Somehow, the brain performs in ways that create intelligence... as physical processes that follow predictable and natural laws, there is no theoretical reason that those way could not be simulated in software... the problem with making AI is that we don't know precisely what we need to simulate, or exactly how much of it to get something that looks intelligent.
I understand that your intentions are benign, this still doesn't change the fact that you are doing harm to me. Your memories stay in your skull, they are never extracted, aggregated, passed through pattern-recognition and attribution algorithms and then distributed as data points in the giant database.
So it's not my intentions that bother you, it's the intentions of those who might use the database...
Right.
Exactly like how it's not the intentions of developers like Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman when they developed public key cryptography that bother politicians, it's the intention of people that *use* their technology to conceal their activities from law enforcement in irrecoverable ways.
Do you not see the striking similarity between these positions?
Essentially, you are saying that the bad, just because it could happen to *YOU*, outweighs absolutely any and all potential for good.
Let that sink in for a minute... and consider this.
People that make video logs of their adventures often upload them to youtube, and there may be frames where there are other people in the scene, but nobody cares about them, and I would consider it improbable to the extreme that every single person in every single scene was asked before the video was uploaded.
I would be more sympathetic to your objectons if it were the case that everything that gets uploaded to the cloud were always automatically shared with everybody and publicly viewable. This may be the case with some services, but it's not necessarily universally true for all.
Of course it is still viewable by anyone else that attains sufficient authorization (through a court order, for example), but then even private information is obtainable from a person's own private home with a search warrant as well, so there's not really any diffference there. While information that is entirely inside of your own brain cannot be extracted without your permission, there are no agents that can truly prevent someone else from volunteering any information that they may happen to have about you if such information is asked for.
I understand you object to the potential for invasion of privacy, and I do not mean any disrespect here, but even if your imagery were uploaded to the cloud that *WAS* publicly accessible, the reality is that you (and me, for that matter) probably aren't interesting enough for anyone to care that either of our names or faces were on a public database, or even bother to look.
I am opposed to pervasive surveillance, by wearing Google glass around me you are removing that choice from me.
By extension, you must be similarly opposed to anyone looking at you who happens to remember what they saw. As I said, video is simply one form of historical record. The written word, audio recordings, and even human recollection are other forms, some of which are considered less reliable than others, but at their core they are no different, since it does not violate any physical laws of this universe to retain an accurate recollection of some experience.
Better analogy is signing you up for Facebook and posting into your timeline against your will
No.... because the purpose of that directly targets *you*, specifiically... it involves directly using your identity in ways that may be undesirable to you. When I suggest using always-on video to augment my memory of my daily experiences, it has absolutely nothing to with you, or any other particular individual I may happen to see. Fundamentally, all that it really amounts to is a simple historical record of the experiences I have had. Full stop. Suggesting that because some people might or would use such technology for other purposes, it should be prohibited or otherwise frowned upon regardless of intent is absolutely *NO* different at its core from the attitude that some politicians hold, who think that strong encryption should be outlawed just because it can also be used by criminals. You object to use that invades your privacy, and I understand that... but you cannot prohibit it without also prohibiting use that would not have been used to invade your privacy because the person who was using it had no interest in trying to use any actually private information about you. Similarly, some politicians object to strong encryption, but you cannot prohibit it without prohibiting its use by people who wouldn't have been using it to hide illegal activity. To be consistent, one must either accept both, or reject both. Given your stance on Google Glass, I can only assume that you are similarly taking the side of such politicians, and suggest that law enforcement should have backdoors into all legally usable encryption, which is fine if that is your opinion... but you can be damn well sure that I'm going to disagree with you.
Only if the 'glasshole' had any intention to profit in some way from what they were photographing or videoing.
I would positively love it if "whole-life" records were a viable thing right now as an aid to human memory, and I see concepts like Google Glass as a step in that direction.
It doesn't matter what your intentions are, the end result is that you are uploading videos of me to the data aggregator.
Anyone could be uploading information about you to an agrgegator just by writing everything they see down and uploading that later. . The only decidedly objective difference between them is that the accuracy of the latter may be disputed... but being that it is entirely possible to accurately record an event with pen and paper, the mere fact that one form happens to be done by hand and the other uses mechanical aid is actually entirely irrelevant. At it's core, video is just one form of historical record that is fundamentally no different than audio-recordsings, the written word, or even cave drawings. Why would you want to deny people who simply wish to have an accurate historical record of their own perosnal experiences simply because you think that they would try to, like papparazzi, exploit the imagery that they collect?
Fundamentally, I believe that taking this view is no different with regards to the effect on law-abiding citizens than the politicians that would like to outlaw strong encryption just because bad guys might use it to get away with shit they may not otherwise, in that you stop innocent people who may have a legitimate and non-infringing use for the technology just because of the assholes that would abuse it.
Or..... you might be less arrogant and not assume that people who have such recording devices are in any way interested in aincafing anyone's privacy, but are, in fact, simply using it to augment and enhance their own memory of the things that they happen to see throughout the day. For example, if you happen to witness an accident, your eyewitness testimony, if needed, will be greatly enhanced by the presence of accompanying video. I can't count the number of times in a week I wish I had been videoing something that I just happened to coincidentally see. If I were wearing the video equipment as simply a regular part of what I would otherwise have worn, I have that fallback if I ever need it. Granted, google glass is not yet at the point of being an effective whole-life recorder, but as I get older and find that my memory is regretfully not what it used to be, technological enhancements such as this kind of thing seem ideal.
About half of them aren't anything that a competent CEO isn't already going to know about their developers before they even hire them, and the remaining ones aren't even accurate for developers that happen to have a good work ethic.
I'm inclined to agree... but generally, people who are truly uneducated are too ignorant to realize how ignorant they actually are, but here he goes and frankly says that he's not a cryptologist or any kind of expert.
The only possibility I can conclude from it is that he thinks that the mathematicians are deliberately lying to him for some reason.
The laws of physics predict that such events will indeed be visible. The auroras, both northern and southern, are caused by charged particles striking the atmosphere while being guided by the earth's magnetic field. Each such charged particle coming from the sun energizes any atom that it strikes in our atmosphere, causing the electrons in it to be pushed further from the nucleus. As the electrons fall back to their "regular" state, the atom produces a photon of a particular frequency, which can be predicted based on the element that was struck.
Most of the elemental composition of our atmosphere does produce visible light in response to such particles. The trick is for there to be enough such activity to make the photon intensity bright enough to be seen with the unaided eye, and this is a relatively rare occurrence. It's more common within a certain distance of one of the magnetic poles, but for most of the world, it is a very rare occurrence. If the solar activity is high enough, and this has happened in the recorded history, it can be seen as near to the equator as the tropics.
I've lived in Canada my whole life, and I can count on my hands the number of times I have seen an aurora in my 5+ decades of existence. They are always something special to see, even when they are not spectacular.
Oh, and as an aside... I'm not entirely sure how I should interpret the fact that it appears that an AC has decided to respond to most of my comments on any story with the same non-sequitur. Should I be flattered that somebody, however apparently unimaginative, has made what seems to be a deliberate effort to so closely follow my comments, or is there anything else I should do?
If he didn't disagree with the math, then he would know that there is no possible way to do that without compromising the security of things that *should* legitimately be encrypted, such as electronic bank transactions, for example. If back doors exist, they will be just as usable by people with nefarious intentions as they would be by those who may mean, however sincerely, to protect us from such people.
If law enforcement has an encryption back door, then that exact same back door can and most certainly would be used by criminals. Laws against it wouldn't actually stop anyone who was already intent on breaking the law anyways, so all one is accomplishing by adding such backdoors is endangering everybody so that law enforcement is more readily able to catch people that may have otherwise used it for nefarious purposes.... except now law enforcement has exponentially *MORE* work to do, because now they also have to catch all of the bad guys who are using these back doors with nefarious intentions to harm people... people they wouldn't even have to *TRY* to catch if private individuals were allowed to use truly secure encryption.
To be fair, it is certainly regrettable that criminals can get away with their actions by using externally undecipherable encryption to conceal any evidence of their misdoings, but in the end, it is simply outside of the realm of the principles of reality by which this world seems to operate that one can ever really prevent this without seriously endangering those that could have had an entirely legitimate use for encryption.
There is no agent in this world, or for that matter in all of the entire knowable universe, that could hope to actually enforce the notion of "X can do this math, but Y cannot", so that is why what he is asking for defies the laws of math.... and unlike laws of a nation, the laws of math are not simply constraints by which people or things are expected or obligated to conform to, they are observations that have been rigorously proven to be universally true within the domain that any given such law governs.
I have spent *HOURS* trying to debug code that I could see nothing wrong with, and another human being looks at it and sees the problem in seconds, such as having an inverted condition, or some other typo that the compiler would not detect as a syntax error, but which is plainly obvious in the context of what is being done, and meanwhile I didn''t see the problem because I was reading the code as what I *thought* I had typed instead of what I actually typed.
"Anyone who disagrees with me must have been indoctrinated."
This part is a straw man argument.
Uh... no. That part is definitely called "poisoning the well", a type of logical fallacy where you discount the credibility of people who may be able to present a logical argument against you by pre-emptively priming the listener(s) with adverse information about such opponents before they can actually express their argument. A strawman where the arguer attempts to suggest that some because some particular preposition (that is usually a distorted form of the dissenter's argument, but may also be completely fabricated) is false, and in particular their opponent did *NOT* actually say, that this somehow will extend to discrediting their opponent's actual view. The problem with it lies in the flawed assumption that the view that they are talking about was ever one that was actually held by the dissenter.
Suggesting that "anyone who disagrees with them must have been indoctrinated" does not do that... while it does present irrelevant information that the opponent did not say, it does not try to show how this information is actually false. Instead it simply directly attempts to the discredit a dissenter by pre-emptively calling into question the integrity of any argument they might try to make, specifically by announcing (unproven) information which could cause the view to be perceived as something less than rational and unbiased to other listeners.
Poisoning the well is actually just considered a special type of ad-hominem attack.
... like cash. I do not use it to get anything that I don't have the cash in my bank account to cover. If the place where I'm shopping doesn't already take direct payments from my bank (many do, but a few do not), I will instead use my CC, and then log into my bank right away on my smartphone and pay it off right then and there.
I've heard some people try to adopt a policy of just paying the balance off when it becomes due to avoid excess payments, but I tried this and found that this was not generally sustainable, because what I found was I could quickly lose track of how much I spent in a month and discover that my monthly total when the bill arrived was in excess of what I could actually afford to pay at once, forcing me to carry a balance.
Now that my CC is finally paid off completely, with this new system I've been using, I know immediately if I have the money to buy it or not because the money is either already in my bank account at that exact moment, or it isn't. A quick login onto my bank's website will tell me exactly how much liquidity I have at any given instant, and if the money isn't there for what I want, then I can't buy it, just as if I didn't have enough cash.
Or you could just use the definition that the words literally imply, which is to say that the car is zero emission when it doesn't, you know, emit anything. Absolutely anything that is purely battery powered would achieve this criteria, regardless of how the power for the batteries is obtained.
Which basically only means that calling a vehicle zero-emission doesn't really mean anything for the environment if the same amount of net pollution were still being achieved.
Saying that a car is not zero-emission when it, itself, is not producing any emissions is like saying that a clean water source that is being used to fill a dirty water-jug is not really clean because the water you get out from the jug is still dirty, In fact, how dirty the water jug may be is entirely superfluous, because if you could use a clean jug, then you'd get clean water from it, and this is also independent of whether or not you have the ability to use a clean jug.
Carbon neutral/negative is not the same thing as zero-emission. Zero means that over the lifetime of the vehicle, and under normal operation, the total mass of waste produced by the vehicle is 0 kg.
Even the theoretically perfect hydrogen powered vehicle, producing nothing but pure water vapor out of its tailpipe, is not zero-emission.
On account of the extensive time spent in a classroom environment which is relatively densely packed, viruses tend to spread more quickly through children than through adults.
Not saying I disagree with you, mind... just pointing out why it may be that it was only with regards to children.
Slashdot Mirror
Somehow, the brain performs in ways that create intelligence... as physical processes that follow predictable and natural laws, there is no theoretical reason that those way could not be simulated in software... the problem with making AI is that we don't know precisely what we need to simulate, or exactly how much of it to get something that looks intelligent.
So it's not my intentions that bother you, it's the intentions of those who might use the database...
Right.
Exactly like how it's not the intentions of developers like Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman when they developed public key cryptography that bother politicians, it's the intention of people that *use* their technology to conceal their activities from law enforcement in irrecoverable ways.
Do you not see the striking similarity between these positions?
Essentially, you are saying that the bad, just because it could happen to *YOU*, outweighs absolutely any and all potential for good.
Let that sink in for a minute... and consider this.
People that make video logs of their adventures often upload them to youtube, and there may be frames where there are other people in the scene, but nobody cares about them, and I would consider it improbable to the extreme that every single person in every single scene was asked before the video was uploaded.
I would be more sympathetic to your objectons if it were the case that everything that gets uploaded to the cloud were always automatically shared with everybody and publicly viewable. This may be the case with some services, but it's not necessarily universally true for all. Of course it is still viewable by anyone else that attains sufficient authorization (through a court order, for example), but then even private information is obtainable from a person's own private home with a search warrant as well, so there's not really any diffference there. While information that is entirely inside of your own brain cannot be extracted without your permission, there are no agents that can truly prevent someone else from volunteering any information that they may happen to have about you if such information is asked for.
I understand you object to the potential for invasion of privacy, and I do not mean any disrespect here, but even if your imagery were uploaded to the cloud that *WAS* publicly accessible, the reality is that you (and me, for that matter) probably aren't interesting enough for anyone to care that either of our names or faces were on a public database, or even bother to look.
Only if you are *really* gullible.
By extension, you must be similarly opposed to anyone looking at you who happens to remember what they saw. As I said, video is simply one form of historical record. The written word, audio recordings, and even human recollection are other forms, some of which are considered less reliable than others, but at their core they are no different, since it does not violate any physical laws of this universe to retain an accurate recollection of some experience.
No.... because the purpose of that directly targets *you*, specifiically... it involves directly using your identity in ways that may be undesirable to you. When I suggest using always-on video to augment my memory of my daily experiences, it has absolutely nothing to with you, or any other particular individual I may happen to see. Fundamentally, all that it really amounts to is a simple historical record of the experiences I have had. Full stop. Suggesting that because some people might or would use such technology for other purposes, it should be prohibited or otherwise frowned upon regardless of intent is absolutely *NO* different at its core from the attitude that some politicians hold, who think that strong encryption should be outlawed just because it can also be used by criminals. You object to use that invades your privacy, and I understand that... but you cannot prohibit it without also prohibiting use that would not have been used to invade your privacy because the person who was using it had no interest in trying to use any actually private information about you. Similarly, some politicians object to strong encryption, but you cannot prohibit it without prohibiting its use by people who wouldn't have been using it to hide illegal activity. To be consistent, one must either accept both, or reject both. Given your stance on Google Glass, I can only assume that you are similarly taking the side of such politicians, and suggest that law enforcement should have backdoors into all legally usable encryption, which is fine if that is your opinion... but you can be damn well sure that I'm going to disagree with you.
Make it a bunch of asterisks.
Done.
Only if the 'glasshole' had any intention to profit in some way from what they were photographing or videoing.
I would positively love it if "whole-life" records were a viable thing right now as an aid to human memory, and I see concepts like Google Glass as a step in that direction.
Anyone could be uploading information about you to an agrgegator just by writing everything they see down and uploading that later. . The only decidedly objective difference between them is that the accuracy of the latter may be disputed... but being that it is entirely possible to accurately record an event with pen and paper, the mere fact that one form happens to be done by hand and the other uses mechanical aid is actually entirely irrelevant. At it's core, video is just one form of historical record that is fundamentally no different than audio-recordsings, the written word, or even cave drawings. Why would you want to deny people who simply wish to have an accurate historical record of their own perosnal experiences simply because you think that they would try to, like papparazzi, exploit the imagery that they collect?
Fundamentally, I believe that taking this view is no different with regards to the effect on law-abiding citizens than the politicians that would like to outlaw strong encryption just because bad guys might use it to get away with shit they may not otherwise, in that you stop innocent people who may have a legitimate and non-infringing use for the technology just because of the assholes that would abuse it.
Incafing=invading. Stupid autocorrect
Or..... you might be less arrogant and not assume that people who have such recording devices are in any way interested in aincafing anyone's privacy, but are, in fact, simply using it to augment and enhance their own memory of the things that they happen to see throughout the day. For example, if you happen to witness an accident, your eyewitness testimony, if needed, will be greatly enhanced by the presence of accompanying video. I can't count the number of times in a week I wish I had been videoing something that I just happened to coincidentally see. If I were wearing the video equipment as simply a regular part of what I would otherwise have worn, I have that fallback if I ever need it. Granted, google glass is not yet at the point of being an effective whole-life recorder, but as I get older and find that my memory is regretfully not what it used to be, technological enhancements such as this kind of thing seem ideal.
About half of them aren't anything that a competent CEO isn't already going to know about their developers before they even hire them, and the remaining ones aren't even accurate for developers that happen to have a good work ethic.
As opposed to what? A married or divorced cow?
How strange. :P
I'm inclined to agree... but generally, people who are truly uneducated are too ignorant to realize how ignorant they actually are, but here he goes and frankly says that he's not a cryptologist or any kind of expert.
The only possibility I can conclude from it is that he thinks that the mathematicians are deliberately lying to him for some reason.
The laws of physics predict that such events will indeed be visible. The auroras, both northern and southern, are caused by charged particles striking the atmosphere while being guided by the earth's magnetic field. Each such charged particle coming from the sun energizes any atom that it strikes in our atmosphere, causing the electrons in it to be pushed further from the nucleus. As the electrons fall back to their "regular" state, the atom produces a photon of a particular frequency, which can be predicted based on the element that was struck. Most of the elemental composition of our atmosphere does produce visible light in response to such particles. The trick is for there to be enough such activity to make the photon intensity bright enough to be seen with the unaided eye, and this is a relatively rare occurrence. It's more common within a certain distance of one of the magnetic poles, but for most of the world, it is a very rare occurrence. If the solar activity is high enough, and this has happened in the recorded history, it can be seen as near to the equator as the tropics.
I've lived in Canada my whole life, and I can count on my hands the number of times I have seen an aurora in my 5+ decades of existence. They are always something special to see, even when they are not spectacular.
Oh, and as an aside... I'm not entirely sure how I should interpret the fact that it appears that an AC has decided to respond to most of my comments on any story with the same non-sequitur. Should I be flattered that somebody, however apparently unimaginative, has made what seems to be a deliberate effort to so closely follow my comments, or is there anything else I should do?
If he didn't disagree with the math, then he would know that there is no possible way to do that without compromising the security of things that *should* legitimately be encrypted, such as electronic bank transactions, for example. If back doors exist, they will be just as usable by people with nefarious intentions as they would be by those who may mean, however sincerely, to protect us from such people.
If law enforcement has an encryption back door, then that exact same back door can and most certainly would be used by criminals. Laws against it wouldn't actually stop anyone who was already intent on breaking the law anyways, so all one is accomplishing by adding such backdoors is endangering everybody so that law enforcement is more readily able to catch people that may have otherwise used it for nefarious purposes.... except now law enforcement has exponentially *MORE* work to do, because now they also have to catch all of the bad guys who are using these back doors with nefarious intentions to harm people... people they wouldn't even have to *TRY* to catch if private individuals were allowed to use truly secure encryption.
To be fair, it is certainly regrettable that criminals can get away with their actions by using externally undecipherable encryption to conceal any evidence of their misdoings, but in the end, it is simply outside of the realm of the principles of reality by which this world seems to operate that one can ever really prevent this without seriously endangering those that could have had an entirely legitimate use for encryption.
There is no agent in this world, or for that matter in all of the entire knowable universe, that could hope to actually enforce the notion of "X can do this math, but Y cannot", so that is why what he is asking for defies the laws of math.... and unlike laws of a nation, the laws of math are not simply constraints by which people or things are expected or obligated to conform to, they are observations that have been rigorously proven to be universally true within the domain that any given such law governs.
Either he believes that he knows more than experts, or he believes that experts are liars. Which is it?
I have spent *HOURS* trying to debug code that I could see nothing wrong with, and another human being looks at it and sees the problem in seconds, such as having an inverted condition, or some other typo that the compiler would not detect as a syntax error, but which is plainly obvious in the context of what is being done, and meanwhile I didn''t see the problem because I was reading the code as what I *thought* I had typed instead of what I actually typed.
Uh... no. That part is definitely called "poisoning the well", a type of logical fallacy where you discount the credibility of people who may be able to present a logical argument against you by pre-emptively priming the listener(s) with adverse information about such opponents before they can actually express their argument. A strawman where the arguer attempts to suggest that some because some particular preposition (that is usually a distorted form of the dissenter's argument, but may also be completely fabricated) is false, and in particular their opponent did *NOT* actually say, that this somehow will extend to discrediting their opponent's actual view. The problem with it lies in the flawed assumption that the view that they are talking about was ever one that was actually held by the dissenter.
Suggesting that "anyone who disagrees with them must have been indoctrinated" does not do that... while it does present irrelevant information that the opponent did not say, it does not try to show how this information is actually false. Instead it simply directly attempts to the discredit a dissenter by pre-emptively calling into question the integrity of any argument they might try to make, specifically by announcing (unproven) information which could cause the view to be perceived as something less than rational and unbiased to other listeners.
Poisoning the well is actually just considered a special type of ad-hominem attack.
That's not really a strawman... it's actually a form of ad-hominem called "poisoning the well".
Wow... I didn't even see that typo, even when I reread it before posting the above reply. I only noticed it when you pointed out the specific mistake.
Why? For the exact same reasons that some people might decide that they only want to use cash... to avoid getting into debt.
As for snapping cash into a g-string.... well I've never had any occasion to go to places where that would be a thing to do in the first place.
I'm reminded of a gag I once saw:
Welcome to the tautology club
The first rule of the tautology club is the first rule of the tautology club.
I've heard some people try to adopt a policy of just paying the balance off when it becomes due to avoid excess payments, but I tried this and found that this was not generally sustainable, because what I found was I could quickly lose track of how much I spent in a month and discover that my monthly total when the bill arrived was in excess of what I could actually afford to pay at once, forcing me to carry a balance.
Now that my CC is finally paid off completely, with this new system I've been using, I know immediately if I have the money to buy it or not because the money is either already in my bank account at that exact moment, or it isn't. A quick login onto my bank's website will tell me exactly how much liquidity I have at any given instant, and if the money isn't there for what I want, then I can't buy it, just as if I didn't have enough cash.
Or you could just use the definition that the words literally imply, which is to say that the car is zero emission when it doesn't, you know, emit anything. Absolutely anything that is purely battery powered would achieve this criteria, regardless of how the power for the batteries is obtained.
Which basically only means that calling a vehicle zero-emission doesn't really mean anything for the environment if the same amount of net pollution were still being achieved.
Saying that a car is not zero-emission when it, itself, is not producing any emissions is like saying that a clean water source that is being used to fill a dirty water-jug is not really clean because the water you get out from the jug is still dirty, In fact, how dirty the water jug may be is entirely superfluous, because if you could use a clean jug, then you'd get clean water from it, and this is also independent of whether or not you have the ability to use a clean jug.
Carbon neutral/negative is not the same thing as zero-emission. Zero means that over the lifetime of the vehicle, and under normal operation, the total mass of waste produced by the vehicle is 0 kg. Even the theoretically perfect hydrogen powered vehicle, producing nothing but pure water vapor out of its tailpipe, is not zero-emission.
That was what I said. Reread it.
Not saying I disagree with you, mind... just pointing out why it may be that it was only with regards to children.