Plenty of automation is built these days using some sort of AI. A hand-crafted expert system (just a big ass decision graph), would be automation without any AI. If you have an AI generate an expert system from a big-ass data set of medical records, that's AI helping automate away the job of doctors. Chess programs are almost exclusively made by an AI training some algorithm. Once you have that algorithm and play it against a human, that's automating the game of chess.
AI has been around since the 70's, but it's being used for a lot more applications as of late.
No dude, "Calls to violence" as in "Hey everyone let's go murder specific person X at 5pm tomarrow". That's... a call to violence. That's separate from the fire in the theatre thing. It's pretty blatantly illegal. Essentially it's publicly planning a murder. That's bad. We're not free to say such things. It's a pretty reasonable restriction on free speech. No one except crazy-pants libertarians who want to privatize the police suggest otherwise.
This is NOT, "incite to violence" as in doing something which makes other people violent. I think you extrapolated that from the theatre thing. In the US, that's mostly legal. You can be as insulting as you want to... most people. Slander (which is supposed to be lies, but it depends on the quality of your lawyer) and some hate speech will land you in trouble.
Banning/Making the entire English language "illegal" because it _might_ be mis-used is utteraly retarded.
Agreed. Yeah... we showed that straw-man what for. Fuck that guy.
(no, seriously, you can't bitch about someone needing to wear big-boy pants and then.... stray into this level of mental gymnastics. As someone who fundamentally agrees with my own political stances, you've really got to keep a lid on the crazy rants. You're making me look bad and not really helping the cause.)
They are legally allowed to put additional qualifiers onto the Contract between them and you (as long as none of them are illegal.
. . . discrimination (I'm sorry "putting additional qualifiers") is legal as long as it's not illegal? Come on man... you're just dancing around the issue. Sssiiiiiigh, fine, in terms you're using: some hotels used to put the additional qualifier of being white and didn't let people of color into their establishment. This was deemed "bad" and made into an illegal form of discrimination.
But fine fine.... let's not say... "we shouldn't force people to do provide services" how about instead we say "We should allow people to put additional qualifiers on the whether or not they'll provide a service"? Does that sound better? Because it's the exact same thing.
You are correct that there are always (natural) consequences for our actions.
It's actually quite natural for the biggest thug in the room to inflict pain and suffering on anyone that says something they don't agree with. Natural, but kinda shitty. The biggest thug would be the government, practically be definition. At least Hobbes's. But we've had that wonderful enlightenment and kinda sorta put a leash on it. Now it has to follow laws and stuff, which seems like a step in the right direction. One of which is that it at least, should try to adhere to the ideal of free speech. And I too would try to adhere to it, and I wouldn't censor people without damn good reason.
The saddest damn thing is that you and I are practically on the exact same page, but we're both bitching about nuance. Makes me worry about the nature of politics.
Free speech is a contract between government and its citizens.
Nope. Free speech is an ideal that came out of the Age of Enlightenment before my government even existed.
The first amendment is the thing that restricts the government, making sure you have rights and supports the ideal which is free speech.
It is not a wild card
Actually, it is.
No the first amendment is not about
WHOA there. You suddenly changed from talking about Free Speech to talking about the first amendment which is a restriction in the US government. I JUST explained the difference.
Asking someone to shut up, is not censorship.
I think there's a spectrum of censorship that ranges all the way from killing people for thought-crime to.... being minority peeved at something someone said. But sure, a suggestion to shut up is pretty minor censorship. Most people wouldn't even call that censorship and that's fine.
E.g. 'restrictions of free speech' is not censorship.
That is an AMAZING leap of logic right there. What kind of restrictions are you talking about? Because "restrictions" can certainly mean "It's illegal to say something", like suggesting we murder a specific person. That's a call to violence and is a restriction on free speech. You are not free to say such things. Otherwise you will be thrown in jail. Which is a tidbit more strict than being told "shut up".
But considering you somehow didn't actually read my first bit, I doubt you're going to get any learnitude here, so you might as well shut up.
That example always gets trotted out but is is actually false -- for two reasons:
1. if the theater actually IS on fire -- informing others of a problem is NOT illegal,
2. That ISN'T a free speech issue -- it is a property rights issue.
...yeah dude, it's inciting panic and causing bodily harm. If it's actually on fire, that's not illegal, no one has ever suggested it is or should be. It's acknowledging that words can kill. And that's illegal and not protected by free speech. I dunno about "property rights", people died.
It's just an example of the limits of free speech. I notice you ignored the bit about calls to violence. Come on, a big boy would acknowledge there are limits. Children cherrypick.
Downvoting is a knee-jerk reaction. I would hate to apply any sort of legal consequences to that.
Whoa ho ho! there kiddo. It can be a free speech issue with out "legality" entering into the equation. This is about the ideal of free speech, not the legal right keeping government in check. I was asking if downvoting is censorship and runs afoul of your "Either you censor or you don't. PERIOD" idea.
[we shouldn't force people to do provide services] That's a very dangerous party line to tow. Where does it stop?
Historically? When it becomes a social problem. It's illegal for hotels to not serve black people.
I'd like to see some sunset clauses. AND, this is the sort of thing that'll never be made law when it's really needed, unless the federal government is at odds with the local tin-pot tyrants.
And holy shit dude, if that's "party line", I've got to ask what party? Because I think my drink might be empty and the music might be getting stale.
Business are not allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason.
Ha. No? Businesses discriminate on all sorts of things. If you're not wearing the right sort of jacket. If you've given them bad checks before. Hookers can choose the sex of their clients. DeBeers could, if they so choose, discriminate against people trying to sell them blood diamonds off the back of a truck. And they discriminate on price all the time. There's a set of protected classes that certain industries are not allowed to discriminate against. And if they're caught discriminating against those
In short, businesses reserve the right to throw you out of their door.
Now... SHOULD THEY? Yeah, I'd say that everyone has the right to say "fuck you" to their boss and/or clients. Up to the point it becomes a social problem. I think you could say "Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate without a good reason". But that's vague as hell. I almost said "against protected classes"... but fuck that unfair noise. I nearly spelled out "on terms of race, religion, age, or sex"... but then hooters couldn't refuse to hire male watiers and life insurance companies couldn't upcharge old people close to death.
Going the opposite route where people are required to serve... that sounds like slavery. Corporations aren't people though, and big business that has a monopoly really ought to be regulated. I'm fine with ISPs becoming common carriers and legally being forced to supply dumb pipes to their clients.
I dunno man. There's some valid exceptions to free speech. Shouting fire in a theater, or calling for violence are illegal, and I'm ok with that. And then there's moderation. Is downvoting something below most people's threshold censorship? Less people are seeing it. By contrast, upvoting something is essentially down-voting everything else. With online forums, this setup is almost essential to avoid an endless sea of shit.
Another issue is that of ceasing to replicate. Refusing to hosts nazi websites became in fashion for a little bit there and a certain crowd of people cheered. And hey, that's legal. No one should force companies to host material they don't want to host. Unless they're common carriers, they have a say about what they carry to the masses. But I think that's a pretty big violation of free speech. If there's a ton of competition, and the minority party can just go somewhere else, then it's not a big deal. But if it becomes a social trend to kick all the gypsies out of town... that's the exact sort of thing that free speech is support to avoid.
It's an ideal to strive for, but we're never going to have it in perfection. I think your statement was CRAP....Now are you wearing your big boy pants?
Those aren't the same things you know. I mean they sound great together, but the nazis and the imperialists weren't barbarians, despite how many people they murdered.
They managed to for a short time, lower worldwide population.
Mostly by killing each other though. Not to discount the rape of nanking and the like.
Really, if you want to lay something at the feet of all of Europe, it's the resulting social issues and destabilization of all those colonies.
Free speech is a contract between government and its citizens.
Nope. Free speech is an ideal that came out of the Age of Enlightenment before my government even existed.
The first amendment is the thing that restricts the government, making sure you have rights and supports the ideal which is free speech.
It is not a wild card to spread hate speech between citizens and citizens or citizens and immigrants.
Actually, it is.
The citizens can freely discuss and object.... whatever they want. Also non-citizens. Legally, I think the first admendment applies to non-citizens as well. Politically, if the USA is trying to censor what someone in China is saying, we've got a clusterfuck brewing, because that isn't going to end well.
Now, the free speech is an ideal and the legally there are some limit. Hate speech laws came about because of a constitutional crisis when the local authorities weren't yielding to federal regulation and Jim Crow laws were a thing. When things are THAT BAD, then the ideal of free speech gives way. Sucks. But you also can't call for violence against people or start a panic that gets people hurt.
Get the difference... or stay out of discussion.
Haha, that's rich. "I'm not censoring you! So shut up!"? wow. dude. No, I don't think you understand the difference between free speech and the first amendment, which is funny as this is about the EU. But I'm not going to suggest censorship, or you leaving, or even that everyone downvote you into the abyss. I suggest we chat about it and continue the conversation so we both learn a little something and come out the better for it.
This was more or less solved about a decade ago when Ubuntu came in as the easy distro and it was everyone's default suggestion for new users.
And then they tried to force Unity down everyone's throat in some crazy bid to make an ubuntu phone. Because of course everyone wants their desktop to be just like their phone interface. A path that Windows would follow a few years later.
the rather steep learning curve for new users,
This button launches Firefox Done. For 80% of the populace. 5% of the populace will be smart enough to scramble up that cliff face (just like they scrambled up Windows or OSX). There are plenty of material to learn from out there. The remaining 15% will bitch and moan a storm though, and that'll sour the whole brand.
I think the biggest hold-up for Linux's market share is 1) gaming is a bitch on Linux and 2) most people don't care about the long-term philosophy which makes Linux better. And most people don't pay for it. Directly. Between all of those, Microsoft's lock-in is secure.
and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual.[3]
So, if stingray were only allowed only when they could prove probable suspicion, then that'd do a lot to ease my qualm. But, as you noted, they didn't even need that. Maybe a later case will refine it to need probable suspicion rather than probable cause, maybe it won't. Either way, this is still a good change.
I certainly prefer not to think about it,
The why are you even commenting here?
but I don't see, how it is different from officers with phenomenal visual memory patrolling the streets — and sharing their observations with each other in the evening.
There are some real-world limitations in the fact that they can't employ a 1:1 citizen to police officer ratio to follow everyone at all times. (And then, of course, a second and third shift to follow the off-duty cops). These sort limitations due to reality have an impact on what's legal and what's not simply due to sociological ramifications. Paying a kid $10 to mow your lawn is technically illegal as he doesn't report income tax and it's acknowledged undereconomy. Cops and Feds have power over regular citizens, and if they get too much power, or their power is too pervasive, it'll make the inmates/members of society go crazy. If they automate cops, I at least want the server racks to wear a badge and a comical bobby-hat with billy club hanging next to them. Possibly with googly eyes.
Personally, I don't think cops should really have any powers above and beyond normal civvies.
Police in public places limited to things they can see and hear, even with amplified means, does not require a warrant.
reasonable expectation of privacy (as deemed by a judge if push comes to shove). If you're in public, you don't have that. If you're in your own yard behind your own fence with no-one in sight, or in your own closed house with no open widows, it doesn't matter if the cop is in a "public place" and uses a spy satellite or a device that tracks you through a wall. That's invading your privacy. And if they don't need a warrant to violate that privacy, you can assume that they'll have continuous surveillance of everyone at all times.
Personally, I think there's a sociological basis for the "right to anonymity". Like let's say it'd be a fine to dox someone or call someone out in a crowd. But that leads to a big rats nest of legality and enforcement, so it's probably not going to happen.
It's not really just splitting data. You can generate a one-time pad, distribute it to everyone you want, and then at a later point use the pad to encrypt an arbitrary message to them.
They're not a suspect. There's no warrant. If they had cause to suspect someone, they could probably go get a warrant.
Assume that if the cops or feds don't need a warrant, they're doing it all the time to everyone and can use that against you whenever they see fit. Are you ok with the city cops keeping a database of everyone's location at all times?
If they do need a warrant, assume the cops and feds are doing it whenever they can to everyone... but can't use that in court so they find something else to nail you on. See: Parallel Construction.
The U.S. Supreme Court has already given corporations the same rights as humans
I know you're talking about Citizens United case, and I'm just as pissed about it as you are, but the ruling was more selective than that. They ruled that groups of people are free to make political contributions... as a group. Corporate personhood has gone back and forth in the USA over the decades. But they don't have the same rights, not even after that case. They can't vote, for example.
An AI CEO and complete AI ownership
That's... essentially just a corporate charter. Or a trust. They have employees enact the algorithm. Typically the rules are really loose and a lot is left up the employees. Like, say, the charter is simply "MAKE MONEY!" and the details are left up to the CEO. But they can get as specific and detailed as they want. Legally though, the possibility has been there since... forever. All those crazy wills? Like where a rich dude leaves all his money to his cat? The right way to do it is to form a trust that's given the goal rules of operation that takes care of the cat. Lawyers enact the will and hire... cat-sitters or whatever. No stockholders, just the big pile of money that the lawyers slowly suck off whenever they have to look at the cat. And yeah, a lot of these sort of trusts have side-ventures to make money to keep the trust going.
The AI business now exists to serve only itself.
ho ho HO! I think I can simplify that one for you: "business exists to serve only itself." There we go. You know, unless there's some freaking cat or something mentioned in the charter.
It could get to the point that no individually operated business could ever hope to compete.
Still fixing.
And then you slide from the legal aspect to talking about automation taking jobs. And, yes, I'd fully endorse automating away CEOs and business manager types. Dear god, if anyone else deserved it more, I'm not sure who. But there are still accountants and miners and stock brokers, it's just that there's now a handful utilizing the automation tools whereas before there were hundreds doing stuff by hand. When automation comes for the bosses, it'll be the franchise managers to go first. Then the mid-tier bosses. Then the smaller companies. And in the end there will be a small handful of CEOs directing the CEO-bots of various competing megacorps.
It's not the end of human employment, it's the massive consolidation of jobs and resulting inequality.
. . . You sound like someone in the 90's being pissed that everyone keeps talking about this newfangled "Internet" thing and they're failing to focus on what's really important. Like the Z380 processor.
Can you think for yourself? How are you different than these self-learning algorithms?
If we stuck you in a bookstore in Sichuan and told you "Learn to read Chinese", what would you do that's fundamentally different than what a computer would do?
They're specialized algorithms that are "trained" to do one thing.
Yes, exactly. The end-product doing the thing is typically just an algorithm. The path it takes to get to it's answers might be really hard to understand, as with any sort of machine generated code, but it's really just applying a formula. Change something that the formula/algorithm/model didn't account for and it's hosed.
The Intelligence part is the training. Developing these algorithms. The part where they feed a machine learning algorithm a TON of data and it produces another algorithm that's good at.... whatever. The end product isn't so much AI as the product of AI. The machine learning algorithms aren't AI per-se, but rather tools to allow AI to happen. Design rather than implementation. The part where a machine LEARNS about a topic and figures it out.... that's intelligence.
The same way that rehashing this argument online over and over again doesn't involve any intelligence from us. But the part where we take in new input and learn from it and apply it to our arguments... well, it's less dumb.
You're right that there's not a great definition of intelligence. But if figuring shit out isn't a decent definition, then I'm not sure you're going to get one. I don't think gluing a driving algorithm to a chess algorithm is really any sort of magical threshold. I think if you could take a generalized machine learning suite and dump a bunch of different sorts of data sets into it, with different goals (like driving and chess), and have it generate decent algorithms for either task then that'd be pretty smart. And we've had those generalized tools since the 70's. But they work a HELL of a lot better with some domain specific coding. Optimizing that search-space is what the field is all about.
Then why do you buy insurance? You have house insurance and health insurance and life insurance, don't you dad? Why? Why are you betting on a catastrophic failure? You're not going to get rich doing that. Even if one of these events happens, they'll pay out a little, but it will barely cover the loss. If at all.
So are you going to go cancel all your insurance? No? Please explain why.
Nobody gets rich betting on the apocalypse, but they might survive it.
With a $2 million dollars of stocks you can have an income of (around and averaged to) $200,000/year from stock market gains alone. You can live anywhere in the world and that money still comes in. You don't have to put in a single hour of work. It just happens.
Considering the typical person in the world lives on ~$10,000/year and you'd be making 20x that, for doing nothing other than breathing, I think you've got a VERY strange definition of "paltry". Hell, even in first-world top-dog USA where everyone is rich and the median income is $51,939, you'd still be doing REAL fine just living on the gains from your stocks.
Let me make this abundantly clear: Most people still have to work for a living because they cannot simply choose to get out of the SanFran housing clusterfuck and retire with a big-ass pile of a "paltry" $2,000,000. If I were handed even $1 mil, I'd stop working for someone else and start making the things I WANT to make (or fuck around all day like the unmotivated slob I am, but regardless). If you think having a net worth of $2 mil makes this guy a loser, then you need to go travel the world a little. The parts which don't have a cabana boy with mimosas on hand. You need some perspective. It'll do you good.
Blame the voters. Then blame the press. Then blame the Internet for demonetizing information and undercutting news organizations that used to afford investigative journalism. So.... Slashdot. That's right, slashdot is to blame (in part) for Trump.
I don't buy that absolute power corrupts everyone absolutely,
Yeah, probably not. But we're talking sociology and psychology here, OF COURSE there's variance. But you've got to admit there's an undeniable trend. I think we simply can't trust politicians to BE trustworthy. Ideally, we should have a system of checks and balances and transparency that we could elect an absolute rat-fink bastard whose stated goal is self-promotion... and still have him do a decent enough job because he doesn't have the power to screw up or sabotage or abuse too badly.
I'm advocating limiting the power of the powerful. Because while it might not corrupt absolutely, it'll make anyone start to rot.
No no, The North seems crazy for a WIDE AND VARIED number of reasons other than the use of nuclear deterrance. He was saying that despite being crazy (for all those other reasons), they're not so crazy that nuclear deterrence doesn't work. Because they want to live.
And that said, YES, nuclear deterrence and MAD is indeed crazy no matter who does it. But it seems to work and it's not like we have any alternatives. At least the world doesn't have as many nukes anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Naw, AI is just self-learning software.
Plenty of automation is built these days using some sort of AI. A hand-crafted expert system (just a big ass decision graph), would be automation without any AI. If you have an AI generate an expert system from a big-ass data set of medical records, that's AI helping automate away the job of doctors. Chess programs are almost exclusively made by an AI training some algorithm. Once you have that algorithm and play it against a human, that's automating the game of chess.
AI has been around since the 70's, but it's being used for a lot more applications as of late.
No dude, "Calls to violence" as in "Hey everyone let's go murder specific person X at 5pm tomarrow". That's... a call to violence. That's separate from the fire in the theatre thing. It's pretty blatantly illegal. Essentially it's publicly planning a murder. That's bad. We're not free to say such things. It's a pretty reasonable restriction on free speech. No one except crazy-pants libertarians who want to privatize the police suggest otherwise.
This is NOT, "incite to violence" as in doing something which makes other people violent. I think you extrapolated that from the theatre thing. In the US, that's mostly legal. You can be as insulting as you want to... most people. Slander (which is supposed to be lies, but it depends on the quality of your lawyer) and some hate speech will land you in trouble.
Banning/Making the entire English language "illegal" because it _might_ be mis-used is utteraly retarded.
Agreed. Yeah... we showed that straw-man what for. Fuck that guy.
(no, seriously, you can't bitch about someone needing to wear big-boy pants and then.... stray into this level of mental gymnastics. As someone who fundamentally agrees with my own political stances, you've really got to keep a lid on the crazy rants. You're making me look bad and not really helping the cause.)
They are legally allowed to put additional qualifiers onto the Contract between them and you (as long as none of them are illegal.
. . . discrimination (I'm sorry "putting additional qualifiers") is legal as long as it's not illegal? Come on man... you're just dancing around the issue. Sssiiiiiigh, fine, in terms you're using: some hotels used to put the additional qualifier of being white and didn't let people of color into their establishment. This was deemed "bad" and made into an illegal form of discrimination.
But fine fine.... let's not say... "we shouldn't force people to do provide services" how about instead we say "We should allow people to put additional qualifiers on the whether or not they'll provide a service"? Does that sound better? Because it's the exact same thing.
You are correct that there are always (natural) consequences for our actions.
It's actually quite natural for the biggest thug in the room to inflict pain and suffering on anyone that says something they don't agree with. Natural, but kinda shitty. The biggest thug would be the government, practically be definition. At least Hobbes's. But we've had that wonderful enlightenment and kinda sorta put a leash on it. Now it has to follow laws and stuff, which seems like a step in the right direction. One of which is that it at least, should try to adhere to the ideal of free speech. And I too would try to adhere to it, and I wouldn't censor people without damn good reason.
The saddest damn thing is that you and I are practically on the exact same page, but we're both bitching about nuance. Makes me worry about the nature of politics.
Hoooooooold up!
Free speech is a contract between government and its citizens.
Nope. Free speech is an ideal that came out of the Age of Enlightenment before my government even existed.
The first amendment is the thing that restricts the government, making sure you have rights and supports the ideal which is free speech.
It is not a wild card
Actually, it is.
No the first amendment is not about
WHOA there. You suddenly changed from talking about Free Speech to talking about the first amendment which is a restriction in the US government. I JUST explained the difference.
Asking someone to shut up, is not censorship.
I think there's a spectrum of censorship that ranges all the way from killing people for thought-crime to.... being minority peeved at something someone said. But sure, a suggestion to shut up is pretty minor censorship. Most people wouldn't even call that censorship and that's fine.
E.g. 'restrictions of free speech' is not censorship.
That is an AMAZING leap of logic right there. What kind of restrictions are you talking about? Because "restrictions" can certainly mean "It's illegal to say something", like suggesting we murder a specific person. That's a call to violence and is a restriction on free speech. You are not free to say such things. Otherwise you will be thrown in jail. Which is a tidbit more strict than being told "shut up".
But considering you somehow didn't actually read my first bit, I doubt you're going to get any learnitude here, so you might as well shut up.
That example always gets trotted out but is is actually false -- for two reasons:
1. if the theater actually IS on fire -- informing others of a problem is NOT illegal,
2. That ISN'T a free speech issue -- it is a property rights issue.
...yeah dude, it's inciting panic and causing bodily harm. If it's actually on fire, that's not illegal, no one has ever suggested it is or should be. It's acknowledging that words can kill. And that's illegal and not protected by free speech. I dunno about "property rights", people died.
It's just an example of the limits of free speech. I notice you ignored the bit about calls to violence. Come on, a big boy would acknowledge there are limits. Children cherrypick.
Downvoting is a knee-jerk reaction. I would hate to apply any sort of legal consequences to that.
Whoa ho ho! there kiddo. It can be a free speech issue with out "legality" entering into the equation. This is about the ideal of free speech, not the legal right keeping government in check. I was asking if downvoting is censorship and runs afoul of your "Either you censor or you don't. PERIOD" idea.
[we shouldn't force people to do provide services] That's a very dangerous party line to tow. Where does it stop?
Historically? When it becomes a social problem. It's illegal for hotels to not serve black people.
I'd like to see some sunset clauses. AND, this is the sort of thing that'll never be made law when it's really needed, unless the federal government is at odds with the local tin-pot tyrants.
And holy shit dude, if that's "party line", I've got to ask what party? Because I think my drink might be empty and the music might be getting stale.
Business are not allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason.
Ha. No? Businesses discriminate on all sorts of things. If you're not wearing the right sort of jacket. If you've given them bad checks before. Hookers can choose the sex of their clients. DeBeers could, if they so choose, discriminate against people trying to sell them blood diamonds off the back of a truck. And they discriminate on price all the time. There's a set of protected classes that certain industries are not allowed to discriminate against. And if they're caught discriminating against those
In short, businesses reserve the right to throw you out of their door.
Now... SHOULD THEY? Yeah, I'd say that everyone has the right to say "fuck you" to their boss and/or clients. Up to the point it becomes a social problem. I think you could say "Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate without a good reason". But that's vague as hell. I almost said "against protected classes"... but fuck that unfair noise. I nearly spelled out "on terms of race, religion, age, or sex"... but then hooters couldn't refuse to hire male watiers and life insurance companies couldn't upcharge old people close to death.
Going the opposite route where people are required to serve... that sounds like slavery. Corporations aren't people though, and big business that has a monopoly really ought to be regulated. I'm fine with ISPs becoming common carriers and legally being forced to supply dumb pipes to their clients.
So do you believe in democracy or don't you?
Because it sounds like you want to tear down democracy.
I remember when this sort of rhetoric would get you ironically chased out of town.
I agree with all the first part. Woo free speech!
But this:
Either you censor or you don't. PERIOD.
I dunno man. There's some valid exceptions to free speech. Shouting fire in a theater, or calling for violence are illegal, and I'm ok with that. And then there's moderation. Is downvoting something below most people's threshold censorship? Less people are seeing it. By contrast, upvoting something is essentially down-voting everything else. With online forums, this setup is almost essential to avoid an endless sea of shit.
Another issue is that of ceasing to replicate. Refusing to hosts nazi websites became in fashion for a little bit there and a certain crowd of people cheered. And hey, that's legal. No one should force companies to host material they don't want to host. Unless they're common carriers, they have a say about what they carry to the masses. But I think that's a pretty big violation of free speech. If there's a ton of competition, and the minority party can just go somewhere else, then it's not a big deal. But if it becomes a social trend to kick all the gypsies out of town... that's the exact sort of thing that free speech is support to avoid.
It's an ideal to strive for, but we're never going to have it in perfection. I think your statement was CRAP. ...Now are you wearing your big boy pants?
the most barbaric and murderous
Those aren't the same things you know. I mean they sound great together, but the nazis and the imperialists weren't barbarians, despite how many people they murdered.
They managed to for a short time, lower worldwide population.
Mostly by killing each other though. Not to discount the rape of nanking and the like.
Really, if you want to lay something at the feet of all of Europe, it's the resulting social issues and destabilization of all those colonies.
Free speech is a contract between government and its citizens.
Nope. Free speech is an ideal that came out of the Age of Enlightenment before my government even existed.
The first amendment is the thing that restricts the government, making sure you have rights and supports the ideal which is free speech.
It is not a wild card to spread hate speech between citizens and citizens or citizens and immigrants.
Actually, it is.
The citizens can freely discuss and object.... whatever they want. Also non-citizens. Legally, I think the first admendment applies to non-citizens as well. Politically, if the USA is trying to censor what someone in China is saying, we've got a clusterfuck brewing, because that isn't going to end well.
Now, the free speech is an ideal and the legally there are some limit. Hate speech laws came about because of a constitutional crisis when the local authorities weren't yielding to federal regulation and Jim Crow laws were a thing. When things are THAT BAD, then the ideal of free speech gives way. Sucks. But you also can't call for violence against people or start a panic that gets people hurt.
Get the difference ... or stay out of discussion.
Haha, that's rich. "I'm not censoring you! So shut up!"? wow. dude. No, I don't think you understand the difference between free speech and the first amendment, which is funny as this is about the EU. But I'm not going to suggest censorship, or you leaving, or even that everyone downvote you into the abyss. I suggest we chat about it and continue the conversation so we both learn a little something and come out the better for it.
oh noes! We don't have that!
Quick, what do I sudo apt-get to go get it?
but between the dozens of distros,
This was more or less solved about a decade ago when Ubuntu came in as the easy distro and it was everyone's default suggestion for new users.
And then they tried to force Unity down everyone's throat in some crazy bid to make an ubuntu phone. Because of course everyone wants their desktop to be just like their phone interface. A path that Windows would follow a few years later.
the rather steep learning curve for new users,
This button launches Firefox Done. For 80% of the populace. 5% of the populace will be smart enough to scramble up that cliff face (just like they scrambled up Windows or OSX). There are plenty of material to learn from out there. The remaining 15% will bitch and moan a storm though, and that'll sour the whole brand.
I think the biggest hold-up for Linux's market share is 1) gaming is a bitch on Linux and 2) most people don't care about the long-term philosophy which makes Linux better. And most people don't pay for it. Directly. Between all of those, Microsoft's lock-in is secure.
That's right, only respond to the one hyperbole in a thread full of valid criticism.
With selective cherry-picking EVEN YOU can stroke that ego. Bravo, you sure showed us what for.
How is this different from police following every single and unsuspected citizen in an area?
As stated:
"Wrong, stingrays follow you into your house too. And everywhere else."
Heeeeey, you're right, the two aren't the same.
and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual.[3]
So, if stingray were only allowed only when they could prove probable suspicion, then that'd do a lot to ease my qualm. But, as you noted, they didn't even need that. Maybe a later case will refine it to need probable suspicion rather than probable cause, maybe it won't. Either way, this is still a good change.
I certainly prefer not to think about it,
The why are you even commenting here?
but I don't see, how it is different from officers with phenomenal visual memory patrolling the streets — and sharing their observations with each other in the evening.
There are some real-world limitations in the fact that they can't employ a 1:1 citizen to police officer ratio to follow everyone at all times. (And then, of course, a second and third shift to follow the off-duty cops). These sort limitations due to reality have an impact on what's legal and what's not simply due to sociological ramifications. Paying a kid $10 to mow your lawn is technically illegal as he doesn't report income tax and it's acknowledged undereconomy. Cops and Feds have power over regular citizens, and if they get too much power, or their power is too pervasive, it'll make the inmates/members of society go crazy. If they automate cops, I at least want the server racks to wear a badge and a comical bobby-hat with billy club hanging next to them. Possibly with googly eyes.
Personally, I don't think cops should really have any powers above and beyond normal civvies.
that you need to get a warrant, which is not that difficult or prohibitively time consuming.
For individual suspects. Yes. That's the point.
It's supposed to be difficult and prohibitively time consuming to go get a warrant for everyone.
Police in public places limited to things they can see and hear, even with amplified means, does not require a warrant.
reasonable expectation of privacy (as deemed by a judge if push comes to shove). If you're in public, you don't have that. If you're in your own yard behind your own fence with no-one in sight, or in your own closed house with no open widows, it doesn't matter if the cop is in a "public place" and uses a spy satellite or a device that tracks you through a wall. That's invading your privacy. And if they don't need a warrant to violate that privacy, you can assume that they'll have continuous surveillance of everyone at all times.
Personally, I think there's a sociological basis for the "right to anonymity". Like let's say it'd be a fine to dox someone or call someone out in a crowd. But that leads to a big rats nest of legality and enforcement, so it's probably not going to happen.
It's not really just splitting data. You can generate a one-time pad, distribute it to everyone you want, and then at a later point use the pad to encrypt an arbitrary message to them.
They're not a suspect. There's no warrant. If they had cause to suspect someone, they could probably go get a warrant.
Assume that if the cops or feds don't need a warrant, they're doing it all the time to everyone and can use that against you whenever they see fit. Are you ok with the city cops keeping a database of everyone's location at all times?
If they do need a warrant, assume the cops and feds are doing it whenever they can to everyone... but can't use that in court so they find something else to nail you on. See: Parallel Construction.
The U.S. Supreme Court has already given corporations the same rights as humans
I know you're talking about Citizens United case, and I'm just as pissed about it as you are, but the ruling was more selective than that. They ruled that groups of people are free to make political contributions... as a group. Corporate personhood has gone back and forth in the USA over the decades. But they don't have the same rights, not even after that case. They can't vote, for example.
An AI CEO and complete AI ownership
That's... essentially just a corporate charter. Or a trust. They have employees enact the algorithm. Typically the rules are really loose and a lot is left up the employees. Like, say, the charter is simply "MAKE MONEY!" and the details are left up to the CEO. But they can get as specific and detailed as they want. Legally though, the possibility has been there since... forever. All those crazy wills? Like where a rich dude leaves all his money to his cat? The right way to do it is to form a trust that's given the goal rules of operation that takes care of the cat. Lawyers enact the will and hire... cat-sitters or whatever. No stockholders, just the big pile of money that the lawyers slowly suck off whenever they have to look at the cat. And yeah, a lot of these sort of trusts have side-ventures to make money to keep the trust going.
The AI business now exists to serve only itself.
ho ho HO! I think I can simplify that one for you: "business exists to serve only itself." There we go. You know, unless there's some freaking cat or something mentioned in the charter.
It could get to the point that no individually operated business could ever hope to compete.
Still fixing.
And then you slide from the legal aspect to talking about automation taking jobs. And, yes, I'd fully endorse automating away CEOs and business manager types. Dear god, if anyone else deserved it more, I'm not sure who. But there are still accountants and miners and stock brokers, it's just that there's now a handful utilizing the automation tools whereas before there were hundreds doing stuff by hand. When automation comes for the bosses, it'll be the franchise managers to go first. Then the mid-tier bosses. Then the smaller companies. And in the end there will be a small handful of CEOs directing the CEO-bots of various competing megacorps.
It's not the end of human employment, it's the massive consolidation of jobs and resulting inequality.
. . . You sound like someone in the 90's being pissed that everyone keeps talking about this newfangled "Internet" thing and they're failing to focus on what's really important. Like the Z380 processor.
Can you think for yourself? How are you different than these self-learning algorithms?
If we stuck you in a bookstore in Sichuan and told you "Learn to read Chinese", what would you do that's fundamentally different than what a computer would do?
They're specialized algorithms that are "trained" to do one thing.
Yes, exactly. The end-product doing the thing is typically just an algorithm. The path it takes to get to it's answers might be really hard to understand, as with any sort of machine generated code, but it's really just applying a formula. Change something that the formula/algorithm/model didn't account for and it's hosed.
The Intelligence part is the training. Developing these algorithms. The part where they feed a machine learning algorithm a TON of data and it produces another algorithm that's good at.... whatever. The end product isn't so much AI as the product of AI. The machine learning algorithms aren't AI per-se, but rather tools to allow AI to happen. Design rather than implementation. The part where a machine LEARNS about a topic and figures it out.... that's intelligence.
The same way that rehashing this argument online over and over again doesn't involve any intelligence from us. But the part where we take in new input and learn from it and apply it to our arguments... well, it's less dumb.
You're right that there's not a great definition of intelligence. But if figuring shit out isn't a decent definition, then I'm not sure you're going to get one. I don't think gluing a driving algorithm to a chess algorithm is really any sort of magical threshold. I think if you could take a generalized machine learning suite and dump a bunch of different sorts of data sets into it, with different goals (like driving and chess), and have it generate decent algorithms for either task then that'd be pretty smart. And we've had those generalized tools since the 70's. But they work a HELL of a lot better with some domain specific coding. Optimizing that search-space is what the field is all about.
Considering how badly the elites simply want to eradicate roughly 90% us from the Earth...
Ok grandpa, time for bed.
"Nobody gets rich betting on the apocalypse."
Then why do you buy insurance? You have house insurance and health insurance and life insurance, don't you dad? Why? Why are you betting on a catastrophic failure? You're not going to get rich doing that. Even if one of these events happens, they'll pay out a little, but it will barely cover the loss. If at all.
So are you going to go cancel all your insurance? No? Please explain why.
Nobody gets rich betting on the apocalypse, but they might survive it.
He has a ... net worth of a couple of million
HE'S WON BABY!
With a $2 million dollars of stocks you can have an income of (around and averaged to) $200,000/year from stock market gains alone. You can live anywhere in the world and that money still comes in. You don't have to put in a single hour of work. It just happens.
Considering the typical person in the world lives on ~$10,000/year and you'd be making 20x that, for doing nothing other than breathing, I think you've got a VERY strange definition of "paltry". Hell, even in first-world top-dog USA where everyone is rich and the median income is $51,939, you'd still be doing REAL fine just living on the gains from your stocks.
Let me make this abundantly clear: Most people still have to work for a living because they cannot simply choose to get out of the SanFran housing clusterfuck and retire with a big-ass pile of a "paltry" $2,000,000. If I were handed even $1 mil, I'd stop working for someone else and start making the things I WANT to make (or fuck around all day like the unmotivated slob I am, but regardless). If you think having a net worth of $2 mil makes this guy a loser, then you need to go travel the world a little. The parts which don't have a cabana boy with mimosas on hand. You need some perspective. It'll do you good.
Blame the voters. Then blame the press. Then blame the Internet for demonetizing information and undercutting news organizations that used to afford investigative journalism. So.... Slashdot. That's right, slashdot is to blame (in part) for Trump.
I don't buy that absolute power corrupts everyone absolutely,
Yeah, probably not. But we're talking sociology and psychology here, OF COURSE there's variance. But you've got to admit there's an undeniable trend. I think we simply can't trust politicians to BE trustworthy. Ideally, we should have a system of checks and balances and transparency that we could elect an absolute rat-fink bastard whose stated goal is self-promotion... and still have him do a decent enough job because he doesn't have the power to screw up or sabotage or abuse too badly.
I'm advocating limiting the power of the powerful. Because while it might not corrupt absolutely, it'll make anyone start to rot.
No no, The North seems crazy for a WIDE AND VARIED number of reasons other than the use of nuclear deterrance. He was saying that despite being crazy (for all those other reasons), they're not so crazy that nuclear deterrence doesn't work. Because they want to live.
And that said, YES, nuclear deterrence and MAD is indeed crazy no matter who does it. But it seems to work and it's not like we have any alternatives. At least the world doesn't have as many nukes anymore.