AI weaponry would be sent against an adversary with fewer body bags and hence less political cost--meaning used early and often. AI weaponry would be fought against with less political cost because you're not killing human adversaries--meaning again, early and often. It will be the "gateway drug" to full blown warfare if ever there was one. "Evil" is not sufficient a word for this.
Perhaps this contract is why they removed "don't be evil" from their handbook?
It is much like cursing an omniscient god that get one of its daemons to strike you down at any moment. People don't like it at all; people know better than to become an enemy of god.
Their error page is rejected by firefox. So I wgetted it to see why. At the bottom is a script from RUSSIA (in my best Max Headroom voice) (the src is addonrock.ru/Templatel.js) So perhaps AWS is hacked?
First: excessive "accountability" can go both ways: Suppose employees started collection personal financial information on their bosses? I'm sure the world would condemn that. (OMG!!! MY PRIVACY!!! If I have back taxes not paid that is MY business!!!! Waaaaaa!)
Second, if a company goes data mining their employees private lives they're going to be eventually held responsible for things they find right? Eventually an (say) IBM employee will go postal, and (say) IBM's HR department will be questioned about why they didn't notify authorities about irregularities/rants/etc that could have warned authorities now that they collect all a postal employee's personal info. If companies knew what a Pandora's box they were opening, they just wouldn't go there.
Hypothetically, let us say we knew of two adjacent colonies of bratty orangutan idiots. Each had the capability of utterly destroying the other with trebuchets. Would it not behoove us to zap parts of each trebuchets with a laser to let them know that they cannot rely upon their weapons? This would lessen the chance of that the idiot orangutans would use their weapons, because a first strike could quite likely fail.
Terrorism generally exists because government policies exist that allow/encourage it. ("Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable"... yada yada) Hence to the extent that terrorism exists, this is evidence of a government policy decisions in an imperfect world, policy failure etc. For instance, yes, the US could solve the Israeli/Palestinian issue, but solving it does not fall within it's acceptable portfolio of policy options. So could Israel and Palestine for that matter.
Now, the functional nature of engineering is generally thus: Apply standardized solutions to a given problem and some optimized solution will be the outcome. Output = f(x,y,z...)... Alternatively if one studies a social science, it is all about the messy business of human beings and their decision making. A political science person professionally accepts the fallibility of outcomes of human decision making and hence policy due to incentive structures, dichotomies, or ideologies etc. As does a sociologist, lawyer, economist etc. But engineering as a science is much about the outcome being an optimal solution to a set of problems than a compromise policy on a set of problems.
Hence an engineer has more difficulty accepting the failings of humans and their decisions (governmental policy), where most other professionals are more accepting of policy failure. Just ask Scott Adams--he mocks the corporate decision making process remorselessly, because as an engineer, it is his profession's nature.
Engineers have physical problems to solve. They have a toolkit of methods to solve them with. (Religion is similar in that it provides a complete framework to think in.)
An engineer, when faced with a political problem may think that if people are shocked into realizing the errors in their ways, that a logical outcome will be the result.
For example it is logical to think thus: You bomb my people; therefore I shall bomb your people and you'll realize how evil it is to my bomb people. Problem -> solution -> resolution.
Well, those schooled in say, a social science know that this logic doesn't follow due to people being adept in avoiding any idea that does not buttress their belief system.
"She waits for me in Nanaimo...." Those lines have been in my head for many many years now.... = )
Nanaimo used to be quite the dump--and rough, but they've been doing a lot to fix it up since the 90s. Wonder if that hot pink Mexican restaurant on the hill is still open....
Nice to see that they are continuing their efforts.
Slashdot Mirror
AI weaponry would be sent against an adversary with fewer body bags and hence less political cost--meaning used early and often. AI weaponry would be fought against with less political cost because you're not killing human adversaries--meaning again, early and often. It will be the "gateway drug" to full blown warfare if ever there was one. "Evil" is not sufficient a word for this.
Perhaps this contract is why they removed "don't be evil" from their handbook?
It is much like cursing an omniscient god that get one of its daemons to strike you down at any moment. People don't like it at all; people know better than to become an enemy of god.
Their error page is rejected by firefox. So I wgetted it to see why.
At the bottom is a script from RUSSIA (in my best Max Headroom voice) (the src is addonrock.ru/Templatel.js)
So perhaps AWS is hacked?
Big Oil is why you fight wars.
Big Insurance is why you can't have the health care you want.
List goes on.
In the end, it is that Big has too much sway in the political system. They pay little tax yet have a disproportionate amount of influence.
An MBA can show profit in this quarter. Engineers more than one quarter. How many companies look beyond the next quarter?
First: excessive "accountability" can go both ways: Suppose employees started collection personal financial information on their bosses? I'm sure the world would condemn that. (OMG!!! MY PRIVACY!!! If I have back taxes not paid that is MY business!!!! Waaaaaa!)
Second, if a company goes data mining their employees private lives they're going to be eventually held responsible for things they find right? Eventually an (say) IBM employee will go postal, and (say) IBM's HR department will be questioned about why they didn't notify authorities about irregularities/rants/etc that could have warned authorities now that they collect all a postal employee's personal info. If companies knew what a Pandora's box they were opening, they just wouldn't go there.
Sorta like complaining that a murderer stole someone's shoes isn't it?
Hypothetically, let us say we knew of two adjacent colonies of bratty orangutan idiots. Each had the capability of utterly destroying the other with trebuchets. Would it not behoove us to zap parts of each trebuchets with a laser to let them know that they cannot rely upon their weapons? This would lessen the chance of that the idiot orangutans would use their weapons, because a first strike could quite likely fail.
Terrorism generally exists because government policies exist that allow/encourage it. ("Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable"... yada yada) Hence to the extent that terrorism exists, this is evidence of a government policy decisions in an imperfect world, policy failure etc. For instance, yes, the US could solve the Israeli/Palestinian issue, but solving it does not fall within it's acceptable portfolio of policy options. So could Israel and Palestine for that matter.
Now, the functional nature of engineering is generally thus: Apply standardized solutions to a given problem and some optimized solution will be the outcome. Output = f(x,y,z...)... Alternatively if one studies a social science, it is all about the messy business of human beings and their decision making. A political science person professionally accepts the fallibility of outcomes of human decision making and hence policy due to incentive structures, dichotomies, or ideologies etc. As does a sociologist, lawyer, economist etc. But engineering as a science is much about the outcome being an optimal solution to a set of problems than a compromise policy on a set of problems.
Hence an engineer has more difficulty accepting the failings of humans and their decisions (governmental policy), where most other professionals are more accepting of policy failure. Just ask Scott Adams--he mocks the corporate decision making process remorselessly, because as an engineer, it is his profession's nature.
So the .1% of the US work force that are on h1-b are the movers and shakers of the whole market eh? I find that difficult to believe.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Management/H1B-Visas-Less-Than-01-Percent-of-US-Workforce-Report-559488/
Engineers have physical problems to solve. They have a toolkit of methods to solve them with. (Religion is similar in that it provides a complete framework to think in.)
An engineer, when faced with a political problem may think that if people are shocked into realizing the errors in their ways, that a logical outcome will be the result.
For example it is logical to think thus: You bomb my people; therefore I shall bomb your people and you'll realize how evil it is to my bomb people. Problem -> solution -> resolution.
Well, those schooled in say, a social science know that this logic doesn't follow due to people being adept in avoiding any idea that does not buttress their belief system.
Change your name to Nicolopolous Xanzapooo
(Or buy your IT guys beer.)
No, a breach occurs when the government enters the information in the first place.
I'll close the door! = )
Turn on Norton. ; )
Bingo!
You reached your critial point quota today.
Doh!
If I ran China or Russia, I'd auction a t-bill and bid a couple pennies more.
Ever since getting my "3g" iphone, I've never seen a good 3g signal. Hope you like all that cash I send you AT&T.
Also, the sharp pointy end of those projects would conceivably be used against those same or similar foreign born engineer's home countries.
The world just doesn't need bigger/and more efficient bombs. Just doesn't.
Nobel is another example.
H1-b people are good enough for other countries to try to "poach" them.
http://www.canadavisa.com/in-the-us-on-an-h1b-Alberta-pnp-has-a-new-option-for-you.html
I'd mod you up if I could.
Cheers,
-b
..that regulation mandating net neutrality will cause the ISPs no harm because of Peee for Peee technology!
"She waits for me in Nanaimo...."
Those lines have been in my head for many many years now.... = )
Nanaimo used to be quite the dump--and rough, but they've been doing a lot to fix it up since the 90s. Wonder if that hot pink Mexican restaurant on the hill is still open....
Nice to see that they are continuing their efforts.