You could probably cut down the costs significantly by combining it with normal shutdowns and maintainaince.
Sadly I too doubt these would be real tests, the only failing marks will be in cases where nobody's head is on the chopping block and there's funding available for it.
Personally if the AI was high level enough to do the job, open source and auditable I'd prefer it running the country than regular politicians.
If we get to the point of serious AI and Von Neuman machines our economic system will be changing fundamentally anyway as labour,resources and even intelectual property drop in value to almost nothing.
Some people love to imagine that one day someone will discover "the secret" of AI and suddenly we'll have superintelligent pseudogods but personally I'm thinking we'll just see a slow, creeping, gradual improvement until AI's are things which you can talk to naturally and which can give intelligent and sensible answers and which can handle most of the background beauracracy of life and just gradually improve until they're superintelligent pseudogods which nobody really thinks much about and which are just part of life. And people will still think they're dumb and don't really think because of that one time they asked the the WatGoogSwarm a question and it got the answer wrong.
Even considering that is isn't a launch to orbit it's really stunning how little they get by on, last time they had a donation drive they posted their budget which was in the low tens of thousands.
And you get some serious engieneer cred when you're watching your launch from your own home built submarine.
Fair enough. That seems well reasoned and well written. I apologise for my earlier flippant responses.
The only objection might be that some illegal drugs can have a sedative or calming effect much like some legal drugs can make people more unstable,jumpy or more prone to acting on impulse.
no you quite explicitly imply causation when you come back with the slew of numbers.
However if you really were not implying causation then the bread ingestion is exactly as relevant, almost all murderers eat bread infer what you want about the bread-murder link.
quick question: do your figures actually include legal drugs?
"under the influence of drugs at time of their offense" could include people who are on legal drugs like proscribed medication when they commit a crime so a schizophrenic who commits a crime after an underdose of his medication would add to those figures.
some 13 year olds end up with far more responsibility than they should and are essentially adults by 15 while some 30 year olds are babied all their lives and remain children.
Thing is: some things really are protected, he shouldn't have to worry about government employees, in this case school administrators, penalising him for calling a politician a dickhead or posting a perfectly legal video under a pseudo-name online.
Your local judge, your local cops, your government employed teachers and your local mayor can all love pedigree dogs and they can all feel very strongly about it but if you publish an article or video voicing your opinions on the matter none of those people should be able to use their official powers to penalise you, the most you should have to fear if them snubbing you socially without using any of their government backed authority.
Now of course humans are humans so you may face more than that but if they abuse their positions like that then they should simply be fired.
I'd be incredibly surprised if there was any actuarial data involved at all.
more likely a handful of upper class politicians who wouldn't know an actuarial table if it bit them in the arse decided on 18 based on vague ideas about their own children.
"Arresting someone if you aren't a police officer would be kidnapping. If a speeder simply could escape by driving 10 mph over the speed limit and the cop never being able to catch up then it would be all but impossible to enforce speed limit laws."
which would be a fine argument if they weren't explicitly allowed to do those things. Police are granted a great deal of additional rights and powers to enforce the law. It's only sensible that they should be punished more severely if they abuse that power.
this isn't "whoops, I lost control of the police car during a high speed chase and hurt someone" or "damn, I aimed at the bad guy but missed and hit some poor sod"
this is explicitly attacking someone and trying to destroy evidence. That isn't a little mistake. That isn't something that just happens when you're trying to enforce the law.
You can give your witness report 10 minutes later somewhere private, on the other hand if a cop was beating the shit out of you for the crime of being black then you'd probably welcome the guy with the video camera.
occams razor doesn't exlude simple conspiracies. which is all most have to be.
a handful of powerful friends can fuck a lot of people over with very simple conspiracies like the one in the OP.
They can be as simple as "we don't want him to give evidence? You write an official letter accusing him of something, I'll have an aide make up some bullshit rumors and spread those around and we'll try to make sure the court case is over before he's sorted out the mess"
or even "fuck the law, make up some charge that's hard to defend yourself against then arrest him and throw him in jail"
But those kinds of stories are boring. massive conspiracies are hard to hold together but a few golf buddies can do fine.
Conspiracy nuts assume that the world trade centre was some kind of inside job with stupidly complex motives. In reality there's no need for that when the same ends can be achieved by a far simpler method of politicians simply taking advantage of the situation after the fact to push through whatever horrific measures they've always wanted.
the problem isn't a deficit of trust. Hell more problems are caused by trusting fools who believe campaign promises and press releases.
the whole internet has for decades been dealing with attacks on a scale which would make any one governments "cyberwarfare" division look like a pack of boyscouts throwing stones.
The internet is anything but a monoculture, there's thousands of different systems running different software all in their own little firewalled communities with the serious stuff behind DMZ's and multiple firewalls or on encrypted private networks.
For Dan Halbert, the road to Tycho began in collegeâ"when Lissa Lenz asked to borrow his computer. Hers had broken down, and unless she could borrow another, she would fail her midterm project. There was no one she dared ask, except Dan.
This put Dan in a dilemma. He had to help herâ"but if he lent her his computer, she might read his books. Aside from the fact that you could go to prison for many years for letting someone else read your books, the very idea shocked him at first. Like everyone, he had been taught since elementary school that sharing books was nasty and wrongâ"something that only pirates would do.
And there wasn't much chance that the SPAâ"the Software Protection Authorityâ"would fail to catch him. In his software class, Dan had learned that each book had a copyright monitor that reported when and where it was read, and by whom, to Central Licensing. (They used this information to catch reading pirates, but also to sell personal interest profiles to retailers.) The next time his computer was networked, Central Licensing would find out. He, as computer owner, would receive the harshest punishmentâ"for not taking pains to prevent the crime.
"The heavy users had double the rate of brain glioma compared to the non-users."
I'm curious about this.
I went to read the ones linked to from the articles in the OP and I think the summary is in fact wrong about it simply being a new interpretation of the study from last may since that was fairly far on the side of there being not much there.
no I mean you can walk around with an dish and point to any houses with "subversives" in them. People are easily scared and all you have to do is kick down a few doors and show you can catch people easily. Make a show of it and suddenly the network breaks apart as not enough people join it to keep it all connected.
Slashdot Mirror
"the law is unclear whether watching an illegit stream is illegal "
Is listening to a pirate radio station illegal?
You could probably cut down the costs significantly by combining it with normal shutdowns and maintainaince.
Sadly I too doubt these would be real tests, the only failing marks will be in cases where nobody's head is on the chopping block and there's funding available for it.
To be fair: medical expert systems have been around for a long time, watson isn't the first AI which can competently second guess doctors diagnosis.
Personally if the AI was high level enough to do the job, open source and auditable I'd prefer it running the country than regular politicians.
If we get to the point of serious AI and Von Neuman machines our economic system will be changing fundamentally anyway as labour ,resources and even intelectual property drop in value to almost nothing.
Some people love to imagine that one day someone will discover "the secret" of AI and suddenly we'll have superintelligent pseudogods but personally I'm thinking we'll just see a slow, creeping, gradual improvement until AI's are things which you can talk to naturally and which can give intelligent and sensible answers and which can handle most of the background beauracracy of life and just gradually improve until they're
superintelligent pseudogods which nobody really thinks much about and which are just part of life.
And people will still think they're dumb and don't really think because of that one time they asked the the WatGoogSwarm a question and it got the answer wrong.
Even considering that is isn't a launch to orbit it's really stunning how little they get by on, last time they had a donation drive they posted their budget which was in the low tens of thousands.
And you get some serious engieneer cred when you're watching your launch from your own home built submarine.
Fair enough.
That seems well reasoned and well written.
I apologise for my earlier flippant responses.
The only objection might be that some illegal drugs can have a sedative or calming effect much like some legal drugs can make people more unstable,jumpy or more prone to acting on impulse.
fair enough, there's an absurd post right at the bottom of this pile nobody can see any more due to downmods.
So just to be clear you don't claim that drugs make people violent?
no
you quite explicitly imply causation when you come back with the slew of numbers.
However if you really were not implying causation then the bread ingestion is exactly as relevant, almost all murderers eat bread infer what you want about the bread-murder link.
Since you were replying to the "grandfather smoked 40 a day" post you imply you're trying to show causation.
just to add: alcohol comes off as even worse than illegal drugs:
The U.S. Department of Justice Report on Alcohol and Crime found that alcohol abuse was a factor in 40 percent of violent crimes committed in the U.S.
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/costs/a/aa980415.htm
quick question: do your figures actually include legal drugs?
"under the influence of drugs at time of their offense" could include people who are on legal drugs like proscribed medication when they commit a crime so a schizophrenic who commits a crime after an underdose of his medication would add to those figures.
And over 90% of them had ingested bread some time shortly before they committed their crimes.
clearly the bread is to blame.
some 13 year olds end up with far more responsibility than they should and are essentially adults by 15 while some 30 year olds are babied all their lives and remain children.
Thing is: some things really are protected, he shouldn't have to worry about government employees, in this case school administrators, penalising him for calling a politician a dickhead or posting a perfectly legal video under a pseudo-name online.
Your local judge, your local cops, your government employed teachers and your local mayor can all love pedigree dogs and they can all feel very strongly about it but if you publish an article or video voicing your opinions on the matter none of those people should be able to use their official powers to penalise you, the most you should have to fear if them snubbing you socially without using any of their government backed authority.
Now of course humans are humans so you may face more than that but if they abuse their positions like that then they should simply be fired.
If the videos contained death threats or some such then talking about teenagers thinking they were immune to consequences would make sense.
These though are just some slightly crappy absurdist humor.
There's nothing particularly offensive or hateful in them unless you happen to care a great deal about joe lieberman.
You do know that most teenagers think happy slapping videos are retarded too right?
ask a 60 year old and they'll probably tell you around about 40.
ask a 90 year old and you'll get an even higher age.
I'd be incredibly surprised if there was any actuarial data involved at all.
more likely a handful of upper class politicians who wouldn't know an actuarial table if it bit them in the arse decided on 18 based on vague ideas about their own children.
have you.... actually watched the videos at all?
they aren't happy slapping videos.
The wood carver was also partially deaf.
The officer in that case wasn't fired if I remember: he resigned.
"Arresting someone if you aren't a police officer would be kidnapping. If a speeder simply could escape by driving 10 mph over the speed limit and the cop never being able to catch up then it would be all but impossible to enforce speed limit laws."
which would be a fine argument if they weren't explicitly allowed to do those things.
Police are granted a great deal of additional rights and powers to enforce the law.
It's only sensible that they should be punished more severely if they abuse that power.
this isn't "whoops, I lost control of the police car during a high speed chase and hurt someone" or "damn, I aimed at the bad guy but missed and hit some poor sod"
this is explicitly attacking someone and trying to destroy evidence.
That isn't a little mistake.
That isn't something that just happens when you're trying to enforce the law.
You can give your witness report 10 minutes later somewhere private, on the other hand if a cop was beating the shit out of you for the crime of being black then you'd probably welcome the guy with the video camera.
occams razor doesn't exlude simple conspiracies.
which is all most have to be.
a handful of powerful friends can fuck a lot of people over with very simple conspiracies like the one in the OP.
They can be as simple as
"we don't want him to give evidence? You write an official letter accusing him of something, I'll have an aide make up some bullshit rumors and spread those around and we'll try to make sure the court case is over before he's sorted out the mess"
or even "fuck the law, make up some charge that's hard to defend yourself against then arrest him and throw him in jail"
But those kinds of stories are boring.
massive conspiracies are hard to hold together but a few golf buddies can do fine.
Conspiracy nuts assume that the world trade centre was some kind of inside job with stupidly complex motives.
In reality there's no need for that when the same ends can be achieved by a far simpler method of politicians simply taking advantage of the situation after the fact to push through whatever horrific measures they've always wanted.
the problem isn't a deficit of trust.
Hell more problems are caused by trusting fools who believe campaign promises and press releases.
the whole internet has for decades been dealing with attacks on a scale which would make any one governments "cyberwarfare" division look like a pack of boyscouts throwing stones.
The internet is anything but a monoculture, there's thousands of different systems running different software all in their own little firewalled communities with the serious stuff behind DMZ's and multiple firewalls or on encrypted private networks.
For Dan Halbert, the road to Tycho began in collegeâ"when Lissa Lenz asked to borrow his computer. Hers had broken down, and unless she could borrow another, she would fail her midterm project. There was no one she dared ask, except Dan.
This put Dan in a dilemma. He had to help herâ"but if he lent her his computer, she might read his books. Aside from the fact that you could go to prison for many years for letting someone else read your books, the very idea shocked him at first. Like everyone, he had been taught since elementary school that sharing books was nasty and wrongâ"something that only pirates would do.
And there wasn't much chance that the SPAâ"the Software Protection Authorityâ"would fail to catch him. In his software class, Dan had learned that each book had a copyright monitor that reported when and where it was read, and by whom, to Central Licensing. (They used this information to catch reading pirates, but also to sell personal interest profiles to retailers.) The next time his computer was networked, Central Licensing would find out. He, as computer owner, would receive the harshest punishmentâ"for not taking pains to prevent the crime.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Why must stalman be right so much the cynical old sod?
"The heavy users had double the rate of brain glioma compared to the non-users."
I'm curious about this.
I went to read the ones linked to from the articles in the OP and I think the summary is in fact wrong about it simply being a new interpretation of the study from last may since that was fairly far on the side of there being not much there.
http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/05/16/1919224/10-Year-Cell-Phone--Cancer-Study-Is-Inconclusive
the actual paper from last may:
http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/ije/press_releases/freepdf/dyq079.pdf
62% of glioma cases were regular mobile phone users and 64% of matched controls were regular mobile phone users.
the 40% claim seems to be based on a far smaller study of data collected before 2004.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21610117
I can't read it due to a paywall.
no I mean you can walk around with an dish and point to any houses with "subversives" in them.
People are easily scared and all you have to do is kick down a few doors and show you can catch people easily. Make a show of it and suddenly the network breaks apart as not enough people join it to keep it all connected.