AI is a difference engine, and isn't constrained by value judgement that it hasn't been programmed with, or hasn't learned from others."Best" is subjective, "Good" is subjective. Which is why I asked the question the way I did.:)
Your conclusion is interesting, but flawed for it is purely subjective to your current moral viewpoint. A different morality would have a different goal.
Other "moral" options: Help the most people and the expense of the fewest. Help the most important people, and the expense of least important. Help nobody while hurting as few people as possible Help everyone equally, while hurting as few people as possible Help everyone without regard to the harm done anyone.
Some of the values in the above options are intentionally vague. For instance, "Help the most people and the expense of the fewest." If we can help 90% by extending their lifespans by 10% (by 20%, 30%, 40%), but 10% are left dead or sick, do you do it? What if the decision was 51% get a 100% increase in lifespan, but 49% of the people die? At what point does the "Positive AI making the decision become "negative"
You are either a moron, or just ignorant. Here is the information you need to become less ignorant.
You'er probably thinking 100 Mbps, not Gbps and it is more likely to be 1 Gps and not 100Mbps. 10Gpbs is largely impossible on most wiring, unless you're dealing with fiber (which I doubt you are). While there is a chance you can be using faster connection than 10Gbps speeds, it is highly unlikely as those are very expensive, are always fiber, and almost exclusive to data centers.
Someday, we'll see those speeds to the desktop, just not today.
I help manage a fleet of older Windows PCs (around 4000) and almost all of those issues you named off are not a problem. We have systems in place that certain people logging into certain PCs get mapped to certain printers (fairly dynamic) and just work. Lost IP does occur, but not on PCs (mostly network attached devices like Cameras), and most of those have to do with poor design of those devices. We don't have a DSL modem we have a 10GB network and redundant pathways out.
Just about everything we (IT) needs to configure is done by a management tool of one kind or another, and is very systematic and predictable. And that is the key to providing excellent IT service. These systems aren't always cheap, but they are cheaper that hiring more IT staff to run around putting out fires because nothing works the same way anywhere.
As for Macs vs PCs, Macs require as much attention as PCs, but they are managed not by IT, but by the End User. Because that management is outside of the measurables IT can deliver, you don't see the actual costs associated with them.
Here is the real question, would you rather have Macs, that require 100/hr user trying to figure out whatever the problem is for 3 hours (not measured) , or a system that is managed (and measured), and can be diagnosed by a $20/hr tech that can be fixed in 1/2 an hour? You can PCs require more IT work and that is true, however the unmeasured costs are much much worse.
Properly managed IT dept would see that cost. It would show up in Ticket Wait Times, which are actionable and quantifiable. Of course, you have to be measuring ticket wait times to get that kind of information, but most IT ticketing systems have that kind of ability built in.
You are correct in that you cannot know the cost unless you're measuring for it. There is a cost, it can be measured, and in a large enough organization, it should be measured.
In the world view of CxOs wanting to outsource IT everything... we're experiencing an issue with a couple of our vendors who are under a DDOS attack and nothing is working. Their 99.9xx% uptime promise is long gone at this point.
Oh wait, they are up, we just can't get to them, so.. their service level agreement is fine.
With proper IT infrastructure, this can be mitigated against.
Facebook autobans video equals Pitchforks and Torches. Apology not accepted. Clinton Campaign dumps sewage onto a street, and people make excuses. Apology quickly accepted.
Why would I support a candidate that is opposed to the ideals of Liberty? Trump is an easy foil, mainly because he is an island. Hillary on the other hand, is surrounded by other like minded despots wanting a bit of whatever rule she can hand them once she is in power. The WikiLeaks emails kind of prove this point.
If it is professionally correct to apply vaccines universally, then why would you need a liability law that specifically nullifies protections normally granted? It actually proves the exact opposite. The fact that there is no requirement to track the safety of vaccines is a huge issue. Until we have full and complete knowledge of safety and efficacy, everything is only "sciency".
That, and I wonder how many "Pro-Choice" people are for mandatory vaccinations.
Is it misleading to say that you need a full complete schedule of vaccines and that it is perfectly safe, without a single study to show the safety and efficacy of the full schedule?
There are no known "facts" regarding the safety of the full vaccine schedule. For no study has ever been performed on the full vaccine schedule. But you sound so sciency so you must be right.
You have a right to your opinion. however once you join certain professions, in this case medical, you have an overarching responsibility to do no harm and only provide sound medical advise
Bullshit. There is no such restriction on freedom of speech.
Here is my question, have you ever seen a study (double blind) on the safety of the full schedule of vaccines. Here is the CDC version...
22 Vaccines from Birth to 15 months alone. You are so 100% sure that 22 schedule is safe and effective? Without Proof or even evidence? That is sciency, not science.
A full vaccine schedule has never been tested. Stop calling it science until it has. And by Never, I mean never, and yet they keep adding vaccines to the schedule.
Are you so sure about the "Science" that you don't need to test it? That sounds more like religion to me.
Remember the Measles outbreak at Disneyland? Do you remember seeing who actually contracted measles? Some of those that got Measles had been fully vaccinated. The problem is, that Measles vaccine only prevents certain types of measles, and not all measles. So, even if you take the measles vaccine, you are still at risk for getting measles.
Have you seen the any study on the full vaccine schedule, on the safety and efficacy of that? ONE vaccine may be safe (relatively) but there has never been a full study on the safety and efficacy of a full vaccine schedule.
Have you ever seen scientific study of the full schedule of vaccines in a double blind?
A vaccine may be safe, but the full schedule of vaccines has NEVER been studied. And they keep adding vaccines to the schedule. Now, tell me. where is the actual science on the full schedule of vaccines?
In other words, do you have scientific proof that a full vaccine schedule is safe. Until then, you're just sciency not scientific.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, but the AC was comparing Peering connection (100Gb, 40Gb, 10Gb) to end user connection (10Mb). Those are not the same.
AI is a difference engine, and isn't constrained by value judgement that it hasn't been programmed with, or hasn't learned from others."Best" is subjective, "Good" is subjective. Which is why I asked the question the way I did. :)
Your conclusion is interesting, but flawed for it is purely subjective to your current moral viewpoint. A different morality would have a different goal.
Other "moral" options:
Help the most people and the expense of the fewest.
Help the most important people, and the expense of least important.
Help nobody while hurting as few people as possible
Help everyone equally, while hurting as few people as possible
Help everyone without regard to the harm done anyone.
Some of the values in the above options are intentionally vague. For instance, "Help the most people and the expense of the fewest." If we can help 90% by extending their lifespans by 10% (by 20%, 30%, 40%), but 10% are left dead or sick, do you do it? What if the decision was 51% get a 100% increase in lifespan, but 49% of the people die? At what point does the "Positive AI making the decision become "negative"
How do you differentiate between a "good AI" with bad decisions and a "bad AI" making good decisions?
Think about it for a while before you answer, because my question is way more complex than it might first appear.
You are either a moron, or just ignorant. Here is the information you need to become less ignorant.
You'er probably thinking 100 Mbps, not Gbps and it is more likely to be 1 Gps and not 100Mbps. 10Gpbs is largely impossible on most wiring, unless you're dealing with fiber (which I doubt you are). While there is a chance you can be using faster connection than 10Gbps speeds, it is highly unlikely as those are very expensive, are always fiber, and almost exclusive to data centers.
Someday, we'll see those speeds to the desktop, just not today.
I help manage a fleet of older Windows PCs (around 4000) and almost all of those issues you named off are not a problem. We have systems in place that certain people logging into certain PCs get mapped to certain printers (fairly dynamic) and just work. Lost IP does occur, but not on PCs (mostly network attached devices like Cameras), and most of those have to do with poor design of those devices. We don't have a DSL modem we have a 10GB network and redundant pathways out.
Just about everything we (IT) needs to configure is done by a management tool of one kind or another, and is very systematic and predictable. And that is the key to providing excellent IT service. These systems aren't always cheap, but they are cheaper that hiring more IT staff to run around putting out fires because nothing works the same way anywhere.
As for Macs vs PCs, Macs require as much attention as PCs, but they are managed not by IT, but by the End User. Because that management is outside of the measurables IT can deliver, you don't see the actual costs associated with them.
Here is the real question, would you rather have Macs, that require 100/hr user trying to figure out whatever the problem is for 3 hours (not measured) , or a system that is managed (and measured), and can be diagnosed by a $20/hr tech that can be fixed in 1/2 an hour? You can PCs require more IT work and that is true, however the unmeasured costs are much much worse.
Properly managed IT dept would see that cost. It would show up in Ticket Wait Times, which are actionable and quantifiable. Of course, you have to be measuring ticket wait times to get that kind of information, but most IT ticketing systems have that kind of ability built in.
You are correct in that you cannot know the cost unless you're measuring for it. There is a cost, it can be measured, and in a large enough organization, it should be measured.
In the world view of CxOs wanting to outsource IT everything ... we're experiencing an issue with a couple of our vendors who are under a DDOS attack and nothing is working. Their 99.9xx% uptime promise is long gone at this point.
Oh wait, they are up, we just can't get to them, so .. their service level agreement is fine.
With proper IT infrastructure, this can be mitigated against.
People's Outrage levels always amuse me.
Facebook autobans video equals Pitchforks and Torches. Apology not accepted.
Clinton Campaign dumps sewage onto a street, and people make excuses. Apology quickly accepted.
Why would I support a candidate that is opposed to the ideals of Liberty? Trump is an easy foil, mainly because he is an island. Hillary on the other hand, is surrounded by other like minded despots wanting a bit of whatever rule she can hand them once she is in power. The WikiLeaks emails kind of prove this point.
What you're left with are the semi-intelligent, selfish, power-hungry control freaks.
Best summary of why we need limited governance and a libertarian philosophy. Everything else leads to despotism.
I would think the Spanish Flu was the deadliest. Or the Plague.
If it is professionally correct to apply vaccines universally, then why would you need a liability law that specifically nullifies protections normally granted? It actually proves the exact opposite. The fact that there is no requirement to track the safety of vaccines is a huge issue. Until we have full and complete knowledge of safety and efficacy, everything is only "sciency".
That, and I wonder how many "Pro-Choice" people are for mandatory vaccinations.
Is it misleading to say that you need a full complete schedule of vaccines and that it is perfectly safe, without a single study to show the safety and efficacy of the full schedule?
known facts
There are no known "facts" regarding the safety of the full vaccine schedule. For no study has ever been performed on the full vaccine schedule. But you sound so sciency so you must be right.
I would love to see the evidence proving the full vaccine schedule as promoted by the medical industry is safe and effective.
Until then, there is no "evidence" to refute or support the claim of the safety of the full schedule being required.
that goes against medical ethics and science.
Please show my the studies (double blind) comparing the safety of a full vaccine schedule. Anything less is neither ethical nor science.
Actual harm to people who were vaccinated? Yeah, I thought that was impossible.
Tell me again how vaccinated people shouldn't be getting the diseases they are vaccinated against.
http://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/previe...
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/bl...
Don't let facts (science) get in the way of sciency religion.
http://www.vaccinationcouncil....
When you, as a trained professional in a field, give false or misleading information - you're employer can be held liable for any harm that results.
This is 100% not true. There are laws in place to protect vaccine producers and the doctors that prescribe them.
You have a right to your opinion. however once you join certain professions, in this case medical, you have an overarching responsibility to do no harm and only provide sound medical advise
Bullshit. There is no such restriction on freedom of speech.
Here is my question, have you ever seen a study (double blind) on the safety of the full schedule of vaccines. Here is the CDC version ...
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/sc...
22 Vaccines from Birth to 15 months alone. You are so 100% sure that 22 schedule is safe and effective? Without Proof or even evidence? That is sciency, not science.
A full vaccine schedule has never been tested. Stop calling it science until it has. And by Never, I mean never, and yet they keep adding vaccines to the schedule.
Are you so sure about the "Science" that you don't need to test it? That sounds more like religion to me.
Remember the Measles outbreak at Disneyland? Do you remember seeing who actually contracted measles? Some of those that got Measles had been fully vaccinated. The problem is, that Measles vaccine only prevents certain types of measles, and not all measles. So, even if you take the measles vaccine, you are still at risk for getting measles.
Have you seen the any study on the full vaccine schedule, on the safety and efficacy of that? ONE vaccine may be safe (relatively) but there has never been a full study on the safety and efficacy of a full vaccine schedule.
Have you ever seen scientific study of the full schedule of vaccines in a double blind?
A vaccine may be safe, but the full schedule of vaccines has NEVER been studied. And they keep adding vaccines to the schedule. Now, tell me. where is the actual science on the full schedule of vaccines?
In other words, do you have scientific proof that a full vaccine schedule is safe. Until then, you're just sciency not scientific.