Not quite sure where you see the No True Scotsman. I believe you believe it is "Countries over 100 million". As in, "No countries over 100 million can compare their infrastructure to countries under 100 million," which I don't think quite fits the Scotsman. You retort with "Country A can be compared to city B". I say that is comparing apples to oranges.
I'm tired of the fact that the United States, a country that spans a continent and contains more than 300 million people, is constantly compared to countries with populations comparable to New York City. If you are going to compare anything infrastructure related in the US to another country, make sure that country has at least a hundred million people.
DM: "You walk into an underground chamber. At the other end of the chamber is a large chest with a lock. On either side of the chest is a marble pillar carved into the shape of a woman. The woman on the left has a sword and the woman on the right has a battle ax."
Thief: "I take out my lock-pick and walk to the--"
Magic-User: "Don't move! Those statues are going to come to life!"
Thief: "What makes you think that? That sounds quite unlikely to me."
Astronomers expect a certain amount of lithium based on current theories of element formation in the early universe. Apparently they are wrong, bringing about, as Asimov observed, the most exciting phrase in science, "Hmm...that's odd,"
Hmm, interesting. That's not how I interpret the phrase "It's reasonable to expect..." at all. I interpret it as "Reason tells me that a certain outcome is the most likely to occur." I think we should take a poll to see which is the most common interpretation.
It's reasonable to expect all people to refrain from credibly threatening the lives of others.
Sorry, but it really is unreasonable to expect ALL people from credibly threatening the lives of others. After all, these are people we are talking about. Maybe you don't have a lot of experience with people, but some are really messed up. Since we are talking about credible threats, it's reasonable for us to kill anyone who makes these credible threats.
As a disclaimer I'll point out that the above threat is not credible.
Unfortunately, for most people's everyday online activities, they can get traced back by a sufficiently informed an connected agency and are not truly anonymous anyway. I see a future where anonymity and privacy are going to fade away, and most people will just shrug and say 'meh'. We give away privacy for convenience ever time we use a credit card. We do it every time we use a smart phone. Currently, it only exists for those who actively try to be anonymous.
The only way the Russian's can "win" this propaganda war is if they can somehow convince those Europeans who make decisions about sanctions that they had nothing to do with the downing of the passenger jet. People will want to know where that Buk missile launcher came from, who gave the order to shoot, and where that missile launcher is now. If there is any evidence that the Russians had any direct involvement with this, no amount of propaganda will help them outside of the regions where they have complete control of the media.
I'm going to assume that intelligent civilizations are much more rare than natural resources in the galaxy. Since intelligent civilizations probably develop in radically different ways, we would be far more valuable as objects of study than as a source of minerals. It would enhance the survival of a star spanning civilization to understand how other intelligent civilizations evolve.
Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”
The robot should give priority to its owner. If the robot has to consider all humans equal, it will have to deal with ambiguity and uncertain intention in the external environment, which can lead to some disturbing possibilities. Consider the possibility that a robot could be manipulated into committing murder by having two pedestrians step out in front of a car on a narrow bridge. The car has no choice but to turn off the bridge, because two people are worth more than one. Or turning away from pedestrians (who are more likely to die) and instead going into oncoming traffic (where the oncoming car may or may not even have a passenger, or it may be a school bus). By always maximizing the survival of the passenger, I suspect that overall deaths will be minimized.
Personally I like the idea that the underlying reality of the universe is random. I find the idea that the universe is a deterministic clockwork to be depressing. Of course, the universe is going to be whatever it is no matter what I think. Unless, of course, I'm the one who collapses the wave function.
I guess you're not a fan of the Copenhagen interpretation. From Wikipedia:
The Copenhagen interpretation - due largely to the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr - remains the quantum mechanical formalism that is currently most widely accepted amongst physicists, some 75 years after its enunciation. According to this interpretation, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is not a temporary feature which will eventually be replaced by a deterministic theory, but instead must be considered a final renunciation of the classical idea of "causality".
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite sure where you see the No True Scotsman. I believe you believe it is "Countries over 100 million". As in, "No countries over 100 million can compare their infrastructure to countries under 100 million," which I don't think quite fits the Scotsman. You retort with "Country A can be compared to city B". I say that is comparing apples to oranges.
I'm tired of the fact that the United States, a country that spans a continent and contains more than 300 million people, is constantly compared to countries with populations comparable to New York City. If you are going to compare anything infrastructure related in the US to another country, make sure that country has at least a hundred million people.
DM: "You walk into an underground chamber. At the other end of the chamber is a large chest with a lock. On either side of the chest is a marble pillar carved into the shape of a woman. The woman on the left has a sword and the woman on the right has a battle ax."
Thief: "I take out my lock-pick and walk to the--"
Magic-User: "Don't move! Those statues are going to come to life!"
Thief: "What makes you think that? That sounds quite unlikely to me."
Magic-User: "You're new around here, aren't you?"
Astronomers expect a certain amount of lithium based on current theories of element formation in the early universe. Apparently they are wrong, bringing about, as Asimov observed, the most exciting phrase in science, "Hmm...that's odd,"
Hmm, interesting. That's not how I interpret the phrase "It's reasonable to expect..." at all. I interpret it as "Reason tells me that a certain outcome is the most likely to occur." I think we should take a poll to see which is the most common interpretation.
It's reasonable to expect all people to refrain from credibly threatening the lives of others.
Sorry, but it really is unreasonable to expect ALL people from credibly threatening the lives of others. After all, these are people we are talking about. Maybe you don't have a lot of experience with people, but some are really messed up. Since we are talking about credible threats, it's reasonable for us to kill anyone who makes these credible threats.
As a disclaimer I'll point out that the above threat is not credible.
If you live near a star and you have solar panels, you won't need expendable fuel.
Unfortunately, for most people's everyday online activities, they can get traced back by a sufficiently informed an connected agency and are not truly anonymous anyway. I see a future where anonymity and privacy are going to fade away, and most people will just shrug and say 'meh'. We give away privacy for convenience ever time we use a credit card. We do it every time we use a smart phone. Currently, it only exists for those who actively try to be anonymous.
The only way the Russian's can "win" this propaganda war is if they can somehow convince those Europeans who make decisions about sanctions that they had nothing to do with the downing of the passenger jet. People will want to know where that Buk missile launcher came from, who gave the order to shoot, and where that missile launcher is now. If there is any evidence that the Russians had any direct involvement with this, no amount of propaganda will help them outside of the regions where they have complete control of the media.
But can you ride on it?
They have a 'bit' of a smog problem in Guangzhou, but the hotel I was at had an excellent breakfast pho bar.
Hold on a sec ... is he trying to say that bitcoin can help rectify problems caused by weak currencies?
How about we call it a Higgoid object.
So I'm not going to be able to walk around in shirt sleeves after taking an oxygen pill? Bummer.
I was going to build one of those after seeing them made on Scrapheap Challenge (aka Junkyard Wars).
I'm going to assume that intelligent civilizations are much more rare than natural resources in the galaxy. Since intelligent civilizations probably develop in radically different ways, we would be far more valuable as objects of study than as a source of minerals. It would enhance the survival of a star spanning civilization to understand how other intelligent civilizations evolve.
Like you said, "everything is relative". For astronomers, two million years is a pretty short time. Unless you're waiting in the coffee line.
Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”
~George Carlin
Great book.
The robot should give priority to its owner. If the robot has to consider all humans equal, it will have to deal with ambiguity and uncertain intention in the external environment, which can lead to some disturbing possibilities. Consider the possibility that a robot could be manipulated into committing murder by having two pedestrians step out in front of a car on a narrow bridge. The car has no choice but to turn off the bridge, because two people are worth more than one. Or turning away from pedestrians (who are more likely to die) and instead going into oncoming traffic (where the oncoming car may or may not even have a passenger, or it may be a school bus). By always maximizing the survival of the passenger, I suspect that overall deaths will be minimized.
The word "perfect" is meaningless outside of mathematics.
Agreed. I recommend it to all our new programmers.
Personally I like the idea that the underlying reality of the universe is random. I find the idea that the universe is a deterministic clockwork to be depressing. Of course, the universe is going to be whatever it is no matter what I think. Unless, of course, I'm the one who collapses the wave function.
I guess you're not a fan of the Copenhagen interpretation. From Wikipedia:
The Copenhagen interpretation - due largely to the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr - remains the quantum mechanical formalism that is currently most widely accepted amongst physicists, some 75 years after its enunciation. According to this interpretation, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is not a temporary feature which will eventually be replaced by a deterministic theory, but instead must be considered a final renunciation of the classical idea of "causality".
Now you've done it! Now we have to define "thinking". And thinking is required to define thinking. Or is it? Because I haven't defined thinking yet.