Then the paranoia of a generation led us to stumble into central america, the middle east, and southeast asia.
To be fair, the paranoia was mostly warranted. During World War II, the Soviet bloc also recovered well from their own economic troubles, and their economies had led to political expansion that cut off emerging markets for the United States. The Soviet Union also gained a significant amount of territory in Europe through the war, and they maintained exclusive control, apparently fueling the Soviet economy at the West's expense.
Warranted as in the commies were indeed trying to spread their ideology to the rest of the world. And warranted as in they really did send a bunch of spies into the USA.
But the actions in South America during the Red Scare were atrocities that destabilized the entire region and had a MASSIVE net negative impact. We didn't have to fight the communists, they're system was fucked up and it collapsed. The entire reason we had the cold war and all those proxy wars was because we thought our system was better. It was. But if we thought it was so much better, why did we kill so many people out of fear that their system was going to take over?
No, I don't think it's fair to say their paranoia was warranted to the point where fucking over a continent was justified.
And it's a really really bad idea because of the Kessler Syndrome. If powers start knocking birds out of the sky in a panic or in self-defense then the debris could cause a chain reaction which would lock humanity inside planet earth and deny EVERYONE access to space for the foreseeable future.
Admittedly, that sort of attempt at removing WMD capabilities is the sort where the world ends shortly after one way or another. But still.
And I think it's an open secret that all the major powers have anti-spying laser tech that they've tested out. Razzle-dazzle is so much better than a kinetic kill vehicle that irreversibly pollutes low earth orbit.
That's one of those talking point blurbs that can be stretched or twisted to mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean.
If you're talking about consequences like people being informed about what you just said and remembering who said it, then sure, that seems like a perfectly valid statement. Of course you're not free from people remembering what you said, trying to change and enforce that would be a laughable clusterfuck. Forcing big search engines like Google to "forget" things also seems like a bad idea, but Europe is trying it out.
However, if you're talking about consequences like being black-bagged by secret police and shipped off to the gulag in the night, then fuck no, that's almost exactly the opposite of "free speech" and you're a bloody monster for that sort of double-think.
See? That saying is so wide open to interpretation it's practically meaningless.
Freedom of Speech is an idea that came out of the enlightenment. It's not just something for other people to worry about.
The right to free speech is a legal quandary.
The first amendment is law in place to restrict what the government can do. It gives people the right to free speech and promotes the freedom of speech.
The first amendment doesn't restrict what this Internet troll can say, nor does it restrict what CNN from doxxing this kid. Both have the right to say pretty much whatever they want. But that falls short of threatening to murder or injure someone unless they comply. Does it fall short of threatening to dox someone? Good question. I dunno. Maybe the courts have weighed in on this? Maybe it's legal grey area. Most of this comes down to politics. A behemoth like CNN threatening a 15 year old Internet troll over an image is clearly a dick move but it doesn't mean it's the sort of thing that sets precedence for all cases everywhere and all news organization should now be barred from saying anyone's name. Nor should giant corporations have roving bands of brownshirts to harass anyone that steps out of line.
Let's try to avoid extremes and work on nuance, shall we?
Freedom of speech does not imply it won't make you unpopular for saying it.
Arguing with a smaller version of yourself that YES, they have to wipe the poop from their butt for the 6th time that week is "eudaimonic self-actualizing"?
Reading how Pete the Cat thinks it's cool to lose a race in an ritalin induced haze for the 3rd time in a row is "eudaimonic self-actualizing"?
Getting yelled at, kicked, and hated because you couldn't make the rain stop is self-actualizing? (Hey, even when you tell them no, and give them time-outs, they're still going to throw a tantrum here and there. They're THREE. Remember; terrible two's, terrorist threes.)
I mean, I kinda get what you're saying, but the payoff takes DECADES to get to, and there's a lot of shit to go through on the way there.
A more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
I don't know, there was a lot about the process he never told me. But if it ever starts to teach itself how to apply statistical analysis to the data set and identify "probable fraud" or "probable cancer" all by itself without a statistician in the loop, then it's AI. And my friend isn't a statistician.
My point was that there's actual real meaningful work with gains to be made in healthcare by software. Statistical analysis, big data, hadoop, AI, or whatever.
Slashdot community seems to be that the only valid kind of AI is the one that gains self-awareness
Yeah, good luck defining whateverthefuck that means. I think this is that sort of egocentric thing where people like to think humanity is fundamentally special somehow. They didn't want to admit that humans are animals. Or that other animals recognized themselves in mirrors. Or that they use tools or language or drugs. "Self-awareness" might as well be a synonym with "soul" for all the good that does.
What happens to human interaction when a virtual conversation with a bot is determined to be better than any real one?
Better in what way? More entertaining? Well that'll mean a lot of people will play videogames for recreation. We're already there. More enlightening? Then we've hit some sort of AI-awakening. Cue sci-fi hollywood tropes.
What happens to companionship and procreation when machines and virtual realities can pleasure us better than a human alternative, and without the risk of dying prematurely from a world running rampant with STDs?
Probably a lower birth-rate. As is seen in all developed nations anyway. And that's probably a good thing overall. Remember some people are still freaked out at overpopulation. And less spread of disease. Sounds good. If it ever turns into a crisis, I'm pretty sure our teenagers would rise to the challenge. They're kinda made for it.
What happens to human employment... when automation and AI become good enough to destroy it?
Either a utopia where the robots provide all we need, or a dystopia where the owners of the robots let us die off. See: Sci-fi. But more likely the burden of human labor would shift towards higher mental work. As it has been happening since robots took over manufacturing.
[ditto for education]
Why would AI destroy education? Anyway, let's presume AI has taken over the bulk of "work". Some populace are still employed pushing the boundaries of science and engineering. Really smart people. That crowd operates exactly as it does now, there's just less need for the stupider ones. (That said, DEAR GOD, there's so much work that could be done in the realm of engineering it's not even funny. And I think there's a literally endless amount of work to be done for science.)
There's also likely to be a bunch of people who don't see any viable job they're capable of and, on the utopia side of things, will do whatever they want. Maybe they'll do something really silly like ramble and rant in front of a camera while they play videogames and eat Cheetos all day. Oh wait, that's an industry now. Yeah, I'm also to old to really get the appeal.
What happens to critical thinking... when the concept of employment and monetary reward is no longer viable?
Probably nothing? Most people will still be bloody idiots.
[Ditto for education as I like to tack that on to places]
More people will be able to survive as idiots. I imagine they'll still push kids to try and be one of those super-smart still-needed scientists or engineers. Or mathematicians, or 'technologists'. But most will fail out or drop down and get some shitty degree that doesn't really help them. They'll be massivly in debt if they have to pay for it themselves and the next generation will be substantially poorer, while the select few who have jobs (or are owners) are ludicrously wealthier than before. Inequality and the gini co-efficient will rise, and there will probably be unrest. Things might get ugly if some populist politicians promises to make it all better again via... some fucked up plan. Will probably blame the jews or something.
The next iterations of "advancement" are quite a bit different, and is not something we are readily prepared for
Shit dude, we haven't bee prepared for ANY advancement. Remember the Luddites were shot at and put down when they rioted. They were just pissed that they were all out of work.
You're comparing "having a smart-phone" to heroin. Seriously? Think about this for a moment. Think about the utility of a smart-phone. Now think about the utility of heroin. This particular example really falls apart as it's also banned for adults, and we're talking about restricting usage by KIDS.
If you want to restrict anything that provides them a strong dopamine reward.... Then you're looking at banning... about everything.
Seriously, let go. And also get some concrete proof that it's harmful before you try banning it. Duh.
Funny you should mention healthcare. So my friend went into "big data" after college. Hadoop mostly. Eventually worked at an insurance company. With a big enough set he could spot the similarities between the fraudsters and identify when someone was committing insurance fraud. You know, with a hit-miss rate. It was really just a tool to point the auditors in the right direction.
He could ALSO spot trends with people who got certain diagnosis's and certain tests as those who might have a particular disease. The way he described it was that most people who had a list of symptoms, went to a skin specialist, then had two certain tests performed commonly were diagnosed with a certain disease. But not all of them. He made a system that recommended the ones that didn't get diagnosed to go get checked for that particular disease, and lo and behold a lot of them had it. Now.... That's likely just catching doctor's screw-ups. But it's getting people help and having a complete non-doctor and a tool diagnosing people through their medical records....Which saved the insurance company some money eventually, hence why he was paid to do it.
But wtf is with Slashdot's kneejerk attacks against AI?
Eh, it's a viable product for lazy consumers or those afraid of doing to intellectual property tango. It's bringing to the masses the capabilities that were previously held exclusively by geek or those who gave a damn and weren't idiots.
I'm surprised there's still a company called Atari and that it has a CEO!
Does it say something about our society when everything is a remake, reboot, or a retro throwback?
Disability has nothing to do with it, unless one thinks that being religious makes a person disabled.
If that means they're "trained from birth to interpret reality through that lens, and frequently, are further trained in how to process (or fear and avoid) viewpoints that disagree"... then YES, they're very much mentally and/or developly disabled. They do not posses the ability to see reality or learn about new viewpoints like a normal person. That's akin to those suffering PTSD or clinical depression. Something they'd hopefully get therapy for.
But... it's not like most religious people are really as bad as that. For most people, it's just a christmas and easter thing. Even in strict places, yeah sure, you maintain social order by not eating in public during the day for a month. You step up, do the ritual, and sit down. There are the devout, but also the not-devout, those that are just along for the ride.
And yeah, I agree it's not REALLY a choice for most people.
Going by the interpretation of Youtube policy I am reading above, [silly people can use it to block sane people]
YES. That was MY point. I believe we are actually in perfect agreement with each other on the main thrusts of BOTH of our arguments here.
Point being until youtube tells us what humiliation consists of, it isn't criticism.
Wrong. Point being that "promoting discrimination, disparaging, and humiliation" can mean whatever youtube wants them to mean. This isn't pending anything. It's in effect right now and this memo from youtube trying to clarify their stance doesn't clarify anything as it could be applied to anything by anyone. We don't have to wait until after Youtube launches. It's in production now. You can go read articles and, ironically, watch youtube videos about people pointing out what is and is not de-monitized. You too can spot the trend. And I don't think this memo wasn't supposed to CHANGE the policy, only explain it.
And I disagree that discrimination is about avoiding participation.
Yeah, barring participation. If you avoid participation, you are the one discriminating against the activity. But the policy isn't about discrimination per se, it's about PROMOTING discrimination.
it isn't about preventing criticism.
There's a million ways to promote discrimination. Are you just whistling Dixie? If you don't get that reference you need to step back from the debate and get some learnitude to go along with that latin.
In highschool, at my very first job, the creepy old guy working a shit job who used to be a trucker gave me a copy of the fountainhead and was excited that I read it. After about 2 weeks I gave it back to him telling him I couldn't stomach it....But of course, I had already read the Lord of the Rings when I was 8, so I was already corrupted by all those orcs.
Per that view NOTHING on youtube is discrimination and I'd agree.
But the policy isn't just about discriminating against people, like not hiring them or excluding them from clubs, it's stated as "PROMOTING discrimination".
Oh, and also anything that "disparages or humiliates". Pointing out that people are born into religions that train them to fear and avoid other viewpoints is a disparaging remark. Humiliating for open-minded religious people. And it encourages people to avoid and discriminate against participating in said religion.
That this statement was said in an effort to, I think, make religion look like something people are born with and not made as a conscious choice and therefore similar to a disability or being born into a less privileged class or race is, frankly, hilarious. But maybe I'm reading too much into it.
Oh sure, you CAN have network neutrality without title II, but that's looking less and less likely. In the 80's and 90's there was enough competition of ISPs that none of them thought to break the fundamental principle of how the Internet works because they wanted to retain customers and didn't want to hand their competitors an obvious advantage. Yay free market. It works great! When there's competition.
There is no more competition. Not if you want broadband. The US ISP market has consolidated down to the telecom oligarchies dividing the USA into territories where they agree not to compete with each other. If a new player tries to enter the market, they bottom out the price and make sure google Fiber doesn't make any money.
And the Telecoms have repeatedly been caught trying to violate network neutrality in an effort make a buck. I'm still pissed they bundle ESPN360.com into the service just like cable TV bundles. Throttling competitors VoIP. Blocking torrents. This is bullshit. So bullshit that the FCC stepped in and tried to regulate them.
Removing title II would lead to the telecoms abusing their monopoly for power and money. It would create additional barriers to entry into the market, create bundle-based access rights, kill torrenting, jack up the price of getting services like VoIP to work, and kill innovation on the Internet.
We can either let the FCC regulate what should be a public utility as it's a natural monopoly or we can let the FTC whip out Sherman's hammer and bust up the telecoms for anti-competitive practices. Otherwise we'll see the decline of the Internet.
You forgot to post anonymous on this on you idiot.
It IS a strawman, but I see where you're coming from. You see people complaining about, say, the wage gap which is an end-of-result thing rather than an opportunity thing. But the democratic party is big and has plenty of people in it with a variety of ideas. Just like how you can't possibly claim that there aren't republicans out there who want to nuke Mecca, I can't deny there are real asshats in the democratic party. But they don't run the show. Usually.
It wouldn't be a strawman if you had just said "SOME Democrats want equality of RESULTS to all people." And you'd be right. But those are wing-nuts and we try to self-police. Speaking of which, holy shit dude, get your party's leadership in order and stop them from destroying the Internet.
Oswald would be more right if he had slipped in a "most" qualifier in there, but really, that sort of shit is implied.
Realize if you made a youtube video saying that, they should separate you from the advertisers according to this policy as stated. You know, if there wasn't politics in play.
The vast majority of people are born into a religion, and trained from birth to interpret reality through that lens, and frequently, are further trained in how to process (or fear and avoid) viewpoints that disagree.
This itself is promoting discrimination against religious people.
Not saying you're wrong, but realize if you made a youtube video saying this, they'd separate you from the advertisers.
or other characteristic associated with systematic discrimination or marginalization
Like idiocy? Lying?
Listen, we discriminate against a LOT of characteristics because they're BAD characteristics. "Discrimination" might sounds like a bad word, but when picking fruit at the store, do you discriminate against the ones with worms poking out? Why don't you fairly give the wormy apple a chance? When a scientist says "don't do X, because it will kill us all, here's my proof" he's promoting people to discrimination against doing X.
The problem with discrimination comes up when people erroneously think a characteristic is bad when it really isn't. Like being black. Black people aren't bad. Some of them are, but not all. Just like some asian people are bad, but not all of them. It's been a political issue because so many people made a thing about it.
I get what they're trying to do. They want to protect the little guys, and the oppressed, and leave it open enough to bring in whatever scrappy underdog comes next. But they left it so open as to include literally everyone.
I mean... if me and my friend agree to say mean things on youtube about.... oh jesus...... uh.... Major General Richard Montgomery, then we have a system. And some people could call that systematic. Because good fucking luck getting a clear-cut definition of that.
For example, neo-nazis in Germany have been systematically discriminated against. With the whole "it's fucking illegal" thing. Saying anything negative about neo-nazis should therefore cut the purse-strings of your youtube video.
Lemme just... lemme re-phrase this plan using just one clause path:
"They cut the funding of anything that promotes discrimination of anyone on the basis of a characteristic associated with discrimination." Do you see the circular reasoning there? Slapping in the term "systematic" has enough wiggle-room to send California into the sea.
First off the mexican military aren't the same thing as mexican nationals. Second, Trump says a LOT of things that aren't remotely associated with what really happened.
The DNC told the public about the NSA's findings months before the NSA did.
You see absolutely no difference between accusations and reality do you? The DNC pointed the finger at Russia. That's different than the publishing NSA's secret information. But to you, if Trump accuses mexicans, that's it, it must be true. IF the DNC accuses Russia, that's it, they must have colluded with the NSA.
You're a complete nut that's disconnected from reality. Props to you for getting an accurate representative government. That's... actually quite the feat.
Slashdot Mirror
Then the paranoia of a generation led us to stumble into central america, the middle east, and southeast asia.
To be fair, the paranoia was mostly warranted. During World War II, the Soviet bloc also recovered well from their own economic troubles, and their economies had led to political expansion that cut off emerging markets for the United States. The Soviet Union also gained a significant amount of territory in Europe through the war, and they maintained exclusive control, apparently fueling the Soviet economy at the West's expense.
Warranted as in the commies were indeed trying to spread their ideology to the rest of the world. And warranted as in they really did send a bunch of spies into the USA.
But the actions in South America during the Red Scare were atrocities that destabilized the entire region and had a MASSIVE net negative impact. We didn't have to fight the communists, they're system was fucked up and it collapsed. The entire reason we had the cold war and all those proxy wars was because we thought our system was better. It was. But if we thought it was so much better, why did we kill so many people out of fear that their system was going to take over?
No, I don't think it's fair to say their paranoia was warranted to the point where fucking over a continent was justified.
And it's a really really bad idea because of the Kessler Syndrome. If powers start knocking birds out of the sky in a panic or in self-defense then the debris could cause a chain reaction which would lock humanity inside planet earth and deny EVERYONE access to space for the foreseeable future.
Admittedly, that sort of attempt at removing WMD capabilities is the sort where the world ends shortly after one way or another. But still.
And I think it's an open secret that all the major powers have anti-spying laser tech that they've tested out. Razzle-dazzle is so much better than a kinetic kill vehicle that irreversibly pollutes low earth orbit.
Through careful investigation I have determined both the first and last name of Slashdot user "invid".
I am not publishing his identity as he writes cyberpunk novels and he seems like the sort of guy that would send out free books to people online.
I reserve the right to publish his identity should any of that change.
Or... I guess I could have said:
Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from any consequences.
Freedom of speech does imply freedom from some consequences.
Which gives you two goal-posts so far apart from each other you can just kick the ball in practically any direction and score a goal.
That's one of those talking point blurbs that can be stretched or twisted to mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean.
If you're talking about consequences like people being informed about what you just said and remembering who said it, then sure, that seems like a perfectly valid statement. Of course you're not free from people remembering what you said, trying to change and enforce that would be a laughable clusterfuck. Forcing big search engines like Google to "forget" things also seems like a bad idea, but Europe is trying it out.
However, if you're talking about consequences like being black-bagged by secret police and shipped off to the gulag in the night, then fuck no, that's almost exactly the opposite of "free speech" and you're a bloody monster for that sort of double-think.
See? That saying is so wide open to interpretation it's practically meaningless.
Freedom of Speech is an idea that came out of the enlightenment. It's not just something for other people to worry about.
The right to free speech is a legal quandary.
The first amendment is law in place to restrict what the government can do. It gives people the right to free speech and promotes the freedom of speech.
The first amendment doesn't restrict what this Internet troll can say, nor does it restrict what CNN from doxxing this kid. Both have the right to say pretty much whatever they want. But that falls short of threatening to murder or injure someone unless they comply. Does it fall short of threatening to dox someone? Good question. I dunno. Maybe the courts have weighed in on this? Maybe it's legal grey area. Most of this comes down to politics. A behemoth like CNN threatening a 15 year old Internet troll over an image is clearly a dick move but it doesn't mean it's the sort of thing that sets precedence for all cases everywhere and all news organization should now be barred from saying anyone's name. Nor should giant corporations have roving bands of brownshirts to harass anyone that steps out of line.
Let's try to avoid extremes and work on nuance, shall we?
Freedom of speech does not imply it won't make you unpopular for saying it.
Arguing with a smaller version of yourself that YES, they have to wipe the poop from their butt for the 6th time that week is "eudaimonic self-actualizing"?
Reading how Pete the Cat thinks it's cool to lose a race in an ritalin induced haze for the 3rd time in a row is "eudaimonic self-actualizing"?
Getting yelled at, kicked, and hated because you couldn't make the rain stop is self-actualizing? (Hey, even when you tell them no, and give them time-outs, they're still going to throw a tantrum here and there. They're THREE. Remember; terrible two's, terrorist threes.)
I mean, I kinda get what you're saying, but the payoff takes DECADES to get to, and there's a lot of shit to go through on the way there.
I think whisperfeet should fall under the 2nd amendment's protection.
A more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
It could do a better job of a couple of those.
I don't know, there was a lot about the process he never told me. But if it ever starts to teach itself how to apply statistical analysis to the data set and identify "probable fraud" or "probable cancer" all by itself without a statistician in the loop, then it's AI. And my friend isn't a statistician.
My point was that there's actual real meaningful work with gains to be made in healthcare by software. Statistical analysis, big data, hadoop, AI, or whatever.
Slashdot community seems to be that the only valid kind of AI is the one that gains self-awareness
Yeah, good luck defining whateverthefuck that means. I think this is that sort of egocentric thing where people like to think humanity is fundamentally special somehow. They didn't want to admit that humans are animals. Or that other animals recognized themselves in mirrors. Or that they use tools or language or drugs. "Self-awareness" might as well be a synonym with "soul" for all the good that does.
What happens to human interaction when a virtual conversation with a bot is determined to be better than any real one?
Better in what way? More entertaining? Well that'll mean a lot of people will play videogames for recreation. We're already there. More enlightening? Then we've hit some sort of AI-awakening. Cue sci-fi hollywood tropes.
What happens to companionship and procreation when machines and virtual realities can pleasure us better than a human alternative, and without the risk of dying prematurely from a world running rampant with STDs?
Probably a lower birth-rate. As is seen in all developed nations anyway. And that's probably a good thing overall. Remember some people are still freaked out at overpopulation. And less spread of disease. Sounds good. If it ever turns into a crisis, I'm pretty sure our teenagers would rise to the challenge. They're kinda made for it.
What happens to human employment ... when automation and AI become good enough to destroy it?
Either a utopia where the robots provide all we need, or a dystopia where the owners of the robots let us die off. See: Sci-fi. But more likely the burden of human labor would shift towards higher mental work. As it has been happening since robots took over manufacturing.
[ditto for education]
Why would AI destroy education? Anyway, let's presume AI has taken over the bulk of "work". Some populace are still employed pushing the boundaries of science and engineering. Really smart people. That crowd operates exactly as it does now, there's just less need for the stupider ones. (That said, DEAR GOD, there's so much work that could be done in the realm of engineering it's not even funny. And I think there's a literally endless amount of work to be done for science.)
There's also likely to be a bunch of people who don't see any viable job they're capable of and, on the utopia side of things, will do whatever they want. Maybe they'll do something really silly like ramble and rant in front of a camera while they play videogames and eat Cheetos all day. Oh wait, that's an industry now. Yeah, I'm also to old to really get the appeal.
What happens to critical thinking ... when the concept of employment and monetary reward is no longer viable?
Probably nothing? Most people will still be bloody idiots.
[Ditto for education as I like to tack that on to places]
More people will be able to survive as idiots. I imagine they'll still push kids to try and be one of those super-smart still-needed scientists or engineers. Or mathematicians, or 'technologists'. But most will fail out or drop down and get some shitty degree that doesn't really help them. They'll be massivly in debt if they have to pay for it themselves and the next generation will be substantially poorer, while the select few who have jobs (or are owners) are ludicrously wealthier than before. Inequality and the gini co-efficient will rise, and there will probably be unrest. Things might get ugly if some populist politicians promises to make it all better again via... some fucked up plan. Will probably blame the jews or something.
The next iterations of "advancement" are quite a bit different, and is not something we are readily prepared for
Shit dude, we haven't bee prepared for ANY advancement. Remember the Luddites were shot at and put down when they rioted. They were just pissed that they were all out of work.
You're comparing "having a smart-phone" to heroin. Seriously? Think about this for a moment. Think about the utility of a smart-phone. Now think about the utility of heroin. This particular example really falls apart as it's also banned for adults, and we're talking about restricting usage by KIDS.
If you want to restrict anything that provides them a strong dopamine reward.... Then you're looking at banning... about everything.
Seriously, let go. And also get some concrete proof that it's harmful before you try banning it. Duh.
Funny you should mention healthcare. So my friend went into "big data" after college. Hadoop mostly. Eventually worked at an insurance company. With a big enough set he could spot the similarities between the fraudsters and identify when someone was committing insurance fraud. You know, with a hit-miss rate. It was really just a tool to point the auditors in the right direction.
He could ALSO spot trends with people who got certain diagnosis's and certain tests as those who might have a particular disease. The way he described it was that most people who had a list of symptoms, went to a skin specialist, then had two certain tests performed commonly were diagnosed with a certain disease. But not all of them. He made a system that recommended the ones that didn't get diagnosed to go get checked for that particular disease, and lo and behold a lot of them had it. Now.... That's likely just catching doctor's screw-ups. But it's getting people help and having a complete non-doctor and a tool diagnosing people through their medical records. ...Which saved the insurance company some money eventually, hence why he was paid to do it.
But wtf is with Slashdot's kneejerk attacks against AI?
Eh, it's a viable product for lazy consumers or those afraid of doing to intellectual property tango. It's bringing to the masses the capabilities that were previously held exclusively by geek or those who gave a damn and weren't idiots.
I'm surprised there's still a company called Atari and that it has a CEO!
Does it say something about our society when everything is a remake, reboot, or a retro throwback?
Do you think she's going to run again in 2020? Will it matter then?
Disability has nothing to do with it, unless one thinks that being religious makes a person disabled.
If that means they're "trained from birth to interpret reality through that lens, and frequently, are further trained in how to process (or fear and avoid) viewpoints that disagree"... then YES, they're very much mentally and/or developly disabled. They do not posses the ability to see reality or learn about new viewpoints like a normal person. That's akin to those suffering PTSD or clinical depression. Something they'd hopefully get therapy for.
But... it's not like most religious people are really as bad as that. For most people, it's just a christmas and easter thing. Even in strict places, yeah sure, you maintain social order by not eating in public during the day for a month. You step up, do the ritual, and sit down. There are the devout, but also the not-devout, those that are just along for the ride.
And yeah, I agree it's not REALLY a choice for most people.
Going by the interpretation of Youtube policy I am reading above, [silly people can use it to block sane people]
YES. That was MY point. I believe we are actually in perfect agreement with each other on the main thrusts of BOTH of our arguments here.
Point being until youtube tells us what humiliation consists of, it isn't criticism.
Wrong. Point being that "promoting discrimination, disparaging, and humiliation" can mean whatever youtube wants them to mean. This isn't pending anything. It's in effect right now and this memo from youtube trying to clarify their stance doesn't clarify anything as it could be applied to anything by anyone. We don't have to wait until after Youtube launches. It's in production now. You can go read articles and, ironically, watch youtube videos about people pointing out what is and is not de-monitized. You too can spot the trend. And I don't think this memo wasn't supposed to CHANGE the policy, only explain it.
And I disagree that discrimination is about avoiding participation.
Yeah, barring participation. If you avoid participation, you are the one discriminating against the activity. But the policy isn't about discrimination per se, it's about PROMOTING discrimination.
it isn't about preventing criticism.
There's a million ways to promote discrimination. Are you just whistling Dixie? If you don't get that reference you need to step back from the debate and get some learnitude to go along with that latin.
And if you can't be bothered to slog through all that, Here it is in condensed form.
(And if so, then Huxley is winning.)
In highschool, at my very first job, the creepy old guy working a shit job who used to be a trucker gave me a copy of the fountainhead and was excited that I read it. After about 2 weeks I gave it back to him telling him I couldn't stomach it. ...But of course, I had already read the Lord of the Rings when I was 8, so I was already corrupted by all those orcs.
Per that view NOTHING on youtube is discrimination and I'd agree.
But the policy isn't just about discriminating against people, like not hiring them or excluding them from clubs, it's stated as "PROMOTING discrimination".
Oh, and also anything that "disparages or humiliates". Pointing out that people are born into religions that train them to fear and avoid other viewpoints is a disparaging remark. Humiliating for open-minded religious people. And it encourages people to avoid and discriminate against participating in said religion.
That this statement was said in an effort to, I think, make religion look like something people are born with and not made as a conscious choice and therefore similar to a disability or being born into a less privileged class or race is, frankly, hilarious. But maybe I'm reading too much into it.
Oh sure, you CAN have network neutrality without title II, but that's looking less and less likely. In the 80's and 90's there was enough competition of ISPs that none of them thought to break the fundamental principle of how the Internet works because they wanted to retain customers and didn't want to hand their competitors an obvious advantage. Yay free market. It works great! When there's competition.
There is no more competition. Not if you want broadband. The US ISP market has consolidated down to the telecom oligarchies dividing the USA into territories where they agree not to compete with each other. If a new player tries to enter the market, they bottom out the price and make sure google Fiber doesn't make any money.
And the Telecoms have repeatedly been caught trying to violate network neutrality in an effort make a buck. I'm still pissed they bundle ESPN360.com into the service just like cable TV bundles. Throttling competitors VoIP. Blocking torrents. This is bullshit. So bullshit that the FCC stepped in and tried to regulate them.
Removing title II would lead to the telecoms abusing their monopoly for power and money. It would create additional barriers to entry into the market, create bundle-based access rights, kill torrenting, jack up the price of getting services like VoIP to work, and kill innovation on the Internet.
We can either let the FCC regulate what should be a public utility as it's a natural monopoly or we can let the FTC whip out Sherman's hammer and bust up the telecoms for anti-competitive practices. Otherwise we'll see the decline of the Internet.
You forgot to post anonymous on this on you idiot.
It IS a strawman, but I see where you're coming from. You see people complaining about, say, the wage gap which is an end-of-result thing rather than an opportunity thing. But the democratic party is big and has plenty of people in it with a variety of ideas. Just like how you can't possibly claim that there aren't republicans out there who want to nuke Mecca, I can't deny there are real asshats in the democratic party. But they don't run the show. Usually.
It wouldn't be a strawman if you had just said "SOME Democrats want equality of RESULTS to all people." And you'd be right. But those are wing-nuts and we try to self-police. Speaking of which, holy shit dude, get your party's leadership in order and stop them from destroying the Internet.
Oswald would be more right if he had slipped in a "most" qualifier in there, but really, that sort of shit is implied.
Yeah ok. Lemme rephrase that.
Realize if you made a youtube video saying that, they should separate you from the advertisers according to this policy as stated. You know, if there wasn't politics in play.
The vast majority of people are born into a religion, and trained from birth to interpret reality through that lens, and frequently, are further trained in how to process (or fear and avoid) viewpoints that disagree.
This itself is promoting discrimination against religious people.
Not saying you're wrong, but realize if you made a youtube video saying this, they'd separate you from the advertisers.
or other characteristic associated with systematic discrimination or marginalization
Like idiocy? Lying?
Listen, we discriminate against a LOT of characteristics because they're BAD characteristics. "Discrimination" might sounds like a bad word, but when picking fruit at the store, do you discriminate against the ones with worms poking out? Why don't you fairly give the wormy apple a chance? When a scientist says "don't do X, because it will kill us all, here's my proof" he's promoting people to discrimination against doing X.
The problem with discrimination comes up when people erroneously think a characteristic is bad when it really isn't. Like being black. Black people aren't bad. Some of them are, but not all. Just like some asian people are bad, but not all of them. It's been a political issue because so many people made a thing about it.
I get what they're trying to do. They want to protect the little guys, and the oppressed, and leave it open enough to bring in whatever scrappy underdog comes next. But they left it so open as to include literally everyone.
I mean... if me and my friend agree to say mean things on youtube about.... oh jesus...... uh.... Major General Richard Montgomery, then we have a system. And some people could call that systematic. Because good fucking luck getting a clear-cut definition of that.
For example, neo-nazis in Germany have been systematically discriminated against. With the whole "it's fucking illegal" thing. Saying anything negative about neo-nazis should therefore cut the purse-strings of your youtube video.
Lemme just... lemme re-phrase this plan using just one clause path:
"They cut the funding of anything that promotes discrimination of anyone on the basis of a characteristic associated with discrimination." Do you see the circular reasoning there? Slapping in the term "systematic" has enough wiggle-room to send California into the sea.
Your argument is sinking.
First off the mexican military aren't the same thing as mexican nationals. Second, Trump says a LOT of things that aren't remotely associated with what really happened.
The DNC told the public about the NSA's findings months before the NSA did.
You see absolutely no difference between accusations and reality do you? The DNC pointed the finger at Russia. That's different than the publishing NSA's secret information. But to you, if Trump accuses mexicans, that's it, it must be true. IF the DNC accuses Russia, that's it, they must have colluded with the NSA.
You're a complete nut that's disconnected from reality. Props to you for getting an accurate representative government. That's... actually quite the feat.
It's +5 insightful, but I still feel like this is an under-rated post.