"Old age" is not a real cause of death, kind of like "natural causes." Those are just terms we use when it's too much work to determine what actually killed someone. As we get better at diagnosing people, we'll use those terms less and less.
That said, the older you get, the more likely your body is to fail...
So here I am, an indie-turned-professional game developer, who has not really followed along with the controversy. I don't read much game-related journalism, and my games aren't quite big enough to get media attention themselves.
In short, I'm not familiar with the controversy, and I don't have a whole lot of stake in it. Nor do I have a whole lot of time to devote to it. So how should I judge it?
I guess I could take a Slashdot user's word, especially if the user was voted +5. That's something.
On the other hand, I could trust the Extra Credits. As a game developer myself, I can tell that they do their research on game-development-related topics, so I would assume they'd do their research on Internet movements as well.
I could trust the CEO I work for, who has done a statistical analysis demonstrating that women in the game industry get harassed (at least slightly) more than men.
Or how about Newsweek? Gamergate only claims that gaming journalism is corrupt, right? Other journalists should be fine, right?
Or I could go to Wikipedia. After all, Wikipedia attempts to cite its sources and provide a neutral point of view. Wikipedia doesn't take a stance on what the movement is "really" about, nor does it state whether there is or isn't any corruption. But it does state that certain allegations against Nathan Grayson that are false. You do agree that Nathan Grayson is not guilty of everything he's been accused of, right? Because otherwise, I'll be forced to conclude that you're simply denying the facts of the situation.
Are you really going to tell me that, even though I haven't found a single reliable source agreeing with you, I should ignore them and take your word for it? Are you going to tell me that even Wikipedia is in on the conspiracy?
Even if you could hypothetically make a human-like AI that's a lot smarter than the smartest human on the planet: I don't think you've noticed, but reality doesn't always favor the most intelligent.
Maybe not always, but usually. Besides, do you think humans took over the planet through brute strength?
All of this for reducing Carbon Dioxide - which is not proven to be a pollutant, and for reducing global warming - even when there is no proof that human activities are impacting climate.
There is still some debate, but the scientific majority accepts that climate change is at least partially caused by people, and the debate has moved on to how we can stop changing the climate.
"Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions."
That isn't to say that this particular bill is the answer. It might help in the long term, but this is probably not the time to propose it, judging by the number of people attacking it for economic reasons.
Wikipedia has certain terms of use, notably their conflict of interest policy. The Church of Scientology has consistently violated this policy, and it is only reasonable that it be blocked. This doesn't infringe on the Church's ability to say what it likes; it simply prevents the Church from doing so on Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia:
"There [must be] no other bodies of comparable size other than its own satellites" in a body's orbit for that body to be classified as a planet. Give the IAU some credit; they wouldn't make a definition that demoted Earth.
Go to Settings -> Filters -> Create a new filter. Paste "in:spam" into the "has the words" box. Click next and ignore the warning that it will not be filtered. Check "Delete it" and click "Create filter."
I've been successfully filtering messages identified as spam for a while now. (I'll admit that I marked them as read rather than deleting them, but there shouldn't be much difference.)
Slashdot Mirror
"Old age" is not a real cause of death, kind of like "natural causes." Those are just terms we use when it's too much work to determine what actually killed someone. As we get better at diagnosing people, we'll use those terms less and less.
That said, the older you get, the more likely your body is to fail...
It does exactly what it's designed to do
It does what it's programmed to do. There's a difference.
Aren't software bugs the most likely cause of an AI harming people? It's not like we'd intentionally program it to hurt us...
So here I am, an indie-turned-professional game developer, who has not really followed along with the controversy. I don't read much game-related journalism, and my games aren't quite big enough to get media attention themselves.
In short, I'm not familiar with the controversy, and I don't have a whole lot of stake in it. Nor do I have a whole lot of time to devote to it. So how should I judge it?
I guess I could take a Slashdot user's word, especially if the user was voted +5. That's something.
On the other hand, I could trust the Extra Credits. As a game developer myself, I can tell that they do their research on game-development-related topics, so I would assume they'd do their research on Internet movements as well.
I could trust the CEO I work for, who has done a statistical analysis demonstrating that women in the game industry get harassed (at least slightly) more than men.
Or how about Newsweek? Gamergate only claims that gaming journalism is corrupt, right? Other journalists should be fine, right?
Or I could go to Wikipedia. After all, Wikipedia attempts to cite its sources and provide a neutral point of view. Wikipedia doesn't take a stance on what the movement is "really" about, nor does it state whether there is or isn't any corruption. But it does state that certain allegations against Nathan Grayson that are false. You do agree that Nathan Grayson is not guilty of everything he's been accused of, right? Because otherwise, I'll be forced to conclude that you're simply denying the facts of the situation.
Are you really going to tell me that, even though I haven't found a single reliable source agreeing with you, I should ignore them and take your word for it? Are you going to tell me that even Wikipedia is in on the conspiracy?
Even if you could hypothetically make a human-like AI that's a lot smarter than the smartest human on the planet: I don't think you've noticed, but reality doesn't always favor the most intelligent.
Maybe not always, but usually. Besides, do you think humans took over the planet through brute strength?
I was expecting this to end in a bunch of gibberish and possibly a segmentation fault.
I was expecting that to end with a bunch of gibberish and possibly a segmentation fault.
All of this for reducing Carbon Dioxide - which is not proven to be a pollutant, and for reducing global warming - even when there is no proof that human activities are impacting climate.
There is still some debate, but the scientific majority accepts that climate change is at least partially caused by people, and the debate has moved on to how we can stop changing the climate.
"Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions."
That isn't to say that this particular bill is the answer. It might help in the long term, but this is probably not the time to propose it, judging by the number of people attacking it for economic reasons.
Wikipedia has certain terms of use, notably their conflict of interest policy. The Church of Scientology has consistently violated this policy, and it is only reasonable that it be blocked. This doesn't infringe on the Church's ability to say what it likes; it simply prevents the Church from doing so on Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia: "There [must be] no other bodies of comparable size other than its own satellites" in a body's orbit for that body to be classified as a planet. Give the IAU some credit; they wouldn't make a definition that demoted Earth.
Go to Settings -> Filters -> Create a new filter. Paste "in:spam" into the "has the words" box. Click next and ignore the warning that it will not be filtered. Check "Delete it" and click "Create filter." I've been successfully filtering messages identified as spam for a while now. (I'll admit that I marked them as read rather than deleting them, but there shouldn't be much difference.)