Discrimination and double-charging are two separate issues. We know that wireless carriers (and off-and-on, wired ones) have been discriminating for years. So far they have not been double-charging.
Criminal charges and ten years hard time for researchers who communicate with their international peers (y'know, the ones from "peer review") is hardly a non-story, friend.
The point is that even if The Machines supposedly act in the interest of humanity, there is still no basis for selecting certain people to be oppressed "for the greater good," which is what the counter-intuitive actions of The Machines amount to (pretty sinister).
the democratic process has been effectively poisoned by monied interests
There are certainly many forces of corruption at work upon our democracies, yet in the present day we appear to have the most democratic - and least violent - of any previous civilization.
In the past three years in California I have voted in popular referenda which have created an open primary election system, allowed a committee of citizens to redraw gerrymandered legislative districts (this survived three elections), placed fixed term limits on legislators and eliminated "three strikes" sentencing requirements for non-violent crimes.
The real solution lies in crystal-clear software
I sort of gave my version of that in a comment below.
I sometimes imagine a technologically powered direct democracy in which random samples of the population vote in secrets ballots on issues of governance down to fairly low level decisions (within reason...most likely there would be government employees with some level of initiative). The sample sizes could be chosen in order to obtain a p-value proportional to the importance of the issue.
I think that's actually a good idea. The ad pieces can be specific enough to condemn patent trolling yet vague enough to avoid the appearance of tampering in any individual case.
I think majority rule with checks and balances is the only alternative to tyranny. Essentially moral decisions (including economic ones; recall that the classical economists called themselves moral philosophers) must be biased.
Humanistic morality implies a bias. (as a humanist, I am biased towards this bias).
The summary says the AI has "sinister motives," but to me the more interesting case is that of The Evitable Conflict by Asimov.
There, "The Machines," massive positronic brains designed to manage the global economy and governed by the Three Laws of Robotics, have apparently undertook to harm certain sets of individual humans for the good of humanity as a whole. Yet, the correctness of these decisions cannot be evaluated as counter-factual histories cannot be observed.
See The Evitable Conflict by Issac Asimov. The trouble (discussed but not resolved by Asimov) is that it makes no difference if those harmed for the greater good are selected by human creations or humans themselves. Those unfortunates are oppressed regardless, and the counter-factual in which they are not oppressed defies observation. Human morality ultimately resides in feelings of good or bad which arise in specific situations and cannot be totally contained in general principles; any moral decision thus admits the possibility of error, even for a perfect machine implementation of humanistic morality.
As to my UID, I didn't use what became my general use name when I first registered on/. in high school. Eventually I bit the bullet and switched to that (this) user name.
How can humans be prevented from having power over other humans if there aren't any humans with power over other humans to prevent the humans from having power over other humans?
They do pay us a form of 'protection' in that they continually accept our notionally valued paper in exchange for their labor and real resources. We consume those goods, and Japan can not recover them.
Yes, I meant the SPR. Note that I made no comment one way or the other about the merits of such a strategic reserve - but just observed what position would be consistent with the GOP's vociferous claims. My parenthetical just left out "for the better" after "manipulate prices."
That's a good story - but it's abundantly clear that the GOP is not seriously opposed to government intervention in energy markets.
If they were, they would be fighting against oil and ethanol subsidies, would propose winding down the national petroleum reserve (used to manipulate prices) and would never actively fight against particular forms of energy (as described in summary and TFA).
The GOP as always is full of it. They want to pick winners and losers as much as the Dems - just different ones.
The DARE lesson is a little bit different. Students who had gone through the program were found to be more likely to try drugs, but also more likely to use them responsibly.
In the opium example, "soporific" means "sleep inducing," so the premise (induces sleep) implies the conclusion (is a soporific). The marriage example is the same - if marriage is "between a man and a woman" then it is already implicit that it isn't between a man and a man, etc.
The problem isn't that there are two uses of the idiom, it's that they are actually contradictory. For example if I say that the issue of expanding the subsidy program begs the question of the program's efficacy, do I mean that the expansion idea assumes that the subsidy was effective (old sense), or do I mean that the efficacy must now be evaluated (new sense)?
In other words, the old sense suggests the fundamental question is being avoided or assumed, while the new sense suggests it is being called up.
Ignoring any potential objective effects, wouldn't it make more sense to state, "if you're an older worker, remember that they aren't trying to be rude?" And then, maybe to say something, instead of judging silently?
Basically the assumptions that the "correct" standard of behavior belongs solely to a certain group, and that others should be expected to be a priori aware of others opinions absent communication, are critically flawed.
Slashdot Mirror
Most likely, it would be Comast saying that. Or does Verizon have a television service (AFAIK they don't in the West)?
Discrimination and double-charging are two separate issues. We know that wireless carriers (and off-and-on, wired ones) have been discriminating for years. So far they have not been double-charging.
I think we all know the answer to that one.
He's easily one of the (if not THE) best sitting judge in the country.
Criminal charges and ten years hard time for researchers who communicate with their international peers (y'know, the ones from "peer review") is hardly a non-story, friend.
So...first he stole^H^H^H^H^Hcreated a homage to RTS games.
The point is that even if The Machines supposedly act in the interest of humanity, there is still no basis for selecting certain people to be oppressed "for the greater good," which is what the counter-intuitive actions of The Machines amount to (pretty sinister).
the democratic process has been effectively poisoned by monied interests
There are certainly many forces of corruption at work upon our democracies, yet in the present day we appear to have the most democratic - and least violent - of any previous civilization.
In the past three years in California I have voted in popular referenda which have created an open primary election system, allowed a committee of citizens to redraw gerrymandered legislative districts (this survived three elections), placed fixed term limits on legislators and eliminated "three strikes" sentencing requirements for non-violent crimes.
The real solution lies in crystal-clear software
I sort of gave my version of that in a comment below.
I sometimes imagine a technologically powered direct democracy in which random samples of the population vote in secrets ballots on issues of governance down to fairly low level decisions (within reason...most likely there would be government employees with some level of initiative). The sample sizes could be chosen in order to obtain a p-value proportional to the importance of the issue.
I think that's actually a good idea. The ad pieces can be specific enough to condemn patent trolling yet vague enough to avoid the appearance of tampering in any individual case.
Yes, all the way down.
I think majority rule with checks and balances is the only alternative to tyranny. Essentially moral decisions (including economic ones; recall that the classical economists called themselves moral philosophers) must be biased.
Humanistic morality implies a bias. (as a humanist, I am biased towards this bias).
The summary says the AI has "sinister motives," but to me the more interesting case is that of The Evitable Conflict by Asimov.
There, "The Machines," massive positronic brains designed to manage the global economy and governed by the Three Laws of Robotics, have apparently undertook to harm certain sets of individual humans for the good of humanity as a whole. Yet, the correctness of these decisions cannot be evaluated as counter-factual histories cannot be observed.
See The Evitable Conflict by Issac Asimov. The trouble (discussed but not resolved by Asimov) is that it makes no difference if those harmed for the greater good are selected by human creations or humans themselves. Those unfortunates are oppressed regardless, and the counter-factual in which they are not oppressed defies observation. Human morality ultimately resides in feelings of good or bad which arise in specific situations and cannot be totally contained in general principles; any moral decision thus admits the possibility of error, even for a perfect machine implementation of humanistic morality.
As to my UID, I didn't use what became my general use name when I first registered on /. in high school. Eventually I bit the bullet and switched to that (this) user name.
I know, variable width fonts let the proles guess what the redacted blocks actually say.
How can humans be prevented from having power over other humans if there aren't any humans with power over other humans to prevent the humans from having power over other humans?
They do pay us a form of 'protection' in that they continually accept our notionally valued paper in exchange for their labor and real resources. We consume those goods, and Japan can not recover them.
Yes, I meant the SPR. Note that I made no comment one way or the other about the merits of such a strategic reserve - but just observed what position would be consistent with the GOP's vociferous claims. My parenthetical just left out "for the better" after "manipulate prices."
That's a good story - but it's abundantly clear that the GOP is not seriously opposed to government intervention in energy markets.
If they were, they would be fighting against oil and ethanol subsidies, would propose winding down the national petroleum reserve (used to manipulate prices) and would never actively fight against particular forms of energy (as described in summary and TFA).
The GOP as always is full of it. They want to pick winners and losers as much as the Dems - just different ones.
The DARE lesson is a little bit different. Students who had gone through the program were found to be more likely to try drugs, but also more likely to use them responsibly.
TPTB prefer ignorance to (failed) indoctrination.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, aka Blade Runner, is a whole novel.
In the opium example, "soporific" means "sleep inducing," so the premise (induces sleep) implies the conclusion (is a soporific). The marriage example is the same - if marriage is "between a man and a woman" then it is already implicit that it isn't between a man and a man, etc.
The problem isn't that there are two uses of the idiom, it's that they are actually contradictory. For example if I say that the issue of expanding the subsidy program begs the question of the program's efficacy, do I mean that the expansion idea assumes that the subsidy was effective (old sense), or do I mean that the efficacy must now be evaluated (new sense)?
In other words, the old sense suggests the fundamental question is being avoided or assumed, while the new sense suggests it is being called up.
A statement which is "begging the question" improperly assumes a premise that entails the conclusion.
For example, "opium induces sleep because it is soporific" or "same-sex marriage is wrong because marriage is between a man and a woman."
Although the colloquial use is fairly entrenched, the original / correct sense is still commonly used in professional circles, and is highly useful.
Ignoring any potential objective effects, wouldn't it make more sense to state, "if you're an older worker, remember that they aren't trying to be rude?" And then, maybe to say something, instead of judging silently?
Basically the assumptions that the "correct" standard of behavior belongs solely to a certain group, and that others should be expected to be a priori aware of others opinions absent communication, are critically flawed.
I wanted to do this, but they know it's me in the same residence. Are there any tricks? How long do you have to wait with no internet?
Maybe it is like TOS, and they cracked down asymmetrically across regions?