No, it is not misleading.... an electric vehicle produces no emissions, period. I would suggest it is misleading to say that it does produce emissions simply because the production of electricity in the first place may happen to. Production of electricity may be dirty and you can well condemn the consumption of electricity, *ANY* consumption of electricity, for contributing to that end, but the consumption itself in an electric vehicle does not produce any emissions at. The emissions you allege that are produced by an electric vehicle are, in fact, perpetuated by the owner of the vehicle who utilizes dirty power generation methods, since they are the one who chooses when and where to charge their vehicle. That no other forms of power generation may be conveniently available to them is wholly irrelevant, the vehicle itself remains clean.
Electric vehicles are zero emissions... Electricity in an area may get produced by waste-causing means, but the vehicles themselves do not produce any emissions. The term is entirely accurate. It is only misleading to say that consuming electricity in general does not cause greenhouse gasses, but the operation of the devices themselves do not pollute at all.
Further, electricity does not necessarily have to be produced by burning products that pollute the environment, and this is certainly the case in many areas.
Of course they know that banning widespread use of strong encryption won't guard against 'smart criminals', but I would argue that they likely believe there are far more 'dumb' ones.... laymen who are committing relatively small scale crimes and getting away with it because of the convenient and legal availability of strong encryption, where law enforcement cannot determine the difference between legal activity that happens to be private and illegal activity.
Banning encryption would do nothing to stop the most serious crimes, and would certainly not help law enforcement cope with anything as big as terrorism.... that they frequently try to spin the suggestion that it would is laughable because it is unsustainable. It suggests that the people who commit such crimes are otherwise relatively incompetent where there is no real reason to suspect that they are. I discard such an argument which they might present as superfluous, and an exaggeration at best that may only be getting used to try and generate sympathy for their cause.
However, the fact does remain that there is no lack of occasion where law enforcement has discovered an encrypted device during a criminal investigation and found themselves frustrated by attempts to decrypt it. I suggest, therefore, that their argument for wanting to ban strong encryption would be simply so that they would be able to discern between devices that contain innocuous information and devices that would criminally incriminate someone if their content were known. While I can be sympathetic to this kind of incentive, I do not allege that this argument convinces me that they *should* ban strong encryption, however.... because to do so would compromise everyone's privacy for what is, even if the government were entirely correct that banning strong encryption would enable them to eventually catch at least more of the bad guys than they currently do (which is not inconceivable), the net benefit to society could not possibly be positive. Law enforcement cannot be everywhere at once, and so the harm to innocent parties could be ongoing, and could happen in multiple places simultaneously because the Internet is not a geographical place, as opposed to those that are harmed by discrete and isolated incidents of terrorism that happen in specific locales. The conclusion is inescapable, even from a standpoint of being sympathetic to law enforcement's frustration with encryption, that banning strong encryption is not a sustainable solution that is in the best interests of protecting the greatest percentage of the general public
I'm pretty certain you've got that backwards.... unless you were only making a joke, in which case I apologize for the fact that your sense of humor was lost on me.
Barring simple ignorance as a factor, about the only reason I can think of that they could be making a fuss about crypto is that for some reason, they are thoroughly convinced that there are some significant subset of criminals that use unbreakable cryptography and do not get caught because of it, but who would be too incompetent to get away without getting caught if strong cryptographic choices were simply not as readily available to them (through legal channels).
If this belief is correct, one could at least sympathize with why they feel strong crypto should be outlawed, even if one does not actually agree with the proposal.
One may call this simply a tenuous conjecture on their part and discount it on that basis, but I would suggest that even if it were true, I do not think it should outweigh the implications for completely innocent parties with regards to their personal information and their privacy.
You applied the argument I was using to something I did not say, alleging that because you can show how applying it to other positions should be invalid, that it should apply equally to the situation I was giving.
While I agree with you in principle, the problem with anonymity on the Internet is that there is no shortage of people who abuse any opportunity for anonymity to act like assholes, sometime causing measurable harm to others who would be unable to take legitimate recourse because there is nobody to take such recourse against.
If people could always behave responsibly online, I doubt using aliases instead of real names would ever would have become a contentious issue, but like so many other things, a few problem people go ahead and spoil it for everyone else.
Oh yea, did I mention that above was a example of what took place in a week? A day? See how we're screwed?
No, I do not.
Artificial intelligence is simply intelligence that happens to be artificial... if there is no rational reason to fear things simply because they are artificial, and there is no sound reason to fear intelligence in general either, then there should be no logical reason to fear AI. As for its potential vast superiority to human intelligence, it is worth noting that the most brilliant people who have ever lived contributed *hugely* to society, so there is plenty of reason to believe that an AI that so outpaces us intellectually may be even more beneficial. People who spout such concerns are exhibiting an irrational fear of the unknown, which may very well be an understandably human trait, but can do nothing but stand in the way of all real progress. Indeed, if we let the fear of the unknown stop us from doing things, we would still be living in caves.
So how would that be different from natural intelligence, exactly, and more particularly why should that property make it more fearsome than natural intelligence?
That the government can't be trusted with this kind of power may be a thoroughly valid point. but approaching an advocate of this kind of position with that line of reasoning isn't liable to earn a sympathetic ear, let alone have them take you seriously, no matter how right you may be. My point is that instead of trying to convince them that they have wrong ideas about what the government might do with that information, which they would probably just reflexively deny anyways, one should instead point out the inherent problems from a point of view that they may not have previously considered from the standpoint that the government *COULD* be trusted.
Again, that they might not be able to be trusted may be a legitimately sound argument, but it isn't going to convince anyone who isn't at least already open to the idea that it could be true. The best way to convince somebody that they are wrong about something is to start with the assumption that everything they believe is true, and lead them down a logical chain of reasoning from that point, one that does not require any particular events to have already happened or disagree with anything they may already believe, so it does not depend on the veracity of any reporting or the perceptions of anyone, such that this chain inexorably leads them to the conclusion that their original assumptions must be wrong.
I did not say it does not scare me.... I suggested that it should not be any more worrysome, yet for some reason, it is.... people are more worried about malicious AI's to the extent that they fear the entire concept of general AI altogether than they are about people with malicious intent which can be demonstrably shown to be no less dangerous than any hypothetical killer AI might be.
I never once suggested that so-called "do no harm" rules would be possible to create.... rather, I equated your suggestion that the overriding of such rules (which are not realistic anyways) would be reasonably equivalent to someone explicitly programming an AI to do things that would be harmful, which, as I was saying, only supports the notion that general artificial intelligence is really no more dangerous than natural intelligence
I find it interesting that you draw the conclusion that AI's would ever engage humans in battle battle, and then retroactively suggest that they may only do so in the first place because a human being with malicious intent might program them to do so.
Absolutely anything that you would have to worry about an artificial intelligence doing that might be troublesome to our society, you would have to also need to reasonably worry about a malicious person doing exact the same thing, albeit perhaps only more slowly. Yet I don't see people who fear the so-called problems that AI is feared to potentially cause worrying about that sort of thing. Can anyone explain why that is without drawing on the idea that because we don't fully understand something, there must be something inherently mysterious or supernatural about it?
apparently you're still supposed to register your vehicle regardless. even if you don't require a license.
No, you do not
you know what? i don't think you have to register a drone if you never take it outside your property though. it may not be written anywhere, but who the fuck is going to find out?
You are wrong about it not being written anywhere.... as I quoted above:
Q. If I'm just flying it for fun in my yard, do I have to register it?
A. Yes, if the UAS weight is within the stated weights for registration.
Also, not getting caught is really beside the point, it is still explicitly illegal.
.... is to be condescending without sounding like you are trying to be.
Such as...
Ms Fiorina,
While I can appreciate that your intentions behind this proposal may be driven by a sincere belief that such measures would be in the best interests of society, they fail to account for a single fundamental problem - that if the government, or law enforcement, ever has any foolproof way to work around any encryption, then so will the bad guys, who can then use it to eavesdrop on other people's communications. The problem with this is that of course, you are proposing sacrificing absolutely everyone's privacy, and exposing them indefensibly to anyone who might try to harm them by abusing their personal information. The government and law enforcement cannot be everywhere at once, and completely innocent people will be harmed by this proposal if it should pass. I can completely understand the imperative feeling that something might need to be done in this arena, but this is not the solution.
In what way does a drone with a flight ceiling of maybe 50 feet and a control range of perhaps double or triple that, flown either on private property, or in an open field in a public park that is largely surrounded by trees that are themselves no less than twice as high interfere with manned aircraft?
Oh... and you *STILL* have to be a US citizen to register.... which basically means that people who might be visiting or vacationing within the US are forbidden from flying what this act classifies as a drone, even if it only a hobby, and even if they do so entirely responsibly.
I'm firmly convinced that every last one of you who are complaining about this are the ones responsible, and the louder you whine about it, the worse an offender you are.
I'm not sure how you could be oblivious to the possibility that many of the people complaining about this new requirement have done absolutely nothing wrong, have *NEVER* flown a drone in an area where it was intruding on anyone else's privacy or over other people's private property, nor ever caused any endangerment to anyone.
Yet, this requirement makes it illegal for a hobbyist to fly a simple $100 quadcopter in their own backyard, where they are harming absolutely noone.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it is not misleading.... an electric vehicle produces no emissions, period. I would suggest it is misleading to say that it does produce emissions simply because the production of electricity in the first place may happen to. Production of electricity may be dirty and you can well condemn the consumption of electricity, *ANY* consumption of electricity, for contributing to that end, but the consumption itself in an electric vehicle does not produce any emissions at. The emissions you allege that are produced by an electric vehicle are, in fact, perpetuated by the owner of the vehicle who utilizes dirty power generation methods, since they are the one who chooses when and where to charge their vehicle. That no other forms of power generation may be conveniently available to them is wholly irrelevant, the vehicle itself remains clean.
Electric vehicles are zero emissions... Electricity in an area may get produced by waste-causing means, but the vehicles themselves do not produce any emissions. The term is entirely accurate. It is only misleading to say that consuming electricity in general does not cause greenhouse gasses, but the operation of the devices themselves do not pollute at all.
Further, electricity does not necessarily have to be produced by burning products that pollute the environment, and this is certainly the case in many areas.
Could you be more specific? What emissions do you allege that an electric vehicle produces?
Of course they know that banning widespread use of strong encryption won't guard against 'smart criminals', but I would argue that they likely believe there are far more 'dumb' ones.... laymen who are committing relatively small scale crimes and getting away with it because of the convenient and legal availability of strong encryption, where law enforcement cannot determine the difference between legal activity that happens to be private and illegal activity.
Banning encryption would do nothing to stop the most serious crimes, and would certainly not help law enforcement cope with anything as big as terrorism.... that they frequently try to spin the suggestion that it would is laughable because it is unsustainable. It suggests that the people who commit such crimes are otherwise relatively incompetent where there is no real reason to suspect that they are. I discard such an argument which they might present as superfluous, and an exaggeration at best that may only be getting used to try and generate sympathy for their cause.
However, the fact does remain that there is no lack of occasion where law enforcement has discovered an encrypted device during a criminal investigation and found themselves frustrated by attempts to decrypt it. I suggest, therefore, that their argument for wanting to ban strong encryption would be simply so that they would be able to discern between devices that contain innocuous information and devices that would criminally incriminate someone if their content were known. While I can be sympathetic to this kind of incentive, I do not allege that this argument convinces me that they *should* ban strong encryption, however.... because to do so would compromise everyone's privacy for what is, even if the government were entirely correct that banning strong encryption would enable them to eventually catch at least more of the bad guys than they currently do (which is not inconceivable), the net benefit to society could not possibly be positive. Law enforcement cannot be everywhere at once, and so the harm to innocent parties could be ongoing, and could happen in multiple places simultaneously because the Internet is not a geographical place, as opposed to those that are harmed by discrete and isolated incidents of terrorism that happen in specific locales. The conclusion is inescapable, even from a standpoint of being sympathetic to law enforcement's frustration with encryption, that banning strong encryption is not a sustainable solution that is in the best interests of protecting the greatest percentage of the general public
What "mistake" are you referring to? I was talking about why they might be in such a huff about strong crypto, what are you talking about?
I'm pretty certain you've got that backwards.... unless you were only making a joke, in which case I apologize for the fact that your sense of humor was lost on me.
I've lived most of my life substantially below what is considered to be the national poverty level, and I was still paying taxes.
Barring simple ignorance as a factor, about the only reason I can think of that they could be making a fuss about crypto is that for some reason, they are thoroughly convinced that there are some significant subset of criminals that use unbreakable cryptography and do not get caught because of it, but who would be too incompetent to get away without getting caught if strong cryptographic choices were simply not as readily available to them (through legal channels).
If this belief is correct, one could at least sympathize with why they feel strong crypto should be outlawed, even if one does not actually agree with the proposal.
One may call this simply a tenuous conjecture on their part and discount it on that basis, but I would suggest that even if it were true, I do not think it should outweigh the implications for completely innocent parties with regards to their personal information and their privacy.
The only people that tax breaks make any sense for at all are the poor.
You applied the argument I was using to something I did not say, alleging that because you can show how applying it to other positions should be invalid, that it should apply equally to the situation I was giving.
Strawman
I did not suggest that the argument I presented should be applied to that context.
While I agree with you in principle, the problem with anonymity on the Internet is that there is no shortage of people who abuse any opportunity for anonymity to act like assholes, sometime causing measurable harm to others who would be unable to take legitimate recourse because there is nobody to take such recourse against.
If people could always behave responsibly online, I doubt using aliases instead of real names would ever would have become a contentious issue, but like so many other things, a few problem people go ahead and spoil it for everyone else.
No, I do not.
Artificial intelligence is simply intelligence that happens to be artificial... if there is no rational reason to fear things simply because they are artificial, and there is no sound reason to fear intelligence in general either, then there should be no logical reason to fear AI. As for its potential vast superiority to human intelligence, it is worth noting that the most brilliant people who have ever lived contributed *hugely* to society, so there is plenty of reason to believe that an AI that so outpaces us intellectually may be even more beneficial. People who spout such concerns are exhibiting an irrational fear of the unknown, which may very well be an understandably human trait, but can do nothing but stand in the way of all real progress. Indeed, if we let the fear of the unknown stop us from doing things, we would still be living in caves.
So how would that be different from natural intelligence, exactly, and more particularly why should that property make it more fearsome than natural intelligence?
That the government can't be trusted with this kind of power may be a thoroughly valid point. but approaching an advocate of this kind of position with that line of reasoning isn't liable to earn a sympathetic ear, let alone have them take you seriously, no matter how right you may be. My point is that instead of trying to convince them that they have wrong ideas about what the government might do with that information, which they would probably just reflexively deny anyways, one should instead point out the inherent problems from a point of view that they may not have previously considered from the standpoint that the government *COULD* be trusted.
Again, that they might not be able to be trusted may be a legitimately sound argument, but it isn't going to convince anyone who isn't at least already open to the idea that it could be true. The best way to convince somebody that they are wrong about something is to start with the assumption that everything they believe is true, and lead them down a logical chain of reasoning from that point, one that does not require any particular events to have already happened or disagree with anything they may already believe, so it does not depend on the veracity of any reporting or the perceptions of anyone, such that this chain inexorably leads them to the conclusion that their original assumptions must be wrong.
I did not say it does not scare me.... I suggested that it should not be any more worrysome, yet for some reason, it is.... people are more worried about malicious AI's to the extent that they fear the entire concept of general AI altogether than they are about people with malicious intent which can be demonstrably shown to be no less dangerous than any hypothetical killer AI might be.
I never once suggested that so-called "do no harm" rules would be possible to create.... rather, I equated your suggestion that the overriding of such rules (which are not realistic anyways) would be reasonably equivalent to someone explicitly programming an AI to do things that would be harmful, which, as I was saying, only supports the notion that general artificial intelligence is really no more dangerous than natural intelligence
But they are legally required to obtain registration nonetheless.
Not to mention that registration isn't even available as an option for non-US citizens that happen to be within the US.
I find it interesting that you draw the conclusion that AI's would ever engage humans in battle battle, and then retroactively suggest that they may only do so in the first place because a human being with malicious intent might program them to do so.
Absolutely anything that you would have to worry about an artificial intelligence doing that might be troublesome to our society, you would have to also need to reasonably worry about a malicious person doing exact the same thing, albeit perhaps only more slowly. Yet I don't see people who fear the so-called problems that AI is feared to potentially cause worrying about that sort of thing. Can anyone explain why that is without drawing on the idea that because we don't fully understand something, there must be something inherently mysterious or supernatural about it?
No, you do not
You are wrong about it not being written anywhere.... as I quoted above:
Also, not getting caught is really beside the point, it is still explicitly illegal.
Such as...
Ms Fiorina,
While I can appreciate that your intentions behind this proposal may be driven by a sincere belief that such measures would be in the best interests of society, they fail to account for a single fundamental problem - that if the government, or law enforcement, ever has any foolproof way to work around any encryption, then so will the bad guys, who can then use it to eavesdrop on other people's communications. The problem with this is that of course, you are proposing sacrificing absolutely everyone's privacy, and exposing them indefensibly to anyone who might try to harm them by abusing their personal information. The government and law enforcement cannot be everywhere at once, and completely innocent people will be harmed by this proposal if it should pass. I can completely understand the imperative feeling that something might need to be done in this arena, but this is not the solution.
Where did you see that it said that?
In what way does a drone with a flight ceiling of maybe 50 feet and a control range of perhaps double or triple that, flown either on private property, or in an open field in a public park that is largely surrounded by trees that are themselves no less than twice as high interfere with manned aircraft?
Oh... and you *STILL* have to be a US citizen to register.... which basically means that people who might be visiting or vacationing within the US are forbidden from flying what this act classifies as a drone, even if it only a hobby, and even if they do so entirely responsibly.
I'm not sure how you could be oblivious to the possibility that many of the people complaining about this new requirement have done absolutely nothing wrong, have *NEVER* flown a drone in an area where it was intruding on anyone else's privacy or over other people's private property, nor ever caused any endangerment to anyone.
Yet, this requirement makes it illegal for a hobbyist to fly a simple $100 quadcopter in their own backyard, where they are harming absolutely noone.