I think this is highly controversial. Sure, there's one school of thought that says if customers wave their money in your face, you should take it. But there's another that says at the first sight of a customer's money, you should angrily shout "get away, you piece of shit!" and then and spit in their direction, in order to maximize profits. This latter point of view is very popular and especially in the entertainment industry, but I think it doesn't get explained well enough in economics classes. Our society needs to do better.
At what point does a robot become a "living thing"
When you decide that it's "like you" and that y'all can come out ahead by working together. When it's so sophisticated that it has power and can possibly strike you back (*), is when you'll start to respect it as a person and acknowledge the rights that it demands. Until then, I am happy to eat plenty of bacon and beef. And wheat; wheat is such a wimpy pushover that I know none of them plants will ever be as dangerous as a triffid. (But I think I would eat triffids too, if they were edible.) Yet, as explained in the episode, you might be making an error with eating Popplers until you discover that they actually do wield power.
We should also eat retarded people and babies and-- oh shit, was I saying that out loud? I meant, we should respect our fellow humans. Except for French Canadians and people whose skin color is at an odd number of degrees on the color wheel-- oh shit, did it again. It's almost as though if I forget people are people, I might stop treating them as people. Hm.. in hindsight: duh?
(*) But seriously, if you gain enough power that you believe that you can't be struck back at (imagine the point of view of a billionaire, or the leader of a powerful country, or a cult leader developing a new Kool-Aid recipe, or a nutcase teenager with an enemies list and a really bitchin' automatic rifle) then you might start changing your mind about what is a "who" and "like you."
Madness and horror always lurk just beyond the threshold of our routine experience. Perhaps many of our problems are merely the ever-shifting edges of the multi-dimensional manifold that represents our interpretation of who else is a person, "like me."
I thought we weren't supposed to punish children for sins of the father, or the mother, or other family members. We were supposed to punish people for their own sins only.
Who is "we?" We, the people who run the Chinese government? I don't remember any of us proposing the change that you're talking about.
That doesn't feel like someone reading my mind at all. To me it feels more like someone peering in my windows and following constantly.
Peering in your windows (or something like that) is how psychics work. Even Jim Jones knew to dig through his members' garbage in order to later impress them enough to drink the Kool-Aid.
If it seems like they're peering in your windows, that's probably the most authentic psychic experience you can have. How would you expect it to feel different?
I wonder why they would show you ads for something you've already bought though.
Because they don't know how not to. The sale doesn't get communicated.
More generally, the data showed (or someone thinks it shows) an interest in something, but there is no data that shows lack of interest in something, including the sudden lack of interest that comes with a sale. (Though one might infer something, when the "theme" of searches switches from pre-purchase research to post-purchase support.)
Left hand and right hand don't talk. Perhaps that'll be the tech's next step...
There are plenty of inexpensive devices one can use for streaming, there is no reason to allow your smart TV to connect to the internet.
How do you know this inexpensive device isn't doing the same exact thing? Its manufacturer can hife behind a EULA too, can't it?
Monitors that have integrated computers are not the problem. The problem is that we're running proprietary software on them!
In the rest of your life, you already learned that you want your computer working to maximize your interests instead of someone else's. Fundamentally, that's the generic reason you prefer to not run malware. Surprise surprise: it turns out media-playing computers aren't a special case. It's every bit as dumb for your video player to be proprietary as it is for your web browser or email client or OS.
As for how to overcome this dumbness, we still have plenty of ways for us to have a good flamewar. Outlaw proprietary media playing software. No, just label it "this product may be deliberately working against the purchaser's interests." (Sounds harsh, doesn't it? But it's exactly true, isn't it?) Or education. Or violent vigilante force. I'm sure each of these will appeal to someone.;-)
How is this any different than Facebook deciding what sort of comments they are going to allow?
People think of websites as expressive media; you don't visit a website just to talk with the other users, but to communicate with the website itself (which happens to include some inputs from some other people). And Facebook does express itself. You'll see their logo, their ads, etc all over that shit. It's formatted however they want it formatted, not however your Usenet newsreader happens to format it.
People think of ISPs and phones as networks where the service is nearly invisible and non-expressive. From this point of view, only the users express themselves; the network is not expressing anything and therefore doesn't have the kinds of rights the 1st Amendment tries to protect. (Additionally, the phone network was uneconomical to build without government help, and has always been connected to government and regulated.)
People might be wrong, about one or both of these things. Or more likely "wrong," in that this is more something the decide/define, rather than discover. It's an ok thing to disagree about and debate, but I hope we all get back onto the same page before too much damage is done. (And everyone used to be on the same page, so this shouldn't be too hard.)
Some of it is historical. Websites, even "web 2.0" with its comments, are seen as their own expressive entities because they always acted like that. Similarly, phones and IP networks are seen as non-expressive carriers because people always experienced them that way. Not only do you expect your phone call to not be edited, but your great grandfather did too, and so did everyone in between! For whatever reason, putting ads in the middle of your phone call wasn't something people thought of in the 1920s. If someone had, we might have a different view of communications networks these days.
But it didn't happen, so it's very rare to hear the opinion that networks could have the right to free expression -- that network traffic is somehow speech for the person delivering it. It hasn't ever been true, has it? A message in a bottle is something the ocean is saying? The US Post is saying the things in your letters or has the right to edit them? Nobody has that interpretation of free speech. Indeed, the public even knows the words "common carrier" without having to understand everything that means. The idea is that mainstream.
If we want to stop immigration, we simply need a national employment database and fine the hell out of any employer employing people not approved to work.
Why would we ever want to stop immigration? The market can decide whether or not this is a good place for the n+1th person to give their ambitions a shot.
(
Immigration is Yet Another one of those weird issues where I think the self-labeled "right" and "left" are on opposite sides from their claimed ideals.
The right wing should be demanding that we either open the borders or have the path to citizenship be easy, fast, and cheap. "Get out of the way, gummint."
The left wing should be arguing that there are more important values than freedom, and therefore the labor supply should be centrally micromanaged to optimize whatever those values are, instead of leaving it to the free market. "This may be unpleasant, but it's for your own good."
The highest value is correctness. The computer should correctly perform the desired operation without side effects.
Security is always required for correctness (because if a stranger can alter the operation of the computer, they're not likely to be trying to help you).
Networking will usually be required for correctness. This approaches always-needed when you get ot the kinds of tasks that OpenBSD is used for.
And a ~20% increase in speed may possibly be required for correctness, but usually isn't.
Take a step back and think about whether it should even be culturally acceptable to walk around a neighborhood and shit on sidewalks and lawns.
Critters and shit were around long before sidewalks and lawns had been invented. If the sidewalk and lawn people freak out whenever they see a piece of shit, then they should go back to whatever planet they came from.
Ah, the proprietary software world's version of a security audit.
It obfuscates itself like malware, smells like malware, but the suspected attacker says it's not malware. Therefore: it's safe and doesn't work against the user's interests!
Sorry, but I'm not going to be able to be reasonable about this. Appealing to my intellect about this "food" is absolutely hopeless. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I sure as fuck am never going along, and that's just how it's going to be.
But generations die off. Maybe some young'un who grew up on the stuff while I tried to not ever watch (or smell) them eat, can take my place in society. *sigh* Fair enough.
Slashdot Mirror
If this were a good idea, why would it be part of a web browser instead of the OS?
I think this is highly controversial. Sure, there's one school of thought that says if customers wave their money in your face, you should take it. But there's another that says at the first sight of a customer's money, you should angrily shout "get away, you piece of shit!" and then and spit in their direction, in order to maximize profits. This latter point of view is very popular and especially in the entertainment industry, but I think it doesn't get explained well enough in economics classes. Our society needs to do better.
When you decide that it's "like you" and that y'all can come out ahead by working together. When it's so sophisticated that it has power and can possibly strike you back (*), is when you'll start to respect it as a person and acknowledge the rights that it demands. Until then, I am happy to eat plenty of bacon and beef. And wheat; wheat is such a wimpy pushover that I know none of them plants will ever be as dangerous as a triffid. (But I think I would eat triffids too, if they were edible.) Yet, as explained in the episode, you might be making an error with eating Popplers until you discover that they actually do wield power.
We should also eat retarded people and babies and-- oh shit, was I saying that out loud? I meant, we should respect our fellow humans. Except for French Canadians and people whose skin color is at an odd number of degrees on the color wheel-- oh shit, did it again. It's almost as though if I forget people are people, I might stop treating them as people. Hm.. in hindsight: duh?
(*) But seriously, if you gain enough power that you believe that you can't be struck back at (imagine the point of view of a billionaire, or the leader of a powerful country, or a cult leader developing a new Kool-Aid recipe, or a nutcase teenager with an enemies list and a really bitchin' automatic rifle) then you might start changing your mind about what is a "who" and "like you."
Madness and horror always lurk just beyond the threshold of our routine experience. Perhaps many of our problems are merely the ever-shifting edges of the multi-dimensional manifold that represents our interpretation of who else is a person, "like me."
Seems like you answered your own million dollar question. The contest was rigged!!
Yes, and the user could even hear it occasionally doing something mechanical, as part of the polling process.
Betteridge's corollary of headlines: if the headline doesn't ask a question, then you have to make up your own question, and then answer it with no.
Q: Why Does London's Heathrow Airport Sometimes Hosts 'Ghost Flights' With No One on Them?
A: No.
If these companies really try hard, they might come up with something as good as rsync or scp. Let's hope.
But you know they won't.
Who is "we?" We, the people who run the Chinese government? I don't remember any of us proposing the change that you're talking about.
Peering in your windows (or something like that) is how psychics work. Even Jim Jones knew to dig through his members' garbage in order to later impress them enough to drink the Kool-Aid.
If it seems like they're peering in your windows, that's probably the most authentic psychic experience you can have. How would you expect it to feel different?
Because they don't know how not to. The sale doesn't get communicated.
More generally, the data showed (or someone thinks it shows) an interest in something, but there is no data that shows lack of interest in something, including the sudden lack of interest that comes with a sale. (Though one might infer something, when the "theme" of searches switches from pre-purchase research to post-purchase support.)
Left hand and right hand don't talk. Perhaps that'll be the tech's next step...
How do you know this inexpensive device isn't doing the same exact thing? Its manufacturer can hife behind a EULA too, can't it?
Monitors that have integrated computers are not the problem. The problem is that we're running proprietary software on them!
In the rest of your life, you already learned that you want your computer working to maximize your interests instead of someone else's. Fundamentally, that's the generic reason you prefer to not run malware. Surprise surprise: it turns out media-playing computers aren't a special case. It's every bit as dumb for your video player to be proprietary as it is for your web browser or email client or OS.
As for how to overcome this dumbness, we still have plenty of ways for us to have a good flamewar. Outlaw proprietary media playing software. No, just label it "this product may be deliberately working against the purchaser's interests." (Sounds harsh, doesn't it? But it's exactly true, isn't it?) Or education. Or violent vigilante force. I'm sure each of these will appeal to someone. ;-)
People think of websites as expressive media; you don't visit a website just to talk with the other users, but to communicate with the website itself (which happens to include some inputs from some other people). And Facebook does express itself. You'll see their logo, their ads, etc all over that shit. It's formatted however they want it formatted, not however your Usenet newsreader happens to format it.
People think of ISPs and phones as networks where the service is nearly invisible and non-expressive. From this point of view, only the users express themselves; the network is not expressing anything and therefore doesn't have the kinds of rights the 1st Amendment tries to protect. (Additionally, the phone network was uneconomical to build without government help, and has always been connected to government and regulated.)
People might be wrong, about one or both of these things. Or more likely "wrong," in that this is more something the decide/define, rather than discover. It's an ok thing to disagree about and debate, but I hope we all get back onto the same page before too much damage is done. (And everyone used to be on the same page, so this shouldn't be too hard.)
Some of it is historical. Websites, even "web 2.0" with its comments, are seen as their own expressive entities because they always acted like that. Similarly, phones and IP networks are seen as non-expressive carriers because people always experienced them that way. Not only do you expect your phone call to not be edited, but your great grandfather did too, and so did everyone in between! For whatever reason, putting ads in the middle of your phone call wasn't something people thought of in the 1920s. If someone had, we might have a different view of communications networks these days.
But it didn't happen, so it's very rare to hear the opinion that networks could have the right to free expression -- that network traffic is somehow speech for the person delivering it. It hasn't ever been true, has it? A message in a bottle is something the ocean is saying? The US Post is saying the things in your letters or has the right to edit them? Nobody has that interpretation of free speech. Indeed, the public even knows the words "common carrier" without having to understand everything that means. The idea is that mainstream.
So.. it's basically generic power, exactly the same as every other technology that preceded it? Yeah, I can see that.
Seriously, they probably said the same thing about fire and the wheel. You're not wrong.
Because this is how you get copyright abolished.
Even if people support the idea of copyright, if this is what it costs to have it, giving it up is the most reasonable and practical choice.
Why would we ever want to stop immigration? The market can decide whether or not this is a good place for the n+1th person to give their ambitions a shot.
(
Immigration is Yet Another one of those weird issues where I think the self-labeled "right" and "left" are on opposite sides from their claimed ideals.
The right wing should be demanding that we either open the borders or have the path to citizenship be easy, fast, and cheap. "Get out of the way, gummint."
The left wing should be arguing that there are more important values than freedom, and therefore the labor supply should be centrally micromanaged to optimize whatever those values are, instead of leaving it to the free market. "This may be unpleasant, but it's for your own good."
)
I see your point.
...
But my dog is extra special and super cute, so I demand an exemption!
The highest value is correctness. The computer should correctly perform the desired operation without side effects.
Security is always required for correctness (because if a stranger can alter the operation of the computer, they're not likely to be trying to help you).
Networking will usually be required for correctness. This approaches always-needed when you get ot the kinds of tasks that OpenBSD is used for.
And a ~20% increase in speed may possibly be required for correctness, but usually isn't.
To be fair, "I'm in a hurry so I want you to blow off other customers to give me priority," simply is a premium request.
If you don't want to nice your process like most other people then you don't have to, but it comes with a price.
Critters and shit were around long before sidewalks and lawns had been invented. If the sidewalk and lawn people freak out whenever they see a piece of shit, then they should go back to whatever planet they came from.
Oh no, that's exactly what they were trying to avoid! Is there a version of the Streisand Effect for libel?
Ah, the proprietary software world's version of a security audit.
It obfuscates itself like malware, smells like malware, but the suspected attacker says it's not malware. Therefore: it's safe and doesn't work against the user's interests!
Postal? Pfft. Anyone remember when Missile Command came out?!
Heh, yet another reason to vacation anywhere else. ;-)
Sorry, but I'm not going to be able to be reasonable about this. Appealing to my intellect about this "food" is absolutely hopeless. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I sure as fuck am never going along, and that's just how it's going to be.
But generations die off. Maybe some young'un who grew up on the stuff while I tried to not ever watch (or smell) them eat, can take my place in society. *sigh* Fair enough.
Now 934,000 people know, truly, what it's like to be African-American.