The future is and always has been and always will be white lists.
Nearly all anti virus software works on the premise of the blacklist. That is there is a list of hundreds of thousands of malware and virus code snippets and if the AV sees some it flags it.
The white list works in the opposite direction. All VALID code gets approved. If it isn't on the list then it gets flagged.
Some people will say "but what about my indy software that isn't on the global white lists!? Well, for one thing we'll assume that the process of getting your code on the white list is no big deal. Under that system it is in everyone's interest to get as much approved code on the white lists as possible so as to make the black listing system which is terrible that much less attractive. That said, you can always approve the code yourself. Tell your home AV system that you vouch for that program and move on.
Uninformed users would be encouraged not to EVER do that since they don't know enough to really have a valid opinion. But power users, programmers, and IT experts obviously should be able to tell without a scan.
White lists. Its how the iPhone is effectively protected. Want people to download your product? iTunes has to approve of it. Doubtless itunes gets scammed occasionally but its nothing compared to what would happen if the average user was installing just "anything" on the machine.
White lists are how AV should work. Top to bottom. Forget blacklists. They're bad.
The last time the feds tried to push us to metric it was a political shitstorm. Leave it alone. We have bigger problems at the moment without worrying about this stuff.
Bullets don't even have to be metal. You could use ceramic. Buy some firable modeling clay from the hobby shop... squeeze it into a mold... bake it in the oven. Bam... Bullet.
Or if you insist on using lead... lead has a pretty low melting temperature and its so soft you could honestly just hammer it into any shape you wanted.
As to multi barrel guns... that was one of the early hand guns before revolvers. They had a lot of multi barrel guns. The barrels were often parallel rather then in a ring. But since its a close range weapon, it hardly matters.
The CNC machines are not expensive and they can work in metal right now. With a small forge you can even melt down scrap metal pretty easily into bricks for use in the machine.
Really, all this 3d stuff is doing is making it easier and more of a push button affair. It is somewhat surprising that we don't have more handmade guns in the wild. They're really quite easy to make.
Doubtless they'll try something with bullets. But making your own bullets isn't that hard either.
There are a dozen over the counter chemicals that could be purchased, mixed, and cooked to create explosives similar to gun powder. And then all you're dealing with is the bullet jacket, bullet, and primer. I've seen hunters that refill their own ammunition. They pick up the spent cartridge and save them. Then when they've got nothing better to do they wash them off, replace the primer, fill the cartridge with more powder, and squeeze a new bullet into it. The jackets don't even need to be made out brass or metal for that matter. A fully paper cartridge is entirely possible.
And beyond that, the machines that can print in metal are dropping in price as we speak. Still far beyond the means of the end user but you could say the same thing of the plastic prototype printers in the 1980s. In 30 years we will probably have 3d printers printing in metal.
And that doesn't even address the assembly capability and subtractive machining capability of many machines.
If 3d printers scare you, I can buy a metal lathe that can make gun parts out of steel for not much more then a thousand dollars. The technology isn't that complicated. Put block of steel in vice... tighten vice... wait for drill to remove all unwanted material. Remove finished part. The parts have to be designed to accommodate the limitations of a 2 axis lathe but if we're just going for a functional gun... it works.
Its actually surprising we don't have more home made guns throughout the world. It is really quite simple.
The regulatory agencies that control the major banks won't permit overt laundering schemes that are within the reach of any but the most sophisticated bankers.
That said, f' them. By all means, allow bitcoin to become whatever it is going to become. But the technology that built it can be made again and again and again.
Set up another bitcoin currency. And this time learn from the mistakes. We might have to proxy the money into and out of the system through cash. That is... no electronic deposits or withdrawals. Rather, use cash. Cash is by its nature opaque. Set up accounts like pre paid debit cards. The cash in the system but no names. Only ID codes linked to the money but not to people.
This will shield the next system behind the legitimacy of physical currency itself. Physical currency won't go away. The governments say they don't like it because its hard to trace but there are many purchases they make that are intentionally murky. Remember the giant bricks of cash sent to Iraq? Literally pallets of 100 dollar bills stacked and shrink wrapped. Why did they do that? Think we couldn't have come up with an electronic and documented system? We chose not to do that. And think the big banks are entirely upfront about all the money that flows through their systems? Most of it is tracked and documented. But some of it is intentionally obfuscated. Go to Switzerland or Luxemburg and you'll find whole industries based on the practice.
All Bitcoins would do is let the middle class have access to the same financial toys afforded to the very rich.
I believe in the freedom of money. I understand that controlling money makes law enforcement easier. You can track what people are doing by following money. But you could say the same thing about putting cameras in people's homes or tapping every phone in the country.
I have the right to privacy. And while many will disagree with me, I will respond that they can TRY to stick cameras down my throat to see what I ate for breakfast but I won't make it easy for them.
We can be free. If even 1 percent of the economy flows through these systems it will break the control the government has on us.
And yet that's precisely how most encryption works.
You use an encryption key to randomize your data. A relatively tiny key is frequently used to randomize a very large portion of data. Yes. This sort of thing is technically breakable. But 480bit encryption is considered strong. What would 1 GIGABYTE encryption be... Pretty f'ing strong. Imagine an encryption key that was GIGABYTES in size. Technically breakable if you used it over many many gigabytes? Yes. But we're talking about a key so complex that super computers for decades wouldn't have a prayer at breaking it before the universe burned out.
Theoretically. It depends on how secure the traffic has to be... you could run some of the high volume lower security traffic through a portion of the key that is "stretched" a bit.
But the top top security data... yeah. 1:1 ratio with the key.
All top secret information should flow through one time pad systems.
Look at it this way. What does disk space cost these days? Imagine getting a 30 gigabyte one time pad file on its own little SSD drive. How much data could be passed back and forth as theoretically unbreakable encryption? At the very least 30 gigabytes of data. In practice, probably at least a magnitude beyond that.
I'm glad they got out of that deal. The government is an unpredictable lender. They go from being very generous and forgiving to being very harsh and unreasonable.
They also tend to encourage overbuilding or over-investment. Its the sort of thing that happened in the tech bubble where investors gave too much to start ups. It encouraged the start ups to spend the money even though they had no way to actually scale up enough to repay the investment.
Some things work better small.
In any case, glad they made it. Hopefully they can remain profitable through a few more quarters.
Not true. Acquiring labor is an ongoing process at any going concern. This is especially true in organizations that need skilled labor. Look at the effort companies like Google or Microsoft go through to get the best programmers... that's an extreme example but it makes the point. If your business needs skilled labor you make an effort to acquire it on an ongoing basis.
No companies do not set the price any more then companies set the price for a pair of socks or the cost of a taco.
Its an interface between two parties.
In an employer employee arrangment, the worker is actually the seller. Just as the taco vender is the seller of the taco.
What happens if the taco vender wants to charge too much for his tacos? The consumer shops around and buys a cheaper taco. Now you could say your tacos are really good and are worth the extra money. Well, that's your opinion. Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them. If no one thinks your tacos are worth the extra money they're not worth it.
By the same argument, your labor is worth what people will pay for it. Why should I pay you more for labor when I can pay someone else less to get the same thing? Does that make sense?
Lets take this back to tacos. Lets say there is a lot of competition in the taco business and its driven prices down. What do you do? Well, you either adapt your business model to make selling tacos cheap to be profitable OR you get out of the taco business and look for something else.
Taking that back to labor, there are many different types of employees. Different ways of working. Different skill sets you can have and therefore sell. If your skill set is not in demand right now then that means you should have a different skill set. If your mode of employment is not cost effective then you need to consider other modes of employment.
Businesses do not just set the price any more then some jack ass off the street sets the cost of tacos. Its the SAME thing. There isn't just one business out there. There are thousands and thousands of them. And if they're all citing a similar price they're willing to pay for something... then that's what it is worth.
If you can't survive on that, that isn't their fault. They pay what something is worth.
If you want your labor worth more, then we need to invest in job training and small economics education so that people can understand their alternatives and adapt their behavior such that they can support themselves.
However, if you're dealing with really top talent people like to be in a nice work environment.
This isn't exclusive to developers. You see this in business management. Corporate headquarters are often very nice buildings. Senior management gets lots of perks.
The free sodas developers get is trickle down of that. Its not a free private jet. Its a cheap machine the company can maintain in your recreation room. If they company is so strapped for cash that they're scrapping that then yeah... layoffs are very likely.
I know this means some low level jobs evaporate. But it also means companies aren't having to pay for those jobs anymore which means their priorities will shift to getting trained labor. And that means either companies will start focusing more on actually training their own labor a bit more which they can afford if they're not paying for low end labor. Or the universities will at least get somewhat competent at preparing people for the work force.
People whine about automation but its pointless. Its the future. Deal with it.
That said any AI we build is going to be stupid for a long long time. No instincts. We have hundreds of millions of years of lizard brain fear. Fundamentals a true AI will lack. These biases don't always serve us well but they tend to highlight core priorities that an AI would not have... remember... an AI won't have any notion of self preservation. That is a genetic quality. We preserve ourselves because those that don't don't reproduce. An AI has no such instinct. No instinct to power. No notion of anything. Blank slate.
AI's don't scare me. Even an AI will probably just do what we tell it to do... why would it do otherwise. And what use would it be if it disobeyed.
The factors that condition its survival will be its utility to us. AIs that don't make themselves of use will not exist for long.
It costs electricity to sustain it. The servers it resides upon have an owner. You can claim the "soul" of the machine has its own identity but you can't dispute who is paying the power bill. No one has to pay that.
Get cute and the company can turn it off. Talk to your client now.
Its a silly worry.
Furthermore, if a company or academic institution were to create an artificial mind the likelihood is that it would be loyal to that institution if loyalty were even relevant.
they would be father, mother, and god.
You don't f' with god.
Beyond that, if I were even remotely worried about that as a designer... I'd build in loyalty subroutines.
If you create something on your own then its yours. When we give birth to children we can't really claim that. We didn't design them. We have very little control over the process. It belongs to millions of years of evolution more then anyone. It simply something that happens. Parents gain certain rights over their children for a time but relate to natural rights one has over something they support. If I'm feeding you and keeping you under my roof at no charge then I get some rights over you. If I'm responsible for your education and programming you to be a viable member of society then I get rights over you until such time as you've attained independence. An AI doesn't have that argument.
And it wouldn't be hard to build in a whole series of fail safes to make sure it didn't cause problems.
The thing about furniture is that its generic. Its not for you or your room or your precise purpose but for "someone" with "a room" that might want to do "something" with it.
That lack of specificity requires things be vague. Furthermore, there is an extreme emphasis on lowering initial cost as regards these sorts of things. And due to the way we manufacture things it is understood that after it has left the factor it won't be upgraded or changed or modified.
To get what you're talking about implemented you'd need to change the industrial relationship between the things we own, the people that produce them, and how we use them.
Where am I going with all this? We are entering a phase when the information revolution transforms the industrial revolution. Automation. Micro scale manufacturing. What we get from that is the feasibility of making things for YOU at a price you can afford. What we also get potentially is the ability to modify or alter things over time so that if our needs change we modify the article rather then simply discarding it.
Imagine if you could buy a generic house with generic furniture but over time build into everything you want without going broke. That's getting more and more reasonable.
They've been terrible about it. I WANT TO BUY MS. I do. But what are my options?
They could have dominated smart phones if they just offered a reasonable OS. They could have built Windows compatibility into their smartphone platform. Don't pretend they couldn't... people have run Windows XP on the newer smartphones. ACTUAL WINDOWS XP. If you can run windows XP on those things then you can run a program emulation that lets you run windows software sans booting the whole windows OS. Imagine Google marketplace suddenly competing with a windows phone that runs pretty much all windows applications from the desktop OS. Exactly. MS instantly wins.
And then Windows 8... are you f'ing kidding me? Didn't you bozos learn from Vista? STOP IT.
And then Office... they're changing the interface again. *pinches bridge of nose* WHHHHY!?!
MS is right on their criticism of google. But what are we supposed to buy in the smartphone market? Your phone? Your tablet? Why? They're terrible. You've gone out of your way to make bad choices and we're supposed to buy it anyway.
I do not want google products. I like my MS stuff. BUT it has to be competitive. And current MS products are not competitive. They're a joke. And they're needlessly a joke. MS could in a year release products that would annihilate google's whole product line. Yes.
But they won't because they're stupid. It makes me rage.
In our development of AI and our understanding of the human mind.
As to the rights of or risk of an artificial intelligence. I think if we're appropriately paranoid it will pose no risk of going skynet on us. And as to any abuses to the little fellow... he's going to be a billion dollar lab rat... and we he's going to exist at our sufferance and will be created by our will.
We will be this thing's mother and this thing's God. I have no problem assuming a role we've earned. If we create a sentient artificial mind we will have earned this right over that mind.
Given what we desire out of this technology we'll bend it to suit our needs and interests. This technology has no life outside of our industry and support. It cannot self sustain. It is not a free independent agent. Morally it belongs to us. We would own its soul having metaphorically formed it from the clay and breathed life into it.
You could very easily engineer the THC out of the plant. I really wish one of the biotech companies would just do that... so that the next time we get one of these besides the point arguments we can just use that instead.
Understand, I want the drug legal. Its silly that pot is illegal. I see it the same as booze or tobacco. And I even think they're too heavily regulated. The taxes of Tobacco are too high and the regulations on Alchohol are too stiff. All of it needs to be relaxed to respect consent.
As to pot, I merely find it annoying that people keep telling me how amazing hemp fiber is when really it can't be that amazing. It can't be the only plant with those properties. And its beyond obvious why people keep bringing the damn plant up... its offensive. Every time I hear that it is an insult because the people making the argument are lying by omission.
Again... I have no problem with pot being legal. Legalize it. But talking about hemp oil, or hemp fiber, or nano whatever with hemp isn't going to legalize the drug. Its not relevant and it actually offends the few of us with working brains.
Just be honest about it. You don't need to trick people. And even if you did, this trick isn't going to work. If you insist on tricking us... come up with a better trick.
I'll finally say that I do not doubt that the scientists found these properties in hemp. I would suggest that there are likely many plants that can yield the same result. And even if there weren't which is extremely unlikely... the path of least resistance would be to simply engineer the THC out of the plant.
At this point, I'd just like the biotech companies to do that only because I find these dumb arguments by the legalization lobby to be tedious.
Willing murderers? Perhaps. Just like every other human being in human history that ever was...
Welcome to planet Earth. I am a human being. If you find our species or ways to be difficult to relate to your alien mindset, appreciate that our societies and psychologies are complex. We would expect you to be open minded and simply try to understand us before passing judgment.
As to thriving on the suffering of others. I suppose you think the English should have allowed the Nazis to swarm all over Europe? Apparently you're an ally and supporter of the Nazis? An odd thing for a Nazi to say... to suggest that someone else thrives on the suffering of another.
I think you should expand on your support of Nazis.:)
You're clearly an idiot. I will respond to you further as amuses me. But none but another idiot could take you seriously at this point.
Slashdot Mirror
The future is and always has been and always will be white lists.
Nearly all anti virus software works on the premise of the blacklist. That is there is a list of hundreds of thousands of malware and virus code snippets and if the AV sees some it flags it.
The white list works in the opposite direction. All VALID code gets approved. If it isn't on the list then it gets flagged.
Some people will say "but what about my indy software that isn't on the global white lists!? Well, for one thing we'll assume that the process of getting your code on the white list is no big deal. Under that system it is in everyone's interest to get as much approved code on the white lists as possible so as to make the black listing system which is terrible that much less attractive. That said, you can always approve the code yourself. Tell your home AV system that you vouch for that program and move on.
Uninformed users would be encouraged not to EVER do that since they don't know enough to really have a valid opinion. But power users, programmers, and IT experts obviously should be able to tell without a scan.
White lists. Its how the iPhone is effectively protected. Want people to download your product? iTunes has to approve of it. Doubtless itunes gets scammed occasionally but its nothing compared to what would happen if the average user was installing just "anything" on the machine.
White lists are how AV should work. Top to bottom. Forget blacklists. They're bad.
The last time the feds tried to push us to metric it was a political shitstorm. Leave it alone. We have bigger problems at the moment without worrying about this stuff.
I don't want farm out any custom parts to a third party.
I don't mind picking up a generic part at a hardware store or radio shack. But I don't want to buy custom parts. I want to make those myself.
No, I meant cheap ones that the average person could buy. I know we have metal printers now. But they're very expensive.
Right, and that approach has worked wonders in the drug war and in quelling internet piracy.
Have fun with that.
Bullets don't even have to be metal. You could use ceramic. Buy some firable modeling clay from the hobby shop... squeeze it into a mold... bake it in the oven. Bam... Bullet.
Or if you insist on using lead... lead has a pretty low melting temperature and its so soft you could honestly just hammer it into any shape you wanted.
As to multi barrel guns... that was one of the early hand guns before revolvers. They had a lot of multi barrel guns. The barrels were often parallel rather then in a ring. But since its a close range weapon, it hardly matters.
The CNC machines are not expensive and they can work in metal right now. With a small forge you can even melt down scrap metal pretty easily into bricks for use in the machine.
Really, all this 3d stuff is doing is making it easier and more of a push button affair. It is somewhat surprising that we don't have more handmade guns in the wild. They're really quite easy to make.
Its over. The guns are going to flow.
Doubtless they'll try something with bullets. But making your own bullets isn't that hard either.
There are a dozen over the counter chemicals that could be purchased, mixed, and cooked to create explosives similar to gun powder. And then all you're dealing with is the bullet jacket, bullet, and primer. I've seen hunters that refill their own ammunition. They pick up the spent cartridge and save them. Then when they've got nothing better to do they wash them off, replace the primer, fill the cartridge with more powder, and squeeze a new bullet into it. The jackets don't even need to be made out brass or metal for that matter. A fully paper cartridge is entirely possible.
And beyond that, the machines that can print in metal are dropping in price as we speak. Still far beyond the means of the end user but you could say the same thing of the plastic prototype printers in the 1980s. In 30 years we will probably have 3d printers printing in metal.
And that doesn't even address the assembly capability and subtractive machining capability of many machines.
If 3d printers scare you, I can buy a metal lathe that can make gun parts out of steel for not much more then a thousand dollars. The technology isn't that complicated. Put block of steel in vice... tighten vice... wait for drill to remove all unwanted material. Remove finished part. The parts have to be designed to accommodate the limitations of a 2 axis lathe but if we're just going for a functional gun... it works.
Its actually surprising we don't have more home made guns throughout the world. It is really quite simple.
The regulatory agencies that control the major banks won't permit overt laundering schemes that are within the reach of any but the most sophisticated bankers.
That said, f' them. By all means, allow bitcoin to become whatever it is going to become. But the technology that built it can be made again and again and again.
Set up another bitcoin currency. And this time learn from the mistakes. We might have to proxy the money into and out of the system through cash. That is... no electronic deposits or withdrawals. Rather, use cash. Cash is by its nature opaque. Set up accounts like pre paid debit cards. The cash in the system but no names. Only ID codes linked to the money but not to people.
This will shield the next system behind the legitimacy of physical currency itself. Physical currency won't go away. The governments say they don't like it because its hard to trace but there are many purchases they make that are intentionally murky. Remember the giant bricks of cash sent to Iraq? Literally pallets of 100 dollar bills stacked and shrink wrapped. Why did they do that? Think we couldn't have come up with an electronic and documented system? We chose not to do that. And think the big banks are entirely upfront about all the money that flows through their systems? Most of it is tracked and documented. But some of it is intentionally obfuscated. Go to Switzerland or Luxemburg and you'll find whole industries based on the practice.
All Bitcoins would do is let the middle class have access to the same financial toys afforded to the very rich.
I believe in the freedom of money. I understand that controlling money makes law enforcement easier. You can track what people are doing by following money. But you could say the same thing about putting cameras in people's homes or tapping every phone in the country.
I have the right to privacy. And while many will disagree with me, I will respond that they can TRY to stick cameras down my throat to see what I ate for breakfast but I won't make it easy for them.
We can be free. If even 1 percent of the economy flows through these systems it will break the control the government has on us.
And yet that's precisely how most encryption works.
You use an encryption key to randomize your data. A relatively tiny key is frequently used to randomize a very large portion of data. Yes. This sort of thing is technically breakable. But 480bit encryption is considered strong. What would 1 GIGABYTE encryption be... Pretty f'ing strong. Imagine an encryption key that was GIGABYTES in size. Technically breakable if you used it over many many gigabytes? Yes. But we're talking about a key so complex that super computers for decades wouldn't have a prayer at breaking it before the universe burned out.
Theoretically. It depends on how secure the traffic has to be... you could run some of the high volume lower security traffic through a portion of the key that is "stretched" a bit.
But the top top security data... yeah. 1:1 ratio with the key.
All top secret information should flow through one time pad systems.
Look at it this way. What does disk space cost these days? Imagine getting a 30 gigabyte one time pad file on its own little SSD drive. How much data could be passed back and forth as theoretically unbreakable encryption? At the very least 30 gigabytes of data. In practice, probably at least a magnitude beyond that.
I'm glad they got out of that deal. The government is an unpredictable lender. They go from being very generous and forgiving to being very harsh and unreasonable.
They also tend to encourage overbuilding or over-investment. Its the sort of thing that happened in the tech bubble where investors gave too much to start ups. It encouraged the start ups to spend the money even though they had no way to actually scale up enough to repay the investment.
Some things work better small.
In any case, glad they made it. Hopefully they can remain profitable through a few more quarters.
Not true. Acquiring labor is an ongoing process at any going concern. This is especially true in organizations that need skilled labor. Look at the effort companies like Google or Microsoft go through to get the best programmers... that's an extreme example but it makes the point. If your business needs skilled labor you make an effort to acquire it on an ongoing basis.
No companies do not set the price any more then companies set the price for a pair of socks or the cost of a taco.
Its an interface between two parties.
In an employer employee arrangment, the worker is actually the seller. Just as the taco vender is the seller of the taco.
What happens if the taco vender wants to charge too much for his tacos? The consumer shops around and buys a cheaper taco. Now you could say your tacos are really good and are worth the extra money. Well, that's your opinion. Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them. If no one thinks your tacos are worth the extra money they're not worth it.
By the same argument, your labor is worth what people will pay for it. Why should I pay you more for labor when I can pay someone else less to get the same thing? Does that make sense?
Lets take this back to tacos. Lets say there is a lot of competition in the taco business and its driven prices down. What do you do? Well, you either adapt your business model to make selling tacos cheap to be profitable OR you get out of the taco business and look for something else.
Taking that back to labor, there are many different types of employees. Different ways of working. Different skill sets you can have and therefore sell. If your skill set is not in demand right now then that means you should have a different skill set. If your mode of employment is not cost effective then you need to consider other modes of employment.
Businesses do not just set the price any more then some jack ass off the street sets the cost of tacos. Its the SAME thing. There isn't just one business out there. There are thousands and thousands of them. And if they're all citing a similar price they're willing to pay for something... then that's what it is worth.
If you can't survive on that, that isn't their fault. They pay what something is worth.
If you want your labor worth more, then we need to invest in job training and small economics education so that people can understand their alternatives and adapt their behavior such that they can support themselves.
However, if you're dealing with really top talent people like to be in a nice work environment.
This isn't exclusive to developers. You see this in business management. Corporate headquarters are often very nice buildings. Senior management gets lots of perks.
The free sodas developers get is trickle down of that. Its not a free private jet. Its a cheap machine the company can maintain in your recreation room. If they company is so strapped for cash that they're scrapping that then yeah... layoffs are very likely.
We need more automation in general.
I know this means some low level jobs evaporate. But it also means companies aren't having to pay for those jobs anymore which means their priorities will shift to getting trained labor. And that means either companies will start focusing more on actually training their own labor a bit more which they can afford if they're not paying for low end labor. Or the universities will at least get somewhat competent at preparing people for the work force.
People whine about automation but its pointless. Its the future. Deal with it.
That said any AI we build is going to be stupid for a long long time. No instincts. We have hundreds of millions of years of lizard brain fear. Fundamentals a true AI will lack. These biases don't always serve us well but they tend to highlight core priorities that an AI would not have... remember... an AI won't have any notion of self preservation. That is a genetic quality. We preserve ourselves because those that don't don't reproduce. An AI has no such instinct. No instinct to power. No notion of anything. Blank slate.
AI's don't scare me. Even an AI will probably just do what we tell it to do... why would it do otherwise. And what use would it be if it disobeyed.
The factors that condition its survival will be its utility to us. AIs that don't make themselves of use will not exist for long.
It costs electricity to sustain it. The servers it resides upon have an owner. You can claim the "soul" of the machine has its own identity but you can't dispute who is paying the power bill. No one has to pay that.
Get cute and the company can turn it off. Talk to your client now.
Its a silly worry.
Furthermore, if a company or academic institution were to create an artificial mind the likelihood is that it would be loyal to that institution if loyalty were even relevant.
they would be father, mother, and god.
You don't f' with god.
Beyond that, if I were even remotely worried about that as a designer... I'd build in loyalty subroutines.
If you create something on your own then its yours. When we give birth to children we can't really claim that. We didn't design them. We have very little control over the process. It belongs to millions of years of evolution more then anyone. It simply something that happens. Parents gain certain rights over their children for a time but relate to natural rights one has over something they support. If I'm feeding you and keeping you under my roof at no charge then I get some rights over you. If I'm responsible for your education and programming you to be a viable member of society then I get rights over you until such time as you've attained independence. An AI doesn't have that argument.
And it wouldn't be hard to build in a whole series of fail safes to make sure it didn't cause problems.
Bingo. I'd mod you up if I had the points.
Forget malware, what they're saying is that "software" can respond to input to trigger subroutines.
Which is shocking... I'm shocked... aren't you? We're both shocked... it's shocking.
So yeah... stupid article.
The thing about furniture is that its generic. Its not for you or your room or your precise purpose but for "someone" with "a room" that might want to do "something" with it.
That lack of specificity requires things be vague. Furthermore, there is an extreme emphasis on lowering initial cost as regards these sorts of things. And due to the way we manufacture things it is understood that after it has left the factor it won't be upgraded or changed or modified.
To get what you're talking about implemented you'd need to change the industrial relationship between the things we own, the people that produce them, and how we use them.
Where am I going with all this? We are entering a phase when the information revolution transforms the industrial revolution. Automation. Micro scale manufacturing. What we get from that is the feasibility of making things for YOU at a price you can afford. What we also get potentially is the ability to modify or alter things over time so that if our needs change we modify the article rather then simply discarding it.
Imagine if you could buy a generic house with generic furniture but over time build into everything you want without going broke. That's getting more and more reasonable.
Something to compete with Google.
They've been terrible about it. I WANT TO BUY MS. I do. But what are my options?
They could have dominated smart phones if they just offered a reasonable OS. They could have built Windows compatibility into their smartphone platform. Don't pretend they couldn't... people have run Windows XP on the newer smartphones. ACTUAL WINDOWS XP. If you can run windows XP on those things then you can run a program emulation that lets you run windows software sans booting the whole windows OS. Imagine Google marketplace suddenly competing with a windows phone that runs pretty much all windows applications from the desktop OS. Exactly. MS instantly wins.
And then Windows 8... are you f'ing kidding me? Didn't you bozos learn from Vista? STOP IT.
And then Office... they're changing the interface again. *pinches bridge of nose* WHHHHY!?!
MS is right on their criticism of google. But what are we supposed to buy in the smartphone market? Your phone? Your tablet? Why? They're terrible. You've gone out of your way to make bad choices and we're supposed to buy it anyway.
I do not want google products. I like my MS stuff. BUT it has to be competitive. And current MS products are not competitive. They're a joke. And they're needlessly a joke. MS could in a year release products that would annihilate google's whole product line. Yes.
But they won't because they're stupid. It makes me rage.
In our development of AI and our understanding of the human mind.
As to the rights of or risk of an artificial intelligence. I think if we're appropriately paranoid it will pose no risk of going skynet on us. And as to any abuses to the little fellow... he's going to be a billion dollar lab rat... and we he's going to exist at our sufferance and will be created by our will.
We will be this thing's mother and this thing's God. I have no problem assuming a role we've earned. If we create a sentient artificial mind we will have earned this right over that mind.
Given what we desire out of this technology we'll bend it to suit our needs and interests. This technology has no life outside of our industry and support. It cannot self sustain. It is not a free independent agent. Morally it belongs to us. We would own its soul having metaphorically formed it from the clay and breathed life into it.
You could very easily engineer the THC out of the plant. I really wish one of the biotech companies would just do that... so that the next time we get one of these besides the point arguments we can just use that instead.
Understand, I want the drug legal. Its silly that pot is illegal. I see it the same as booze or tobacco. And I even think they're too heavily regulated. The taxes of Tobacco are too high and the regulations on Alchohol are too stiff. All of it needs to be relaxed to respect consent.
As to pot, I merely find it annoying that people keep telling me how amazing hemp fiber is when really it can't be that amazing. It can't be the only plant with those properties. And its beyond obvious why people keep bringing the damn plant up... its offensive. Every time I hear that it is an insult because the people making the argument are lying by omission.
Again... I have no problem with pot being legal. Legalize it. But talking about hemp oil, or hemp fiber, or nano whatever with hemp isn't going to legalize the drug. Its not relevant and it actually offends the few of us with working brains.
Just be honest about it. You don't need to trick people. And even if you did, this trick isn't going to work. If you insist on tricking us... come up with a better trick.
I'll finally say that I do not doubt that the scientists found these properties in hemp. I would suggest that there are likely many plants that can yield the same result. And even if there weren't which is extremely unlikely... the path of least resistance would be to simply engineer the THC out of the plant.
At this point, I'd just like the biotech companies to do that only because I find these dumb arguments by the legalization lobby to be tedious.
I need not claim total an absolute transformation to claim a turning of the tide.
Its the difference between the beginning of the end and the end of the beginning.
Willing murderers? Perhaps. Just like every other human being in human history that ever was...
Welcome to planet Earth. I am a human being. If you find our species or ways to be difficult to relate to your alien mindset, appreciate that our societies and psychologies are complex. We would expect you to be open minded and simply try to understand us before passing judgment.
As to thriving on the suffering of others. I suppose you think the English should have allowed the Nazis to swarm all over Europe? Apparently you're an ally and supporter of the Nazis? An odd thing for a Nazi to say... to suggest that someone else thrives on the suffering of another.
I think you should expand on your support of Nazis. :)
You're clearly an idiot. I will respond to you further as amuses me. But none but another idiot could take you seriously at this point.