>make unable
>forced
This is contrary by definition. A user decides to use an optional piece of software. No one is "made" subject to anything, and a victim card needs to be played a lot louder these days, after the chronic offendees we saw in The Year of the SJW.
The software happens to catalyze the status quo of an ecosystem, "the business of online advertising", indirectly. Expectedly, but incidentally. They are "made" subject to literally nothing - a void, an omission.
Interestingly, this reasoning applies to ABP's rejection. It's not a perfect apples-to-apples, but I couldn't really refute someone applying the same words to the situation, that IAB can't be forced to honor attendees.
This line reserved to honor the death of the word "literally".
Utah has the best season: Wimmer. It's when you have to scrape the ice off your windshield in the morning, then have to roll down your windows in the afternoon to cool off.
In my imagination this is how the absurd socks-with-sandals was born.
Compared to the last hundred thousand years, the last ten thousand were dramatic for homo sapiens and Earth.
The last two thousand years. One thousand. One hundred. Fifty years ago. Twenty. Any layman can see it.
Technology. Population. Global effects. Scale of other effects, including those caused by a single human. Increased communication has sent cultural propagation/drift to shorter and shorter cycles. Most humans lived one way their whole life (not just technologically) and we've had the privilege to have seen several already.
Obviously, to any layman, the ongoing pattern means a singularity of some sort is inevitable. It might be good, some sort of positive feedback loop that locks us into a valley of stable utopia, or a corporeal transcendence - even something that redefines perception and cognizance as we know it.
But optimism is naive, and even without being directly caused by a sudden curve catalyst, we'll graze extinction events at a higher pace (science or not) and while cross-planetation (lol) will help, a radically different status quo in the future may mean grazing galactic extinction events.
The threat to a cyclical universe, where one postulates that given infinite time "all possible events will occur", is that one of those events may be universe-ending, marking the last Big Bang.
This may be causing the demagogue flop: Trying to vaguely synthesize a "problem" may work in other circles, but hard science doesn't want to hear that there's "some kind of thing going on, maybe", it wants facts, places, numbers, reproducible events, documentation, data, something real, something tangible. Not posturing and implied semissertions.
Being tagged as "socnet non-user" (as opposed to "still indeterminate") is probably not a good flag, but I'll take it.
We desperately love to disregard complex multivariables. We want one-line evaluations of job candidates, one-number GPAs to represent an education. Take a moment to imagine that you could convince everyone a "relationship/marriage compatibility score" was a sound, valid determinate and not wildly meaningless and dynamic - you'd make millions.
Anyway, my point is the headline was basically inevitable, they're as bad as everyone else, it was only waiting for enough tech and bigdata.
Some wouldn't be able to suppress those identifiers without the help of the support systems, the kind GP alluded to.
Other uses of these systems (on top of said discretion, and on top of gun rampage prevention) include helping the less socially adept with handling the ever-increasing subtleties in modern discourse. Something I'm sure you can appreciate.
Well, would appreciate. Your whoosh suggests you were unfortunate enough to be born in one of the "I've got mine, fuck you." countries and had no such support. Earth itself is an ovarian lottery, but at least you're probably in the Golden Billion.
It's likely necessary that I spoonfeed out the Bonus Tier of irony, where GP not only goes on a rampage anyway (despite coming from a supportive locale) but does it against the very population that supported him/her.
If you're still confused, "GP is full of shit and so is the absurd possibility that I would sincerely request a fucking murder spree." (ps Never read A Modest Proposal or you'll probably blogpost enough whoosh to collapse the planet)
human "work" will turn to things robots won't do, like music
When Prolekistan can no longer sell their primary export (labor) the country will NOT survive on a negligible trickle of tourism (art, music, prostitution, etc) that drips out from Onepercentica.
So to echo GP, I have no idea what will happen to Prolekistan when the primary, nay SINGULAR export evaporates.
Ha ha, just kidding, we all know what happens to the currency of countries like that. They're fucked. Bad.
Fortunately we have maybe 50 years before it goes critical so it won't hit us - it'll hit those adorable grandchildren you see on the weekend.
It's a story older than flying cars, but sure, let's trot it out, there's a bit of fresh context.
If the concept of human beauty uses the unobtainable optimal as a measuring stick, then attraction is a manufactured synthetic already. If humans are varied and thus certain to be flawed to someone, then only custom delivery can provide your desired parameters.
I suppose it's like arguing that only a robot musician could be "perfect".
Incidentally, does your definition of what feminism today *is* differ from the exhibited standard, yet override it?
Ironically, "Anonymous" is also a good example of fragmentation and conflicting stances, groups, messages, opinions, agendas, etc. all trying to squeeze under the same banner. For some reason we seem more compelled to try and steer the banner's meaning, rather than separate from it. Nevertheless bystanders will remain unaware of anyone that is working on, as they say, "taking it back".
Intriguingly, we see stronger efforts to orchestrate public label re: more trivial concepts, usually to hype the latest idea. I could probably google up a hundred sorts of otherkin othersex otherthing terms, and even of those full retard in concern a few will still be clever, a detail that will improve the delivery and potency of an orchestration no one particularly cares about.
Instead, we have incomplete communication where it matters. We're not even deliberately abusing the terms, like the exploitation of the shock value that was once in words like rape or murder. Those get a sigh and eyeroll, since I have to concentrate to... "dig around the plastic decoration hyperbole in the cake." shall we say? A double-take while I see if it was literal murder.
Interestingly, I've started every paragraph the same way for no good reason. I'd put one of those shrug emojis here if slashdot wasn't so fucking tangled about foreign characters.
This was my reckoning. BD is probably more interested in a big, juicy contract, but the armed forces are probably more interested in reactively buying them off the market. The snag being that such a production pool may not exist, then.
Flatland tasks are best suited to a vehicle. Other tasks are well-served by a robohauler, a pool NOT identical to tasks best served by a live pack animal. Unless you're one of the dumbfucks below who see absolutes and exclusivity instead of partial overlap.
>projections and actual sales are not equivalents
Are you a courtroom with recognized authority to declare formal precedent?
Does your concession echo? That is, will the predatory MAFIAA lawyers admit this reality?
Then print off another million, Petey, a million times seven and a million more.
There's no such thing as Destroying The Negatives, never really was. Any "control" over Imaginary Property that's been released in the wild is voluntary at best.
If a quarantine was maintained (knowledge is a contagion) and the photos were distributed under agreed conditions (eg nondisclosure) then they can be considered isolated and treated as property, ie your ex must forfeit them, is accountable for disclosure.
Unconditional distribution is a global release. No court, no dictator can take the piss out of the pool if you already told someone your secret recipe for mango-celery salsa.
>If you're that worried about it, don't show it to anyone.
This. "Three men can keep a secret if two are dead."
Once you release something in the wild, any illusion of control over it exists on a voluntary basis. If you want moral (but not logistical) claim over it, put it behind conditional agreement. You don't see corporates protect their trade secrets with propaganda posters - you have people sign a fucking NDA and you STILL maintain a need-to-know over sensitives that you keep relatively quarantined.
Because information is a contagion, not a possession.
Okay, sure, let's pause development to put the three laws into the core. In order to have priority, they'll be down by, what, the assembly language libraries? Machine code?
So now you need to take the abstract concept (harm) and have it EXHAUSTIVELY defined. And of course, you can't define it using any of those undefined meatspace terms. It takes a while to translate "very fast" or "very hot" meaningfully in binary. Especially vague mental constructs like "safety" or "danger".
You'll be doing a few trillion lines without high or mid level languages. Be sure to consult philosophers so the concept transcriptions are airtight, otherwise you get "protect humans from themselves" and people thinking the laws failed (they work perfectly - as coded).
This post also goes for you other normals who think a range sensor can comprehend lives-at-risk runaway trolley bullshit. It's going to react to the first unusual condition, the way it's coded to, and so on. Magic AI doesn't exist yet, it's all still pseudo AI following code and more code. CODE YOU CODING COWS.
>we wouldn't want people deciding what is acceptable
They don't have to, because we should know better than to legislate arbitrary criteria. Ideally justice is blind, and the law is written so well it can be blindly followed.
In other words, the law is written so well it can't be "interpreted".
We already have that system with telcos. If it comes out anything like municipal water/power, it will be such a godsend I'll wet myself from sheer awe.
>give access away for free to poor people
Because the lower classes are known for being the ones controlling the depletion of unsustainable resources. Like electricity and bandwidth.
Either you're a clever troll placing dominoes that lead to keeping proles afloat, or you're a dumbfuck accomplishing the same thing by accident.
Toyota vehicles are enabling terrorism. They're also being used by pedophiles and drug dealers. We need to regulate, censor, and/or outlaw Toyota vehicles to protect the public.
So this is, what, theater? I mean, that's kind of my go to for all the "Does not actually deliver jack shit of claimed intent", it's for pacification or PR or image management or whatever. Assuming there isn't a more unpleasant motive.
Slashdot Mirror
#unfortunatetruths
[Like] [Follow] [Share] [About] [Press Kit] [Refer A Friend] [Newsletter] [Get the mobile app!]
>make unable
>forced
This is contrary by definition. A user decides to use an optional piece of software. No one is "made" subject to anything, and a victim card needs to be played a lot louder these days, after the chronic offendees we saw in The Year of the SJW.
The software happens to catalyze the status quo of an ecosystem, "the business of online advertising", indirectly. Expectedly, but incidentally. They are "made" subject to literally nothing - a void, an omission.
Interestingly, this reasoning applies to ABP's rejection. It's not a perfect apples-to-apples, but I couldn't really refute someone applying the same words to the situation, that IAB can't be forced to honor attendees.
This line reserved to honor the death of the word "literally".
Utah has the best season: Wimmer. It's when you have to scrape the ice off your windshield in the morning, then have to roll down your windows in the afternoon to cool off.
In my imagination this is how the absurd socks-with-sandals was born.
Compared to the last hundred thousand years, the last ten thousand were dramatic for homo sapiens and Earth.
The last two thousand years. One thousand. One hundred. Fifty years ago. Twenty. Any layman can see it.
Technology. Population. Global effects. Scale of other effects, including those caused by a single human. Increased communication has sent cultural propagation/drift to shorter and shorter cycles. Most humans lived one way their whole life (not just technologically) and we've had the privilege to have seen several already.
Obviously, to any layman, the ongoing pattern means a singularity of some sort is inevitable. It might be good, some sort of positive feedback loop that locks us into a valley of stable utopia, or a corporeal transcendence - even something that redefines perception and cognizance as we know it.
But optimism is naive, and even without being directly caused by a sudden curve catalyst, we'll graze extinction events at a higher pace (science or not) and while cross-planetation (lol) will help, a radically different status quo in the future may mean grazing galactic extinction events.
The threat to a cyclical universe, where one postulates that given infinite time "all possible events will occur", is that one of those events may be universe-ending, marking the last Big Bang.
Bullshit, we've been doing it in my universe fo@@@@@@CARRIER_LOST
Imaginary Property is when adults still want to call dibs.
This may be causing the demagogue flop: Trying to vaguely synthesize a "problem" may work in other circles, but hard science doesn't want to hear that there's "some kind of thing going on, maybe", it wants facts, places, numbers, reproducible events, documentation, data, something real, something tangible. Not posturing and implied semissertions.
All Terrain Fiesta
Being tagged as "socnet non-user" (as opposed to "still indeterminate") is probably not a good flag, but I'll take it.
We desperately love to disregard complex multivariables. We want one-line evaluations of job candidates, one-number GPAs to represent an education. Take a moment to imagine that you could convince everyone a "relationship/marriage compatibility score" was a sound, valid determinate and not wildly meaningless and dynamic - you'd make millions.
Anyway, my point is the headline was basically inevitable, they're as bad as everyone else, it was only waiting for enough tech and bigdata.
Some wouldn't be able to suppress those identifiers without the help of the support systems, the kind GP alluded to.
Other uses of these systems (on top of said discretion, and on top of gun rampage prevention) include helping the less socially adept with handling the ever-increasing subtleties in modern discourse. Something I'm sure you can appreciate.
Well, would appreciate. Your whoosh suggests you were unfortunate enough to be born in one of the "I've got mine, fuck you." countries and had no such support. Earth itself is an ovarian lottery, but at least you're probably in the Golden Billion.
It's likely necessary that I spoonfeed out the Bonus Tier of irony, where GP not only goes on a rampage anyway (despite coming from a supportive locale) but does it against the very population that supported him/her.
If you're still confused, "GP is full of shit and so is the absurd possibility that I would sincerely request a fucking murder spree." (ps Never read A Modest Proposal or you'll probably blogpost enough whoosh to collapse the planet)
You should go on a shooting rampage anyway.
human "work" will turn to things robots won't do, like music
When Prolekistan can no longer sell their primary export (labor) the country will NOT survive on a negligible trickle of tourism (art, music, prostitution, etc) that drips out from Onepercentica.
So to echo GP, I have no idea what will happen to Prolekistan when the primary, nay SINGULAR export evaporates.
Ha ha, just kidding, we all know what happens to the currency of countries like that. They're fucked. Bad.
Fortunately we have maybe 50 years before it goes critical so it won't hit us - it'll hit those adorable grandchildren you see on the weekend.
It's a story older than flying cars, but sure, let's trot it out, there's a bit of fresh context.
If the concept of human beauty uses the unobtainable optimal as a measuring stick, then attraction is a manufactured synthetic already. If humans are varied and thus certain to be flawed to someone, then only custom delivery can provide your desired parameters.
I suppose it's like arguing that only a robot musician could be "perfect".
Incidentally, does your definition of what feminism today *is* differ from the exhibited standard, yet override it?
Ironically, "Anonymous" is also a good example of fragmentation and conflicting stances, groups, messages, opinions, agendas, etc. all trying to squeeze under the same banner. For some reason we seem more compelled to try and steer the banner's meaning, rather than separate from it. Nevertheless bystanders will remain unaware of anyone that is working on, as they say, "taking it back".
Intriguingly, we see stronger efforts to orchestrate public label re: more trivial concepts, usually to hype the latest idea. I could probably google up a hundred sorts of otherkin othersex otherthing terms, and even of those full retard in concern a few will still be clever, a detail that will improve the delivery and potency of an orchestration no one particularly cares about.
Instead, we have incomplete communication where it matters. We're not even deliberately abusing the terms, like the exploitation of the shock value that was once in words like rape or murder. Those get a sigh and eyeroll, since I have to concentrate to... "dig around the plastic decoration hyperbole in the cake." shall we say? A double-take while I see if it was literal murder.
Interestingly, I've started every paragraph the same way for no good reason. I'd put one of those shrug emojis here if slashdot wasn't so fucking tangled about foreign characters.
I'm sure that in 2085 a gigaton of rocket fuel is available in every corner drugstore but in 2015 it's a little hard to come by!
Anon! I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you're stuck here!
This was my reckoning. BD is probably more interested in a big, juicy contract, but the armed forces are probably more interested in reactively buying them off the market. The snag being that such a production pool may not exist, then.
Flatland tasks are best suited to a vehicle. Other tasks are well-served by a robohauler, a pool NOT identical to tasks best served by a live pack animal. Unless you're one of the dumbfucks below who see absolutes and exclusivity instead of partial overlap.
>projections and actual sales are not equivalents
Are you a courtroom with recognized authority to declare formal precedent?
Does your concession echo? That is, will the predatory MAFIAA lawyers admit this reality?
Then print off another million, Petey, a million times seven and a million more.
And what about everywhere else they exist?
There's no such thing as Destroying The Negatives, never really was. Any "control" over Imaginary Property that's been released in the wild is voluntary at best.
If a quarantine was maintained (knowledge is a contagion) and the photos were distributed under agreed conditions (eg nondisclosure) then they can be considered isolated and treated as property, ie your ex must forfeit them, is accountable for disclosure.
Unconditional distribution is a global release. No court, no dictator can take the piss out of the pool if you already told someone your secret recipe for mango-celery salsa.
>If you're that worried about it, don't show it to anyone.
This. "Three men can keep a secret if two are dead."
Once you release something in the wild, any illusion of control over it exists on a voluntary basis. If you want moral (but not logistical) claim over it, put it behind conditional agreement. You don't see corporates protect their trade secrets with propaganda posters - you have people sign a fucking NDA and you STILL maintain a need-to-know over sensitives that you keep relatively quarantined.
Because information is a contagion, not a possession.
Okay, sure, let's pause development to put the three laws into the core. In order to have priority, they'll be down by, what, the assembly language libraries? Machine code?
So now you need to take the abstract concept (harm) and have it EXHAUSTIVELY defined. And of course, you can't define it using any of those undefined meatspace terms. It takes a while to translate "very fast" or "very hot" meaningfully in binary. Especially vague mental constructs like "safety" or "danger".
You'll be doing a few trillion lines without high or mid level languages. Be sure to consult philosophers so the concept transcriptions are airtight, otherwise you get "protect humans from themselves" and people thinking the laws failed (they work perfectly - as coded).
This post also goes for you other normals who think a range sensor can comprehend lives-at-risk runaway trolley bullshit. It's going to react to the first unusual condition, the way it's coded to, and so on. Magic AI doesn't exist yet, it's all still pseudo AI following code and more code. CODE YOU CODING COWS.
>we wouldn't want people deciding what is acceptable
They don't have to, because we should know better than to legislate arbitrary criteria. Ideally justice is blind, and the law is written so well it can be blindly followed.
In other words, the law is written so well it can't be "interpreted".
We already have that system with telcos. If it comes out anything like municipal water/power, it will be such a godsend I'll wet myself from sheer awe.
>give access away for free to poor people
Because the lower classes are known for being the ones controlling the depletion of unsustainable resources. Like electricity and bandwidth.
Either you're a clever troll placing dominoes that lead to keeping proles afloat, or you're a dumbfuck accomplishing the same thing by accident.
>incredible news everyone
Toyota vehicles are enabling terrorism. They're also being used by pedophiles and drug dealers. We need to regulate, censor, and/or outlaw Toyota vehicles to protect the public.
So this is, what, theater? I mean, that's kind of my go to for all the "Does not actually deliver jack shit of claimed intent", it's for pacification or PR or image management or whatever. Assuming there isn't a more unpleasant motive.