And there were "Commernists hiding under every beadstead" in the 50's.
Your neo-Macarthyism is based in pure irrational hate/bias. As such, you will always find an unassailable, self-justification for insisting on your views.
That used to be REALLY valuable, in the old days - which we then considered new-school. You know! The years of "Cathedral and Bazaar" and "Cluetrain"...
Now? I really won't bother building Windowmaker applets or LibSpinyEchidna.so from source.:-)
Do you want some schadenfreude? Re-read "Cluetrain Manifesto" while thinking of Facebook and AWS.
Really? They are a finance company - selling debt. The sales come-on is laid on pretty thick, by cold calling with a claim to having you pay negative energy bills.
If the actual numbers work out when their quota sales guy arrives? Then you buy their SolarCity system, which you cannot modify or upgrade. Do you want emergency off-grid capability? Sorry, no can do. Thiel has arrangements with the big, incumbent local monopolies. When they are down? You are down.
There are better options, and cells with better efficiency. Shop around if you want solar, and don't get stuck with a 15 year finance deal on panels that become obsolete several years before they add equity.
10 years ago I was paranoid because I said the Government agencies were recording everything you do. Now it is common knowledge. So am I paranoid or are you nieve?
Would a Google car sacrifice you for the sake of the many?
Google self-driving cars are presumably programmed to protect their passengers. So, when a traffic situation gets nasty, the car you're in will take all the defensive actions it can to keep you safe.
But what will robot cars be programmed to do when there’s lots of them on the roads, and they're networked with one another?
We know what we as individuals would like. My car should take as its Prime Directive: “Prevent my passengers from coming to harm.” But when the cars are networked, their Prime Directive well might be: “Minimize the amount of harm to humans overall.” And such a directive can lead a particular car to sacrifice its humans in order to keep the total carnage down. Asimov’s Three Rules of Robotics don't provide enough guidance when the robots are in constant and instantaneous contact and have fragile human beings inside of them.
It’s easy to imagine cases. For example, a human unexpectedly darts into a busy street. The self-driving cars around it rapidly communicate and algorithmically devise a plan that saves the pedestrian at the price of causing two cars to engage in a Force 1 fender-bender and three cars to endure Force 2 minor collisionsbut only if the car I happen to be in intentionally drives itself into a concrete piling, with a 95% chance of killing me. All other plans result in worse outcomes, where “worse” refers to some scale that weighs monetary damages, human injuries, and human deaths.
Or, a broken run-off pipe creates a dangerous pool of water on the highway during a flash storm. The self-driving cars agree that unless my car accelerates and rams into a concrete piling, all other configurations of joint actions result in a tractor trailing jack-knifing, causing lots of death and destruction. Not to mention The Angelic Children’s Choir school bus that would be in harm’s way. So, the swarm of robotic cars makes the right decision and intentionally kills me.
In short, the networking of robotic cars will change the basic moral principles that guide their behavior. Non-networked cars are presumably programmed to be morally-blind individualists trying to save their passengers without thinking about others, but networked cars will probably be programmed to support some form of utilitarianism that tries to minimize the collective damage. And that’s probably what we'd want. Isn’t it?
But one of the problems with utilitarianism is that there turns out to be little agreement about what counts as a value and how much it counts. Is saving a pedestrian more important than saving a passenger? Is it always right try to preserve human life, no matter how unlikely it is that the action will succeed and no matter how many other injuries it is likely to result in? Should the car act as if its passenger has seat-belted him/herself in because passengers should do so? Should the cars be more willing to sacrifice the geriatric than the young, on the grounds that the young have more of a lifespan to lose? And won't someone please think about the kids—those adorable choir kids?
Slashdot Mirror
Nice job hijacking the top comment.
Ewe must bee knew hear.
Meta rules for Slashdot engagement.
Next stage is the Butlerian Jihad and abolition of compute machiney - "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind".
Then your super-trained, Autistic elite can take their proper role, as Mentats.
And there were "Commernists hiding under every beadstead" in the 50's.
Your neo-Macarthyism is based in pure irrational hate/bias. As such, you will always find an unassailable, self-justification for insisting on your views.
NO ONE's brain defaults to QWERTY!
It's interstellar Unicorn vomit - ejected our way from the taping of "Mythological Beasts Gone Wild" during spring break, beyond Arcturus.
Aye. 'Tis the "Runcible" our lad is thinkin' of, Captain.
ERMERGERD! It's FULL of STARZ!
How do I say it? In just one word? How do I proclaim the way you won me over, once again?
Shall I try to give voice to these feelings? Listen as I whisper in your ear: "QWERTYUIOP"
"The kind of wholesome, antiseptic universe these androids would create would be purgatory for a man like me!" - Harry Mudd, "I, Mudd" (TOS)
I think this was in the scene, right before he fucked Teddy Ruxpin...
Great bit. Compare and contrast: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/07/26/smart-homes-hack/
The INTERNET OF THINGS
is a TROJAN HORSE.
See, they legalize cannabis, and this is what you get... :-)
:-)
No text.
Thiel vs. Musk!
Two enter, only ONE can leave....
'Zactly.
WHOOSH!
That used to be REALLY valuable, in the old days - which we then considered new-school. You know! The years of "Cathedral and Bazaar" and "Cluetrain"...
Now? I really won't bother building Windowmaker applets or LibSpinyEchidna.so from source. :-)
Do you want some schadenfreude? Re-read "Cluetrain Manifesto" while thinking of Facebook and AWS.
CONSPIRACY THEORY! TINFOIL! TINFOIL!
Now, exactly when did you stop lying to us? I want to know when I can begin my trust.
It is not cut in half.
That's the come-on, to get the salesperson in your door. They call it a "net free solution" - "we'll run your meter backwards, it pays for itself!"
Too
Good
To
Be
True
They SAY they are a solar panel company.
Really? They are a finance company - selling debt. The sales come-on is laid on pretty thick, by cold calling with a claim to having you pay negative energy bills.
If the actual numbers work out when their quota sales guy arrives? Then you buy their SolarCity system, which you cannot modify or upgrade. Do you want emergency off-grid capability? Sorry, no can do. Thiel has arrangements with the big, incumbent local monopolies. When they are down? You are down.
There are better options, and cells with better efficiency. Shop around if you want solar, and don't get stuck with a 15 year finance deal on panels that become obsolete several years before they add equity.
10 years ago I was paranoid because I said the Government agencies were recording everything you do. Now it is common knowledge. So am I paranoid or are you nieve?
Yes. Nieve Campbell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPSCmDc0uYY
Ayn Rand was a prophet!
Would a Google car sacrifice you for the sake of the many?
Google self-driving cars are presumably programmed to protect their passengers. So, when a traffic situation gets nasty, the car you're in will take all the defensive actions it can to keep you safe.
But what will robot cars be programmed to do when there’s lots of them on the roads, and they're networked with one another?
We know what we as individuals would like. My car should take as its Prime Directive: “Prevent my passengers from coming to harm.” But when the cars are networked, their Prime Directive well might be: “Minimize the amount of harm to humans overall.” And such a directive can lead a particular car to sacrifice its humans in order to keep the total carnage down. Asimov’s Three Rules of Robotics don't provide enough guidance when the robots are in constant and instantaneous contact and have fragile human beings inside of them.
It’s easy to imagine cases. For example, a human unexpectedly darts into a busy street. The self-driving cars around it rapidly communicate and algorithmically devise a plan that saves the pedestrian at the price of causing two cars to engage in a Force 1 fender-bender and three cars to endure Force 2 minor collisionsbut only if the car I happen to be in intentionally drives itself into a concrete piling, with a 95% chance of killing me. All other plans result in worse outcomes, where “worse” refers to some scale that weighs monetary damages, human injuries, and human deaths.
Or, a broken run-off pipe creates a dangerous pool of water on the highway during a flash storm. The self-driving cars agree that unless my car accelerates and rams into a concrete piling, all other configurations of joint actions result in a tractor trailing jack-knifing, causing lots of death and destruction. Not to mention The Angelic Children’s Choir school bus that would be in harm’s way. So, the swarm of robotic cars makes the right decision and intentionally kills me.
In short, the networking of robotic cars will change the basic moral principles that guide their behavior. Non-networked cars are presumably programmed to be morally-blind individualists trying to save their passengers without thinking about others, but networked cars will probably be programmed to support some form of utilitarianism that tries to minimize the collective damage. And that’s probably what we'd want. Isn’t it?
But one of the problems with utilitarianism is that there turns out to be little agreement about what counts as a value and how much it counts. Is saving a pedestrian more important than saving a passenger? Is it always right try to preserve human life, no matter how unlikely it is that the action will succeed and no matter how many other injuries it is likely to result in? Should the car act as if its passenger has seat-belted him/herself in because passengers should do so? Should the cars be more willing to sacrifice the geriatric than the young, on the grounds that the young have more of a lifespan to lose? And won't someone please think about the kids—those adorable choir kids?
https://medium.com/@dweinberger/would-a-google-car-sacrifice-you-for-the-sake-of-the-many-e9d6abcf6fed
STEVE BALLMER
'nuff said.