If you click this link you will literally want to kill yourself like that time you thought you'd pulled your underwear all the way down but instead re-enacted the slicing frame scene from Cube but with poop
If you click this link you will be tricked into being tricked into giving Russians money to make a non-existent problem not go away, like that time you bought a can opener because you chipped a tooth opening a beer bottle and then never used it
If you click this link you will experience the mental equivalent of three elephant births through a human sized vagina worth of pain over the course of a week and a half
The premises themselves are utterly irrational, of course, but that doesn't mean everything else he says is necessarily irrational as well.
I thought about specifying this in my post because I was sure it was going to come up in a reply but then ended up not doing it, so here we go anyway: exactly. That's why I wrote "you need to be irrational", not "you need to be irrational about everything." It's not more complicated than what I wrote; no matter how good your arguments, if you start from irrational premises whatever you say can only be accidentally true, not logically.
Debate is predicated upon reason. To be a creationist you need to be irrational, so there cannot be a debate here. Instead we'll get the polite (or maybe not so polite) equivalent of a shouting match and people will point to it as if it were a debate.
Not to mention that there is nothing to debate. The debate is settled: creationism is not an accurate description of reality. If you think it is then you are wrong, unless you have some pretty bad-ass evidence, like winged humanoids without free will or DNA, or a giraffe skeleton from the Cambrian.
None of the alternatives, no matter how technologically sophisticated (within the bounds of current smartphone technology) can protect against a picture of the screen being taken with a second device.
As I read a lot of books, I've heard this question asked a couple of times before, so I've thought about it for a while and come to the conclusion that there's not really one book everyone should read. People are different, and they take different things from what they read. There are few books I've enjoyed as much as The Name of the Rose, but I also understand that that's because I love both Sherlock Holmes and the debate over realism/nominalism concerning universals in the middle ages -- I wouldn't recommend it to anyone in my immediate family, because I know they would probably die of boredom before even finishing the introduction. They wouldn't get why the revelation at the end is so great, any of the philosophy, or even the Burgos-Borges link. The Name of the Rose's embeddedness in several different contexts contribute hugely to why I think it's such a good book, but if you lack those contexts it's really nothing more than an entropically extravagant piece of firewood. So perhaps "books I enjoyed" is not the right interpretation of "books everyone should read".
So perhaps non-fiction then. I'd love it if more people looked at the world scientifically, and there are definitely books that can teach you to do that. However, you can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn. You can make The Demon-Haunted World required reading, but you can't make someone actually think about what it says. Thinking is something you have to do by yourself, and if you don't want to think about something being forced to read a book isn't going to make you. So perhaps "books I think people should think like, or at least about" is not a proper interpretation of "books everyone should read" either.
What book someone should read depends on what they're interested in, what they already know, and what they've already read. If they like sci-fi they should read The Cyberiad, Neuromancer, Ted Chiang's short stories. If they like fantasy and have already read LotR, they should read Bridge of Birds and Perdido Street Station, to see what else can be done in that genre. If they like horror they should read Poe and Lovecraft. If they like thinking just because they should read Borges.
For every reader there's a book that they should read, but there's no book that everyone should read.
But Snowden didn't sell American secrets, and a fortiori neither did he sell them to a government, so even by the definition Hayden himself employs Snowden is not guilty of treason.
Hayden also doesn't understand what "infinitely" means.
Fuck the British government of Christmas past for what they did to him. Here you have a genius, a war hero, one of the greatest people of the twentieth century, and your fucking idiocy runs him straight into the ground. Fuck you forever.
Let me blow your mind right now: all value is fake. Value does not exist apart from people bestowing it upon things, whether those things are made of metal or configurations of transistors.
In such cases where parents are responsible for the crimes their children commit, creators of robots should of course also be responsible for the crimes their robots commit. I simply wasn't aware those circumstances ever obtained in our justice system. I was thinking of cases like North Korea's three generation policy, where any "criminal's" relatives are also thrown into concentration camps simply because of their relationship to the criminal, which is clearly unjust.
To be useful, any panic button should be so easily accessible that it is open to the same accidental triggering as butt-dials. I can't think of a good way to resolve this issue, but it is something any proper app maker will have to deal with.
I already addressed this in my original post. What you call "autonomous machines that are not robots," I call "robots that are not responsible for their actions," and so I see no reason why, when considering these devices, the responsibility shouldn't lie with the persons operating them (guns) or activating them (roombas that unvacuum bullets instead of vacuum rooms).
Perhaps I made an unwarranted assumption. I assumed that the people complaining about being 'prized out of the market', so to speak, were renters, not home owners, because I've never heard of a home owner with a mortgage already in place complain about the value of his home going up. I assumed that the protestors were people who couldn't afford their rent because their landlords set higher prices (after their contracts were up) because they figured they could get away with it with this influx of affluent tech workers. These landlords would be the real estate masters, exploiting shifting demographics to make themselves richer (which I judged to be a form of greed).
The tech industry is not responsible for driving up housing prices. The greed of people who set housing prices is responsible for driving up housing prices. However, it is much harder to visibly protest the upscale equivalent of a slumlord (I guess still a slumlord), especially when such highly visible symptoms as environmentally friendly commuter buses are within easy reach.
Slashdot Mirror
Is an AI allowed to see your magic underwear?
You are not Still the Great Satan, you are Again the Great Satan, to a whole new group of people.
How can a company be ok with selling something for 600, no wait 1000, no wait 700, no wait 1200--aaargh 500 dollars?
Holy shit, was there a massive scientific breakthrough at Google's anti-aging lab I missed?
If you click this link you will literally want to kill yourself like that time you thought you'd pulled your underwear all the way down but instead re-enacted the slicing frame scene from Cube but with poop
If you click this link you will be tricked into being tricked into giving Russians money to make a non-existent problem not go away, like that time you bought a can opener because you chipped a tooth opening a beer bottle and then never used it
If you click this link you will experience the mental equivalent of three elephant births through a human sized vagina worth of pain over the course of a week and a half
Judging by how much utilitarians love trolley problems, I guess that means "very"
Sometimes I wish I had intestines for brains, so I wouldn't be annoyed by the stupidity of the rest of the world.
It would also be cool to have an ass hole on my forehead.
The premises themselves are utterly irrational, of course, but that doesn't mean everything else he says is necessarily irrational as well.
I thought about specifying this in my post because I was sure it was going to come up in a reply but then ended up not doing it, so here we go anyway: exactly. That's why I wrote "you need to be irrational", not "you need to be irrational about everything." It's not more complicated than what I wrote; no matter how good your arguments, if you start from irrational premises whatever you say can only be accidentally true, not logically.
Debate is predicated upon reason. To be a creationist you need to be irrational, so there cannot be a debate here. Instead we'll get the polite (or maybe not so polite) equivalent of a shouting match and people will point to it as if it were a debate.
Not to mention that there is nothing to debate. The debate is settled: creationism is not an accurate description of reality. If you think it is then you are wrong, unless you have some pretty bad-ass evidence, like winged humanoids without free will or DNA, or a giraffe skeleton from the Cambrian.
None of the alternatives, no matter how technologically sophisticated (within the bounds of current smartphone technology) can protect against a picture of the screen being taken with a second device.
As I read a lot of books, I've heard this question asked a couple of times before, so I've thought about it for a while and come to the conclusion that there's not really one book everyone should read. People are different, and they take different things from what they read. There are few books I've enjoyed as much as The Name of the Rose, but I also understand that that's because I love both Sherlock Holmes and the debate over realism/nominalism concerning universals in the middle ages -- I wouldn't recommend it to anyone in my immediate family, because I know they would probably die of boredom before even finishing the introduction. They wouldn't get why the revelation at the end is so great, any of the philosophy, or even the Burgos-Borges link. The Name of the Rose's embeddedness in several different contexts contribute hugely to why I think it's such a good book, but if you lack those contexts it's really nothing more than an entropically extravagant piece of firewood. So perhaps "books I enjoyed" is not the right interpretation of "books everyone should read".
So perhaps non-fiction then. I'd love it if more people looked at the world scientifically, and there are definitely books that can teach you to do that. However, you can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn. You can make The Demon-Haunted World required reading, but you can't make someone actually think about what it says. Thinking is something you have to do by yourself, and if you don't want to think about something being forced to read a book isn't going to make you. So perhaps "books I think people should think like, or at least about" is not a proper interpretation of "books everyone should read" either.
What book someone should read depends on what they're interested in, what they already know, and what they've already read. If they like sci-fi they should read The Cyberiad, Neuromancer, Ted Chiang's short stories. If they like fantasy and have already read LotR, they should read Bridge of Birds and Perdido Street Station, to see what else can be done in that genre. If they like horror they should read Poe and Lovecraft. If they like thinking just because they should read Borges.
For every reader there's a book that they should read, but there's no book that everyone should read.
Sounds like someone should've spent a little more time training in the hyperbolic time chamber.
But Snowden didn't sell American secrets, and a fortiori neither did he sell them to a government, so even by the definition Hayden himself employs Snowden is not guilty of treason.
Hayden also doesn't understand what "infinitely" means.
If only "being retarded" wasn't a property that could be shared by more than one entity at a time, your post would have actual relevance.
Please stop using the word 'so', it does not mean what you think it means.
Fuck the British government of Christmas past for what they did to him. Here you have a genius, a war hero, one of the greatest people of the twentieth century, and your fucking idiocy runs him straight into the ground. Fuck you forever.
Oxygen has no value, it is a necessary condition to sustain human life.
Let me blow your mind right now: all value is fake. Value does not exist apart from people bestowing it upon things, whether those things are made of metal or configurations of transistors.
Not so long as Cosby coins are still funny.
In such cases where parents are responsible for the crimes their children commit, creators of robots should of course also be responsible for the crimes their robots commit. I simply wasn't aware those circumstances ever obtained in our justice system. I was thinking of cases like North Korea's three generation policy, where any "criminal's" relatives are also thrown into concentration camps simply because of their relationship to the criminal, which is clearly unjust.
To be useful, any panic button should be so easily accessible that it is open to the same accidental triggering as butt-dials. I can't think of a good way to resolve this issue, but it is something any proper app maker will have to deal with.
I already addressed this in my original post. What you call "autonomous machines that are not robots," I call "robots that are not responsible for their actions," and so I see no reason why, when considering these devices, the responsibility shouldn't lie with the persons operating them (guns) or activating them (roombas that unvacuum bullets instead of vacuum rooms).
Most people don't care about spoilers, but people who care about spoilers REALLY care about spoilers.
That said, it is an interesting result, and I wish it were more widely reported (and that it influenced policy, but oh who am I kidding).
Perhaps I made an unwarranted assumption. I assumed that the people complaining about being 'prized out of the market', so to speak, were renters, not home owners, because I've never heard of a home owner with a mortgage already in place complain about the value of his home going up. I assumed that the protestors were people who couldn't afford their rent because their landlords set higher prices (after their contracts were up) because they figured they could get away with it with this influx of affluent tech workers. These landlords would be the real estate masters, exploiting shifting demographics to make themselves richer (which I judged to be a form of greed).
The tech industry is not responsible for driving up housing prices. The greed of people who set housing prices is responsible for driving up housing prices. However, it is much harder to visibly protest the upscale equivalent of a slumlord (I guess still a slumlord), especially when such highly visible symptoms as environmentally friendly commuter buses are within easy reach.