It's not just the poor. The wealthy also break the law. Frequently. fluffemutter was talking about for civilization, there will be lawbreakers, and you either pay for police or you remove the incentive for crime. It's why many countries pay their politicians extravagantly -- it discourages them from taking bribes. Same principle.
It depends how much work the robots are doing. It might be that they are producing enough that indeed all humans could be on UBI and the system would keep going. We don't know how that future will balance out.
I agree that hardware locks and right to repair are in conflict, but I don't agree with your solution. We need another way.
I buy some products specifically because they are locked down, which means I can trust what is on them to a greater degree than something that can be reprogrammed. I push some family members towards the products that are restricted in functionality because I know they can't mess them up -- not by some accidental button pushing, not by downloading something from the network. And for security, signed unique certs before the software can run on this device that cannot be replaced? There are definitely times when I want that -- and on some of my personal devices.
I very much appreciate the walled garden for a wide range of operations, and I definitely appreciate a tool that does exactly what it is designed to do. I also like having other devices that are wide open. They are two different markets -- making one market illegal would not serve my interest.
Really? I've heard a crowbar can be used to brute force a password.
Intimidating someone into disclosing their password is exactly what is being used in this case. They're using jail time instead of a crowbar, but the theory is the same.
Landowners in Ok and Tx should have learned this lesson in the 1950s... 60s... 70s... etc... with oil drilling rigs. Iâ(TM)ve advised several family members on wind farm craze. And the big rule is âoenever let them install without an ageeement for handling uninstall, preferably money in escrow, plus the wind company is liable for any cost overruns.â That has to be separate from the profits you are paid. If you canâ(TM)t get such an agreement, you will be screwed, basically guaranteed. Itâ(TM)s the nature of companies to not clean up â" thereâ(TM)s no profit in it â" so you have to make it an up-front cost.
Assuming the Turing Hypothesis holds, the AIs will eventually be able to do everything a human can do. I consider that inevitable. So, no, this doesn't worry me, at least, not any more than it worried me back in 1980s. The question is whether we will have independent AIs or whether we will have humans augmented by AIs. In the former, humans are extinct. In the latter, humans evolve. Our choice.:-)
Exactly! Basically, bitcoin is behaving exactly the way it should be behaving, following every economic model we would predict for a commodity.
> Effectively, across the planet, Bitcoin is a proxy USD.
Seen that way, it's also a proxy for all the other fiat currencies that people use to buy/sell bitcoins. I've seen a fair number of European traders working in euros. It's a commodity, like oil or gold, but with some very currency-like behaviors in its production that make it useful as a transactional currency. It's a new tool in the economic toolbox, like hedge funds and debt swaps. It might even be the currency of the future, edging out fiat currencies, but it'll take time to find its place in the trade markets.
The ability to buy fiat currency with bitcoin is a key part of its ability to replace fiat currency. Those "investors" that KiloByte put in quotes do the same thing with fiat currency. Monetary traders mediate the prices between different currencies and make money on the margins.
There's no ponzi scheme for bitcoin that is any different from the ponzi scheme of fiat currency... only the volatility is different. Bitcoin doesn't have a Federal Reserve or equivalent to stabilize itself. No one is moving banking interest rates in order to stabilize the Bitcoin currency, so it fluctuates on pure demand. That's how currency works.
Your argument is akin to saying because you've met one human who cannot do simple arithmetic therefore you doubt all humans' ability to do calculus. Your argument is a fallacy of composition. The programming involved in the text display is entirely separate from the programming for debate. You ask for forgiveness -- granted, but please try not to make the same mistake again in the future. I worry you might make such a logical error in a context that matters more.
Obviously it has ability to discriminate information to some degree or it would be formulating arguments against itself â" it would have read a paper arguing pro and another arguing con and then accepted both as facts. So that means it has at least some ability to discriminate data. How does it evaluate data sources? The articles thus far do not go into detail there.
What constitutes experiential knowledge on the value of space subsidies? If this debate were âoedoes refusing painkillers during childbirth build character?â then Iâ(TM)d agree the compurerâ(TM)s knowledge was gapped (permanently). But when the topic is in the intellectual domain, as both these topics were, then I think it is fair to call the machine âoeknowledgeable.â
As for formulating new ideas, Iâ(TM)m very curious where that joke came from and whether that was parroted or independently derived. If derived, I think that speaks volumes about its ability to synthesize new ideas from its experiences.
Please define "actually knowing." The machine appears to have sifted through information, extracted bits relevant to the topic, and then presented arguments supporting its position. At some level, it does know its topic. What it lacks is a value judgement of whether it cares about this position or not. That value judgement seems to me to be a critical part of calling it sentient, but it does seem to know the topic. In many ways, the machine knew more about the topic than the human it was debating given the amount of data that it had absorbed and organized internally into information.
The state of the nation is because we are fighting a very civilized civil war. We have a globalist-secular position vs an isolationist-religious position. I've been quite pleased that we've been fighting it mostly without weapons.
No. The problem is how few people get involved in the grass roots. You *let* the rich and powerful players have control by ceding it to them. It's hard work owning a government "of the people". People would rather delegate that work, and they often do. THAT is what results in the system we have today. And those two different colored turds are *very* different. Difference between toxic waste and fertilizer.
I've been known to embarrass companies on their public forums -- posting "hey, other users, are you aware that the company thinks they can get away with XYZ because they hid it in paragraph 47?" is a surprisingly effective way to get better TOS written in short order for small and medium size companies. Works really well if they ship hardware because you can get a fair number of people asking for refunds fast. The threat is less effective against software-only firms, but still works to a fair degree.
e) Participate in the local elections and platform conventions where "red" and "blue" get defined.
In a two-party system (driven by one-person-one-vote), you pick one party and then shape it to look like what you want it to look like. Spinning up a third party is too much effort. Taking over a party has been done many times in American history.
Go read the article about why a 3rd party found it and not Tesla. It's an edge case scenario involving repeated use of emergency breaking. It isn't a mainline scenario, and Tesla never thought to include it in its test bed. Someone found a corner case, reported it, and Tesla fixed it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not just the poor. The wealthy also break the law. Frequently. fluffemutter was talking about for civilization, there will be lawbreakers, and you either pay for police or you remove the incentive for crime. It's why many countries pay their politicians extravagantly -- it discourages them from taking bribes. Same principle.
It depends how much work the robots are doing. It might be that they are producing enough that indeed all humans could be on UBI and the system would keep going. We don't know how that future will balance out.
I agree that hardware locks and right to repair are in conflict, but I don't agree with your solution. We need another way.
I buy some products specifically because they are locked down, which means I can trust what is on them to a greater degree than something that can be reprogrammed. I push some family members towards the products that are restricted in functionality because I know they can't mess them up -- not by some accidental button pushing, not by downloading something from the network. And for security, signed unique certs before the software can run on this device that cannot be replaced? There are definitely times when I want that -- and on some of my personal devices.
I very much appreciate the walled garden for a wide range of operations, and I definitely appreciate a tool that does exactly what it is designed to do. I also like having other devices that are wide open. They are two different markets -- making one market illegal would not serve my interest.
Freedom costs a buck o' five.
Or the core of Earth *is* De Beers' vault?
His name is "Holder"... we should've seen this coming.
Really? I've heard a crowbar can be used to brute force a password.
Intimidating someone into disclosing their password is exactly what is being used in this case. They're using jail time instead of a crowbar, but the theory is the same.
Landowners in Ok and Tx should have learned this lesson in the 1950s... 60s... 70s... etc... with oil drilling rigs. Iâ(TM)ve advised several family members on wind farm craze. And the big rule is âoenever let them install without an ageeement for handling uninstall, preferably money in escrow, plus the wind company is liable for any cost overruns.â That has to be separate from the profits you are paid. If you canâ(TM)t get such an agreement, you will be screwed, basically guaranteed. Itâ(TM)s the nature of companies to not clean up â" thereâ(TM)s no profit in it â" so you have to make it an up-front cost.
If you want to be concerned about something AI-related, this is a much bigger deal, IMHO:
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/18/07/05/1859246/googles-controversial-voice-assistant-could-talk-its-way-into-call-centers
Assuming the Turing Hypothesis holds, the AIs will eventually be able to do everything a human can do. I consider that inevitable. So, no, this doesn't worry me, at least, not any more than it worried me back in 1980s. The question is whether we will have independent AIs or whether we will have humans augmented by AIs. In the former, humans are extinct. In the latter, humans evolve. Our choice. :-)
Exactly! Basically, bitcoin is behaving exactly the way it should be behaving, following every economic model we would predict for a commodity.
> Effectively, across the planet, Bitcoin is a proxy USD.
Seen that way, it's also a proxy for all the other fiat currencies that people use to buy/sell bitcoins. I've seen a fair number of European traders working in euros. It's a commodity, like oil or gold, but with some very currency-like behaviors in its production that make it useful as a transactional currency. It's a new tool in the economic toolbox, like hedge funds and debt swaps. It might even be the currency of the future, edging out fiat currencies, but it'll take time to find its place in the trade markets.
The ability to buy fiat currency with bitcoin is a key part of its ability to replace fiat currency. Those "investors" that KiloByte put in quotes do the same thing with fiat currency. Monetary traders mediate the prices between different currencies and make money on the margins.
There's no ponzi scheme for bitcoin that is any different from the ponzi scheme of fiat currency... only the volatility is different. Bitcoin doesn't have a Federal Reserve or equivalent to stabilize itself. No one is moving banking interest rates in order to stabilize the Bitcoin currency, so it fluctuates on pure demand. That's how currency works.
> to agree to the interview
Make that "to *request* the interview". Atari invited the reporter to do the review.
Didn't IBM just demonstrate the ability to parse English?
Your argument is akin to saying because you've met one human who cannot do simple arithmetic therefore you doubt all humans' ability to do calculus. Your argument is a fallacy of composition. The programming involved in the text display is entirely separate from the programming for debate. You ask for forgiveness -- granted, but please try not to make the same mistake again in the future. I worry you might make such a logical error in a context that matters more.
Obviously it has ability to discriminate information to some degree or it would be formulating arguments against itself â" it would have read a paper arguing pro and another arguing con and then accepted both as facts. So that means it has at least some ability to discriminate data. How does it evaluate data sources? The articles thus far do not go into detail there.
What constitutes experiential knowledge on the value of space subsidies? If this debate were âoedoes refusing painkillers during childbirth build character?â then Iâ(TM)d agree the compurerâ(TM)s knowledge was gapped (permanently). But when the topic is in the intellectual domain, as both these topics were, then I think it is fair to call the machine âoeknowledgeable.â As for formulating new ideas, Iâ(TM)m very curious where that joke came from and whether that was parroted or independently derived. If derived, I think that speaks volumes about its ability to synthesize new ideas from its experiences.
Please define "actually knowing." The machine appears to have sifted through information, extracted bits relevant to the topic, and then presented arguments supporting its position. At some level, it does know its topic. What it lacks is a value judgement of whether it cares about this position or not. That value judgement seems to me to be a critical part of calling it sentient, but it does seem to know the topic. In many ways, the machine knew more about the topic than the human it was debating given the amount of data that it had absorbed and organized internally into information.
The state of the nation is because we are fighting a very civilized civil war. We have a globalist-secular position vs an isolationist-religious position. I've been quite pleased that we've been fighting it mostly without weapons.
No. The problem is how few people get involved in the grass roots. You *let* the rich and powerful players have control by ceding it to them. It's hard work owning a government "of the people". People would rather delegate that work, and they often do. THAT is what results in the system we have today. And those two different colored turds are *very* different. Difference between toxic waste and fertilizer.
I have. My efforts to promote candidates have changed the outcome of multiple local elections for people who went on to higher office.
I've been known to embarrass companies on their public forums -- posting "hey, other users, are you aware that the company thinks they can get away with XYZ because they hid it in paragraph 47?" is a surprisingly effective way to get better TOS written in short order for small and medium size companies. Works really well if they ship hardware because you can get a fair number of people asking for refunds fast. The threat is less effective against software-only firms, but still works to a fair degree.
e) Participate in the local elections and platform conventions where "red" and "blue" get defined.
In a two-party system (driven by one-person-one-vote), you pick one party and then shape it to look like what you want it to look like. Spinning up a third party is too much effort. Taking over a party has been done many times in American history.
Literally an edge case.
Go read the article about why a 3rd party found it and not Tesla. It's an edge case scenario involving repeated use of emergency breaking. It isn't a mainline scenario, and Tesla never thought to include it in its test bed. Someone found a corner case, reported it, and Tesla fixed it.