Google, Facebook are not regulated monopolies. AT&T and the cable companies are. I think this is giving more power to more lightly regulated entities to control internet content. They already are with their restrictive content policies.
Does anyone remember back when they trashed most of the cloud data of Sidekick smartphone users shortly after they acquired the company? This was even covered by Slashdot!
So as far as Ray Kurzweill goes, is this essentially mind uploading? We are preserving the person's essense inside of the computer so it doesn't matter if they are biologically dead, right?
Just like we have the "Organic" label on electronics, we should have a new label for things like TVs and other internet connected things that says that that thing does not have a microphone or video camera. I can't bring myself to give my TV my wifi password or buy a new 4k roku box because they all have microphones and cameras now!
I loved this paper where he calls B.S on most macroeconomics because the concepts they talk about in their papers can never be identified in the actual real world with certainty so they are essentially not falsifiable because they can never be matched up with any empirical observations.
For more than three decades, macroeconomics has gone backwards. The treatment of identification now is no more credible than in the early 1970s but escapes challenge because it is so much more opaque. Macroeconomic theorists dismiss mere facts by feigning an obtuse ignorance about such simple assertions as "tight monetary policy can cause a recession." Their models attribute fluctuations in aggregate variables to imaginary causal forces that are not influenced by the action that any person takes. A parallel with string theory from physics hints at a general failure mode of science that is triggered when respect for highly regarded leaders evolves into a deference to authority that displaces objective fact from its position as the ultimate determinant of scientific truth.
Hydrogen fuel cells are impractical in land vehicles because even though they are lighter than batteries for the energy they store, they take up a lot of physical space. On the Ocean there's plenty of space and weight is more of an issue, so it works out better. Less weight means less volume below the waterline. This means it takes less energy and creates less drag to propel the boat.
A lot of the decrease in life expectancy in the U.S is due to the opioid epidemic. Americans are getting too much health care it seems.
Secondly, the Chinese do not have socialized health care, they just have REALLY cheap, reasonably effective, health care that is a public/private hybrid just like ours. We already spend double on health care vs every other country so increasing the amount we spend is not going to improve things.
Like welfare, but you have to be organized enough to show up somewhere every day at a certain time with acceptable personal hygiene. This sounds like welfare that people with substance abuse problems or other mental health problems wouldn't be able to get.
In the most secure networks like Google's there are no privileged networks. All access of services are specifically authorized for that device. This has the added benefit that people can work from anywhere and access any services they need to if they have a trusted device. They call it Beyond Corp.
The great Russian sci-fi classic "Roadside Picnic" details an interaction with aliens in which we are absolutely not even interesting ot them. They just stop off on earth on their way to somewhere else for a roadside picnic and leave their crap behind, which we think is pure magical stuff. That's what I think this probe thinks of us. Our solar system and our planet are totally uninteresting.
Every single response uses the same talking points that don't address the main point of my argument which is:
ISPS ARE LOCALLY REGULATED BY GOVERNMENTS THE BIG 4 ARE NOT. THUS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS GET MORE CONTROL OF THE INTERNET BACK FROM THE BIG 4.
I can tell the group think is thick on a topic when I introduce a new argument and everybody thinks I am repeating some familiar argument and they copy pasta their previous reply to the familiar argument. If this was in person I could actually reply to you guys and we could move the debate forward. Instead I get the thundering herd of misunderstanding problem.
Yeah, but I'm saying that the local governments will be able to control what the cable companies do with their new power to act in state and local interests because they are regulated monopolies. The big 4 are above the law in this regard.
Well what if a state/local government says that in order to lay cable the big ISP has to give preference to locally based internet companies or something like that. Any one of the big 4 would just ignore them if they asked for that kind of treatment. Net neutrality makes these companies more powerful than governments.
So 100% of the stuff I read in online forums is against this, so I am going to try and argue the other side. I'm doing this because I find it weird that in a controversial topic there aren't even any shills around arguing the other side as there almost always are in an online debate topic. SO here goes:
The big 4 Amazon, Facebook, Netflix and Google are rapidly consolidating to control just about everything we see, hear or do on the Internet all over the entire world. Reversing net neutrality will allow for more competition with these services. Look at China, they have their own Facebook, Google, Amazon, Twitter, etc. In some ways, such as mobile payments their tech is even ahead of us and they block all the big 4. I am thinking that the ISPs blocking or throttling these services would create more small versions of these services that would be run by ISPs, etc. State and local governments could negotiate directly with Comcast or whatever to do stuff in the public interest locally with these services because of the give and take with regulated utilities. It would bring back more local control and work to reverse the decreasing relevance of local governments.
Jevons Paradox, which has been around since the 1800s, says that the more efficiently a resource is used, the more demand there will be for it. Thus, the more efficiently human labor is used, the more demand there will be for it.
I imagine that organized crime would see it as bad for business. All those newly out of work hired killers won't be happy either. In the dystopian future, any sociopathic jerk with a few bucks can be a mafia boss and have a gang of robot killers working for him. I guess you could say that the invention of affordable firearms was a similar disruption, but civilization made it through that. Still, it's going to be a really gruesome couple of years once some factory in god knows where starts spitting these out.
It's not that these things are more destructive than older weapons. It's that these things give the power of a targeted artillery strike to anyone for pennies of what nation state weapons cost, so it opens up WWI type levels of destructive capability to just about anyone on any budget. WWI really caught people off guard. People had no idea the level of destruction that was going to be unleashed by the industrial revolution. Likewise people have no idea the destructive power that's going to be unleashed by the AI revolution.
(Female voice - medicine cabinet) If you feel you are not properly sedated, call 348-844 immediately. Failure to do so may result in prosecution for criminal drug evasion.
Slashdot Mirror
Google, Facebook are not regulated monopolies. AT&T and the cable companies are. I think this is giving more power to more lightly regulated entities to control internet content. They already are with their restrictive content policies.
Does anyone remember back when they trashed most of the cloud data of Sidekick smartphone users shortly after they acquired the company? This was even covered by Slashdot!
https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
Looks like a repeat of the bumbling.
So as far as Ray Kurzweill goes, is this essentially mind uploading? We are preserving the person's essense inside of the computer so it doesn't matter if they are biologically dead, right?
Just like we have the "Organic" label on electronics, we should have a new label for things like TVs and other internet connected things that says that that thing does not have a microphone or video camera. I can't bring myself to give my TV my wifi password or buy a new 4k roku box because they all have microphones and cameras now!
I loved this paper where he calls B.S on most macroeconomics because the concepts they talk about in their papers can never be identified in the actual real world with certainty so they are essentially not falsifiable because they can never be matched up with any empirical observations.
https://paulromer.net/wp-conte...
One Rich A**hole Called Larry Ellison
Hydrogen fuel cells are impractical in land vehicles because even though they are lighter than batteries for the energy they store, they take up a lot of physical space. On the Ocean there's plenty of space and weight is more of an issue, so it works out better. Less weight means less volume below the waterline. This means it takes less energy and creates less drag to propel the boat.
A lot of the decrease in life expectancy in the U.S is due to the opioid epidemic. Americans are getting too much health care it seems.
Secondly, the Chinese do not have socialized health care, they just have REALLY cheap, reasonably effective, health care that is a public/private hybrid just like ours. We already spend double on health care vs every other country so increasing the amount we spend is not going to improve things.
Like welfare, but you have to be organized enough to show up somewhere every day at a certain time with acceptable personal hygiene. This sounds like welfare that people with substance abuse problems or other mental health problems wouldn't be able to get.
In the most secure networks like Google's there are no privileged networks. All access of services are specifically authorized for that device. This has the added benefit that people can work from anywhere and access any services they need to if they have a trusted device. They call it Beyond Corp.
The DGX-2 which is 500x faster than 2 GTX 580s is also 500 times more expensive!
https://www.nextplatform.com/2...
"Math isn't going to bring you back from the dead"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Galaxy Note 4 was the peak Samsung phone with a 3.5 inch headphone jack, removeable SD card and removable battery. Why the heck should I ever upgrade?
It could be interstellar FedEx. They are just shipping some goods somewhere and nobody is on board.
The great Russian sci-fi classic "Roadside Picnic" details an interaction with aliens in which we are absolutely not even interesting ot them. They just stop off on earth on their way to somewhere else for a roadside picnic and leave their crap behind, which we think is pure magical stuff. That's what I think this probe thinks of us. Our solar system and our planet are totally uninteresting.
Every single response uses the same talking points that don't address the main point of my argument which is:
ISPS ARE LOCALLY REGULATED BY GOVERNMENTS THE BIG 4 ARE NOT. THUS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS GET MORE CONTROL OF THE INTERNET BACK FROM THE BIG 4.
I can tell the group think is thick on a topic when I introduce a new argument and everybody thinks I am repeating some familiar argument and they copy pasta their previous reply to the familiar argument. If this was in person I could actually reply to you guys and we could move the debate forward. Instead I get the thundering herd of misunderstanding problem.
Yeah, but I'm saying that the local governments will be able to control what the cable companies do with their new power to act in state and local interests because they are regulated monopolies. The big 4 are above the law in this regard.
Well what if a state/local government says that in order to lay cable the big ISP has to give preference to locally based internet companies or something like that. Any one of the big 4 would just ignore them if they asked for that kind of treatment. Net neutrality makes these companies more powerful than governments.
So 100% of the stuff I read in online forums is against this, so I am going to try and argue the other side. I'm doing this because I find it weird that in a controversial topic there aren't even any shills around arguing the other side as there almost always are in an online debate topic. SO here goes:
The big 4 Amazon, Facebook, Netflix and Google are rapidly consolidating to control just about everything we see, hear or do on the Internet all over the entire world. Reversing net neutrality will allow for more competition with these services. Look at China, they have their own Facebook, Google, Amazon, Twitter, etc. In some ways, such as mobile payments their tech is even ahead of us and they block all the big 4. I am thinking that the ISPs blocking or throttling these services would create more small versions of these services that would be run by ISPs, etc. State and local governments could negotiate directly with Comcast or whatever to do stuff in the public interest locally with these services because of the give and take with regulated utilities. It would bring back more local control and work to reverse the decreasing relevance of local governments.
Use Litecoin people! The transaction fees are negligible.
Jevons Paradox, which has been around since the 1800s, says that the more efficiently a resource is used, the more demand there will be for it. Thus, the more efficiently human labor is used, the more demand there will be for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I imagine that organized crime would see it as bad for business. All those newly out of work hired killers won't be happy either. In the dystopian future, any sociopathic jerk with a few bucks can be a mafia boss and have a gang of robot killers working for him. I guess you could say that the invention of affordable firearms was a similar disruption, but civilization made it through that. Still, it's going to be a really gruesome couple of years once some factory in god knows where starts spitting these out.
It's not that these things are more destructive than older weapons. It's that these things give the power of a targeted artillery strike to anyone for pennies of what nation state weapons cost, so it opens up WWI type levels of destructive capability to just about anyone on any budget. WWI really caught people off guard. People had no idea the level of destruction that was going to be unleashed by the industrial revolution. Likewise people have no idea the destructive power that's going to be unleashed by the AI revolution.
It's this super cool way where you hack your monthly rent bill by having other people live in the same house!
(Female voice - medicine cabinet) If you feel you are not properly sedated, call 348-844 immediately. Failure to do so may result in prosecution for criminal drug evasion.