I look at it differently. Once the mechanism is fully in place 90% of the work is done and you can start with very conservative criteria to minimize opposition. After that, you can update the criteria unannounced every day to the needs of the moment and you can counter criticism by saying the system is not perfect and will be corrected to take in account the reactions.
I think their approach is excellent. Driverless and driver-assisted cars could give freedom of movement to a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't qualify for driving. That includes a lot of people who are already/still on the road. Heck, imagine being able to drink and drive again!
Ewww. Ok, I can say after that that I'm not the stuff billionaires are made of.
Anyway, I hadn't even watched the video, it's not related to the article, and I only saw that the article I pointed at was related to another/. article , this one https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... .
I'd bet it's all about this: http://fortune.com/2017/09/06/... Facebook caught cheating, says 'Let's divert the attention by blaming Russia' . It works. They also ate my homework.
Odd argument . That seems to have been the rationale to sell them: less lethal than guns. IF you were going to use a gun , and you use a taser, it's less lethal. The reality is different. IF you had reasons to refrain from using guns, namely there was not enough justification for it, that restraint just went out the window. No restraint needed when using tasers. So all you get is tasers being used where the justification for guns didn't exist.With tasers you can be as trigger happy as you feel like.
We've been getting threats from the Kim family forever. That's what they do. It's all internal politics to get North Koreans to forget about how shitty their lives are.
. North Korea is the weak party in the conflict . This is not symmetrical. They have legitimate reasons to be concerned. In the US internal politics plays a larger role in this respect but they also have geostrategic concerns that are relevant.
The problem for the North Koreans is they don't have any real issues with South Korea that can't be resolved, but their deterrence has been mostly directed against Seoul, which is the wrong target. This leads to an annoying situation which could be described the US in the role of Lord Farquaad, saying: "Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I'm willing to make." A deterrent aimed at the US changes that logic. It's still only that though, a deterrent.
Where there is weeping, and gnashing of teeth. Also they use his system of passwords, the wifi signal is always just out of reach and the coffee is made in percolators that go on forever.
Don't mix up things. I only sample them but on RT and Al Jazeera I have seen some of the best journalism available. There is a simple reason:there is little room for critical journalism in western mainstream and the Russians (and Qatar) think it's in their interest to give it a platform. The motivations of the Russian government may not be benign, or they may be a mixed bag (the soft power business can benefit from openness ) but on the foreign front the result is good.
Personally I think the state of the western media is terrible. They're a business and it does not fit the business model to scrutinize power. Unless it aligns them with bigger power. In the old model media weren't allowed to say things. Now we have a media system that doesn't want to say things. In some respects it's worse because it covers up the problem.
I'm being cynical I think. It's a 'follow the money' reasoning. I really believe this kind of attitude gets people to support you when you want to rise to influential positions. And that is also why we're in infinitely more danger of destroying ourselves than being destroyed by aliens.
Just ignoring the hypothetical problem makes perfect sense.
i thought Galileo got into trouble because he didn't know when to shut up. Publishing his knowledge was allowed, just, but for the rest he had to keep a low profile so as not to threaten authority. He wasn't good at keeping low profile.
Also I thought Galileo introduced the idea of relativity of reference frame, Not Einstein. Then Newton included it and extended the laws of movement. Then it got into trouble late 19th century and Einstein reworked it/saved it so it could take in account electromagnetism. Poincare also reworked it but Einstein was much bolder and cleaned up house. After that Einstein made a generalization for general reference frames so acceleration was included as well. And then he squeezed gravity into the geometry of space so that he could ignore it as a force.
And one can guess what will follow. Google is already constraining sites that publish their ads for revenue. Sites involved in whatever activism they're doing regularly get into conflict with Google who withdraws ads. After correcting the site or insisting long enough Google reverts the decision. There still is the option to not use the ads and forego the revenue but the bulk of the people quickly learn to stay out of trouble. I expect Google ads and search results to interact in the future. After all anyone who objects to Google's rules must have something wrong with them.
The whole idea of protecting us from bad content stinks. Actually it's outright alarming. Firstly, do we need to be protect the pedophile terrorists that are served as prime safe example of the censorship Google/Facebook/Youtube and others are performing? Secondly it's a very bad idea to protect us from what designated enemies like Russia want us to know, with the policies to eliminate 'fake news'. Thirdly it's a bad idea to protect us from our own progressive and leftwing activism. A socialist site checked the statistics recently , published here https://www.wsws.org/en/articl...
In the three months since Internet monopoly Google announced plans to keep users from accessing “fake news,” the global traffic rankings of a broad range of left-wing, progressive, anti-war and democratic rights organizations have fallen significantly.
This is not an AI issue. This is the surveillance state telling us what we ought and ought not to be reading. This article is relevant: https://consortiumnews.com/201...
The current approach to avoiding this seems to be to install a huge surveillance system 'against terrorists'. Then, everyone who opposes the excessive concentration of wealth and power will become a terrorist. Done.
I think taxing the rich can be done to some extent. There are two arguments against it that are not entirely sincere. One is that the rich will run away. That's partly true and partly a trick from people who would like you to believe that. Another is that there's a threat of 'if you're well off they're going to take your money away' to scare everyone who has a bit of money. Actually you can put the threshold very high.
It's also about more than taxing the very rich. The very rich are getting richer. The mechanism is working in the other direction. Laws are made that accelerate this.
'Invasion' is indeed not appropriate because you could just as well call the addition of troops 'reinforcement''. 'Annexation' is a lot more appropriate and hey, Hitler annexed a few territories in 1938/1939 with full approval of the population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areas_annexed_by_Nazi_Germany) before invading Poland. Always a difficult issue, annexing territory with approval of the population. John Mearsheimer explains why despite the aggressive , or at least much more assertive posture of Russia we can still talk to them and respect them on the international stage https://www.foreignaffairs.com...
What Scott Ritter claims/shows is that first, an National Intelligence Assessment is a lot more modest than a National Intelligence Estimate, and that what was published as a National Intelligence Assessment does not qualify as such. It's a fraud - by selected people from the intelligence community - to push conclusions that the Intelligence Agencies would not be willing to support. Ritter also discusses a lot of other irregularities that all point in the same direction: the conclusion to blame Russia for everything was devised upfront, the rest was a matter of building a case. Just like with Iraq.
with little to no regard for the cultural, religious, and socio-political boundaries of the indigenous people
beg your pardon, with a lot of attention to the cultural and sociopolitical boundaries, because that was a key ingredient in keeping the resulting states weak.
Slashdot Mirror
I look at it differently. Once the mechanism is fully in place 90% of the work is done and you can start with very conservative criteria to minimize opposition.
After that, you can update the criteria unannounced every day to the needs of the moment and you can counter criticism by saying the system is not perfect and will be corrected to take in account the reactions.
There are a few things in the constitution and in labor law it appears: https://iclg.com/practice-area... . But how strong these are I have no idea.
I think their approach is excellent. Driverless and driver-assisted cars could give freedom of movement to a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't qualify for driving. That includes a lot of people who are already/still on the road. Heck, imagine being able to drink and drive again!
Ewww. Ok, I can say after that that I'm not the stuff billionaires are made of.
Anyway, I hadn't even watched the video, it's not related to the article, and I only saw that the article I pointed at was related to another /. article , this one https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... .
I'd bet it's all about this: http://fortune.com/2017/09/06/...
Facebook caught cheating, says 'Let's divert the attention by blaming Russia' . It works. They also ate my homework.
Odd argument . That seems to have been the rationale to sell them: less lethal than guns. IF you were going to use a gun , and you use a taser, it's less lethal.
The reality is different. IF you had reasons to refrain from using guns, namely there was not enough justification for it, that restraint just went out the window. No restraint needed when using tasers. So all you get is tasers being used where the justification for guns didn't exist.With tasers you can be as trigger happy as you feel like.
Actually what Google claimed is "Don't Be Evil, we're watching you".
. North Korea is the weak party in the conflict . This is not symmetrical. They have legitimate reasons to be concerned. In the US internal politics plays a larger role in this respect but they also have geostrategic concerns that are relevant.
The problem for the North Koreans is they don't have any real issues with South Korea that can't be resolved, but their deterrence has been mostly directed against Seoul, which is the wrong target.
This leads to an annoying situation which could be described the US in the role of Lord Farquaad, saying: "Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I'm willing to make." A deterrent aimed at the US changes that logic. It's still only that though, a deterrent.
Where there is weeping, and gnashing of teeth. Also they use his system of passwords, the wifi signal is always just out of reach and the coffee is made in percolators that go on forever.
Don't mix up things. I only sample them but on RT and Al Jazeera I have seen some of the best journalism available. There is a simple reason:there is little room for critical journalism in western mainstream and the Russians (and Qatar) think it's in their interest to give it a platform. The motivations of the Russian government may not be benign, or they may be a mixed bag (the soft power business can benefit from openness ) but on the foreign front the result is good.
Personally I think the state of the western media is terrible. They're a business and it does not fit the business model to scrutinize power. Unless it aligns them with bigger power. In the old model media weren't allowed to say things. Now we have a media system that doesn't want to say things. In some respects it's worse because it covers up the problem.
I'm being cynical I think. It's a 'follow the money' reasoning. I really believe this kind of attitude gets people to support you when you want to rise to influential positions.
And that is also why we're in infinitely more danger of destroying ourselves than being destroyed by aliens.
Just ignoring the hypothetical problem makes perfect sense.
"We need to invest heavily in the military to defend ourselves against potential alien attack. More nukes, more missiles, new defense programs. "
There. I pretty much have got the job.
i thought Galileo got into trouble because he didn't know when to shut up. Publishing his knowledge was allowed, just, but for the rest he had to keep a low profile so as not to threaten authority. He wasn't good at keeping low profile.
Also I thought Galileo introduced the idea of relativity of reference frame, Not Einstein. Then Newton included it and extended the laws of movement.
Then it got into trouble late 19th century and Einstein reworked it/saved it so it could take in account electromagnetism. Poincare also reworked it but Einstein was much bolder and cleaned up house.
After that Einstein made a generalization for general reference frames so acceleration was included as well. And then he squeezed gravity into the geometry of space so that he could ignore it as a force.
And one can guess what will follow. Google is already constraining sites that publish their ads for revenue. Sites involved in whatever activism they're doing regularly get into conflict with Google who withdraws ads. After correcting the site or insisting long enough Google reverts the decision. There still is the option to not use the ads and forego the revenue but the bulk of the people quickly learn to stay out of trouble. I expect Google ads and search results to interact in the future. After all anyone who objects to Google's rules must have something wrong with them.
The whole idea of protecting us from bad content stinks. Actually it's outright alarming. Firstly, do we need to be protect the pedophile terrorists that are served as prime safe example of the censorship Google/Facebook/Youtube and others are performing? Secondly it's a very bad idea to protect us from what designated enemies like Russia want us to know, with the policies to eliminate 'fake news'.
Thirdly it's a bad idea to protect us from our own progressive and leftwing activism. A socialist site checked the statistics recently , published here https://www.wsws.org/en/articl...
This is not an AI issue. This is the surveillance state telling us what we ought and ought not to be reading. This article is relevant: https://consortiumnews.com/201...
The current approach to avoiding this seems to be to install a huge surveillance system 'against terrorists'. Then, everyone who opposes the excessive concentration of wealth and power will become a terrorist. Done.
I think taxing the rich can be done to some extent. There are two arguments against it that are not entirely sincere. One is that the rich will run away. That's partly true and partly a trick from people who would like you to believe that. Another is that there's a threat of 'if you're well off they're going to take your money away' to scare everyone who has a bit of money. Actually you can put the threshold very high.
It's also about more than taxing the very rich. The very rich are getting richer. The mechanism is working in the other direction. Laws are made that accelerate this.
'Invasion' is indeed not appropriate because you could just as well call the addition of troops 'reinforcement''. 'Annexation' is a lot more appropriate and hey, Hitler annexed a few territories in 1938/1939 with full approval of the population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areas_annexed_by_Nazi_Germany) before invading Poland. Always a difficult issue, annexing territory with approval of the population.
John Mearsheimer explains why despite the aggressive , or at least much more assertive posture of Russia we can still talk to them and respect them on the international stage https://www.foreignaffairs.com...
Not 'turns into' , more 'and/or' Because you can always dispute his proof.
Well I may be a bit pessimistic about the level of comments but I never had a lot reasons to complain about being modded down.
What Scott Ritter claims/shows is that first, an National Intelligence Assessment is a lot more modest than a National Intelligence Estimate, and that what was published as a National Intelligence Assessment does not qualify as such.
It's a fraud - by selected people from the intelligence community - to push conclusions that the Intelligence Agencies would not be willing to support. Ritter also discusses a lot of other irregularities that all point in the same direction: the conclusion to blame Russia for everything was devised upfront, the rest was a matter of building a case. Just like with Iraq.
http://www.theamericanconserva...
AFAIK that's what Kaspersky offered.
beg your pardon, with a lot of attention to the cultural and sociopolitical boundaries, because that was a key ingredient in keeping the resulting states weak.
Inside protons and neutrons you could say yes, they're free
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g...
But protons and neutrons wouldn't be described as free inside the nucleus. That's more like electrons in an atom.
.. right. I somehow had in mind telemarketing as a tiny group removed from anything like 'support' or 'helpdesk' ...
To indian telemarketers perhaps?
Oh, I thought they handled the torture jobs. I mean, aggresive interrogation.