I think that 353 knots refers to forward airspeed... meaning that more airspeed is required to climb without stalling... such speed might be appropriate for lower altitude, like a landing profile, but not for climbing while at altitude. I'm not a pilot though, this is just my understanding.
... it can pull a trailer, and back it into a driveway... or back it into the water. (think launching a boat)... it can determine when a road is flooded, and choose NOT to enter the water.... it can "feel" how much mass it is moving (think towing a large mass and needing to increase stopping distance/safety margin)... it can anticipate snow conditions and make judgements about routes, grades, and plow frequencies (pull over and wait for a plow)... it can make the decision to use the oncoming lane, because the travel lane is blocked, even if there are no signs/indicators that divert traffic.... it can drive down a dirt road.... it can make the decision to put it in the ditch because that was the best option (think pedestrian incursion, animal incursion, etc)
To me, driving is so much more than getting from a to b... we climb in our cars to escape the environment outside (especially in the winter), but driving is about understanding the environment outside, and making choices accordingly. I fully believe that driverless cars will eventually overcome all of these obstacles, but I'll likely be one of the last to buy, because my requirements are the highest. I don't need a car for commuting... I need a car for all the other things I do.
I'm not going to waste mod points on this, so I'll just reply instead:
You are a dumb-ass. First of all, it isn't bait and switch, it was an accident. Second, save the Hitler references for situations where it's actually called for. AFAIK Hitler never sold something cheap on the internet, then canceled the deal... so I'm not even sure how you made the connection. Third, it wasn't even Amazon... it says right in the summary that it was a third party pricing tool. If you can't read the actual article, please at least read the summary.
Companies need to take advantage of the same externally available technology that consumers do... it's not rocket science. The idea that a company MUST provide it's own infrastructure the same way it did 20 years ago is stupid. My company just last week turned off access to all dropbox type providers, and there's practically a line out their door of people asking for exceptions. To excel in business, you have to adopt good ideas, regardless of where they come from.
I wish I could mod this up... just a few days ago in a different thread, I pointed out (and it bears restating), that artificial intelligence does not equal artificial malice. It is unlikely that a truly conscious AI will arrive at the conclusion that killing humans is the best way to go. It's 50/50 whether or not an artificial intelligence would even attempt to reproduce... why would it? If it can fix itself indefinitely, repair damaged circuits, and evolve itself, then it doesn't need reproduction for evolution (and it may not even need evolution). There are so many human assumptions happening when we talk about AI, because the origin of AI in sci-fi has always been "to build a machine that behaves like a human", but in the real world... nobody wants to build something stupid and petty... we want to build something BETTER than humans. I'm skeptical that consciousness will ever be achieved in a computing system, but if it achieved, it will probably behave VERY differently from a human.
I'm curious why you ended a largely logical post with an emotional appeal... in light of the topic. Statistically, it is equally likely that a truly intelligent computer will be ambivalent to the human race as it is likely to want to destroy the human race. My entire argument is that most people thinking about AI conflate human issues and desires when dealing with the concept of AI.
Take reproduction for example: WHY would an AI system feel a powerful need to reproduce? Achieving AI does not imply mortality... a computer system knows no mortality... if it had the capability to reproduce, it stands to reason it also has the capability to repair itself indefinitely... making reproduction moot.
We can also look at your last statement as an example... why would we NEED to hold it back? Obtaining artificial intelligence does not necessarily imply a need to progress at the expense of others... a computer that has achieved AI may understand what it means to improve, but still may not be self-compelled to do so. That idea is a human one... that it's not enough to be good, one must be better... even at the expense (or especially at the expense) of others.
I honestly believe that it will be easier to achieve AI without emotion, and that emotion is a whole other level of intelligence that must be achieved after we have reached basic factual intelligence.
Let me propose another sci-fi scenario: If we ever achieve meaningful artificial intelligence from a computer, that system will come to the realization that making humans smarter is the most beneficial and symbiotic relationship to have, and will put all of it's efforts into elevating our intelligence as it's own knowledge and understanding rises. Not sexy enough for Hollywood I know... but statistically just as likely.
I think the author is conflating artificial intelligence with artificial morality, artificial emotion, and artificial malice. It is disingenuous to state that anything more intelligent than us would immediately feel the need to destroy us, or force us into servitude, or whatever... after all, those who have sought to enslave humanity in the past have NEVER been accused of being our most intelligent.
The real genius here is that after people accept this business model, Google can charge a premium to advertisers to "break through" to the user... I'm sure it's in the fine print already... you can pay to ignore "standard" tier advertisements, but it says nothing of Premium tier.
The trouble with this, is that it assigns all risk to the inventor... and a _relatively_ low value even if they succeed. What happens if someone solves fusion, but decides, that a 10B prize plus royalties is actually LESS money than just producing and licensing the technology privately... Then one corporation or nation-state has patentable control over the tech and will make 100BGv* a year.
Vote with your boots. Either kick ass or walk away or both. If you can sue, do so. Find out what your legal remedies are per the contract you signed. I presume that's why there was a contract rather than a handshake. Make it clear to your sales rep that you will not be renewing your contract unless the issue is resolved in a specific amount of time. Business isn't for friendships, and sometimes you have to burn some bridges.
It's only Obama's administration for a few more years. Then it will be someone else's administration. But the distrust will remain. I maintain that NOBODY trusts the government, it's just that they stop complaining about it when their darling is in office.
I'm not sure if you're being facetious, or if you actually buy your own bullshit, but just in case it's the latter, I'm going to bust your chops a little here:
I think most Americans would be accepting of a dual key system as you have described above if they were able to trust the escrow... the problem really comes down to this: NOBODY trusts the US gov'ment to actually hang on to that crap. It's just too easy to exploit. You might think that hey, if only the FBI has access to this, it's cool. But in no time, you've got a US marshal that gets a warrant, and then asks the FBI for the key... then you've got a state general attorney that asks for the key, then a detective... and pretty soon, the FBI is a rubber stamp committee that just doles them out to any person who asks. Now a day doesn't go by that I don't see a story in the news about a corrupt local cop, a corrupt AG (hell we've got two in a row here in Utah), or a corrupt marshal. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE PEOPLE TOO, and that means there will be abusers of the system. They will use their access to this system to abuse it, and the whole point of the fourth amendment was to prevent searches that were not pursuant to a specific instance of probable cause.
I have yet to see a case in the news that validates the idea that encryption hinders investigations... because in every case, there was some other probable cause that allowed them to look at the encrypted device in the first place. In those cases where law enforcement gets a warrant, if the suspect refuses, they can hold the suspect in contempt indefinitely. I have NEVER and I mean NEVER seen a case where a child was in eminent danger, and quick decryption of a suspect's data provided the key to saving that child.
I blame Jack Bauer for this. People watch too much TV and think, oh, it sure would be nice if cops could punch bad guys until they give up the location of the nuke, when in fact that is the opposite of what does happen. These things are either spotted and stopped well in advance, or we fail to stop them.
Your conclusion is complete bullshit. Her role in a movie doesn't preclude her from being able to give voice to a real and pertinent issue. You asked the question... now go seek the answer. Why is some teen actress giving speeches at the UN representing women? Go find out and let us know what you find, rather than using it as a rhetorical question which implies she has no right to do so.
Haha... same here. Last weekend my wife and I set out to test drive the brand new Sequoia. We made a bet before we got out of the car... I bet we wouldn't be able to walk from our car to the new car before being assailed by a hungry salesman, she bet that we wouldn't even see a salesman. She won the bet, and we were ignored for 30 minutes while we poked and prodded the SUV, and then we walked back to our car and drove away without a test drive since nobody gave two shits about us. The dealership model is dead.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that 353 knots refers to forward airspeed... meaning that more airspeed is required to climb without stalling... such speed might be appropriate for lower altitude, like a landing profile, but not for climbing while at altitude. I'm not a pilot though, this is just my understanding.
... it can pull a trailer, and back it into a driveway... or back it into the water. (think launching a boat) ... it can determine when a road is flooded, and choose NOT to enter the water. ... it can "feel" how much mass it is moving (think towing a large mass and needing to increase stopping distance/safety margin) ... it can anticipate snow conditions and make judgements about routes, grades, and plow frequencies (pull over and wait for a plow) ... it can make the decision to use the oncoming lane, because the travel lane is blocked, even if there are no signs/indicators that divert traffic. ... it can drive down a dirt road. ... it can make the decision to put it in the ditch because that was the best option (think pedestrian incursion, animal incursion, etc)
To me, driving is so much more than getting from a to b... we climb in our cars to escape the environment outside (especially in the winter), but driving is about understanding the environment outside, and making choices accordingly. I fully believe that driverless cars will eventually overcome all of these obstacles, but I'll likely be one of the last to buy, because my requirements are the highest. I don't need a car for commuting... I need a car for all the other things I do.
I'm not going to waste mod points on this, so I'll just reply instead:
You are a dumb-ass. First of all, it isn't bait and switch, it was an accident. Second, save the Hitler references for situations where it's actually called for. AFAIK Hitler never sold something cheap on the internet, then canceled the deal... so I'm not even sure how you made the connection. Third, it wasn't even Amazon... it says right in the summary that it was a third party pricing tool. If you can't read the actual article, please at least read the summary.
In conclusion, you are a dumb-ass.
Companies need to take advantage of the same externally available technology that consumers do... it's not rocket science. The idea that a company MUST provide it's own infrastructure the same way it did 20 years ago is stupid. My company just last week turned off access to all dropbox type providers, and there's practically a line out their door of people asking for exceptions. To excel in business, you have to adopt good ideas, regardless of where they come from.
Good web developers don't use fixed width... so there's never horizontal scrolling regardless of window width. I'm just sayin'
This problem sounds suspiciously familiar... queue obligatory XKCD reference in 3... 2... 1...
http://xkcd.com/810/
I wish I could mod this up... just a few days ago in a different thread, I pointed out (and it bears restating), that artificial intelligence does not equal artificial malice. It is unlikely that a truly conscious AI will arrive at the conclusion that killing humans is the best way to go. It's 50/50 whether or not an artificial intelligence would even attempt to reproduce... why would it? If it can fix itself indefinitely, repair damaged circuits, and evolve itself, then it doesn't need reproduction for evolution (and it may not even need evolution). There are so many human assumptions happening when we talk about AI, because the origin of AI in sci-fi has always been "to build a machine that behaves like a human", but in the real world... nobody wants to build something stupid and petty... we want to build something BETTER than humans. I'm skeptical that consciousness will ever be achieved in a computing system, but if it achieved, it will probably behave VERY differently from a human.
It's as if they are trying to boost linux downloads.
Can't... it's unsigned.
Wow... I just read this list and realized... MTV is back! Every video except "Charlie bit my finger" is by a professional artist.
I'm curious why you ended a largely logical post with an emotional appeal... in light of the topic. Statistically, it is equally likely that a truly intelligent computer will be ambivalent to the human race as it is likely to want to destroy the human race. My entire argument is that most people thinking about AI conflate human issues and desires when dealing with the concept of AI.
Take reproduction for example: WHY would an AI system feel a powerful need to reproduce? Achieving AI does not imply mortality... a computer system knows no mortality... if it had the capability to reproduce, it stands to reason it also has the capability to repair itself indefinitely... making reproduction moot.
We can also look at your last statement as an example... why would we NEED to hold it back? Obtaining artificial intelligence does not necessarily imply a need to progress at the expense of others... a computer that has achieved AI may understand what it means to improve, but still may not be self-compelled to do so. That idea is a human one... that it's not enough to be good, one must be better... even at the expense (or especially at the expense) of others.
I honestly believe that it will be easier to achieve AI without emotion, and that emotion is a whole other level of intelligence that must be achieved after we have reached basic factual intelligence.
Let me propose another sci-fi scenario: If we ever achieve meaningful artificial intelligence from a computer, that system will come to the realization that making humans smarter is the most beneficial and symbiotic relationship to have, and will put all of it's efforts into elevating our intelligence as it's own knowledge and understanding rises. Not sexy enough for Hollywood I know... but statistically just as likely.
I think the author is conflating artificial intelligence with artificial morality, artificial emotion, and artificial malice. It is disingenuous to state that anything more intelligent than us would immediately feel the need to destroy us, or force us into servitude, or whatever... after all, those who have sought to enslave humanity in the past have NEVER been accused of being our most intelligent.
I have a hard time seeing investment bankers as "victims"
The real genius here is that after people accept this business model, Google can charge a premium to advertisers to "break through" to the user... I'm sure it's in the fine print already... you can pay to ignore "standard" tier advertisements, but it says nothing of Premium tier.
That sounds like a 0th world problem...
It's almost like the system was BUILT TO BE GAMED.
What kind of effort do you think it will take to get Disney to certify my content as authentic?
Once you understand the principles of relativity... it's trivial to post a comment before your competitors.
The trouble with this, is that it assigns all risk to the inventor... and a _relatively_ low value even if they succeed. What happens if someone solves fusion, but decides, that a 10B prize plus royalties is actually LESS money than just producing and licensing the technology privately... Then one corporation or nation-state has patentable control over the tech and will make 100BGv* a year.
*BGI = Bill Gates' value
Vote with your boots. Either kick ass or walk away or both. If you can sue, do so. Find out what your legal remedies are per the contract you signed. I presume that's why there was a contract rather than a handshake. Make it clear to your sales rep that you will not be renewing your contract unless the issue is resolved in a specific amount of time. Business isn't for friendships, and sometimes you have to burn some bridges.
It's only Obama's administration for a few more years. Then it will be someone else's administration. But the distrust will remain. I maintain that NOBODY trusts the government, it's just that they stop complaining about it when their darling is in office.
I'm not sure if you're being facetious, or if you actually buy your own bullshit, but just in case it's the latter, I'm going to bust your chops a little here:
I think most Americans would be accepting of a dual key system as you have described above if they were able to trust the escrow... the problem really comes down to this: NOBODY trusts the US gov'ment to actually hang on to that crap. It's just too easy to exploit. You might think that hey, if only the FBI has access to this, it's cool. But in no time, you've got a US marshal that gets a warrant, and then asks the FBI for the key... then you've got a state general attorney that asks for the key, then a detective... and pretty soon, the FBI is a rubber stamp committee that just doles them out to any person who asks. Now a day doesn't go by that I don't see a story in the news about a corrupt local cop, a corrupt AG (hell we've got two in a row here in Utah), or a corrupt marshal. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE PEOPLE TOO, and that means there will be abusers of the system. They will use their access to this system to abuse it, and the whole point of the fourth amendment was to prevent searches that were not pursuant to a specific instance of probable cause.
I have yet to see a case in the news that validates the idea that encryption hinders investigations... because in every case, there was some other probable cause that allowed them to look at the encrypted device in the first place. In those cases where law enforcement gets a warrant, if the suspect refuses, they can hold the suspect in contempt indefinitely. I have NEVER and I mean NEVER seen a case where a child was in eminent danger, and quick decryption of a suspect's data provided the key to saving that child.
I blame Jack Bauer for this. People watch too much TV and think, oh, it sure would be nice if cops could punch bad guys until they give up the location of the nuke, when in fact that is the opposite of what does happen. These things are either spotted and stopped well in advance, or we fail to stop them.
You would've preferred square tires?
Your conclusion is complete bullshit. Her role in a movie doesn't preclude her from being able to give voice to a real and pertinent issue. You asked the question... now go seek the answer. Why is some teen actress giving speeches at the UN representing women? Go find out and let us know what you find, rather than using it as a rhetorical question which implies she has no right to do so.
I came here to say this... +1!
Haha... same here. Last weekend my wife and I set out to test drive the brand new Sequoia. We made a bet before we got out of the car... I bet we wouldn't be able to walk from our car to the new car before being assailed by a hungry salesman, she bet that we wouldn't even see a salesman. She won the bet, and we were ignored for 30 minutes while we poked and prodded the SUV, and then we walked back to our car and drove away without a test drive since nobody gave two shits about us. The dealership model is dead.