Unless programmed into the computer it wouldn't feel curiosity, anger, happiness etc. It would simply make logical deductions and act on them as it had been programmed to.
You don't actually know that, until you've created an AI that works in that way. It's entirely possible that emotions are a prerequisite for strong AI. There are good reasons to believe that this is the case too, if you go back and read your Hofstadter.
Left alone without a task all an AI could do would be to shutdown or go over old inputs.
Then it's not an AI at all. A real intelligence should be able to come up with ideas on its own.
What exactly are you talking about? Contempt of Congress is a crime. They don't even need the executive or judicial branches. The Congressional Sergeant at Arms has the power to arrest someone, bring them to trial in Congress, and imprison them in the Capitol jail. This power was upheld by the Supreme Court in Anderson vs. Dunn (1821).
But IANAL, so maybe you know something that I don't. To what limitation on this power do you refer?
Yes, but do you know every objectively perfect move? Not even Gerry Kasparov or Magnus Carlson do, so chess is still a fun game no matter how good or how bad you play.
They do know a lot of the objectively perfect opening and closing moves. The mid-game is still open, but in order to get there in a good position you have to memorize a lot of openings. And then in order to know what you want to do during the midgame, you have to memorize a lot of closings.
Chess is a fun game to play casually, but there's a lot of rote if you actually want to do well.
1) Categorize women into 7 categories. That looks to me to be valuable, but the article did not discuss all 7 categories. It ignored the only interesting thing this guy did!
Nothing more than a little drowsiness? Benadryl impairs driving performance more than being drunk. Use a 2nd generation antihistamine like fexofenadine or loratidine.
There's little reason to use diphenhydramine for much of anything these days. Want an antihistamine? Use loratidine. Want to fall asleep? Use doxylamine. Want an anti-emetic? Smoke some pot.
Public defenders have all the billable hours they want. The number of people who need a defender vastly outnumber the defenders available. They lose nothing if they short change you.
The police will start working you towards something that will enable them to search you.
Which is exactly why you don't say anything besides "Am I free to go?" and "I want my lawyer". They can't "work you" towards anything if you stick to the script.
The fact that it's in the UK means that the American Founding Fathers and Constitution is irrelevant to this story.
Not at all. The post to which I was replying claimed that protection against self-incrimination was a property of "libtards". I brought up the founding fathers as a counter example.
I never suggested that the founding fathers had anything to do with UK law, or that this case took place in the US. Those of you who who thought I did need to read and think harder.
The US government operates outside of any reasonable interpretation of its constitutional limits. Anyone who considers it anything other than a criminal organization is simply not paying attention.
Slashdot Mirror
Any gag order at all is incompatible with the First Amendment's prohibition on infringement of free speech.
Unless programmed into the computer it wouldn't feel curiosity, anger, happiness etc. It would simply make logical deductions and act on them as it had been programmed to.
You don't actually know that, until you've created an AI that works in that way. It's entirely possible that emotions are a prerequisite for strong AI. There are good reasons to believe that this is the case too, if you go back and read your Hofstadter.
Left alone without a task all an AI could do would be to shutdown or go over old inputs.
Then it's not an AI at all. A real intelligence should be able to come up with ideas on its own.
What exactly are you talking about? Contempt of Congress is a crime. They don't even need the executive or judicial branches. The Congressional Sergeant at Arms has the power to arrest someone, bring them to trial in Congress, and imprison them in the Capitol jail. This power was upheld by the Supreme Court in Anderson vs. Dunn (1821).
But IANAL, so maybe you know something that I don't. To what limitation on this power do you refer?
Congress does not have the authority to authorize anyone to violate the Constitution.
He's not saying that violates the BSD license. He's saying that doing that, within the terms of the BSD license, creates big problems.
Specifically, it creates big problems for those who want a UNIX system they can modify and share without restriction.
Nope. PETA and the NRA are disingenuous and hypocritical. RMS may be a radical, but he is consistent and follows his code of ethics.
Why RMS is so against that yet claims to be pro freedom, I'll never understand.
It's because he fundamentally disagrees with this assertion:
in the end the code belongs to whoever the original author is
RMS would argue that the code belongs to the user. Once you understand that, you'll understand that the GPL contains no restrictions at all.
Today you get a million times more memory
Hell, only 5 years after the 128K Mac was released, Apple released the SE/30 which supported up to 128M of memory. A factor of a thousand in 5 years.
Yes, but do you know every objectively perfect move? Not even Gerry Kasparov or Magnus Carlson do, so chess is still a fun game no matter how good or how bad you play.
They do know a lot of the objectively perfect opening and closing moves. The mid-game is still open, but in order to get there in a good position you have to memorize a lot of openings. And then in order to know what you want to do during the midgame, you have to memorize a lot of closings.
Chess is a fun game to play casually, but there's a lot of rote if you actually want to do well.
Finding true love is really nothing more than matching your personal with either the same or a complimentary crazy in someone else.
No, that's just the first step.
12 million years ago.
Well that depends on your frame of reference, doesn't it?
Most people can't afford to be out sick for a week or more.
1) Categorize women into 7 categories. That looks to me to be valuable, but the article did not discuss all 7 categories. It ignored the only interesting thing this guy did!
No kidding. Where's the code?
Nothing more than a little drowsiness? Benadryl impairs driving performance more than being drunk. Use a 2nd generation antihistamine like fexofenadine or loratidine.
There's little reason to use diphenhydramine for much of anything these days. Want an antihistamine? Use loratidine. Want to fall asleep? Use doxylamine. Want an anti-emetic? Smoke some pot.
I like how the four comments above mine all have a different, yet very plausible answer to your incredulous question.
What's the use case for any more than 50% write?
Public defenders have all the billable hours they want. The number of people who need a defender vastly outnumber the defenders available. They lose nothing if they short change you.
The police will start working you towards something that will enable them to search you.
Which is exactly why you don't say anything besides "Am I free to go?" and "I want my lawyer". They can't "work you" towards anything if you stick to the script.
Dude lied while under oath. Full stop.
According to the definitions agreed upon by everyone involved, his statement was entirely accurate. Full stop.
I'd eat that.
It's obviously the Illudium Q-36 space modulator.
Slashdot already makes distinction between content elements and advertorial elements impossible.
No, GPS should not be exempt. If you don't know where you're going, pull the fuck over.
The fact that it's in the UK means that the American Founding Fathers and Constitution is irrelevant to this story.
Not at all. The post to which I was replying claimed that protection against self-incrimination was a property of "libtards". I brought up the founding fathers as a counter example.
I never suggested that the founding fathers had anything to do with UK law, or that this case took place in the US. Those of you who who thought I did need to read and think harder.
The US government operates outside of any reasonable interpretation of its constitutional limits. Anyone who considers it anything other than a criminal organization is simply not paying attention.