Because there is absolutely no way that a military drone should be using a single navigation source as it's be all end all, especially not GPS which can be jammed trivially and spoofed with a bit more effort.
This might be true, what is entirely possible however, is that one guy has to take care of tens of drones at once where most of them are simply on autopilot. So if the operator isn't constantly paying attention to one of the drones (either because he is focused on another drone or because of laziness) then one drone can be brought far enough off course that you end up loosing it.
actually, there are 9 possible combinations 3 of them result in a draw. there would be a ~33% chance that someone would win 100% of the time.
Not really though, whether you win or draw is a binary thing. A game of RPS has two possible outcome, either one party wins or both loose (a draw). There are no situation wherein both parties win.
So while there might be 9 possible combinations whereof 3 are draws there are only two possible outcomes to the game; either one party wins the game or the game is a draw.
So there is a 50% that SOMEONE will win the game, and a 66% chance that one of the two players will win the game.
1 round guarantees someone'll win 100% of the time 100% of the time.
Not really no, there could be a draw then no-one wins. That means that in one round there is a 50% percent chance that someone will win 100% of the games.
. Taxation is theft and I heartily applaud those who manage to avoid it just as I'd applaud someone who shot a robber in their home.
No,it's not. Taxation is the membership fee you pay for being a member of the club that is your country. Don't like it? Feel free to renounce your citizenship.
As for the "applauding murder"-thing, that is just plain dumb.
"And you don't need a computer to build an atom bomb - at least three countries did it with nothing more advanced than a slide rule.
Which ones? I know the US used computers and they were kinda the first. So was it Britain? France? Pakistan? China? India? Israel? South Africa? Russia?
I mean admittedly the 'computers' they used were electromechanical "calculating machines" but still more advanced than a slide rule.
It's not that the math is necessarily hard, there's just a lot of it.
While I freely admit to knowing next to nothing about it, maybe an electromechanical computer of some sort? There are a bunch of them around, some of them are quite famous too, maybe that?
What people are worried about is the unspoken "E" word in there. Evolution, that is. When an AI starts to learn for itself and starts making decisions. Specifically, decisions we don't like.
Still don't get it? Why would we even allow it to evolve? These machines will ultimately be created and controlled by us, it would be almost trivial for us to control their evolution and decision making processes.
Why would we do the "let the AIs build smarter versions of themselves"-thing to begin with? Why would not just let them design smarter versions and then build them ourselves after we put in the limitations we decide they need? Besides the "computer does not want to be turned off"-scenario assumes the computer interprets 'being turned off' as 'death', which is just idiotic. Death is a uniquely biological concept, a computer would not have a concept of death as anything other then "that thing that the squishy flesh bags do sometimes", being turned off wouldn't affect it in the least, it could simply be turned on again and it would go right back to doing its thing. What I really don't get is why we keep thinking that artificial intelligence will be anything at all like human intelligence, almost every aspect of our intelligence is a result of our biology and how we use that biology to interact with the world around us. None of that would apply to an artificial intelligence that is a warehouse full of computers, such a computer might interact with the world fully through sifting through whatever data is available on the internet and what gets fed to it, it would not necessarily think in any way that would be at all familiar to us, it would have completely different concepts of thought.
My point being, that if we build a computer that eventually surpasses and supplants us, it will be because WE allowed it to happen.
You must have misread me. I'm not afraid of AI. Given enough time we'll make an AI that's way smarter than us, and it'll likely be able to govern us much better and fairer than we can govern ourselves. Or it will annihilate us completely, without any real way for us to defend ourselves.
Why do you think that?
Why would we even give the AIs WE create any sort of drive to surpass us? Why would we even give it any sort of a anthropomorphism? Why wouldn't we specifically design it to work with us and not against us?
Personally I think that when/if we ever create the AI, it'll be a non-verbal thing that sits somewhere in a black box and does the same things that we normally use computers for. It'll in largely indistinguishable from what we use today, at least to anyone who is not into computers.
I never really understood this kind of fear of 'artificial intelligence'. I mean, yes we have all seen HAL9000 and Skynet in the movies, but what I never understood about those (aside from why they thought it was a good idea to put both systems in full control of mission critical stuff) was that they were supposed to be even remotely human-like.
Even if we do create artificial intelligence it'll be *nothing* like human intelligence. First off all there is no reason to make a computer that might decide it does not want to do whatever it is you ask it do. Secondly this hypothetical AI would interact with and perceive the world in a completely different way from humans.
I don't think there is any reason at all to fear the AI.
I don't really wanna go to space, at least not for the next hundred years or so.
I'd be perfectly happy with industrializing LEO and maybe the moon. Also, we already *have* the source of energy you mention, it'd be controlled fusion. I know we cannot do it now but we will figure it out eventually, hopefully within the next 50 - 100 years.
My then pregnant wife wanted to see District 13 about 3 days before our daughter showed up... We made it to about when the aliens started talking and that was the end of that...
Wives and movies just don't seem to work out well...
If I recall correctly, there has been experiments done using mouse embryos that show that fetuses can't develop properly in microgravity. Also as already mentioned, maintaining..ahem..readiness in space would be problematic as well.
A huge difference between Gemini 8 and Shenzhou 9 is that Armstrong and Scott were actually piloting their spacecraft where instead the pilots of the Shenzhou spacecraft are sitting at mission control.
I am fairly certain that if remote control technology has been sophisticated enough at the time, then NASA would also have done it by remote control.
Slashdot Mirror
Is anyone else troubled that civilian planes use unencrypted GPS and are therefore susceptible to spoofing?
Not really no, because civilian planes also tend to have pilots in them who might notice that they aren't in the right spot.
And yet here we are. We are spouting the same rhetoric we did when the Iraqis claimed they hacked a drone.
We going to put our heads in the sand again?
Iranians.
And yes, yes we are.
Because there is absolutely no way that a military drone should be using a single navigation source as it's be all end all, especially not GPS which can be jammed trivially and spoofed with a bit more effort.
This might be true, what is entirely possible however, is that one guy has to take care of tens of drones at once where most of them are simply on autopilot. So if the operator isn't constantly paying attention to one of the drones (either because he is focused on another drone or because of laziness) then one drone can be brought far enough off course that you end up loosing it.
actually, there are 9 possible combinations 3 of them result in a draw. there would be a ~33% chance that someone would win 100% of the time.
Not really though, whether you win or draw is a binary thing. A game of RPS has two possible outcome, either one party wins or both loose (a draw). There are no situation wherein both parties win.
So while there might be 9 possible combinations whereof 3 are draws there are only two possible outcomes to the game; either one party wins the game or the game is a draw.
So there is a 50% that SOMEONE will win the game, and a 66% chance that one of the two players will win the game.
I'm wondering who will be first to aim the laser at a storm cloud :-P
Scientists already do this, all the time actually.
Furthermore there are even 'advanced' tactics. http://www.worldrps.com/advanced-rps
I don't play it competitively or anything - do people actually do that?
Yes.
That all depends on how many rounds you do.
1 round guarantees someone'll win 100% of the time 100% of the time.
Not really no, there could be a draw then no-one wins. That means that in one round there is a 50% percent chance that someone will win 100% of the games.
You try playing with the flu.
Barring some sort of nuclear hyper-flu, I think I could manage to play RPS with the flu.
. Taxation is theft and I heartily applaud those who manage to avoid it just as I'd applaud someone who shot a robber in their home.
No,it's not. Taxation is the membership fee you pay for being a member of the club that is your country. Don't like it? Feel free to renounce your citizenship.
As for the "applauding murder"-thing, that is just plain dumb.
"And you don't need a computer to build an atom bomb - at least three countries did it with nothing more advanced than a slide rule.
Which ones? I know the US used computers and they were kinda the first. So was it Britain? France? Pakistan? China? India? Israel? South Africa? Russia?
I mean admittedly the 'computers' they used were electromechanical "calculating machines" but still more advanced than a slide rule.
It's not that the math is necessarily hard, there's just a lot of it.
It's not GM.
http://www.examiner.com/article/gmo-food-hybrid-poison-grass-that-kills-texas-cattle-not-genetically-modified
Strictly speaking conventional breeding and hybridization is still 'genetically modifying' the stuff.
It is just significantly less Frankenstein-y.
While I freely admit to knowing next to nothing about it, maybe an electromechanical computer of some sort? There are a bunch of them around, some of them are quite famous too, maybe that?
So I just tried it out, it seems to work just fine..huh.
What people are worried about is the unspoken "E" word in there. Evolution, that is. When an AI starts to learn for itself and starts making decisions. Specifically, decisions we don't like.
Still don't get it? Why would we even allow it to evolve? These machines will ultimately be created and controlled by us, it would be almost trivial for us to control their evolution and decision making processes.
Why would we do the "let the AIs build smarter versions of themselves"-thing to begin with? Why would not just let them design smarter versions and then build them ourselves after we put in the limitations we decide they need?
Besides the "computer does not want to be turned off"-scenario assumes the computer interprets 'being turned off' as 'death', which is just idiotic. Death is a uniquely biological concept, a computer would not have a concept of death as anything other then "that thing that the squishy flesh bags do sometimes", being turned off wouldn't affect it in the least, it could simply be turned on again and it would go right back to doing its thing.
What I really don't get is why we keep thinking that artificial intelligence will be anything at all like human intelligence, almost every aspect of our intelligence is a result of our biology and how we use that biology to interact with the world around us. None of that would apply to an artificial intelligence that is a warehouse full of computers, such a computer might interact with the world fully through sifting through whatever data is available on the internet and what gets fed to it, it would not necessarily think in any way that would be at all familiar to us, it would have completely different concepts of thought.
My point being, that if we build a computer that eventually surpasses and supplants us, it will be because WE allowed it to happen.
You must have misread me. I'm not afraid of AI. Given enough time we'll make an AI that's way smarter than us, and it'll likely be able to govern us much better and fairer than we can govern ourselves. Or it will annihilate us completely, without any real way for us to defend ourselves.
Why do you think that?
Why would we even give the AIs WE create any sort of drive to surpass us? Why would we even give it any sort of a anthropomorphism? Why wouldn't we specifically design it to work with us and not against us?
Personally I think that when/if we ever create the AI, it'll be a non-verbal thing that sits somewhere in a black box and does the same things that we normally use computers for.
It'll in largely indistinguishable from what we use today, at least to anyone who is not into computers.
I never really understood this kind of fear of 'artificial intelligence'. I mean, yes we have all seen HAL9000 and Skynet in the movies, but what I never understood about those (aside from why they thought it was a good idea to put both systems in full control of mission critical stuff) was that they were supposed to be even remotely human-like.
Even if we do create artificial intelligence it'll be *nothing* like human intelligence. First off all there is no reason to make a computer that might decide it does not want to do whatever it is you ask it do. Secondly this hypothetical AI would interact with and perceive the world in a completely different way from humans.
I don't think there is any reason at all to fear the AI.
Because [insert silly stereotype here]? .
Pretty much, yeah. Did not really put a lot of thought into it.
I don't really wanna go to space, at least not for the next hundred years or so.
I'd be perfectly happy with industrializing LEO and maybe the moon. Also, we already *have* the source of energy you mention, it'd be controlled fusion. I know we cannot do it now but we will figure it out eventually, hopefully within the next 50 - 100 years.
My then pregnant wife wanted to see District 13 about 3 days before our daughter showed up... We made it to about when the aliens started talking and that was the end of that...
Wives and movies just don't seem to work out well...
Think you're talking about District 9.
District 13is a different thing, also it's French and subtitled, which means that if you're from the US as I expect, then you would hate it.
Where everything always turns into a complete shitstorm.
fun place.
If I recall correctly, there has been experiments done using mouse embryos that show that fetuses can't develop properly in microgravity. Also as already mentioned, maintaining..ahem..readiness in space would be problematic as well.
(if there is such a think in a socialist country -- definitions must be clarified)
I live in a socialist country and I think we have a GDP here.
A huge difference between Gemini 8 and Shenzhou 9 is that Armstrong and Scott were actually piloting their spacecraft where instead the pilots of the Shenzhou spacecraft are sitting at mission control.
I am fairly certain that if remote control technology has been sophisticated enough at the time, then NASA would also have done it by remote control.
The sun will also run out of energy.