Even the craziest people generally do. There's no shortage of simple and correct points which never the less aren't or can't be acted upon because people tend to act in their own short term best interest. Things like
"there and inconveniently large number of people" true. "war is bad for people and the environment" also generally true
but then there's problems like the fact that both euthanizing large sections of the population and forced sterilization can cause people to become prone to starting wars to stop you from euthanizing and sterilising them. Even taking the non-violent approach and simply starting a massive add campaign to get people to sign up voluntarily runs into the problem that pretty soon your entire audience will be made up people who's parents for one reason or another were unwilling to sign up and are so less likely to sign up themselves.
a 5 year old could probably solve half the worlds problems if everyone were willing to actually follow advice like "be nice to other people" or "don't dump poison in other peoples drinking water" and other naively simple yet also technically right advice.
Even today companies which handle stock information (the regulated kind which has to reach all their customers within a predictable window) use dedicated lines for important "this can't fall prey to network congestion" information and updates. The regular internet is poorly suited to this. I hope that surgery over a network is considered similarly important and gets it's own dedicated lines.
no. there's a whole range that falls under "net neutrality" , some where prioritization based on protocol (like say pushing UDP through faster than TCP)is acceptable and some puritan models where you just have to push all packets through as fast as possible with no prioritization but your idea that companies should be allowed to charge companies connected through other networks which already have their own peering arrangements(such as charging a competing voip service if they want equal priority to the ISP's own) is one of the few things that falls well outside anything anyone sane would call Net Neutrality.
those "other entites" have already paid for their bandwidth, they've paid their own ISP's.
I don't see where you're coming from with this claim that people would have outlawed "e-commerce sites, Flash, or Twitter ", please elaborate as otherwise it just sounds like bunk.
"non-neutral service " seems to just be a nice term for "anti-competative trating practices"
this isn't about stopping change, this is about stopping market-distorting unfair trading practices.
This is nothing like flights, that would just be building a faster backbone network and getting to decide where it goes. A better comparison would be
"Some corporations already has a network of things called 'airplanes' that let people travel without the existing roads. they get to decide what prices to charge and what routes to offer and now some of them want to move into the postal buisness and freight buisness and they're using their existing market position to give themselves an unfair advantage in another market! no fair!!! "
It's remarkable how they managed to do that. And the idiots really did swallow the whole thing and now recite it back as some kind of mantra.
And at the same time while blaming wikileaks for their own inability to keep state secrets secret they also managed to avoid shitting too much on the newspapers which mirrored the material and have gone to so much effort to try to make wikileaks sound utterly utterly distinct from a regular old newspaper(despite all the newsworthy material it publishes and stories it breaks) since people tend to have a bit of a soft spot for newspapers and freedom of speech.
in it's simplest form net neutrality is similar to anti-monopoly legislation.
Yes this is a semi-car analogy but it's not completely off the wall.
Imagine 1 company owned and maintained most of the highways in a state, collected tolls and also got to make up their own rules for traffic on the stretches of road they were maintaining.
Now imagine that the same company owned a large retail chain and taxi company.
So they make a rule that on their highways everyone else has to get out of the way of their delivery vans or taxi service and there is no speed limit for their own taxi service or delivery vans.(perhaps they also extend this to their buisness partners) This would both give the other wings of their company an advantage and also hurt the service of their normal customers who get pushed over into the slower lanes whenever company traffic is going through. analogous to ISP's which also run a voip service or a video streaming service prioritizing the packets from their own service
At the same time they start charging tripple tolls to all delivery vans for competing retail chains or taxis from competing services or even make a rule setting a lower speed limit for those cometitors vehicles. analagous to an ISP intentionally dropping the priority of packets from their competitors streaming service or voip service or charging them an additional fee if they want to get equal priority
Would this be fair? they'd be using their position in one market to gain advantage in another. Would this be healthy for a market? of course not, it would be exactly the sort of crap that healthy regulation aims to stop.
but AT&T want to be able to pull that kind of crap because there's a hell of a lot of money to be made in distorting the market to their favor.
It's depressing since up till now most companies have for the most part stuck pretty close to something like net neutrality with the occasonal dispute with other companies interupting that.
but now it's a political issue and all the guys in suits who before were happy to manage their companies without the foggiest clue what their companies actually do are hearing all these sugestions (in the form of "companies must not be allowed to do X Y and Z") and suddenly they're thinking "Really? we could do that??? awsome!!! why didn't anyone tell me about this before?"
there's also the posibility that being sadistic and cruel to your own spawn might confer some kind of advantage on them later in life. otherwise they'd (eventually) be out-competed by non sadistic families.
Do you by any chance edit for conservapedia? Cause that's the only place I've ever seen anyone else throw around the term "liberal" in such a wierd manner or blame everything bad with the world on liberals.
Someone called you out on a absurd figure of 1 in 100000. five 9's reliability for a system that is expected to opperate outside a controlled environment is wishful thinking at best and self delusion at worst.
Have you even thought about how such a system might opperate?
if this thing is based on GPS or radio then you have the problem that you have to deal with the signals actually getting to the device.
there are 2 situations you have to deal with. 1: Someone who while wearing one of these devices wraps it in tinfoil and goes to mexico. 2: Someone who while wearing one of these devices walks down into his basement or as part of a job (gainful employment is good isn't it) has to carry stuff into a metal shipping container or for any reason at all legitimately ends up either underground or inside a metal cage.
In both cases you completely loose all signals too and from the device.
So what should the device do in such a situation?
Do you have it administer a crippling shock to them when the device loses signal? Well you've going to have a hell of a lot of nasty car accidents in tunnels.
The more time you give them the more time they have to get over a border or to get somewhere where the device can be safely removed. If widely used you can be sure a black market would spring up for removing these things.
Want to go across town and kill/rob/rape someone? find some legit reason to be inside a metal cage or anywhere else where elecromagnetic signals are blocked, wrap it in tinfoil and be sure to remove the tinfoil at the spot you were in when you put it on. And if it's GPS based it'll lose track of you anywhere inside. If it's based on positioning with cell phone towers then anywhere with no cellphone signal is good.
And you dismiss offhand the idea that the system opperators will go sadistic yet that's a real posibility. the stanford prison experiment was a lovely illistration that power really does corrupt, put normal nice people in a position of power over others and many of them will, in a short time, become sadistic and cruel.
If prisoners getting shocked happens a lot then pretty soon people stop paying attention to the logs and after that people would start doing it for shits and giggles.
I'm all for technology but I can spot a poor idea when I see it.
this tech would probably be fine for really low level offenders, kids who shoplift, petty criminals or white collar criminals you simply want to track reasonably but if that's your goal then quietly making a deal with the cellphone companies to get the positions of their phones would be almost as effective (especially if they don't know you're doing it and as such they don't know to leave their phones at home).
For any significantly dangerous person this system is useless no matter how big a capacitor you stick in it.
if the connection to their own service is better because it's simply located closer to their customers that's fine. If they have cionfigured their routers to push the packets from their own video service to the top of the queue(meaning if the queue is full they drop some of their competitors packets in favor of their own or if it's not they artificially slow their competitors service in favor of their own) then they're using their position as an ISP to distort the market for video services.
That would be DIRECTLY affecting other companies ability to compete.
If course we could go with your idea that asking such questions will corrupt their young minds and awaken their inner terrorists.
If the teacher had asked the students in a history class if their was any way they could see that the outcomes of some major battles could have been changed with changes in tactics, would that have beeen better? It's still asking them to think about slaughtering people on a massive scale.
And yet there's a point. if a crowd of kids in a few minutes chatting can come up with a number of schemes that would probably work with little or no chance of getting caught then that leads on to a question that every person, adult and student alike should ask- why we don't see destruction on that scale regularly if it would be easy.
The rational answer is of course that terrorists aren't such a great threat as they're made out to be.
I once heard a tale of someone who when faced with a boss who demanded updates every 15 minutes on what he was doing wrote a script which strung together meaningless management buzzwords in a vaguely sensible format and emailed them to his boss every 15 minutes.
a few weeks later he gets an award for being a team player and keeping his boss in the loop.
It's not like the boss ever reads them after the first day.
Those planes come in at hundreds of millions each. Even the cheapest seem to come in at tens of millions.
Screw one up and it crashes and that's all down the drain.
even if you kill a patient due to not sleeping in 48 hours there's a fair chance the hospital will avoid admitting liability and if they do then it's not going to cost more than a million or 2 unless the patient was some insanely wealthy businessman.
The planes are worth more than the patients. Simple as that.
the facts are not copyrighted, the particular incarnation can be.
So someone else can sell their own recipe book with the same recipe, they just can't copy-paste it from yours.
"substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions," such as a cookbook, can be copyrighted but that a mere list of ingredients cannot receive that protection.
No matter how much code auditing you do a determined employee can bury something nasty in any large and complex system.
In my last workplace there was no shortage of legacy systems with no owners. Anyone really determined could have embedded something into one of them during a breakfix and there would be no reasonable chance of anyone finding it.
I found enough problems caused by some old bits of code looking for a server that had been end of lifed that I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid if one screwed up a major database or grabbed all the disk space on some really critical server and caused some extremely expensive failures.
come to think of it they could have had many annoyed past employees and we never considered it could be intentionally malicious.
"Let's say the machine intelligence evolved from a primitive state in a simulated environment, without being fed human ideas. "
So it's not enough for a machine to act like a human if it is raised and learns like a human child being fed lots of human ideas. Only if it far surpasses most human beings and asks deep questions while doing some task in a controlled and limited environment.
How many humans ask that question on their own without first hearing some varient from someone else or from a book?
If an expert system is fed a load of philosophy books and come out with that as a request for additional information when you pose it a problem does that count?
If anything that is a fairly straightforward question for a machine, it's right there, written on the first page of it's manual. There's no uncertainty about who created it or for what purpose.
I know very well I'm just a machine. The problem is that people insist on making up special labels to distinguish themselves from other machines and then make those labels recursive.
the definitions of thought and conciousness are even recursive.
consciousness (knshs-ns) n. 1. The state or condition of being conscious.
conscious (knshs) adj. 1. a. Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.
aware (-wâr) adj. 1. Having knowledge or cognizance: aware of the difference between the two versions; became aware of faint sound.
cognizance (kgn-zns) n. 1. Conscious knowledge or recognition; awareness.
So how do we know when we've created a machine consciousness? Well when it's conscious.
How do we know when it's conscious? when it's aware.
How do we know when it's aware? When it has cognizance.
How do we know when it has cognizance? When when it's Conscious or has awareness of course.
Not really, if you live in the middle of a city and can walk to the tube station and walk from the other tube station to work then to compete with that with a 50 mile journey you'd need a car powered by unicorn farts and star dust.
Slashdot Mirror
Even the craziest people generally do.
There's no shortage of simple and correct points which never the less aren't or can't be acted upon because people tend to act in their own short term best interest.
Things like
"there and inconveniently large number of people" true.
"war is bad for people and the environment" also generally true
but then there's problems like the fact that both euthanizing large sections of the population and forced sterilization can cause people to become prone to starting wars to stop you from euthanizing and sterilising them.
Even taking the non-violent approach and simply starting a massive add campaign to get people to sign up voluntarily runs into the problem that pretty soon your entire audience will be made up people who's parents for one reason or another were unwilling to sign up and are so less likely to sign up themselves.
a 5 year old could probably solve half the worlds problems if everyone were willing to actually follow advice like "be nice to other people" or "don't dump poison in other peoples drinking water" and other naively simple yet also technically right advice.
Even today companies which handle stock information (the regulated kind which has to reach all their customers within a predictable window) use dedicated lines for important "this can't fall prey to network congestion" information and updates.
The regular internet is poorly suited to this.
I hope that surgery over a network is considered similarly important and gets it's own dedicated lines.
no.
there's a whole range that falls under "net neutrality" , some where prioritization based on protocol (like say pushing UDP through faster than TCP)is acceptable and some puritan models where you just have to push all packets through as fast as possible with no prioritization but your idea that companies should be allowed to charge companies connected through other networks which already have their own peering arrangements(such as charging a competing voip service if they want equal priority to the ISP's own) is one of the few things that falls well outside anything anyone sane would call Net Neutrality.
those "other entites" have already paid for their bandwidth, they've paid their own ISP's.
I don't see where you're coming from with this claim that people would have outlawed "e-commerce sites, Flash, or Twitter ", please elaborate as otherwise it just sounds like bunk.
"non-neutral service " seems to just be a nice term for "anti-competative trating practices"
this isn't about stopping change, this is about stopping market-distorting unfair trading practices.
This is nothing like flights, that would just be building a faster backbone network and getting to decide where it goes.
A better comparison would be
"Some corporations already has a network of things called 'airplanes' that let people travel without the existing roads. they get to decide what prices to charge and what routes to offer and now some of them want to move into the postal buisness and freight buisness and they're using their existing market position to give themselves an unfair advantage in another market! no fair!!! "
I'm not sure I'd even trust certs issued by any companies based in india at this point.
Anyone have any suggestions which cert authorities I should be excluding?
It's remarkable how they managed to do that.
And the idiots really did swallow the whole thing and now recite it back as some kind of mantra.
And at the same time while blaming wikileaks for their own inability to keep state secrets secret they also managed to avoid shitting too much on the newspapers which mirrored the material and have gone to so much effort to try to make wikileaks sound utterly utterly distinct from a regular old newspaper(despite all the newsworthy material it publishes and stories it breaks) since people tend to have a bit of a soft spot for newspapers and freedom of speech.
in it's simplest form net neutrality is similar to anti-monopoly legislation.
Yes this is a semi-car analogy but it's not completely off the wall.
Imagine 1 company owned and maintained most of the highways in a state, collected tolls and also got to make up their own rules for traffic on the stretches of road they were maintaining.
Now imagine that the same company owned a large retail chain and taxi company.
So they make a rule that on their highways everyone else has to get out of the way of their delivery vans or taxi service and there is no speed limit for their own taxi service or delivery vans.(perhaps they also extend this to their buisness partners)
This would both give the other wings of their company an advantage and also hurt the service of their normal customers who get pushed over into the slower lanes whenever company traffic is going through.
analogous to ISP's which also run a voip service or a video streaming service prioritizing the packets from their own service
At the same time they start charging tripple tolls to all delivery vans for competing retail chains or taxis from competing services or even make a rule setting a lower speed limit for those cometitors vehicles.
analagous to an ISP intentionally dropping the priority of packets from their competitors streaming service or voip service or charging them an additional fee if they want to get equal priority
Would this be fair? they'd be using their position in one market to gain advantage in another.
Would this be healthy for a market?
of course not, it would be exactly the sort of crap that healthy regulation aims to stop.
but AT&T want to be able to pull that kind of crap because there's a hell of a lot of money to be made in distorting the market to their favor.
It's depressing since up till now most companies have for the most part stuck pretty close to something like net neutrality with the occasonal dispute with other companies interupting that.
but now it's a political issue and all the guys in suits who before were happy to manage their companies without the foggiest clue what their companies actually do are hearing all these sugestions (in the form of "companies must not be allowed to do X Y and Z") and suddenly they're thinking "Really? we could do that??? awsome!!! why didn't anyone tell me about this before?"
there's also the posibility that being sadistic and cruel to your own spawn might confer some kind of advantage on them later in life.
otherwise they'd (eventually) be out-competed by non sadistic families.
Do you by any chance edit for conservapedia?
Cause that's the only place I've ever seen anyone else throw around the term "liberal" in such a wierd manner or blame everything bad with the world on liberals.
Someone called you out on a absurd figure of 1 in 100000.
five 9's reliability for a system that is expected to opperate outside a controlled environment is wishful thinking at best and self delusion at worst.
Have you even thought about how such a system might opperate?
if this thing is based on GPS or radio then you have the problem that you have to deal with the signals actually getting to the device.
there are 2 situations you have to deal with.
1: Someone who while wearing one of these devices wraps it in tinfoil and goes to mexico.
2: Someone who while wearing one of these devices walks down into his basement or as part of a job (gainful employment is good isn't it) has to carry stuff into a metal shipping container or for any reason at all legitimately ends up either underground or inside a metal cage.
In both cases you completely loose all signals too and from the device.
So what should the device do in such a situation?
Do you have it administer a crippling shock to them when the device loses signal?
Well you've going to have a hell of a lot of nasty car accidents in tunnels.
The more time you give them the more time they have to get over a border or to get somewhere where the device can be safely removed.
If widely used you can be sure a black market would spring up for removing these things.
Want to go across town and kill/rob/rape someone? find some legit reason to be inside a metal cage or anywhere else where elecromagnetic signals are blocked, wrap it in tinfoil and be sure to remove the tinfoil at the spot you were in when you put it on.
And if it's GPS based it'll lose track of you anywhere inside.
If it's based on positioning with cell phone towers then anywhere with no cellphone signal is good.
And you dismiss offhand the idea that the system opperators will go sadistic yet that's a real posibility.
the stanford prison experiment was a lovely illistration that power really does corrupt, put normal nice people in a position of power over others and many of them will, in a short time, become sadistic and cruel.
If prisoners getting shocked happens a lot then pretty soon people stop paying attention to the logs and after that people would start doing it for shits and giggles.
I'm all for technology but I can spot a poor idea when I see it.
this tech would probably be fine for really low level offenders, kids who shoplift, petty criminals or white collar criminals you simply want to track reasonably but if that's your goal then quietly making a deal with the cellphone companies to get the positions of their phones would be almost as effective (especially if they don't know you're doing it and as such they don't know to leave their phones at home).
For any significantly dangerous person this system is useless no matter how big a capacitor you stick in it.
What the fuck?
Seeing someone breastfeeding forces nobody to stop being an adult.
"The simple truth and fact is that most men are visually driven sexually, while most women are not."
Your problem. not hers.
And if you get turned on by watching a baby eat then you've got bigger problems.
if the connection to their own service is better because it's simply located closer to their customers that's fine.
If they have cionfigured their routers to push the packets from their own video service to the top of the queue(meaning if the queue is full they drop some of their competitors packets in favor of their own or if it's not they artificially slow their competitors service in favor of their own) then they're using their position as an ISP to distort the market for video services.
That would be DIRECTLY affecting other companies ability to compete.
or refering to a list of your contacts as an "addressbook" or refering to a load of pictures and profiles of people you know as a "yearbook".
we can't have that!
If course we could go with your idea that asking such questions will corrupt their young minds and awaken their inner terrorists.
If the teacher had asked the students in a history class if their was any way they could see that the outcomes of some major battles could have been changed with changes in tactics, would that have beeen better?
It's still asking them to think about slaughtering people on a massive scale.
And yet there's a point.
if a crowd of kids in a few minutes chatting can come up with a number of schemes that would probably work with little or no chance of getting caught then that leads on to a question that every person, adult and student alike should ask- why we don't see destruction on that scale regularly if it would be easy.
The rational answer is of course that terrorists aren't such a great threat as they're made out to be.
I've got a cell phone but I only give the number to people I actually want to hear from.
All the pros, none of the cons.
I once heard a tale of someone who when faced with a boss who demanded updates every 15 minutes on what he was doing wrote a script which strung together meaningless management buzzwords in a vaguely sensible format and emailed them to his boss every 15 minutes.
a few weeks later he gets an award for being a team player and keeping his boss in the loop.
It's not like the boss ever reads them after the first day.
Those planes come in at hundreds of millions each.
Even the cheapest seem to come in at tens of millions.
Screw one up and it crashes and that's all down the drain.
even if you kill a patient due to not sleeping in 48 hours there's a fair chance the hospital will avoid admitting liability and if they do then it's not going to cost more than a million or 2 unless the patient was some insanely wealthy businessman.
The planes are worth more than the patients.
Simple as that.
the facts are not copyrighted, the particular incarnation can be.
So someone else can sell their own recipe book with the same recipe, they just can't copy-paste it from yours.
"substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions," such as a cookbook, can be copyrighted but that a mere list of ingredients cannot receive that protection.
-http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010300316.html
No matter how much code auditing you do a determined employee can bury something nasty in any large and complex system.
In my last workplace there was no shortage of legacy systems with no owners.
Anyone really determined could have embedded something into one of them during a breakfix and there would be no reasonable chance of anyone finding it.
I found enough problems caused by some old bits of code looking for a server that had been end of lifed that I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid if one screwed up a major database or grabbed all the disk space on some really critical server and caused some extremely expensive failures.
come to think of it they could have had many annoyed past employees and we never considered it could be intentionally malicious.
"Let's say the machine intelligence evolved from a primitive state in a simulated environment, without being fed human ideas. "
So it's not enough for a machine to act like a human if it is raised and learns like a human child being fed lots of human ideas.
Only if it far surpasses most human beings and asks deep questions while doing some task in a controlled and limited environment.
that's why reading the robots.txt files for sites can sometimes be fun.
How many humans ask that question on their own without first hearing some varient from someone else or from a book?
If an expert system is fed a load of philosophy books and come out with that as a request for additional information when you pose it a problem does that count?
If anything that is a fairly straightforward question for a machine, it's right there, written on the first page of it's manual.
There's no uncertainty about who created it or for what purpose.
I know very well I'm just a machine.
The problem is that people insist on making up special labels to distinguish themselves from other machines and then make those labels recursive.
the definitions of thought and conciousness are even recursive.
consciousness (knshs-ns)
n.
1. The state or condition of being conscious.
conscious (knshs)
adj.
1.
a. Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.
aware (-wâr)
adj.
1. Having knowledge or cognizance: aware of the difference between the two versions; became aware of faint sound.
cognizance (kgn-zns)
n.
1. Conscious knowledge or recognition; awareness.
So how do we know when we've created a machine consciousness?
Well when it's conscious.
How do we know when it's conscious?
when it's aware.
How do we know when it's aware?
When it has cognizance.
How do we know when it has cognizance?
When when it's Conscious or has awareness of course.
Not really, if you live in the middle of a city and can walk to the tube station and walk from the other tube station to work then to compete with that with a 50 mile journey you'd need a car powered by unicorn farts and star dust.