Walking out on negotiations might work when you're holding the nukes or the Tibet being discussed at a diplomatic meeting. But walking out on engineering standards meetings for consumer electronics seems more like giving up. Maybe when you're a mafia government that rules by decree with an iron fist, you can't tell the difference.
If you actually had a critical sense of TFA, you'd have noticed in my post that I criticized the article's premise, which is
"This gruesome industrial accident would not have happened in a world in which robot behaviour was governed by the Three Laws of Robotics drawn up by Isaac Asimov, a science-fiction writer. [...] But decades later the laws, designed to prevent robots from harming people either through action or inaction (see table), remain in the realm of fiction."
Just because the Economist writer contradicts their premise with the throwaway "In any case", they're not insightful, they're still just half-bright.
Apparently, your robotics rules have a very tiny buffer on which to operate.
Google's ISP pays the telco for the bandwidth the ISP uses.
The Internet works. It pays for itself well, even better than centralized payments. Except if you're the telcos, and you have "unleveraged assets": legalized blackmail you bought in Congress and Mike McCurry's lobbying office. You could get paid not only by Google's ISP (or their ISP, etc), but also by Google itself, because you can cut them off anyway.
The telco answer to the Net Neutrality that has created $HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS in wealth, connected BILLIONS of people worldwide, and has been THE ONLY REALLY GOOD NEW THING PEOPLE HAVE DONE FOR GENERATIONS is Net Doublecharge. Which will make telcos even richer than their current blackmail and bribery has. And will of course destroy exactly the innovation and investment the telcos and McCurry are whining about as if they wouldn't drown it in a bathtup the moment they thought they could sell its soggy corpse.
That _Economist_ story premise is half-bright nonsense (like every other story I've read in their pages). Of course such a murder by robot as the 1981 Japanese example could happen in an Asimov "3 Laws of Robotics" story. That's the entire point of Asimov's 'Laws stories: even with such simple, seemingly complete laws, there's lots of unexpected complexity within which much can go wrong.
Asimov's 4th law was Murphy's: "Anything that can go wrong, will."
If a Japanese factory robot couldn't murder an unsuspecting maintenance tech, even with an iridium positronic brain, Asimov could never have written a single one of those stories with any interesting plot. And that (anonymous) Economist writer could never have seen that awful Will Smith movie ripoff, and gotten the stupid idea that Asimov's laws are foolproof.
The FBI is the DHS agency actually listening to your phonecalls, after NSA passes them on. So Bush can say on TV that the NSA program doesn't listen to your phonecalls.
Does that kind of hairsplitting make you feel safer, Anonymous Bush worshipper Coward?
The Department of Homeland Security is busy spying on every American's phonecalls and email. The Republican government is furiously working to fail to pass Homophobia Amendments to the Constitution. Meanwhile, our nuclear workers can now be blackmailed on an unprecedented scale.
Dilbert was written by Scott Adams from his IT desk at Pacific Bell about his daily work environment in cubeland. Having worked developing IT for businesses and governments on all 4 coasts of America (OK, Great Lakes in Canada, not the Arctic), for over a decade and a half, I can tell you that his cubeland stretches from sea to shining sea, as well as from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli. And it's always been that way.
Which is good news. Many thousands of people have found careers doing interesting, lucrative work among the sea of nonsense that is the business world. It just takes a sense of humor. If you still want more after a military IT career, you're probably qualified.
Ann Coulter is the rightwing Anchor Troll in their "Overton Window" strategy.
It's a simple way to force the public debate "spectrum window" to your end of the spectrum by trolling unthinkable statements in public. Successful trolls create only predictable responses, not any further development of the ideas. So the "unthinkable" is now part of the public conversation, without risking rejection by anyone actually thinking about it. Changing the ideas in the public window of the spectrum moves the window closer to the new idea. Now the window includes more of the thinkable ideas that were excluded or marginalized, while the window excludes or marginalizes the ideas previously more in the "center", but further away from the troll.
The only risk with overtonning the window is that the troll discredits its entire end of the spectrum by association. Which is why it's important that the troll make as extreme, ridiculous comments as possible. And frequently defend their statements with "I was just kidding". The associates who benefit from the troll in their neighborhood must also not even repudiate the troll, as any association (positive or negative) is contagious. The troll must work alone. Though of course they can be paid by the same beneficiaries, or have their "home markets" all subsidized by the same beneficiaries.
Now Ann Coulter actually makes sense, probably for the first time. As do her fellow trolls like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and most of the rightwing talkradioheads.
Tech career advancement (and survival) has always depended more on learning new things than anything else. The annual IEEE salary surveys have demonstrated that priority for decades. Tech people aren't necessarily the best to teach new things to humans, though their main job is to teach them to machines.
Advancing tech people, like the Indians in this story, react to competition by learning new things. Like Americans joining a union.
Telcos want to compete with cablecos and everyone else in the world in delivering "IPTV". They want to leverage their oligopoly advantage in controlling the backbones to compete with what would otherwise be a level playing field.
Porn always forecasts the trend in comms/entertainment tech markets. Amateur porn and tiny little producers/distributors are the majority of porn consumed. TV of all genres will go the same way, now that the Internet has hit critical mass of high bandwidth consumers. Telcos can't compete with such a diverse array of content competitors on a level playing field, so of course they're working to fragment and unlevel the field.
Giovanetti of course knows this. His analysis doesn't come from any ignorance but the willful kind. The principles are obvious, the break with the decades-old, unprecedentedly successful "neutral Internet" too blatant to miss. He's shilling for corporations who benefit for his thinktank's "less regulation" ideology. As usual, deregulation promotion masks corporate anarchy in the name of "freedom". Freedom for corporations to exploit us without government protection.
All this telco "Net Neutrality" mumbo jumbo just means that AT&T can charge put Google in a bidding war with Yahoo to speed searches and content over AT&T's Internet hops. In addition to the money Google already pays to the carriers for carrying its vast Internet traffic at the connection point.
Anyone who paints it any more complicated than that is spinning. For a fee from someone, whether directly from the telcos or some ideology thinktank gobetween.
Has anyone else noticed that our Republican government's telecom rulings always produce the most invasive government and least liable corporations, with humans always taking up all the slack?
Telcos and cablecos (what passes for "broadband" in the US) can run VoIP businesses that won't be taxed (increasing their price), required to support 911 or deliver universal service because they're somehow not "phone services". But when the government wants to tap them, they're "phone services".
There's no longer any role for consistent principles in our Republican government, except merely baselessly stating that each decision is a matter of principle.
Your message might have stepped offtopic, but the point the poster made about Yum's brands' separate quality dropping by conglomeration seems to support the benefits of Apple's buying Nintendo. Though maybe they all turned to crap 35 years ago when Yum acquired them, and he's right.
Either way, I don't believe Apple is buying Nintendo based on the mere speculations of someone qualified solely because they publish. I might believe them if they speculated we'd soon see the several fast food brands owned by a single corporation;).
Please cite (not just mention) a repetition of Franklin's kite experiment according to Franklin's published methodology.
The page you linked is a long discussion, without rigor or evidence, of circumstantial implications for Franklin's story's plausibility, boiling down to "he wouldn't risk his scientific or resulting political credibility on such a hoax". When his scientific reputation was being stolen, preempted by European plagiarists, the target of the hoax, which would have protected his reputation.
The very page you linked has a response citing analysis of repetition attempts, which electrocuted the experimenter following Franklin's methodology, and the relevant differences in methodology (grounding) that protected the "successful" experimenters.
The always murky field of historical inference yields to the facts of scientific history. If you want charges of sensationalism to stick, you should look at the easily-available counterarguments to the hype you're pushing, which are dry facts.
I've always found them to make bad chicken, pizza and tacos, as well as deliver bad service and slow drivethrus. I don't see how any of that changed with their acquisitions by Yum.
Slashdot Mirror
Walking out on negotiations might work when you're holding the nukes or the Tibet being discussed at a diplomatic meeting. But walking out on engineering standards meetings for consumer electronics seems more like giving up. Maybe when you're a mafia government that rules by decree with an iron fist, you can't tell the difference.
If you actually had a critical sense of TFA, you'd have noticed in my post that I criticized the article's premise, which is
" This gruesome industrial accident would not have happened in a world in which robot behaviour was governed by the Three Laws of Robotics drawn up by Isaac Asimov, a science-fiction writer. [...] But decades later the laws, designed to prevent robots from harming people either through action or inaction (see table), remain in the realm of fiction."
Just because the Economist writer contradicts their premise with the throwaway "In any case", they're not insightful, they're still just half-bright.
Apparently, your robotics rules have a very tiny buffer on which to operate.
Google's ISP pays the telco for the bandwidth the ISP uses.
The Internet works. It pays for itself well, even better than centralized payments. Except if you're the telcos, and you have "unleveraged assets": legalized blackmail you bought in Congress and Mike McCurry's lobbying office. You could get paid not only by Google's ISP (or their ISP, etc), but also by Google itself, because you can cut them off anyway.
The telco answer to the Net Neutrality that has created $HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS in wealth, connected BILLIONS of people worldwide, and has been THE ONLY REALLY GOOD NEW THING PEOPLE HAVE DONE FOR GENERATIONS is Net Doublecharge. Which will make telcos even richer than their current blackmail and bribery has. And will of course destroy exactly the innovation and investment the telcos and McCurry are whining about as if they wouldn't drown it in a bathtup the moment they thought they could sell its soggy corpse.
That _Economist_ story premise is half-bright nonsense (like every other story I've read in their pages). Of course such a murder by robot as the 1981 Japanese example could happen in an Asimov "3 Laws of Robotics" story. That's the entire point of Asimov's 'Laws stories: even with such simple, seemingly complete laws, there's lots of unexpected complexity within which much can go wrong.
Asimov's 4th law was Murphy's: "Anything that can go wrong, will."
If a Japanese factory robot couldn't murder an unsuspecting maintenance tech, even with an iridium positronic brain, Asimov could never have written a single one of those stories with any interesting plot. And that (anonymous) Economist writer could never have seen that awful Will Smith movie ripoff, and gotten the stupid idea that Asimov's laws are foolproof.
Moderation 0
50% Funny
50% Flamebait
See? It works, even in response to an overton attack. Of course, when opposing ends of a spectrum overton, the arms race makes the rubble bounce.
Starting Score: 1 point
Moderation -1
100% Flamebait
TrollMods fly their corporate media propaganda flags on Slashdot. Even while they anonymously suppress the simple truth.
The FBI is the DHS agency actually listening to your phonecalls, after NSA passes them on. So Bush can say on TV that the NSA program doesn't listen to your phonecalls.
Does that kind of hairsplitting make you feel safer, Anonymous Bush worshipper Coward?
The Department of Homeland Security is busy spying on every American's phonecalls and email. The Republican government is furiously working to fail to pass Homophobia Amendments to the Constitution. Meanwhile, our nuclear workers can now be blackmailed on an unprecedented scale.
Do you feel safer?
Dilbert was written by Scott Adams from his IT desk at Pacific Bell about his daily work environment in cubeland. Having worked developing IT for businesses and governments on all 4 coasts of America (OK, Great Lakes in Canada, not the Arctic), for over a decade and a half, I can tell you that his cubeland stretches from sea to shining sea, as well as from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli. And it's always been that way.
Which is good news. Many thousands of people have found careers doing interesting, lucrative work among the sea of nonsense that is the business world. It just takes a sense of humor. If you still want more after a military IT career, you're probably qualified.
Try reading either my post, or the message I quoted, before posting gibberish.
You're posting a troll calling a nontroll a troll. You've already met more pot than you can handle.
Fascism is rightwing. Fascism is corporate government, communicating with the people through only violence and propaganda.
Perfect for media corporations. Trolls are their national bird.
Moderation 0
50% Funny
50% Flamebait
See? It works, even in response to an overton attack. Of course, when opposing ends of a spectrum overton, the arms race makes the rubble bounce.
You and your comment should be annihilated, after being burned alive watching your family forced to cannibalize each other.
See? It works, even in response to an overton attack. Of course, when opposing ends of a spectrum overton, the arms race makes the rubble bounce.
Ann Coulter is the rightwing Anchor Troll in their "Overton Window" strategy.
It's a simple way to force the public debate "spectrum window" to your end of the spectrum by trolling unthinkable statements in public. Successful trolls create only predictable responses, not any further development of the ideas. So the "unthinkable" is now part of the public conversation, without risking rejection by anyone actually thinking about it. Changing the ideas in the public window of the spectrum moves the window closer to the new idea. Now the window includes more of the thinkable ideas that were excluded or marginalized, while the window excludes or marginalizes the ideas previously more in the "center", but further away from the troll.
The only risk with overtonning the window is that the troll discredits its entire end of the spectrum by association. Which is why it's important that the troll make as extreme, ridiculous comments as possible. And frequently defend their statements with "I was just kidding". The associates who benefit from the troll in their neighborhood must also not even repudiate the troll, as any association (positive or negative) is contagious. The troll must work alone. Though of course they can be paid by the same beneficiaries, or have their "home markets" all subsidized by the same beneficiaries.
Now Ann Coulter actually makes sense, probably for the first time. As do her fellow trolls like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and most of the rightwing talkradioheads.
Moderation -1
60% Flamebait
40% Insightful
TrollMods feel safer when they suppress the truth about their corporate idols.
Who's paying her to say that total opposite position, now that the RIAA isn't paying her to say the stupid original?
Tech career advancement (and survival) has always depended more on learning new things than anything else. The annual IEEE salary surveys have demonstrated that priority for decades. Tech people aren't necessarily the best to teach new things to humans, though their main job is to teach them to machines.
Advancing tech people, like the Indians in this story, react to competition by learning new things. Like Americans joining a union.
Telcos want to compete with cablecos and everyone else in the world in delivering "IPTV". They want to leverage their oligopoly advantage in controlling the backbones to compete with what would otherwise be a level playing field.
Porn always forecasts the trend in comms/entertainment tech markets. Amateur porn and tiny little producers/distributors are the majority of porn consumed. TV of all genres will go the same way, now that the Internet has hit critical mass of high bandwidth consumers. Telcos can't compete with such a diverse array of content competitors on a level playing field, so of course they're working to fragment and unlevel the field.
Giovanetti of course knows this. His analysis doesn't come from any ignorance but the willful kind. The principles are obvious, the break with the decades-old, unprecedentedly successful "neutral Internet" too blatant to miss. He's shilling for corporations who benefit for his thinktank's "less regulation" ideology. As usual, deregulation promotion masks corporate anarchy in the name of "freedom". Freedom for corporations to exploit us without government protection.
You oppose Net Neutrality because there's no easy GUI to Congressmembers' vote history or their explanations for their votes?
What happens when Congress doesn't pay as much as the opposing lobbyists to get the fast lane over some intermediary telco for the content you want?
All this telco "Net Neutrality" mumbo jumbo just means that AT&T can charge put Google in a bidding war with Yahoo to speed searches and content over AT&T's Internet hops. In addition to the money Google already pays to the carriers for carrying its vast Internet traffic at the connection point.
Anyone who paints it any more complicated than that is spinning. For a fee from someone, whether directly from the telcos or some ideology thinktank gobetween.
Has anyone else noticed that our Republican government's telecom rulings always produce the most invasive government and least liable corporations, with humans always taking up all the slack?
Telcos and cablecos (what passes for "broadband" in the US) can run VoIP businesses that won't be taxed (increasing their price), required to support 911 or deliver universal service because they're somehow not "phone services". But when the government wants to tap them, they're "phone services".
There's no longer any role for consistent principles in our Republican government, except merely baselessly stating that each decision is a matter of principle.
The most disgusting part of this story is that it's posted most appropriately under "Politics".
Your message might have stepped offtopic, but the point the poster made about Yum's brands' separate quality dropping by conglomeration seems to support the benefits of Apple's buying Nintendo. Though maybe they all turned to crap 35 years ago when Yum acquired them, and he's right.
;).
Either way, I don't believe Apple is buying Nintendo based on the mere speculations of someone qualified solely because they publish. I might believe them if they speculated we'd soon see the several fast food brands owned by a single corporation
Please cite (not just mention) a repetition of Franklin's kite experiment according to Franklin's published methodology.
The page you linked is a long discussion, without rigor or evidence, of circumstantial implications for Franklin's story's plausibility, boiling down to "he wouldn't risk his scientific or resulting political credibility on such a hoax". When his scientific reputation was being stolen, preempted by European plagiarists, the target of the hoax, which would have protected his reputation.
The very page you linked has a response citing analysis of repetition attempts, which electrocuted the experimenter following Franklin's methodology, and the relevant differences in methodology (grounding) that protected the "successful" experimenters.
The always murky field of historical inference yields to the facts of scientific history. If you want charges of sensationalism to stick, you should look at the easily-available counterarguments to the hype you're pushing, which are dry facts.
KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell are all just brands owned by Yum Brands.
I've always found them to make bad chicken, pizza and tacos, as well as deliver bad service and slow drivethrus. I don't see how any of that changed with their acquisitions by Yum.