Technically speaking, all programs halt in actuality. I presented that point to my software engineering prof, who I seem to recall was less than appreciative of the insight.
I remember it being discussed in my software engineering class that trying to automate bug removal or detection could be shown to be isomorphic to solving Turing's halting problem.
Definitions mean nothing to the current governing regime.
We're talking about a government that has chosen to take "national security" to include even things that merely *might* be of signifiicant economic interest... to only one particular industry, I might add.
The point I was making is that if you actually think about it, you'd realize that there's no "strong reason" to expect that generalized AI will be any different than any other previous form of automation. Just making a vague generalization of "this time will be different" just because it's AI is not really substantiated by any evidence that isn't ultimately founded on either conspiracy theory or simply fear of the unknown.
The same glass that is half empty is also half full. Less people will be needed to do certain tasks, and less money will be spent on them doing so, but the people that re not doing those tasks anymore because they are obsolete will have time to do other things instead, which if history is any indication, are also generally higher paying jobs.
The types of crimes for which capital punishment is often thought of as deserved is pretty narrow, even in jurisdictions that have it... what kind of crime, specifically, are you imagining they might drum up false charges against somebody for that capital punishment could be appropriate?
Well, maybe not lots... but certainly more than a few..
I live in one: Canada.
The UK and Australia do not impose hard limits on the number of terms for their elected officials either.
But it's a fair point you raised.... a situation where term limits existed and where then *removed* might be an indicator of a problem. The countries that I know of which do not have a set limit on the number of terms have never had them, to the best of my knowledge.
If proof existed that an election was rigged, then it would not be a valid election in the first place, and a re-election should be possible to force, as I said.
Well, they could also not bundle data that was not supposed to be part of the demo with the demo version.... that would reduce size as well. Probably even more than #ifdef's... the point of them being primary to ensure that the program does not misbehave when otherwise expected data will not be present.
By my understanding, they only removed the limit on the number of consecutive terms allowed, they did not remove any limit on the duration of any single term. Individual terms are still 5 years long, afaik, and he could still be voted out after any one of them.
Lots of countries don't have limits on the number of terms that a person can be elected, and there's not any significant problems there. This is mitigated either by upper fixed bounds on the length of any single term (or fixed term lengths) that themselves are not overly long, or else an established legal policy for allowing a sufficient amount of dissent within the government structure to force a re-election if there is no explicit upper bound on a single term.
I think, perhaps, you may have misread my comment.
I said "Life isn't fair".
Any notion of whether or not one "deserves" everything that happens to them is irrelevant.
Ultimately, the entire "Right to be Forgotten" concept tries to control what people are basically allowed to think about somebody by legally limiting access to past information about them. I find that puts the needs of the few ahead of the needs of the many, and it is why I consider it deplorable.
Some things in life have permanent consequences, even if they are only the result of a single poor decision that doesn't seem to justly merit such a consequence.
And if other people are willing to judge someone harshly because of something they did in the past because they found it on Google, even if it happened so long ago that doing so could reasonably be considered "unfair" to that person, then depriving those other people of the ability to learn about it so that it can't happen is doing, essentially, the same thing as what Newspeak from Orwell's 1984 was designed to do - trying to control what other people are allowed to think. That is why I am as opposed to the notion as I am.
It's a pretty safe bet that mere handheld weapons would mean shit against any modern enemy.
So again, should civilians be allowed to have nukes or biological weaponry? If not, why not? And if so, what difference does it make where you draw the line in today's world?
Slashdot Mirror
That is *EXACTLY* what I had said.
Bloody hell, no... this is a gold mine.
Don't pay the fee for porn, find it, report it, collect $500, repeat.
You'd probably have enough to retire on within a month.
Reading about this, I really wish I was a RI resident.
Technically speaking, all programs halt in actuality. I presented that point to my software engineering prof, who I seem to recall was less than appreciative of the insight.
Perhaps you didn't catch that I said it was of economic interest to only one particular (commercial, not government) industry.
I remember it being discussed in my software engineering class that trying to automate bug removal or detection could be shown to be isomorphic to solving Turing's halting problem.
I used the term "regime" because the fault does not lay on any single person. "administration" would have been an equally applicable term.
Definitions mean nothing to the current governing regime.
We're talking about a government that has chosen to take "national security" to include even things that merely *might* be of signifiicant economic interest... to only one particular industry, I might add.
It'll suck for the people who spent the $15k or $30k on the product, only to have it stop working not long afterwards.
I'd hopw that $15k/$30k would include upgrades for a long enough time to be worthwhile, otherwise it's a money sink.
I don't see this as being usable on current hardware for very long.
The point I was making is that if you actually think about it, you'd realize that there's no "strong reason" to expect that generalized AI will be any different than any other previous form of automation. Just making a vague generalization of "this time will be different" just because it's AI is not really substantiated by any evidence that isn't ultimately founded on either conspiracy theory or simply fear of the unknown.
And what, specifically, do you think that reason actually is?
The same glass that is half empty is also half full. Less people will be needed to do certain tasks, and less money will be spent on them doing so, but the people that re not doing those tasks anymore because they are obsolete will have time to do other things instead, which if history is any indication, are also generally higher paying jobs.
Steve is dead too.
Whether this is coincidence or conspiracy is a question left for the reader.
The types of crimes for which capital punishment is often thought of as deserved is pretty narrow, even in jurisdictions that have it... what kind of crime, specifically, are you imagining they might drum up false charges against somebody for that capital punishment could be appropriate?
Where's the evidence of a rigged election that isn't equivalent to hearsay?
Well, maybe not lots... but certainly more than a few..
I live in one: Canada.
The UK and Australia do not impose hard limits on the number of terms for their elected officials either.
But it's a fair point you raised.... a situation where term limits existed and where then *removed* might be an indicator of a problem. The countries that I know of which do not have a set limit on the number of terms have never had them, to the best of my knowledge.
If proof existed that an election was rigged, then it would not be a valid election in the first place, and a re-election should be possible to force, as I said.
Well, they could also not bundle data that was not supposed to be part of the demo with the demo version.... that would reduce size as well. Probably even more than #ifdef's... the point of them being primary to ensure that the program does not misbehave when otherwise expected data will not be present.
By my understanding, they only removed the limit on the number of consecutive terms allowed, they did not remove any limit on the duration of any single term. Individual terms are still 5 years long, afaik, and he could still be voted out after any one of them.
Lots of countries don't have limits on the number of terms that a person can be elected, and there's not any significant problems there. This is mitigated either by upper fixed bounds on the length of any single term (or fixed term lengths) that themselves are not overly long, or else an established legal policy for allowing a sufficient amount of dissent within the government structure to force a re-election if there is no explicit upper bound on a single term.
I get #2, but why #1? I see why #1 might be desirable for humanitarian reasons, but what does it have to do with the trustworthiness of a government?
If it was supposed to be a demo version, then what the fuck was the full version doing there?
I get that you want to build them both from the same codebase, but that's what #ifdef is for.
I think, perhaps, you may have misread my comment.
I said "Life isn't fair".
Any notion of whether or not one "deserves" everything that happens to them is irrelevant.
Ultimately, the entire "Right to be Forgotten" concept tries to control what people are basically allowed to think about somebody by legally limiting access to past information about them. I find that puts the needs of the few ahead of the needs of the many, and it is why I consider it deplorable.
Some things in life have permanent consequences, even if they are only the result of a single poor decision that doesn't seem to justly merit such a consequence.
And if other people are willing to judge someone harshly because of something they did in the past because they found it on Google, even if it happened so long ago that doing so could reasonably be considered "unfair" to that person, then depriving those other people of the ability to learn about it so that it can't happen is doing, essentially, the same thing as what Newspeak from Orwell's 1984 was designed to do - trying to control what other people are allowed to think. That is why I am as opposed to the notion as I am.
Er... I meant "And if that's the case...", not "And if so..." I didn't catch how that read until after I hit submit.
It's a pretty safe bet that mere handheld weapons would mean shit against any modern enemy.
So again, should civilians be allowed to have nukes or biological weaponry? If not, why not? And if so, what difference does it make where you draw the line in today's world?