"They can do almost anything as long as it is there in writing"
If the Courts agree with you, then it's a matter of who writes the EULA equivalent of a nuke first.
Heck, someone should write an EULA with really really ridiculous terms e.g. "You give us complete ownership over your organs after your death, and any derivative products".
But would you require them to be able to do all those maneuvers in order to pass their driving exams? If you do, I suspect lots of people will fail and not be allowed to drive. The roads might be safer as a result, but the politicians aren't going to do that because that will lose them votes.
Do you really need people to do monkey-code onsite for USD60K?
Can't you get the monkeycode done by an employee or contract worker in some other country?
USD60K/year is a lot of money in my country (or many other countries - I hear they have many good programmers in Eastern Europe).
Sure the latency in human comms sucks. But I figure the people you want to hire are those who can type coherent and useful messages over IM/IRC (or even email).
The other benefit of using IM is you can squeeze more productivity out of employees - they can be in more than one meeting at the same time. With the exception of "ritual" announcements and "get to know the team" meetings, traditional physical meetings are usually a waste of "human CPU" - e.g. 2 hours meeting time, 5 minutes human "CPU" time.
I think SSBN crew would actually be better for long term space missions than the Air Force people NASA seem to like.
What do you think?
The NASA keep doing all those psychological experiments to test how people will cope with long term space missions. Seems a waste of time and resources to me. Don't the US Navy already know all that stuff?
I think it's easier to train a nuclear submariner to be an astronaut, than to train an airforce guy how to cope well with being confined in a metal can for months.
Desktop PCs can boot up faster than a typical Cisco router. PC servers on the other hand tend to like to spend many seconds to say stuff like "ctrl-A for Raid config screen" etc.
With the exception of the "linksys" level stuff, Cisco routers and switches aren't really low power devices.
Cisco used to be great - decent stuff, better service and support.
Now if they are not careful, Huawei and friends will kill them at the low end and the Juniper bunch will kill them at the other.
Well, if you fight a really traditional war, then what we call genocide nowadays is part of winning the war.
To me the world would be a better place if it became standard practice for countries to require referendums in order to _initiate_ a war (doing it in defense doesn't count as initiating a war).
If political leaders wish to send troops to battle for _offensive_ (not defense) purposes (or risk lives of a substantial number of civilians), they have to put their own lives at risk as well.
This could be done in the following manner: A referendum is held. If there is an insufficient majority, the proposers' lives are forfeit. They are put on deathrow.
If there is actually a majority, there could be a "redemption" referendum, and their lives depend on the results.
A similar referendum is also held if at any time it is found that a politician caused the public to be deceived/misinformed (even unknowingly) and "justify" a war or similar military action.
If a leader's life is not successfully redeemed, but later it is found the war was justified, the leader will get the equivalent of a "purple heart".
The idea is that even leaders who lie about "caring about the lives of soldiers" would actually think twice about sending soldiers to risk their lives. Even amoral people without a conscience would be inclined to take things a bit more seriously when it's not just a matter of losing the next election, or going to jail for a few years.
After all if a leader thinks it is worth risking the lives of soldiers and civilians, that leader should also be willing to risk his/her life. That's only fair right?
Also, very importantly, if > 66% of Nation A thinks it's worth attacking Nation B, then it's not so bad if Nation B tries to wipe Nation A out. It's no longer genocide, it's self defense.
They want a war, they get a war. None of this halfbaked bullshit.
With the current wars, you end up killing people who have nothing against you, who may not even want to harm anyone, but are dragged into a war just because of a minority at the top.
"The simple fact is, our Constitution guarantees military grade weapons are to be available to militia"
Uh huh. Nukes are cool too. Everyone should have one. That will make all our problems go away. After all, a well armed society is a polite society and all that. Except there'll always be a few who insist on being a bit impolite with their nukes. But no problem since you can nuke them back eh?
BTW read the 2nd Amendment, you can consider the militia part to be independent from the right to bear arms.
If you don't agree with that reading, you should then read the rest of the Constitution that deals with the militia.
e.g. "To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
You'll have to figure out how to reliably get people to inflict sufficient mental pain on themselves when they do something wrong in a simulated scenario (and mental pleasure when they do something right).
The alternative is to resort to externally inflicted pain and pleasure - aka "old fashioned teaching methods".
While not everyone learns the same way, the "old fashioned method" works on 99% of people. Pain and reward. Even works on slugs and bugs.
If we condition people to think "put on a condom and you'll be safe", we may be doing a great disservice to them.
Though condoms protect reasonably well against current strains of HIV, they don't work so well against other nasty STDs. Also the failure rate of condoms is about 2-5%. And yet people go about marketing it as "safe sex". Even skydiving parachutes have a better failure rate.
There are lots of people out there who have lots of sex. More than skydivers skydive. Go figure what a 5% rate will do to them.
The old fashioned ideas like restrict sexual contact till marriage etc would have helped the people who can't think in "sexually charged atmospheres". Too bad for them that popular culture has moved on. It now seems to be the norm to intentionally seek out "sexually charged atmospheres". It'll be much harder for them now.
If we really cared, we shouldn't be doing things that way. If we don't care, then we'll call it natural selection or evolution.
> Some people have personality traits that seem to interfere a great deal with long-term self-protective behaviors when faced with the prospect of short-term pleasure.
Maybe a bit of "reverse psychology" might help.
Tell them, "Hey it's actually a plus if you "short-term" guys ignore us and insist on weeding yourself out of the human race. We already have > 6 billion. Not like we need more people whose foresight is shorter than their foreplay, or even their foreskin. So go ahead and get yourself killed by AIDS or some other STD in the next few years. Thanks very much."
Fact is, HIV is very avoidable once you do the "condoms and education" stuff. If some people insist on ignoring all that, I think we should give them a "Class Action Darwin Award":).
I think I am more at risk from mosquito borne diseases than HIV.
BTW I'm curious - how good are condoms at protecting against other nasty STDs? I also believe condoms fail about 2% of the time (fortunately HIV isn't as contagious as some other STDs).
Slashdot Mirror
"They can do almost anything as long as it is there in writing"
If the Courts agree with you, then it's a matter of who writes the EULA equivalent of a nuke first.
Heck, someone should write an EULA with really really ridiculous terms e.g. "You give us complete ownership over your organs after your death, and any derivative products".
Try convincing my sister's car.
It's not actually dead yet, but it's not far from "pining for the fjords" (not the Fords).
On the bright side, it isn't making noises about brains.
From the article: "with a mean time between human interventions of 9km"
It's a decent step, but that is far from completely automated.
Most beginner human drivers don't need that much intervention after a few lessons, and they're still far from good enough at that point.
What's the performance and stability like?
I remember doing some benchmarks more than a year ago and plain perl 5 was faster.
Hope it's much better now...
From the samples of her book I saw, the Matrix did not resemble her book.
I'm not the only one who thinks that:
http://www.amazon.com/Third-Eye-Mother-Matrix/dp/0978539648
But would you require them to be able to do all those maneuvers in order to pass their driving exams? If you do, I suspect lots of people will fail and not be allowed to drive. The roads might be safer as a result, but the politicians aren't going to do that because that will lose them votes.
1 USD = 3.67 MYR (Malaysian Ringgit)
http://fit.mmu.edu.my/files/kellysalaryguidemy.pdf
http://myjobstreet.jobstreet.com/premium/basicSalaryReport.asp?param=Programmer|000|my||my
Salaries here are typically MYR/month.
The older workers often speak English. The younger ones maybe not (the Gov ruined the education system)...
A modern airliner is actually safer than the usual small plane (Cessna etc).
Things would be safer if they required all drivers to be as skilled, trained, responsible as a typical airliner pilot.
But then most drivers would fail, and they would have transport problems. Politicians would lose lots of votes.
Do you really need people to do monkey-code onsite for USD60K?
Can't you get the monkeycode done by an employee or contract worker in some other country?
USD60K/year is a lot of money in my country (or many other countries - I hear they have many good programmers in Eastern Europe).
Sure the latency in human comms sucks. But I figure the people you want to hire are those who can type coherent and useful messages over IM/IRC (or even email).
The other benefit of using IM is you can squeeze more productivity out of employees - they can be in more than one meeting at the same time. With the exception of "ritual" announcements and "get to know the team" meetings, traditional physical meetings are usually a waste of "human CPU" - e.g. 2 hours meeting time, 5 minutes human "CPU" time.
Yes, but you might get a job for risking your anonymity.
What's in it for him?
Learn to see things from other people's POV, it's useful.
I think SSBN crew would actually be better for long term space missions than the Air Force people NASA seem to like.
What do you think?
The NASA keep doing all those psychological experiments to test how people will cope with long term space missions. Seems a waste of time and resources to me. Don't the US Navy already know all that stuff?
I think it's easier to train a nuclear submariner to be an astronaut, than to train an airforce guy how to cope well with being confined in a metal can for months.
Many people seem to think that grey goo nanobots will devour us all.
But my reasoning is similar to yours.
The grey goo is already out there and it's not devouring us all.
If they're bonding six lines and all that, I think an important question is: "What's the latency?"
Desktop PCs can boot up faster than a typical Cisco router. PC servers on the other hand tend to like to spend many seconds to say stuff like "ctrl-A for Raid config screen" etc.
With the exception of the "linksys" level stuff, Cisco routers and switches aren't really low power devices.
Cisco used to be great - decent stuff, better service and support.
Now if they are not careful, Huawei and friends will kill them at the low end and the Juniper bunch will kill them at the other.
Inanimate?
What are animate carbon rods then?
And what if that IP leads to some ad/linkfarm/spam/malware site?
Well, if you fight a really traditional war, then what we call genocide nowadays is part of winning the war.
To me the world would be a better place if it became standard practice for countries to require referendums in order to _initiate_ a war (doing it in defense doesn't count as initiating a war).
If political leaders wish to send troops to battle for _offensive_ (not defense) purposes (or risk lives of a substantial number of civilians), they have to put their own lives at risk as well.
This could be done in the following manner:
A referendum is held. If there is an insufficient majority, the proposers' lives are forfeit. They are put on deathrow.
If there is actually a majority, there could be a "redemption" referendum, and their lives depend on the results.
A similar referendum is also held if at any time it is found that a politician caused the public to be deceived/misinformed (even unknowingly) and "justify" a war or similar military action.
If a leader's life is not successfully redeemed, but later it is found the war was justified, the leader will get the equivalent of a "purple heart".
The idea is that even leaders who lie about "caring about the lives of soldiers" would actually think twice about sending soldiers to risk their lives. Even amoral people without a conscience would be inclined to take things a bit more seriously when it's not just a matter of losing the next election, or going to jail for a few years.
After all if a leader thinks it is worth risking the lives of soldiers and civilians, that leader should also be willing to risk his/her life. That's only fair right?
Also, very importantly, if > 66% of Nation A thinks it's worth attacking Nation B, then it's not so bad if Nation B tries to wipe Nation A out. It's no longer genocide, it's self defense.
They want a war, they get a war. None of this halfbaked bullshit.
With the current wars, you end up killing people who have nothing against you, who may not even want to harm anyone, but are dragged into a war just because of a minority at the top.
"The simple fact is, our Constitution guarantees military grade weapons are to be available to militia"
Uh huh. Nukes are cool too. Everyone should have one. That will make all our problems go away. After all, a well armed society is a polite society and all that. Except there'll always be a few who insist on being a bit impolite with their nukes. But no problem since you can nuke them back eh?
BTW read the 2nd Amendment, you can consider the militia part to be independent from the right to bear arms.
If you don't agree with that reading, you should then read the rest of the Constitution that deals with the militia.
e.g. "To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
"Ye Old" Militia => Modern US Military.
I think the machete beats the AK. It has a significant headstart though.
The machete remains a mainstay in good old genocidal Africa.
If you only have one or two clips with an AK47, you better have a machete as your alternate weapon.
If you haven't noticed already, the police are above the law.
Tribal thinking is strong. So it's "Police Tribe" vs the rest of the world.
You'll have to figure out how to reliably get people to inflict sufficient mental pain on themselves when they do something wrong in a simulated scenario (and mental pleasure when they do something right).
The alternative is to resort to externally inflicted pain and pleasure - aka "old fashioned teaching methods".
While not everyone learns the same way, the "old fashioned method" works on 99% of people. Pain and reward. Even works on slugs and bugs.
If we condition people to think "put on a condom and you'll be safe", we may be doing a great disservice to them.
Though condoms protect reasonably well against current strains of HIV, they don't work so well against other nasty STDs. Also the failure rate of condoms is about 2-5%. And yet people go about marketing it as "safe sex". Even skydiving parachutes have a better failure rate.
There are lots of people out there who have lots of sex. More than skydivers skydive. Go figure what a 5% rate will do to them.
The old fashioned ideas like restrict sexual contact till marriage etc would have helped the people who can't think in "sexually charged atmospheres". Too bad for them that popular culture has moved on. It now seems to be the norm to intentionally seek out "sexually charged atmospheres". It'll be much harder for them now.
If we really cared, we shouldn't be doing things that way. If we don't care, then we'll call it natural selection or evolution.
The advantages of skin are pretty clear- a barrier against the nasty outside world, but brains are still unproven.
There are a lots of living things out there with skin but no brains.
Maybe he's one of those AIs.
:).
Given the way things are going, it looks like the mental abilities of AIs and the average person will converge in a few years time
Yeah, maybe Consultants should add DRM to documentation, so that customers can only have one copy and it's only viewable in a DRM infested viewer.
And trying to break/bypass the DRM gets you slapped with the DMCA.
> Some people have personality traits that seem to interfere a great deal with long-term self-protective behaviors when faced with the prospect of short-term pleasure.
:).
Maybe a bit of "reverse psychology" might help.
Tell them, "Hey it's actually a plus if you "short-term" guys ignore us and insist on weeding yourself out of the human race. We already have > 6 billion. Not like we need more people whose foresight is shorter than their foreplay, or even their foreskin. So go ahead and get yourself killed by AIDS or some other STD in the next few years. Thanks very much."
Fact is, HIV is very avoidable once you do the "condoms and education" stuff. If some people insist on ignoring all that, I think we should give them a "Class Action Darwin Award"
I think I am more at risk from mosquito borne diseases than HIV.
BTW I'm curious - how good are condoms at protecting against other nasty STDs? I also believe condoms fail about 2% of the time (fortunately HIV isn't as contagious as some other STDs).