the 70's. There used to be rules that if one of the two was sitting on a bed, the other had to be standing-they couldn't even SIT on the same bed.
Elvis' hip gyrations used to cause TV stations to only portray him...from the waste up! How pathetic are all of those manipulations, considering where we are in TV today?
There was an episode of South Park that said shit, what, 147 times or something?
Wasn't it recently ruled that you're allowed to show pornography after 10 pm on public airwaves? I can't seem to find a link right now, maybe that decision was reversed. Anyone know?
Music is only censored on the radio by some radio stations - they do it so they don't receive complaints by dumb ass ministers (like what happened in the 60's). But popular stations, especially big ones in LA, play what they want because they have the money to fight that kind of crap.
Just like prohibition, any government body that tries to regulate morality eventually fails. We should just see the trend, and start writing the FCC and calling shinanegans. Unless you're willing to live in a wholly repressive state, like Communist China or some oppressive Islamic regime.
Well if there were enough nodes, we wouldn't need an internet connection. It would be its own pseudo-internet. Those who wanted a website to be broadcast, could set their servers up directly connected to their own little tower.
The cost argument is true - right now. The cost is coming down on all wireless broadcast technology, and the performance is going up. How long will it be, really, until something like this is entirely do-able?
Your right, getting my neighbors on board would be the hard part. If the government got behind it, it could be done much quicker. Maybe they could provide a small tax break for those willing to participate in it? That would get people on it right quick.
Hah! I never thought I'd see a 'Protect the CHILDREN, think of the CHILDREN!' argument on Slashdot!
Obscene material is a joke. The FCC tried to regulate 'bad language' as obscene on the radio. Then they tried to do it on TV. They fail, and fail, and fail, yet they try again.
What you essentially posted is that the Government can't back free speech because free speech contains obscenity. The constitution has something to say about that.
Why do you want the government raising your children? Why don't you watch what they listen to, or monitor their use of the computer? You're probably the same kind of person who blames TV when their kid learns something vulgar, when in reality the kid learned it from some other kid at school.
Trying taking responsibility for what your kids are doing, and let the government worry about free speech, not obscenity.
And your red herring arguments get you nowhere here.
On the FCC front page, there is a link to all the members of the board, and their emails.
I say we email them.
Lets turn the ./ effect upon our government, and see if maybe, just maybe, we can convince them not to make the same dumb ass mistakes they make every 30 years trying to censor new formats.
At first, reading the title, there was amazement! An FCC chairman, pitching FREE internet?!?!
Then there came reality: no 'obscene' content.
What the fuck is this, 1953? Hey, while we're at it, why don't we go beat up some Commies and re-segregate the South, then fine anyone who says dirty words on these gosh darn 'radios'??
Thats like giving someone a car with no wheels, engine, gas tank, doors, windows, seats or seat belts, and wondering why nobody wants your gift.
Essentially this amounts to severe packet filtering or an Orwellian 'approved' list of websites. Whats worse, is who's doing the filtering, and how deep? I'm sure there are Wikipedia articles that would classify as 'obscene'.
Fuck this. I can't wait for the day when I can go buy an open source mesh broadcast tower, put it in my house, and get a truly FREE internet.
The FCC, just like the patent office, hasn't been able to cope since the 90's. When are we going to fix this broken shit, and WHY are all of our government offices run by morons? (As far as I know - I apologize to any /. readers who run a government office and are intelligent and make good decisions).
Lots of people are making posts about this vs. skynet, terminator, etc. But there are some problems with that (overly simplistic and totally misguided) comment.
There are numerous formal logic solvers, that are able to come to either the correct answer (in the case of deterministic systems, for instance) or to the answer with the highest degree of success. The difference between the two should be made clear: Say if I give the computer that:
A)All Italians are human. B)All humans are lightbulbs.What is the logical conclusion? The answer is that all Italians are lightbulbs. Of course, the premises of such an argument are false, but a computer could work out the formally correct conclusion.
The problem these people seem to be solving is that there needs to be a unified way to input such propositions, and a properly robust and advanced solver that is generic and agreed upon. Basically this is EXACTLY what is needed in order to move beyond a research stage, where each lab uses its own pet language.
I mentioned determinism, because the example I gave contained the solution in the premises. What if I said, "My chest hurts. What is the most likely cause of my pain?" An expert system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system) can take a probability function and return that the most likely cause is... (whatever, I'm not a doctor!). But what if I had multiple systems? The logic becomes more fuzzy! So there needs to be an efficient way to implement it, AND draw worthwhile conclusions. Such conclusions can be wrong, but they are the best guess (the difference between omniscient and rational, or bounded rational).
None of these things are relating to some kind of 'skynet' intelligence.
IF you DID want to get skynet like intelligence, having a useful logic system (like what is planned here) would be the first step, and would allow you to do things like planning, for instance. If I told a robot, "Careful about crossing the street." it would be too costly to try to train it to replicate human thought exactly. But it records and understands language well (at this point), so what can we extract from that language?
Essentially, this is from the school of thought that we need to play to computer's strengths when thinking about designing human like intelligence, rather than replicating the human thought processes from the ground up (which will happen eventually, either through artificial neurons, or through simulation of increasingly large batches of neurons). On the other hand, if such simulations lead to the conclusion that human level consciousness requires more than the model we have, it will lead to a revolution in neuroscience, because we will require a more complex model.
I really can't wait to get more into this, and really hope it isn't just bluster.
Also:
'Thinking Machines' title is inflammatory and incorrect, if we use the traditional human as the gauge for the term 'thought'. It is a highly formalized and rigorous machine interpretation of human thought that is taking place, and it will not breed human level intelligence.
Awesome.
Not to be premature, but if they are able to cure viruses, there is going to be a second sexual revolution. No condoms, ever again? HOORAY! Everyone throw your HATS IN THE AIR! (Jim-hats, that is). Then all we need is a safe version of the male 'pill', and everything is set, set, set!
..The right to file share is in the constitution? Come on don't bullshit me. Nothing gives us the right to share the work other people own. We do it anyway, because we're starting to believe it is more inline with the freedom and ease of distribution of information.
Good point, although does anyone really care about sharing non-copyrighted files? Really? I can download books from Gutenberg.org without a decentralized P2P file sharing network. Get my drift? The distribution mechanisms of the web are just fine for stuff that you own. You can make a computer science argument and say that it would be a more efficient use of bandwidth or server time if things were done with P2P networks, but is that necessary? No. I thought they didn't mention sharing non-copyrighted works because that isn't what companies and artists are all pissed off about.
Freedom of your OWN speech is protected. Not to share other people's speeches without their consent. There is a big difference there. Of course these people own what they say (or in the case of music, what they produce). They produced it. Just because you say it out loud once (or sing it at a concert) does not mean it instantly belongs in the public domain. I'm FOR music sharing and I think you have a poor argument.
Where in the constitution is the right to file share? Constitutional law isn't my field, but saying file sharing is a subset of freedom of speech seems like a stretch. I do agree though: this is closing the barn door after the horse gets out.
Paper letters? See, you're already having to put things into outdated formats for politicians to understand them.
And they have a form for feedback? Brace for obvious shit storm...
Cyber-War causes real conflict!