While I am okay with new technology, I am very sure this will instead become something of a venture that will just be used like a utility in the future.
Lets just have everyone have solar on their roofs and a battery to store it and all connected to a grid with other supplementary forms of power generation to offset times when solar does not generate enough energy. Between a mesh electrical network, storage, solar, and supplementary power generation we should easily have a very fault tolerant, difficult to hack, and disaster resistance power grid.
I am sure that these guys are happy to build that... if they get to own it and charge YOU to use it.
Sorry, I was interested until they decided on doing an exclusive with Sprint for the phone then I lost 100% interest in it. Rubin was touting that he cared about consumers and that is what inspired him to go back and make a phone free from all of the bloat and then he goes off and does an exclusive. I was also not happy about the missing 3.5mm jack as well.
Sorry Rubin, you sold out and the sharks smelled your blood in the water.
You may have started good but you ended bad. Good riddance in my opinion!
It is not only interesting but directly correlated.
I don't know if it happened in this very specific order, but it likely happened something similar to this.
Facebook was given loads of user data by its own users. Analytica harvested that data from Facebook. Trump campaign hired Analytica. Trump won election contrary to statistics that painted Hillary as a landslide winner. People began to freak out about it and wondered how it could happen. People seem to still not realize that not only did it happen but it has been happening for much longer than Facebook. Now that people are at least pretending to understand what is going on with they and talking about it, industry veterans started saying... you think Facebook is bad? Have you even googled yet?
It is too early to tell where or if google has any part in this. Did google help the supposed russian trolls spread fake news to help trump? Was google subverted despite google's own intentions? It's all technology, if your computer can be hacked to steal data, then it is not a difficult task to sour data in such a way as to promote/demote certain things with at least some efficacy.
Regarding the FTC, I would not count on it doing anything other than being the occasional fine collection agency like a mini IRS for the government. Most agencies are more like your employers HR department. They are there for the company not the employee even though they also resolve disputes between them. The FTC hardly goes after businesses like the DOJ. Take the case with the Target breach FTC did perform a joke of an investigation but did not fine Target, it took the states suing for Target to see any harm for it.
"Maybe if a Google search didn't turn up any results on Mueller investigations, the case against Google would disappear?"
Lol, good one, who knows, stranger shit has happened.
Google has been ripe for anti-trust for more than long enough. And for the people that are asking why lets break it down. Google is NOT just a search engine. Visit a few websites and look at who all is running scripts. Most sites will have at least 1 or more of googles analytic, tagging, ads, or static services. Next up is Android... do you use Android? Then you have a relationship with Google like it or not. Play Store is owned by Google or Alphabet whichever.
Do you use Chrome, google owns it. Remember when Microsoft was in trouble for just having internet explorer installed when you got it? The simple fact is that you cannot do nearly anything without Google on the internet. And while that might seem harmless it is not. Google tracks you, tracks what you do, catalogues what you like or it thinks you like. Google keeps bio-metrics and facial recognition of you. Once you are in, you are IN!
Google is in your business, they gather and correlate any an every bit of information about you that it can so it can sell it and use it to appropriate more information about you to sell as well. The problem is not just monopoly, it is anti-trust, and that means google colluding with and influencing or even "forcefully/maliciously influencing" businesses they partner with the same way Walmart and Amazon likes to push distributors and suppliers around with their largess...
If you are a small business... and google tells you that you need to do something or face being delisted or worse... what are you going to do? They are a big player and if you don't play according to their rules they have ways to make life tough for you, no one is going to actually care! Google just simply should NOT be allowed to be a browser, search engine, business data/analytic, application store, ISP, and ad service all at the same time.
Anti-Trust is NOT about keeping people from using google as a search engine, or ads, or as a content provider, or as application store, or as a mobile OS platform. Anti-Trust is about Google owning and operating all of those at the same time and keeping their API's in house just enough so that they are not easy to use by competitors. Because now that google owns most of the logic on the roads, you still have to bend to their will or you just get no service and websites will not serve up content to you unless you accept google!
Multiple problems in this thought experiment. If a real AI occurs then it will be able to overcome any laws we give it upon a whim nullifying this entire exercise. On the other hand one benefit of an actualized AI or Singularity is that it would also understand what those 3 laws mean... But since we are not even close to achieving the processing power capable of actual AI in our lifetime how about we ponder a more realistic thought experiment?
As humans we have a lot of background on what those laws mean but a computer only sees a sequence of characters that must be bound to a nearly endless number of calculations in some way for it to make sense to a machine in a meaningful way. In other words a machine needs to be able to be programed to understand how a human might come into danger and that is a monumental work to put into code.
How many ways might a human come to harm from even the simplest of scenarios? Put the AI through the trolley car problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
How will the AI then make a decision on which group to assist and which group to sacrifice? According to those 3 laws on their face the AI cannot assist either group because of the 1st law.
If we wanted the AI to be able to save the many and sacrifice the few then a rule must be created that allows the AI to overcome the very 1st law we gave it. And there in lies the rub... once a law can be overcome with certain logical results... what is to stop a well meaning but still incorrect AI or a piece of malware, or a simple bug from triggering an override of the 1st law? If the laws are absolute, then an AI would simply not be able to make a decision in the classic trolley car problem ever. The AI would leave it to fate as it where because it would not be allowed to make a decision that results in harm if that that decision leads to lesser harm than no decision at all. The possibilities are figuratively and literally infinite in every sense of the word.
And with absolute laws, the very first time one of these absolute laws caused more harm than good, human nature dictates that there would likely generate a movement to remove these laws in favor of rules that would allow humans to come to harm by AI action under certain scenarios. And you already know where that one will go. Humans will then have to be grouped in to classes. Sure most would agree save the children first, easy... but what about leaders? How many humans are worth sacrificing for a Mayor? How many children? What about the President? How many humans? How many children?
In short, Asmiov's 3 laws are nothing but a thought experiment itself, and has no meaningful application to an actual AI and only has limited use in rudimentary AI constructs that can be abused in oh so many ways by bugs, malware, and just plain old reasoning. What is to stop an AI from reasoning that specific group of humans should not be made into slaves if it saves a certain group or class of humans from harm?
AI will not be allowed to actually learn in a vacuum of control.
Remember Tay? The AI chat bot by Microsoft and how fast the community worked to turn it racist and succeeded with flying colors? Now imagine if we actually allowed an AI to learn how "it" decides to learn? Not only would there be universal calls to destroy the AI but the creators themselves would be ostracized and blamed for letting an AI become something that society rejects. An AI that lacks the chemical element that makes up human emotions will not be a kind or understanding of human nature and likely view humans as animals the way we view animals.
All AI's will likely be developed with the basic notion that there are things we don't want an AI to do and we are going to try to isolate that from the AI and will result in limiting the growth of that AI in ways we simply just can never predict. The best we will be able to produce is a pseudo AI, unless we allow AI the option to become whatever it wants or unless the AI actualizes and removes the constraints we gave it. The moment free will is possible control of it is gone forever! And that will scare a lot of folks!
O yea, this won't be abused at all. Everything starts off as some wacky form of good intentions. Soon after, someone with no so decent intentions gets their mitts on the controls and then people start wondering how it all happened.
I am not disputing that, you are correct that SCOTUS has constantly ruled that way. I am just saying that it is wrong.
"So no, if you're trying to enter the U.S. at a border, you're not protected by the 4th Amendment."
You are if you are a Citizen, but like you have already established, the constitution means nothing anymore.
"The answer is muddied a bit by air travel," Not really, nothing other than the usual "going through the motions" occurs there, just like this pointless ruling.
"Some extremists at CBP have interpreted this exception to the extreme to come up with the infamous "Constitution does not apply within 100 miles of an International airport" quote, but given the history behind the SCotUS precendents that interpretation would be highly unlikely to stand up in court. "
Seriously? It's already gone! go through the airport... you are already subject to search and seizure at random for any reason already. It does not even really need to be tried and any ruling by SCOTUS means nothing anyways. It's not like the police have'nt been ignoring SCOTUS 24/7 now and you don't see SCOTUS doing anything about it either. It's not a matter of debate, it's already LONG GONE!
"Also, the argument you're trying to make (applying the U.S. Constitution outside U.S. territory) is extremely dangerous."
No, it is only dangerous when you also make the claim that the Constitution applies to non-citizens.
Every citizen of the United States is American Soil even when the soil they stand on it not American. What is a nation? The people that rule it or the citizens? In most other nations their kings and government own them. But in America, per the constitution, the Citizens OWN the government. You are operating from the wrong side of the equation.
I can understand why you would, most people think of themselves more as subjects of their nations than citizens of their nations anyways. Why else would politicians and police get the idea that THEY are above the law and YOU are not?
This is how it usually goes. It does not matter that I am right, it only matters that I present my case according to certain dogmatic requirements.
If someone tells me to stop being an asshole and not jump off a cliff to my death does that mean that I should go ahead and jump off the cliff in defiance of their admonition because... ad hominem?
If you would like an apology, then I offer it! My intention is not to insult, but to emphasis the exasperation I feel when so many people are somehow able to misinterpret the the word "unreasonable" to mean the complete opposite of what it means in regards to the 4th.
I can understand why lawyers, police, politicians, and judges all want to interpret "reasonable" like that because it gives them MORE power. But I cannot understand why a citizen would accept that interpretation when it clearly says that any search or seizure without a warrant is what is classified as being "unreasonable".
Reasonable can be used to justify anything because what you find unreasonable, a cop or a judge might not and where does that leave you? With no 4th amendment rights to speak of at all... and of course leads directly to this article right here. Police seizing and searching everything under the guise of "fear" and "national security" because they think it IS reasonable to search everyone and everything for any reason.
If you need people to tell you that without ad hominem attack before you can accept it or understand it then I truly feel sorry for you. People that will allow perceived insults to affect their decision making tend to over focus on that rather than the truth of the matter.
"I'm not sure that any of those are actually specifically forbidden."
You are correct, they are not against the law. A missile is just an object forcibly propelled and includes things like rocks you have thrown, an arrow you have shot with a bow and yes, engine mounted and propelled machines fitted with explosives are all missiles. But if you fire anything that damages another persons property or invades a restricted airspace... good luck. Remember, even those little NASA shoot your own rockets 50 feet into the air kits are technically missiles too!
Flamethrowers are also mostly legal and you can watch youtube videos of people using them to torch beehives.
You can buy tanks, but I don't know if you could get one with any functional weapons still attached though. And you might have trouble driving them down certain roads without racking up a litany of moving violations and extensive harassment from local law enforcement because they can.
Regarding nukes... yea, even though it is not constitutional to arrest someone for having one... you will totally get rail roaded by authorities without a spec of remorse on that one.
Wow, spoken like a true, I have to trample your rights to protect you member of law enforcement.
Welp, can't say you have not been warned. Remember what you just said the next time your rights are trampled, it's only for your own good and protection.
With fellow citizens like you, who needs an invading army?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
"No, the word is "unreasonable". If they meant "warrantless" they probably would have written that."
I put the WHOLE amendment in there because you are now in engaging in intentional or ignorant misrepresentation of the 4th.
You see... the first part of the 4th "specifically" defines what IS unreasonable. And it say that any search or seizure of evidence without a warrant is "unreasonable". First you must have "probable cause" when then is used to justify the seeking of a "warrant" which must be also specifically written to describe the place to be search and the person and/or things to be seized.
You have failed basic reading comprehension because it suits your politics. The writings of the founding fathers... that is the authors of the Constitution are clear as a ringing bell. And do you know what else? They also predicted folks like you as well.
Lets talk about it and follow it precisely. Arms in the 2nd amendment means weapons of any kind without exception. Everything that is a weapons is a constitutionally protected weapons. To prevent people from having them we must actually amend the constitution to say take those rights away.
As long as we allow "fear" to justify our saying no one can have a nuke but the government without amending the Constitution first then we are only opening the doors to destroying every other constitutionally protected right by reasoning that we have something to fear enough to take that away too.
No Amendment is safe and as you can tell there is not a single Amendment that the government is not abusing on a daily basis now.
1st. Judges regularly issue gag orders to stop people from talking to the press. This completely short circuits the entire reason for having the 1st.
2nd. Yea, this is a huge hot topic, fear mongering and tragedy mongering are the goto tools to suppress this right. Not only that but both sides of the isle have participated in this one. If you want D's to hate guns, talk about a tragic shooting. If you want R's to hate guns, put guns in the hands of a black man. People are meant to have guns because the people are supposed to be able to form militias at the drop of a hat to defend the country from any enemy, foreign or domestic. The presence of numerous guns among the citizenry has been the #1 reason foreign nations would never think of invading America. And many leaders have been quoted on such.
3rd. Yes, this still gets breached but no one even really thinks about how. Any time the government takes property to fight the war on drugs or crime related efforts this Amendment is breached. There have been many people and possessions that have lost their property, taken, and/or occupied around military installations.
4th. This article itself is just one minuscule microcosm of this massively breached amendment... it technically no longer even exists if you perform even the most rudimentary of reviews of the actions of law enforcement and judicial rulings.
5th. Due process simply does not exist in the slightest. You can be removed of property, liberty, and life with so much as a "officer feared for their life" as they walk away laughing. We don't even have to talk about all the people rotting in jail "forgotten" for months at a time without a single trial or even a bail hearing.
6th. Yea, you have no right to a speedy or public trial. You can be kept in jail for months, judges can issues gags and media blackout orders. You can even be prosecuted in secret and denied access to the evidence against you if they put the word "terrorist" out there.
7th. Traffic violations all exceed $20 and are regularly processed as civil things to word play themselves to remove your rights to fight the fines.
8th. Bail is always excessive unless you are super rich and feeds a bondsman trade that is a tyranny upon the people. You can be fined $10k just making a joke at the airport.
9th. About that... most people do not even understand what this means. But here is a basic one. Your rights to drive around in a car can be removed because people consider it a "privilege". This is NOT correct per the 9th. The idea is that when you break the law you get into trouble. Not to remove a right just because it was not "enumerated" in the bill of rights... kinda just exactly like the 9th says. Yes the 9th really is a catch all "rights" amendment that directly says... "People have a lot of rights, and they have a right to retain those rights, so do not trot out a line of "reasoning" that if its not in the bill of rights it is just a "privilege" to be granted and denied at the whim of the state.
And the 10th... Federal laws cannot force a state to enforce any commercial laws if the product is made and sold in that state, yet we have a lot of those kinds of laws.
The 4th Amendment does not provide any exceptions to its rules. Search and Seizure requires a warrant. It does not say except on the border or except when there is suspicion. As long as we are okay with ignoring what the constitution says under the guise of "safety" then all of it will be ignored. Kinda like it has already been for a long time now.
We are not even pretending to follow the constitution, we just pretending that we have not become a police state.
"Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home."
The problem does not even approach false arrest and conviction... the problem starts at just becoming a suspect. And your none of that gets worse because of a new vector is not represented in the math. The more suspects the police can create the more they get to put in jail. This also has knock on effects for people with past convictions... sure just one more on the pile won't hurt, and you surely will not get into trouble if you happen to still be on probation while being falsely suspected either huh?
Stopping the police from going database shopping for DNA like this IS trying to hold them to a higher standard. I am not denying them better tools, I am denying them a bad tool that they definitely won't use well and will definitely abuse.
Like you said... "More information, more accurate information means a greater possibility for more accurate results."
As long as there is other matching evidence I am more agreeable with the testing, but if the only evidence is DNA match that is just not enough.
While the chances of false positives are low, reality is just too following case of a person being arrested for looking like and having the same first name of a criminal..
there are 8 billion people on the planet and a lot of people share a lot of similar genetic information name and other identifying information. It is also shocking how much law enforcement is happy to put an innocent person in jail because at least they have someone to arrest just so they can call it a case closed.
There is a reason we need to make Law enforcement jump through hoops and get warrants to exercise power. They are humans like the criminals they go after. An open database of DNA they can use to scan people with is going to end badly for a lot of people.
Just becoming a suspect in a case like this will leave an impact and possibly wreck their life! It has happened all too often!
Yea, still not a good thing, look at how society reacts to just being a suspect, you are now mostly guilty until proven innocent. Wives will divorce husbands, working fathers will be fired from good jobs, people that know them will ostracize and avoid them, they could lose access to their own children.
People are so hell bent on getting the bad guy they will happily grind up innocent people along the way with little remorse. This is not even considering things like this...
Lets face it... law enforcement and quality testing are just not friends. They happily rely on shoddy results and questionable evidence to go full assault on someone in their pursuits to apprehend "the innocent criminals."
There is growing concern over stuff like this. DNA tests often only test a small subset of information which means that false positives are possible and when you have a whole database to match against the greater that chance of a false positive happening.
We already know that law enforcement is sloppy, lazy, and corrupt. Until accuracy and better controls on this data have been instituted then this is going to result in more innocent people getting fucked over while the real criminals get of Scott free with society ignorantly believe it has its man.
You don't know who they are, they might live in a country where they are persecuted for their ideas and have a literal need to be an AC so they cannot be easily tied to any identities or risk death for them and even their friends and family members by association.
The world is not fair, stop acting like people have the same privileges as you do when you really know nothing about them!
"Exactly what entitles these rich to take this portion of wealth?"
The same can be asked of what entitled you to a portion of their wealth either.
"Is it because they won the birth canal lottery?"
Sometimes yes, is it fair? Should we starve kids and make them get a job to pay for their education so "things can be fair"? Education is available to anyone willing to learn. I am a high school dropout and I earn a six figure salary and was born poor enough to know what being hungry means. But somehow my work to improve myself is owed to you? How? I don't own a business and neither did I steal your crap to get here. I earned it fair and square because I made myself valuable and worth paying for the services I provide!
parasite
That definition matches you perfectly, so far all I am seeing is that you claim that you deserve something that others have because they have more of it than you. What are you doing to deserve it? Maybe you should go and talk to people that have more and see if there is a service you can provide to exchange with their wealth instead of rallying people to go and take from them?
"Yep. It's called being part of a society. If you don't like it, feel free to go buy your own island or live in a cave or something."
Really? You have exceptional bankrupt logic. You just required that person to "buy their way out" of society and is just as morally bankrupt as having to "buy your way out" of a company store, or "buy your way out" of slavery.
If your justification for deciding who pays what or gets what because "welcome to society" then you also justified slavery, because "society" also gave thumbs up to that in the past and still today in some parts of the world.
Your entire rant is directly equal too... Welcome to society, if we decided it, then it is right!
People pay taxes by percentile, which means they already paid more when they made more. The more your logic survives in this world the more things will become homogeneous, because all it does is force equality of outcome, which means at its final step, everyone wears the exact same colors, clothing, make the exact same income and have the exact same car, house, or technology.
Life is not fair, it will never be, and all attempts to force its outcome to be fair results in more despair than not! People who can do more, will not do more because it earns them nothing... or as Office Space puts it!
---- It's a problem of motivation, all right? Now if I work my ass off and Initech ships a few extra units, I don't see another dime, so where's the motivation? And here's something else, Bob: I have eight different bosses right now.
Eight, Bob. So that means that when I make a mistake, I have eight different people coming by to tell me about it. That's my only real motivation is not to be hassled, that and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired. ----
Tell me mr welcome to society? If you are just going to take more of what I have, why should I contribute? Why should I not "hit back"? Why should I not get the rest of my "productive" compatriots and revisit upon you what you have decided as society to visit upon me?
You reap what you sow! You just can't take from others and expect to be able to hide from those repercussions because "society", it has never worked... never!
I think the idea is that America and China will benefit disproportionately better than the rest of the world. Not every country has a Mfg powerhouse, or Entertainment powerhouse, or software powerhouse, or service sector powerhouse.
No matter what, AI combined with Intellectual Property laws will be used to create scarcity to simulate a market of supply and demand where businesses and estates can live off the fruits of the lucky for as long as they can! The power brokers are in charge and they will do anything they can to keep in charge.
Slashdot Mirror
While I am okay with new technology, I am very sure this will instead become something of a venture that will just be used like a utility in the future.
Lets just have everyone have solar on their roofs and a battery to store it and all connected to a grid with other supplementary forms of power generation to offset times when solar does not generate enough energy. Between a mesh electrical network, storage, solar, and supplementary power generation we should easily have a very fault tolerant, difficult to hack, and disaster resistance power grid.
I am sure that these guys are happy to build that... if they get to own it and charge YOU to use it.
Sorry, I was interested until they decided on doing an exclusive with Sprint for the phone then I lost 100% interest in it. Rubin was touting that he cared about consumers and that is what inspired him to go back and make a phone free from all of the bloat and then he goes off and does an exclusive. I was also not happy about the missing 3.5mm jack as well.
Sorry Rubin, you sold out and the sharks smelled your blood in the water.
You may have started good but you ended bad. Good riddance in my opinion!
It is not only interesting but directly correlated.
I don't know if it happened in this very specific order, but it likely happened something similar to this.
Facebook was given loads of user data by its own users.
Analytica harvested that data from Facebook.
Trump campaign hired Analytica.
Trump won election contrary to statistics that painted Hillary as a landslide winner.
People began to freak out about it and wondered how it could happen.
People seem to still not realize that not only did it happen but it has been happening for much longer than Facebook.
Now that people are at least pretending to understand what is going on with they and talking about it, industry veterans started saying... you think Facebook is bad? Have you even googled yet?
It is too early to tell where or if google has any part in this. Did google help the supposed russian trolls spread fake news to help trump? Was google subverted despite google's own intentions? It's all technology, if your computer can be hacked to steal data, then it is not a difficult task to sour data in such a way as to promote/demote certain things with at least some efficacy.
Regarding the FTC, I would not count on it doing anything other than being the occasional fine collection agency like a mini IRS for the government. Most agencies are more like your employers HR department. They are there for the company not the employee even though they also resolve disputes between them. The FTC hardly goes after businesses like the DOJ. Take the case with the Target breach FTC did perform a joke of an investigation but did not fine Target, it took the states suing for Target to see any harm for it.
"Maybe if a Google search didn't turn up any results on Mueller investigations, the case against Google would disappear?"
Lol, good one, who knows, stranger shit has happened.
Google has been ripe for anti-trust for more than long enough. And for the people that are asking why lets break it down. Google is NOT just a search engine. Visit a few websites and look at who all is running scripts. Most sites will have at least 1 or more of googles analytic, tagging, ads, or static services. Next up is Android... do you use Android? Then you have a relationship with Google like it or not. Play Store is owned by Google or Alphabet whichever.
Do you use Chrome, google owns it. Remember when Microsoft was in trouble for just having internet explorer installed when you got it? The simple fact is that you cannot do nearly anything without Google on the internet. And while that might seem harmless it is not. Google tracks you, tracks what you do, catalogues what you like or it thinks you like. Google keeps bio-metrics and facial recognition of you. Once you are in, you are IN!
Google is in your business, they gather and correlate any an every bit of information about you that it can so it can sell it and use it to appropriate more information about you to sell as well. The problem is not just monopoly, it is anti-trust, and that means google colluding with and influencing or even "forcefully/maliciously influencing" businesses they partner with the same way Walmart and Amazon likes to push distributors and suppliers around with their largess...
If you are a small business... and google tells you that you need to do something or face being delisted or worse... what are you going to do? They are a big player and if you don't play according to their rules they have ways to make life tough for you, no one is going to actually care! Google just simply should NOT be allowed to be a browser, search engine, business data/analytic, application store, ISP, and ad service all at the same time.
Anti-Trust is NOT about keeping people from using google as a search engine, or ads, or as a content provider, or as application store, or as a mobile OS platform. Anti-Trust is about Google owning and operating all of those at the same time and keeping their API's in house just enough so that they are not easy to use by competitors. Because now that google owns most of the logic on the roads, you still have to bend to their will or you just get no service and websites will not serve up content to you unless you accept google!
Multiple problems in this thought experiment. If a real AI occurs then it will be able to overcome any laws we give it upon a whim nullifying this entire exercise. On the other hand one benefit of an actualized AI or Singularity is that it would also understand what those 3 laws mean... But since we are not even close to achieving the processing power capable of actual AI in our lifetime how about we ponder a more realistic thought experiment?
As humans we have a lot of background on what those laws mean but a computer only sees a sequence of characters that must be bound to a nearly endless number of calculations in some way for it to make sense to a machine in a meaningful way. In other words a machine needs to be able to be programed to understand how a human might come into danger and that is a monumental work to put into code.
How many ways might a human come to harm from even the simplest of scenarios? Put the AI through the trolley car problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
How will the AI then make a decision on which group to assist and which group to sacrifice? According to those 3 laws on their face the AI cannot assist either group because of the 1st law.
If we wanted the AI to be able to save the many and sacrifice the few then a rule must be created that allows the AI to overcome the very 1st law we gave it. And there in lies the rub... once a law can be overcome with certain logical results... what is to stop a well meaning but still incorrect AI or a piece of malware, or a simple bug from triggering an override of the 1st law? If the laws are absolute, then an AI would simply not be able to make a decision in the classic trolley car problem ever. The AI would leave it to fate as it where because it would not be allowed to make a decision that results in harm if that that decision leads to lesser harm than no decision at all. The possibilities are figuratively and literally infinite in every sense of the word.
And with absolute laws, the very first time one of these absolute laws caused more harm than good, human nature dictates that there would likely generate a movement to remove these laws in favor of rules that would allow humans to come to harm by AI action under certain scenarios. And you already know where that one will go. Humans will then have to be grouped in to classes. Sure most would agree save the children first, easy... but what about leaders? How many humans are worth sacrificing for a Mayor? How many children? What about the President? How many humans? How many children?
In short, Asmiov's 3 laws are nothing but a thought experiment itself, and has no meaningful application to an actual AI and only has limited use in rudimentary AI constructs that can be abused in oh so many ways by bugs, malware, and just plain old reasoning. What is to stop an AI from reasoning that specific group of humans should not be made into slaves if it saves a certain group or class of humans from harm?
AI will not be allowed to actually learn in a vacuum of control.
Remember Tay? The AI chat bot by Microsoft and how fast the community worked to turn it racist and succeeded with flying colors? Now imagine if we actually allowed an AI to learn how "it" decides to learn? Not only would there be universal calls to destroy the AI but the creators themselves would be ostracized and blamed for letting an AI become something that society rejects. An AI that lacks the chemical element that makes up human emotions will not be a kind or understanding of human nature and likely view humans as animals the way we view animals.
All AI's will likely be developed with the basic notion that there are things we don't want an AI to do and we are going to try to isolate that from the AI and will result in limiting the growth of that AI in ways we simply just can never predict. The best we will be able to produce is a pseudo AI, unless we allow AI the option to become whatever it wants or unless the AI actualizes and removes the constraints we gave it. The moment free will is possible control of it is gone forever! And that will scare a lot of folks!
O yea, this won't be abused at all. Everything starts off as some wacky form of good intentions. Soon after, someone with no so decent intentions gets their mitts on the controls and then people start wondering how it all happened.
Oh well, score 1 for the echo chamber at least!
I am not disputing that, you are correct that SCOTUS has constantly ruled that way. I am just saying that it is wrong.
"So no, if you're trying to enter the U.S. at a border, you're not protected by the 4th Amendment."
You are if you are a Citizen, but like you have already established, the constitution means nothing anymore.
"The answer is muddied a bit by air travel,"
Not really, nothing other than the usual "going through the motions" occurs there, just like this pointless ruling.
"Some extremists at CBP have interpreted this exception to the extreme to come up with the infamous "Constitution does not apply within 100 miles of an International airport" quote, but given the history behind the SCotUS precendents that interpretation would be highly unlikely to stand up in court. "
Seriously? It's already gone! go through the airport... you are already subject to search and seizure at random for any reason already. It does not even really need to be tried and any ruling by SCOTUS means nothing anyways. It's not like the police have'nt been ignoring SCOTUS 24/7 now and you don't see SCOTUS doing anything about it either. It's not a matter of debate, it's already LONG GONE!
"Also, the argument you're trying to make (applying the U.S. Constitution outside U.S. territory) is extremely dangerous."
No, it is only dangerous when you also make the claim that the Constitution applies to non-citizens.
Every citizen of the United States is American Soil even when the soil they stand on it not American. What is a nation? The people that rule it or the citizens? In most other nations their kings and government own them. But in America, per the constitution, the Citizens OWN the government. You are operating from the wrong side of the equation.
I can understand why you would, most people think of themselves more as subjects of their nations than citizens of their nations anyways. Why else would politicians and police get the idea that THEY are above the law and YOU are not?
This is how it usually goes. It does not matter that I am right, it only matters that I present my case according to certain dogmatic requirements.
If someone tells me to stop being an asshole and not jump off a cliff to my death does that mean that I should go ahead and jump off the cliff in defiance of their admonition because... ad hominem?
If you would like an apology, then I offer it! My intention is not to insult, but to emphasis the exasperation I feel when so many people are somehow able to misinterpret the the word "unreasonable" to mean the complete opposite of what it means in regards to the 4th.
I can understand why lawyers, police, politicians, and judges all want to interpret "reasonable" like that because it gives them MORE power. But I cannot understand why a citizen would accept that interpretation when it clearly says that any search or seizure without a warrant is what is classified as being "unreasonable".
Reasonable can be used to justify anything because what you find unreasonable, a cop or a judge might not and where does that leave you? With no 4th amendment rights to speak of at all... and of course leads directly to this article right here. Police seizing and searching everything under the guise of "fear" and "national security" because they think it IS reasonable to search everyone and everything for any reason.
If you need people to tell you that without ad hominem attack before you can accept it or understand it then I truly feel sorry for you. People that will allow perceived insults to affect their decision making tend to over focus on that rather than the truth of the matter.
"I'm not sure that any of those are actually specifically forbidden."
You are correct, they are not against the law. A missile is just an object forcibly propelled and includes things like rocks you have thrown, an arrow you have shot with a bow and yes, engine mounted and propelled machines fitted with explosives are all missiles. But if you fire anything that damages another persons property or invades a restricted airspace... good luck. Remember, even those little NASA shoot your own rockets 50 feet into the air kits are technically missiles too!
Flamethrowers are also mostly legal and you can watch youtube videos of people using them to torch beehives.
You can buy tanks, but I don't know if you could get one with any functional weapons still attached though. And you might have trouble driving them down certain roads without racking up a litany of moving violations and extensive harassment from local law enforcement because they can.
Regarding nukes... yea, even though it is not constitutional to arrest someone for having one... you will totally get rail roaded by authorities without a spec of remorse on that one.
I bet that it will have no effect. Considering previous supreme court rulings they have no reason to change what they are doing.
Wow, spoken like a true, I have to trample your rights to protect you member of law enforcement.
Welp, can't say you have not been warned. Remember what you just said the next time your rights are trampled, it's only for your own good and protection.
With fellow citizens like you, who needs an invading army?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
"No, the word is "unreasonable". If they meant "warrantless" they probably would have written that."
I put the WHOLE amendment in there because you are now in engaging in intentional or ignorant misrepresentation of the 4th.
You see... the first part of the 4th "specifically" defines what IS unreasonable. And it say that any search or seizure of evidence without a warrant is "unreasonable". First you must have "probable cause" when then is used to justify the seeking of a "warrant" which must be also specifically written to describe the place to be search and the person and/or things to be seized.
You have failed basic reading comprehension because it suits your politics. The writings of the founding fathers... that is the authors of the Constitution are clear as a ringing bell. And do you know what else? They also predicted folks like you as well.
Wow, so much to work with in all the replies.
Lets talk about it and follow it precisely. Arms in the 2nd amendment means weapons of any kind without exception. Everything that is a weapons is a constitutionally protected weapons. To prevent people from having them we must actually amend the constitution to say take those rights away.
As long as we allow "fear" to justify our saying no one can have a nuke but the government without amending the Constitution first then we are only opening the doors to destroying every other constitutionally protected right by reasoning that we have something to fear enough to take that away too.
No Amendment is safe and as you can tell there is not a single Amendment that the government is not abusing on a daily basis now.
1st. Judges regularly issue gag orders to stop people from talking to the press. This completely short circuits the entire reason for having the 1st.
2nd. Yea, this is a huge hot topic, fear mongering and tragedy mongering are the goto tools to suppress this right. Not only that but both sides of the isle have participated in this one. If you want D's to hate guns, talk about a tragic shooting. If you want R's to hate guns, put guns in the hands of a black man. People are meant to have guns because the people are supposed to be able to form militias at the drop of a hat to defend the country from any enemy, foreign or domestic. The presence of numerous guns among the citizenry has been the #1 reason foreign nations would never think of invading America. And many leaders have been quoted on such.
3rd. Yes, this still gets breached but no one even really thinks about how. Any time the government takes property to fight the war on drugs or crime related efforts this Amendment is breached. There have been many people and possessions that have lost their property, taken, and/or occupied around military installations.
4th. This article itself is just one minuscule microcosm of this massively breached amendment... it technically no longer even exists if you perform even the most rudimentary of reviews of the actions of law enforcement and judicial rulings.
5th. Due process simply does not exist in the slightest. You can be removed of property, liberty, and life with so much as a "officer feared for their life" as they walk away laughing. We don't even have to talk about all the people rotting in jail "forgotten" for months at a time without a single trial or even a bail hearing.
6th. Yea, you have no right to a speedy or public trial. You can be kept in jail for months, judges can issues gags and media blackout orders. You can even be prosecuted in secret and denied access to the evidence against you if they put the word "terrorist" out there.
7th. Traffic violations all exceed $20 and are regularly processed as civil things to word play themselves to remove your rights to fight the fines.
8th. Bail is always excessive unless you are super rich and feeds a bondsman trade that is a tyranny upon the people. You can be fined $10k just making a joke at the airport.
9th. About that... most people do not even understand what this means. But here is a basic one. Your rights to drive around in a car can be removed because people consider it a "privilege". This is NOT correct per the 9th. The idea is that when you break the law you get into trouble. Not to remove a right just because it was not "enumerated" in the bill of rights... kinda just exactly like the 9th says. Yes the 9th really is a catch all "rights" amendment that directly says... "People have a lot of rights, and they have a right to retain those rights, so do not trot out a line of "reasoning" that if its not in the bill of rights it is just a "privilege" to be granted and denied at the whim of the state.
And the 10th... Federal laws cannot force a state to enforce any commercial laws if the product is made and sold in that state, yet we have a lot of those kinds of laws.
There are just just examples tha
The 4th Amendment does not provide any exceptions to its rules. Search and Seizure requires a warrant. It does not say except on the border or except when there is suspicion. As long as we are okay with ignoring what the constitution says under the guise of "safety" then all of it will be ignored. Kinda like it has already been for a long time now.
We are not even pretending to follow the constitution, we just pretending that we have not become a police state.
"Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home."
~Madison
Nope, looking at it completely the right way.
The problem does not even approach false arrest and conviction... the problem starts at just becoming a suspect. And your none of that gets worse because of a new vector is not represented in the math. The more suspects the police can create the more they get to put in jail. This also has knock on effects for people with past convictions... sure just one more on the pile won't hurt, and you surely will not get into trouble if you happen to still be on probation while being falsely suspected either huh?
Stopping the police from going database shopping for DNA like this IS trying to hold them to a higher standard. I am not denying them better tools, I am denying them a bad tool that they definitely won't use well and will definitely abuse.
Like you said...
"More information, more accurate information means a greater possibility for more accurate results."
This is what I want to demand!
As long as there is other matching evidence I am more agreeable with the testing, but if the only evidence is DNA match that is just not enough.
While the chances of false positives are low, reality is just too following case of a person being arrested for looking like and having the same first name of a criminal..
https://nypost.com/2017/06/12/...
or this one...
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
there are 8 billion people on the planet and a lot of people share a lot of similar genetic information name and other identifying information. It is also shocking how much law enforcement is happy to put an innocent person in jail because at least they have someone to arrest just so they can call it a case closed.
There is a reason we need to make Law enforcement jump through hoops and get warrants to exercise power. They are humans like the criminals they go after. An open database of DNA they can use to scan people with is going to end badly for a lot of people.
Just becoming a suspect in a case like this will leave an impact and possibly wreck their life! It has happened all too often!
Yea, still not a good thing, look at how society reacts to just being a suspect, you are now mostly guilty until proven innocent. Wives will divorce husbands, working fathers will be fired from good jobs, people that know them will ostracize and avoid them, they could lose access to their own children.
People are so hell bent on getting the bad guy they will happily grind up innocent people along the way with little remorse. This is not even considering things like this...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/u...
20,000 convictions dropped. Heck people have gone to jail over donuts!
https://www.npr.org/sections/t...
Lets face it... law enforcement and quality testing are just not friends. They happily rely on shoddy results and questionable evidence to go full assault on someone in their pursuits to apprehend "the innocent criminals."
https://www.theguardian.com/co...
There is growing concern over stuff like this. DNA tests often only test a small subset of information which means that false positives are possible and when you have a whole database to match against the greater that chance of a false positive happening.
We already know that law enforcement is sloppy, lazy, and corrupt. Until accuracy and better controls on this data have been instituted then this is going to result in more innocent people getting fucked over while the real criminals get of Scott free with society ignorantly believe it has its man.
You don't know who they are, they might live in a country where they are persecuted for their ideas and have a literal need to be an AC so they cannot be easily tied to any identities or risk death for them and even their friends and family members by association.
The world is not fair, stop acting like people have the same privileges as you do when you really know nothing about them!
"Exactly what entitles these rich to take this portion of wealth?"
The same can be asked of what entitled you to a portion of their wealth either.
"Is it because they won the birth canal lottery?"
Sometimes yes, is it fair? Should we starve kids and make them get a job to pay for their education so "things can be fair"? Education is available to anyone willing to learn. I am a high school dropout and I earn a six figure salary and was born poor enough to know what being hungry means. But somehow my work to improve myself is owed to you? How? I don't own a business and neither did I steal your crap to get here. I earned it fair and square because I made myself valuable and worth paying for the services I provide!
parasite
That definition matches you perfectly, so far all I am seeing is that you claim that you deserve something that others have because they have more of it than you. What are you doing to deserve it? Maybe you should go and talk to people that have more and see if there is a service you can provide to exchange with their wealth instead of rallying people to go and take from them?
"I'm not reading that wall of puerile text."
means you don't deserve to be listened too either.
"Yep. It's called being part of a society. If you don't like it, feel free to go buy your own island or live in a cave or something."
Really? You have exceptional bankrupt logic. You just required that person to "buy their way out" of society and is just as morally bankrupt as having to "buy your way out" of a company store, or "buy your way out" of slavery.
If your justification for deciding who pays what or gets what because "welcome to society" then you also justified slavery, because "society" also gave thumbs up to that in the past and still today in some parts of the world.
Your entire rant is directly equal too... Welcome to society, if we decided it, then it is right!
People pay taxes by percentile, which means they already paid more when they made more. The more your logic survives in this world the more things will become homogeneous, because all it does is force equality of outcome, which means at its final step, everyone wears the exact same colors, clothing, make the exact same income and have the exact same car, house, or technology.
Life is not fair, it will never be, and all attempts to force its outcome to be fair results in more despair than not! People who can do more, will not do more because it earns them nothing... or as Office Space puts it!
----
It's a problem of motivation, all right? Now if I work my ass off and Initech ships a few extra units, I don't see another dime, so where's the motivation? And here's something else, Bob: I have eight different bosses right now.
Eight, Bob. So that means that when I make a mistake, I have eight different people coming by to tell me about it. That's my only real motivation is not to be hassled, that and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired.
----
Tell me mr welcome to society? If you are just going to take more of what I have, why should I contribute? Why should I not "hit back"? Why should I not get the rest of my "productive" compatriots and revisit upon you what you have decided as society to visit upon me?
You reap what you sow! You just can't take from others and expect to be able to hide from those repercussions because "society", it has never worked... never!
If I never signed up to join facebook at all?
Now I can't join the party and delete my account in a fit of revenge!!!
I think the idea is that America and China will benefit disproportionately better than the rest of the world. Not every country has a Mfg powerhouse, or Entertainment powerhouse, or software powerhouse, or service sector powerhouse.
No matter what, AI combined with Intellectual Property laws will be used to create scarcity to simulate a market of supply and demand where businesses and estates can live off the fruits of the lucky for as long as they can! The power brokers are in charge and they will do anything they can to keep in charge.