Considering all the classified reports that have been published in the NYT over the last year, and the fact that none of the reporters, editors, or publishers are in prison or have been "disappeared", I think it's a bit of a stretch to say the USA is any kind of third world dictatorship.
You think it's bad now? Just wait until the people who get elected are on par with the people doing the voting. As bad as our current crop of politicians are, they're (mostly) still one step ahead of Bubba and Mindy Sue.
At that point, the whole question of rights for AI will be moot, since there won't be anyone around who can build an AI.
So, you're suggesting that the real key to controlling the population is choice. As long as the 95% choose to accept the system, even if on an unconscience level, they'll be able to live happily? And then the other 5% is like a pressure valve, so to speak? And they're allowed to "wake up" and fight the system, maybe even run off and create some kind of Utopian society that gets destroyed by the powers-that-be every few generations, but even then it's just another level of control?
There are already highly trained human noses already out there
For example, experienced sommeliers and cheesemongers probably have even more fined tuned senses of smell (at least within their areas of expertise) than most pet dogs. Not blood hounds, mind you, but especially sight hounds and working dogs. Being able to identify ten or twelve different aromas and tastes within one glass of wine is a distinct skill, and I doubt many dogs can do it.
At least, I know mine can't. But then, he can be a mean drunk, so maybe that's the real problem.
If you can prevent it, by definition it's not terrorism.
I basically agree with your first statement, you can't fight a method of fighting (though you can fight an evil ideology that enslaves women, oppresses homosexuals, and forces everyone at gun point to worship they same way, but we're not allowed to say we're in a war against Islam). But I'm not sure I understand your second statement. I don't see how being able, or not, to prevent an action dictates whether or not its terrorism. If it's preventable, what would you call it? And why do you think it's impossible to prevent terrorism?
How do you ensure that someone is a citizen and is allowed to vote? By having them log in, of course. Once they're logged in, what's to prevent their vote from being associated with their identity? Nothing, of course.
That's why this will never happen. Nor should it, voting should be completely private, there should not even be the slimmest chance that your vote will be recorded as belonging to you.
That would be a hugely bad idea. Just look at the 2000 election: the networks call the state of Florida (prematurely and incorrectly) for Gore, then when the ballots are counted it ends up going to Bush. But the turnout in Western parts of the state dropped off dramatically, since people thought "my vote doesn't count, it's already been decided". In my mind, it's better to hold off on making any pronouncements, one way or the other, until everyone has voted.
All I've got to say is that by comparing me to the swift-boaters you've done two things:
1) Paid me an enormous compliment. Those guys wouldn't let John Kerry get away with bashing the troops, and they did a huge service in shining the light on his treasonous venom. 2) Put yourself into the same boat (so to speak) with Kerry.
Just because you wore a uniform for a little while doesn't make you (or me) any more special or insightful than anyone else. To assume that your comments are above reproach because you claim you were a Marine (which I still doubt, though Murtha was a Marine once, even if he doesn't act like one now) is absurd. You don't get free reign to spit on the graves of those who paid the highest price just because you don't like Bush (and yes, that's meant as a double entendre, I point this out due to your presumed slow wittedness).
That's all I've got to say. Feel free to reply if you feel the need to get in the last word, but don't expect a response.
You go ahead and say it you squid punk. I'd knock you on your ass.
Maybe, but it wouldn't stop me from saying it. Or did you think you'd be the first person to have 'knocked me on my ass'?
I've been to the sandbox. I didn't come as close to combat as you say you did, but that was just luck. The most violence we had was when one guy broke his wrist grabbing the gunwale of a boat too late in choppy seas in the Gulf. But I still did my part. And I think this war is a noble cause, bringing democracy and freedom to a people who have never had it is worth spending your life, my life, and as many other lives as it takes. Again, if you were ever a Marine, you'd understand and agree with that. So unless you can post some proof of your service, I'll just keep thinking of you as a lying troll like that Josh guy in Missouri.
Re:Why would I want Diebolt to regain its reputati
on
An Open Letter To Diebold
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
2) the CEO being the same person who pledged to bring the elections over to the Republicans
Yeah, and he did such a fantastic job of following through on that, too.
Some you folks are starting to sound like the 9/11 and UFO conspiracy nuts. It doesn't matter that the Democrats fairly won the election even with Diebold voting machines in place around the country, they're still evil and this must all be part of some vast Rovian conspiracy. There's no way Diebold will ever regain your trust, because you refuse to give it no matter what. So why should their CEO take anything you say seriously?
Neanderthals' brain size probably had more to do with their having evolved to live in more frigid environments. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Differences_in_I ntelligence#Climate_and_brain_size (the main article is pretty inflammatory, but the chart in the middle is pretty interesting, and the only one quite like it I could quickly).
If that's the case, then that would also explain why northern Europeans developed a similar trait, probably around the same time we lost our pigmentation and got narrower and longer noses. So it's not so much as we're noticeably smarter, just that our environment selected against smaller brain area, for whatever reason (more brain mass means easier to keep the damn thing warm, is my layman's guess).
Do they realize that they are implicitly suggesting that Europeans have bigger brains than Africans? Even if this is true (and I will not comment one way or another), I think they can kiss your careers goodbye.
Yes, let's all suppress science because someone's feelings might get hurt.
And they say religious conservatives are the only ones who suppress knowledge to protect their fragile belief systems. Pfft.
Slashdot Mirror
What if my computers do the computation but no human ever sees it?
A human had to tell the computer that marriage is a factor to consider in the first place. That alone could be enough to open you up to a lawsuit.
It's all fun and games until the robots become hot asian girls....
"Until"?
In mid-May 1975, just three weeks after the victory of the revolutionary forces in Vietnam
And there you betray your bias. Thank you, I can now safely ignore the rest of your commie diatribe in peace.
Considering all the classified reports that have been published in the NYT over the last year, and the fact that none of the reporters, editors, or publishers are in prison or have been "disappeared", I think it's a bit of a stretch to say the USA is any kind of third world dictatorship.
You think it's bad now? Just wait until the people who get elected are on par with the people doing the voting. As bad as our current crop of politicians are, they're (mostly) still one step ahead of Bubba and Mindy Sue.
At that point, the whole question of rights for AI will be moot, since there won't be anyone around who can build an AI.
They're probably too hung over.
So, you're suggesting that the real key to controlling the population is choice. As long as the 95% choose to accept the system, even if on an unconscience level, they'll be able to live happily? And then the other 5% is like a pressure valve, so to speak? And they're allowed to "wake up" and fight the system, maybe even run off and create some kind of Utopian society that gets destroyed by the powers-that-be every few generations, but even then it's just another level of control?
Why does that sound so familiar?
There are already highly trained human noses already out there
For example, experienced sommeliers and cheesemongers probably have even more fined tuned senses of smell (at least within their areas of expertise) than most pet dogs. Not blood hounds, mind you, but especially sight hounds and working dogs. Being able to identify ten or twelve different aromas and tastes within one glass of wine is a distinct skill, and I doubt many dogs can do it.
At least, I know mine can't. But then, he can be a mean drunk, so maybe that's the real problem.
How do you think I find certain, unnamed, UNIX sysadmins in the office?
"Now with blackjack and hookers."
"11001110101111000011" (reference to how robots pray)
"More addictive than Slurm(tm)!"
"Thank you, Mr. Murdoch, we promise to play nice now."
Of course, unit prices on items not sold commonly in bulk should not be allowed to be priced in unavailable currency.
Funny, I read that as "Of course, the government should be allowed to set price controls on items not sold commonly in bulk." Wonder why that is?
I was right there with you until you mentioned Islam
Why, does Islam not do those things?
we are all technically descendants of Noah and his wife (not of Adam and Eve).
And from whom were Noah and Naamah descended, genius?
I think the Second Amendment is talking about the state militia.
Yeah, 'cause those existed in 1789...
Hey, at least it's commented! That's better than most of the code you'll find in the wild.
"And in this supposedly English-language college, the professors often used bad grammar and spoke in thick accents."
Not unlike certain journalism schools, apparently.
If you can prevent it, by definition it's not terrorism.
I basically agree with your first statement, you can't fight a method of fighting (though you can fight an evil ideology that enslaves women, oppresses homosexuals, and forces everyone at gun point to worship they same way, but we're not allowed to say we're in a war against Islam). But I'm not sure I understand your second statement. I don't see how being able, or not, to prevent an action dictates whether or not its terrorism. If it's preventable, what would you call it? And why do you think it's impossible to prevent terrorism?
How do you ensure that someone is a citizen and is allowed to vote? By having them log in, of course. Once they're logged in, what's to prevent their vote from being associated with their identity? Nothing, of course.
That's why this will never happen. Nor should it, voting should be completely private, there should not even be the slimmest chance that your vote will be recorded as belonging to you.
That would be a hugely bad idea. Just look at the 2000 election: the networks call the state of Florida (prematurely and incorrectly) for Gore, then when the ballots are counted it ends up going to Bush. But the turnout in Western parts of the state dropped off dramatically, since people thought "my vote doesn't count, it's already been decided". In my mind, it's better to hold off on making any pronouncements, one way or the other, until everyone has voted.
Maybe it's just me, but painting a big ol' bullseye on your roof near an airport is just asking for trouble...
Now that replies are working again...
All I've got to say is that by comparing me to the swift-boaters you've done two things:
1) Paid me an enormous compliment. Those guys wouldn't let John Kerry get away with bashing the troops, and they did a huge service in shining the light on his treasonous venom.
2) Put yourself into the same boat (so to speak) with Kerry.
Just because you wore a uniform for a little while doesn't make you (or me) any more special or insightful than anyone else. To assume that your comments are above reproach because you claim you were a Marine (which I still doubt, though Murtha was a Marine once, even if he doesn't act like one now) is absurd. You don't get free reign to spit on the graves of those who paid the highest price just because you don't like Bush (and yes, that's meant as a double entendre, I point this out due to your presumed slow wittedness).
That's all I've got to say. Feel free to reply if you feel the need to get in the last word, but don't expect a response.
You go ahead and say it you squid punk. I'd knock you on your ass.
Maybe, but it wouldn't stop me from saying it. Or did you think you'd be the first person to have 'knocked me on my ass'?
I've been to the sandbox. I didn't come as close to combat as you say you did, but that was just luck. The most violence we had was when one guy broke his wrist grabbing the gunwale of a boat too late in choppy seas in the Gulf. But I still did my part. And I think this war is a noble cause, bringing democracy and freedom to a people who have never had it is worth spending your life, my life, and as many other lives as it takes. Again, if you were ever a Marine, you'd understand and agree with that. So unless you can post some proof of your service, I'll just keep thinking of you as a lying troll like that Josh guy in Missouri.
2) the CEO being the same person who pledged to bring the elections over to the Republicans
Yeah, and he did such a fantastic job of following through on that, too.
Some you folks are starting to sound like the 9/11 and UFO conspiracy nuts. It doesn't matter that the Democrats fairly won the election even with Diebold voting machines in place around the country, they're still evil and this must all be part of some vast Rovian conspiracy. There's no way Diebold will ever regain your trust, because you refuse to give it no matter what. So why should their CEO take anything you say seriously?
Neanderthals' brain size probably had more to do with their having evolved to live in more frigid environments. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Differences_in_I ntelligence#Climate_and_brain_size (the main article is pretty inflammatory, but the chart in the middle is pretty interesting, and the only one quite like it I could quickly).
If that's the case, then that would also explain why northern Europeans developed a similar trait, probably around the same time we lost our pigmentation and got narrower and longer noses. So it's not so much as we're noticeably smarter, just that our environment selected against smaller brain area, for whatever reason (more brain mass means easier to keep the damn thing warm, is my layman's guess).
Do they realize that they are implicitly suggesting that Europeans have bigger brains than Africans? Even if this is true (and I will not comment one way or another), I think they can kiss your careers goodbye.
Yes, let's all suppress science because someone's feelings might get hurt.
And they say religious conservatives are the only ones who suppress knowledge to protect their fragile belief systems. Pfft.