You're absolutely right. You don't have to send much. Imagine you met him in a bar and bought him a drink. Donate 5 dollars for free speach. $3 (if you drink PBR).
Yes. And I don't see it being too far-fetched for it to be commercially available in the near future.(10-20 years)
Optics is there.
Basic mobility is close.
Processing power (well that's doubling every 18-24 months).
But... there's a lot more. I have no idea how close we really are to have a robot that can make the bed, pick up and take the clothes to the washing machine/dryer and then fold them and put them away.
I've been coming to Austin since the 80s and there's been a big change. ( I may make it this years' SXSW). I was refering to the exodus that's going on in California. It started in earnest in 2009 and grew in 2010 and 2011 -- if big tech companies start moving out then California is going to hurt big time.
California has seen a lot of people leaving over the last two years. If things keep up there will be a mass exodus. If major tech companies start expanding elsewhere... owww. California will be hurting.
Yes - I meant a robot that could do tasks that currently require a human. It's true that dishwashers and washing machines replaced human labor but they are simple tools / appliances. A robot is able to navigate from space to space while doing preset tasks - without requiring direct supervision.
That's taking the dishes from the tables to the sink/dishwasher without tripping over toys or stepping on the cat.
It's more than price - it's functionality. At the moment you can get human help for x dollars that can clean the house, dishes, laundry, drop things off in the mail, pick up the kids, etc... When robots can accomplish these tasks they will become regular household items. I'm not big on having a maid in my house (can't afford one even if I wanted one) but I would love to not have to clean the dishes or do laundry. It robots could do that I would buy one over an iPad any day of the week.
I have no problem with the end of big business - provided it isn't done by government. Government manipulation of the marketplace leads to corporatism in the same way that government made blackmarkets (the war on drugs) leads to crime and the prison/police state mentality.
The only way to stop that dystopian future (corporations owning government) is to limit the power of government. Regarding free trade - it depends on who is considered to be the owner of the information. Free trade does not condone theft.
And yet we have drugs that people want to take. 25 years ago when AIDS was the topic of the day ACT UP and other groups were demanding that people get access to experimental drugs.
Yes there are snake-oil salesmen - but at the same time there are valuable drugs out there. A compromise needs to be reached where non-FDA approved drugs can be sold.
How is this compromise reached? It can be done - but there will have to public debate until we arrive at a concensus. Remove legal responsibility to adverse reactions and you will have con-men flooding the market. AND yet... what about a simple concept called freedom?
I'm not saing that TV ads lead to immortality - only that things are changing far quicker than most realize. We're doubling processing speed, memory, bandwidth every 18-24 months. We can get 2TB harddrives for $129. I spent $200 for my first external hardrive and it had 20MB (late 1980s). That's 18 or so doubles in 22 years. Where will we be in another 20 years? 2TBs will become 2 million TBs.
Regarding "immortality" the first aspect is being worked on right now - being able to "read thoughts". If we can "read" thoughts we can record them. If we can record them then can we bring all brain functions to 1s and 0s? At that point we have immortality - our brain, thoughts, consciousness lives on in 1s and 0s.
Again, I'm not saying that TV ads in the subway leads automatically to immortality.
The future is upon us. Changes in technology brings up issues in ethics and politics from cloning to privacy to immortality to fears of an all pervasive police state. What was fiction a few years ago (TV ads in subways, personalized advertising) is now on the verge of being real. Many of us walk around with TVs in our pocket and take it forgranted.
Thoughts of how new technology and society mesh used to be the province of science fiction writers. Now it is the province of anyone interested in their lives in the very near future.
That's a very good point and may very well be the position of the court. I focus upon the bolded clause of the 4th Am:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The government may search your harddrive for a particular type of file, kiddie porn as an example, but not others. The devil is in the details but I would say that in this case they can only search for graphic/movie files. Perhaps, if they do find said graphic files, they can get another court order to search for other files.
So - just because the government can search a harddrive for graphic files does not mean that they can search your bank records.
I would have thought it would have been the 4th Amendment, not the 5th that really counted in this case.
4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]
I'm happy the government was thwarted but I need to read the decision closer to see why the justices did not select the 4th A.
I couldn't agree with you more. Anything that a doctor can recognize and diagnose via a photo - a computer will be able to as well. "Yup that's a tick bite. Come on in for some blood work."
What makes you think this bill makes sense? When it really comes down to it the real fear is the government having access to your information. It's government use of your data that turns the country into a police state. Corporate exploitation of your data is bad. I feel that Facebook should have no more control over my data than Dell or Intel or Microsoft do because I type the data on a machine using those components. But once again - as bad as corporate use of your data is - it is much worse when the government has access to it.
4th A to the US Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,...
I don't see what the Obama administration has done to help privacy concerns. It is Obama's subordinates - people under his direct control who are pushing ACTA. If you're mad at the congress people pushing forth SOPA and PIPA you should be mad at Obama for pushing ACTA
That is why people are against over regulation. The more you regulate the more companies play the political game. You want more freedom? Have the government do its constitutionally limited roles and be very careful in expanding its scope.
Slashdot Mirror
Except for the people who voted against and were overruled.
You're absolutely right. You don't have to send much. Imagine you met him in a bar and bought him a drink. Donate 5 dollars for free speach. $3 (if you drink PBR).
Yes. And I don't see it being too far-fetched for it to be commercially available in the near future.(10-20 years) Optics is there. Basic mobility is close. Processing power (well that's doubling every 18-24 months). But ... there's a lot more. I have no idea how close we really are to have a robot that can make the bed, pick up and take the clothes to the washing machine/dryer and then fold them and put them away.
I've been coming to Austin since the 80s and there's been a big change. ( I may make it this years' SXSW). I was refering to the exodus that's going on in California. It started in earnest in 2009 and grew in 2010 and 2011 -- if big tech companies start moving out then California is going to hurt big time.
California has seen a lot of people leaving over the last two years. If things keep up there will be a mass exodus. If major tech companies start expanding elsewhere ... owww. California will be hurting.
Yes - I meant a robot that could do tasks that currently require a human. It's true that dishwashers and washing machines replaced human labor but they are simple tools / appliances. A robot is able to navigate from space to space while doing preset tasks - without requiring direct supervision. That's taking the dishes from the tables to the sink/dishwasher without tripping over toys or stepping on the cat.
It's more than price - it's functionality. At the moment you can get human help for x dollars that can clean the house, dishes, laundry, drop things off in the mail, pick up the kids, etc... When robots can accomplish these tasks they will become regular household items. I'm not big on having a maid in my house (can't afford one even if I wanted one) but I would love to not have to clean the dishes or do laundry. It robots could do that I would buy one over an iPad any day of the week.
Amen. Here's to the day that your comment is not considered to be fantasy.
And why did the police report it? Perhaps they are legally required to. Perhaps we should change/repeal/eliminate some laws.
whoops :-)
point taken. back to 2nd grade for me
How old are you going to be in 38 years? Chances are that "hot chick" will find somebody else - your money ain't gonna matter.
I have no problem with the end of big business - provided it isn't done by government. Government manipulation of the marketplace leads to corporatism in the same way that government made blackmarkets (the war on drugs) leads to crime and the prison/police state mentality.
The only way to stop that dystopian future (corporations owning government) is to limit the power of government. Regarding free trade - it depends on who is considered to be the owner of the information. Free trade does not condone theft.
And yet we have drugs that people want to take. 25 years ago when AIDS was the topic of the day ACT UP and other groups were demanding that people get access to experimental drugs.
... what about a simple concept called freedom?
Yes there are snake-oil salesmen - but at the same time there are valuable drugs out there. A compromise needs to be reached where non-FDA approved drugs can be sold.
How is this compromise reached? It can be done - but there will have to public debate until we arrive at a concensus. Remove legal responsibility to adverse reactions and you will have con-men flooding the market. AND yet
I'm not a Facebook fan but this is an excellent idea. Send a tweet and everyone concerned will know you're safe.
I'm not saing that TV ads lead to immortality - only that things are changing far quicker than most realize. We're doubling processing speed, memory, bandwidth every 18-24 months. We can get 2TB harddrives for $129. I spent $200 for my first external hardrive and it had 20MB (late 1980s). That's 18 or so doubles in 22 years. Where will we be in another 20 years? 2TBs will become 2 million TBs. Regarding "immortality" the first aspect is being worked on right now - being able to "read thoughts". If we can "read" thoughts we can record them. If we can record them then can we bring all brain functions to 1s and 0s? At that point we have immortality - our brain, thoughts, consciousness lives on in 1s and 0s. Again, I'm not saying that TV ads in the subway leads automatically to immortality.
thank you. where's my F7 when I need it :-)
The future is upon us. Changes in technology brings up issues in ethics and politics from cloning to privacy to immortality to fears of an all pervasive police state. What was fiction a few years ago (TV ads in subways, personalized advertising) is now on the verge of being real. Many of us walk around with TVs in our pocket and take it forgranted. Thoughts of how new technology and society mesh used to be the province of science fiction writers. Now it is the province of anyone interested in their lives in the very near future.
The government may search your harddrive for a particular type of file, kiddie porn as an example, but not others. The devil is in the details but I would say that in this case they can only search for graphic/movie files. Perhaps, if they do find said graphic files, they can get another court order to search for other files. So - just because the government can search a harddrive for graphic files does not mean that they can search your bank records.
4th Amendment
5th Amendment
I'm happy the government was thwarted but I need to read the decision closer to see why the justices did not select the 4th A.
I couldn't agree with you more. Anything that a doctor can recognize and diagnose via a photo - a computer will be able to as well. "Yup that's a tick bite. Come on in for some blood work."
What makes you think this bill makes sense? When it really comes down to it the real fear is the government having access to your information. It's government use of your data that turns the country into a police state. Corporate exploitation of your data is bad. I feel that Facebook should have no more control over my data than Dell or Intel or Microsoft do because I type the data on a machine using those components. But once again - as bad as corporate use of your data is - it is much worse when the government has access to it.
...
4th A to the US Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
I don't see what the Obama administration has done to help privacy concerns. It is Obama's subordinates - people under his direct control who are pushing ACTA. If you're mad at the congress people pushing forth SOPA and PIPA you should be mad at Obama for pushing ACTA
There's a difference between NO regulation and over-regulation. Both are bad. ACTA, SOPA and PIPA are examples of over-regulation.
Beautifully put. Thank you.
That is why people are against over regulation. The more you regulate the more companies play the political game. You want more freedom? Have the government do its constitutionally limited roles and be very careful in expanding its scope.