>Absolute (well, for the MOST part... except for speech determined to "incite violence", or speech determined to be a "threat", or speech which violates a copyright, or...)
I don't know why this was modded as funny, it's right out of the article:
NHTSA does not publish a star rating above 5, however safety levels better than 5 stars are captured in the overall Vehicle Safety Score (VSS) provided to manufacturers, where the Model S achieved a new combined record of 5.4 stars.
Could you not say that social disharmony has a body count as well? But in both cases, the question is: do the ends justify the means? Are the amount of terrorism related deaths prevented worth the sacrifice of privacy/freedom?
Unlike China, the USA is a democracy, and is built on the premise that such questions should be up to the general populace to decide. This cannot happen if information is kept hidden from the public, for no better reason than "such information might aid terrorists!". At a minimum, the president should be aware of these actions, since he is the one whom the people have entrusted with executive power.
That's probably the most common misconception about quantum computers... They do not solve all NP problems efficiently, only a subset called BQP: "bounded error, quantum, polynomial time". It is believed that this is completely disjoint from the "NP complete" subset.
This is honestly the worst series of articles I've ever seen in a single day on Slashdot.
A dupe, a movie advertisement, and 2 things which aren't even news.
This may be surprising to you, samzenpus, but there is an entire field of study called "human-computer interaction", and it has been around for about as long as computers have.
And one of the most valuable methods for gathering data has ALWAYS BEEN the observation of users.
Did you read the article AT ALL? He's not saying "it's Google's fault", he's saying "Google could handle this problem pretty efficiently, gaining some goodwill in the process."
I would rather have freedom than a reduction in terrorist attacks.
However, it doesn't matter how I feel, it matters how the people feel, because this is a democracy.
But a democracy doesn't work when the government makes decisions in secrecy; that's the real problem.
1. The issue is not that she lost her information, it's that her confidential anonymous sources have now been potentially revealed to the agency they were blowing the whistle on.
2. Where can you hide your stuff that law enforcement cannot find it if they try hard enough?
3. The government can find any excuse to raid you if they want (in this case, because in 1986 her husband was found guilty of resisting arrest). And once they do find an excuse, what can you do when an elite, armored team shows up at your doorstep?
There is nothing you as an individual can do to retaliate against this, other than speaking out (as she is doing). If you really want to prevent this from happening, choose to live somewhere else, or just be a nice little citizen and never try to rock the boat.
The very concept of free will is itself a silly one, devised by simple-minded people. And it has absolutely NOTHING to do with science.
First of all there really is no such thing as "free will", REGARDLESS of whether the universe is deterministic or not; the concept is by nature a contradiction. The generally accepted definition of free will is "I am the ultimate cause of my actions". To put it another way, "I am the ultimate originator of my will". If you are the religious type, then when you say "you", you're talking about some abstract notion of a soul, and we can't really delve any further. But this is a scientific paper, so "you" means the collection of thoughts, memories, and wills residing in your skull. So really we're saying "my will determines my will", which of course doesn't make sense! You couldn't have "chosen" your "original" will (which went on to determine your future wills); you weren't born yet! It is a prime example of causa sui.
But moving on to the paper, it's rife with invalid assumptions. For example: "If decisions are freely made, then those decisions can form the basis for condemning people to prison". That assumes that we condemn a person to prison because they made a bad decision and they "deserve it". That's an oversimplification. We condemn people to prison in order to dissuade other people from committing crimes, and to reduce the likelihood of condemned people committing more crimes. Free will and determinism have nothing to do with it.
Also, the paper never really attempts to form a test for free will. The poor summary is more to blame here than the paper itself. The paper forms a test for the PERCEPTION of free will, which the author arbitrarily defines as "being unable to know the result of a decision before actually making that decision" (which implies recursive reasoning, which is the main criteria for the test). So a thermostat does not have free will because an external device could easily predict its output. But a computer has the perception of free will, because as an extension to Turing's halting problem, it is possible to create algorithms where it is impossible to know the output faster than it takes to actually go through the algorithm.
What does this really mean, practically speaking? Absolutely nothing. These are concepts that have been discussed for many years; nothing is being added here. It's disappointing that this kind of thing is able to make it to the Slashdot front page.
Do you really need to know your child is at risk of Alzheimer's before you decide to teach them healthy habits and encourage brain activity?
Then newsflash: you may be a really shitty parent.
Insurance is, by definition, payment to mitigate risk. If one has the ability to back up that risk, as the 1% do, it is on average better to not get insurance. A bit of a gamble, yes, but the upper class gamble with their money all the time. Although I'm not rich, I still forego insurance whenever possible (such as the "extra insurance" offered for rental cars, which is absurdly high).
The black market has a much higher demand for vulnerabilities, and there's also some inherent risk for such dealings, so it makes sense that the price would be higher. If you want to go with that route, go ahead, Google isn't forcing you. Google is just offering compensation based on what the defects are worth to them; I don't know why you would expect otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
>Absolute (well, for the MOST part... except for speech determined to "incite violence", or speech determined to be a "threat", or speech which violates a copyright, or...)
Yep.
NHTSA does not publish a star rating above 5, however safety levels better than 5 stars are captured in the overall Vehicle Safety Score (VSS) provided to manufacturers, where the Model S achieved a new combined record of 5.4 stars.
Could you not say that social disharmony has a body count as well? But in both cases, the question is: do the ends justify the means? Are the amount of terrorism related deaths prevented worth the sacrifice of privacy/freedom?
Unlike China, the USA is a democracy, and is built on the premise that such questions should be up to the general populace to decide. This cannot happen if information is kept hidden from the public, for no better reason than "such information might aid terrorists!". At a minimum, the president should be aware of these actions, since he is the one whom the people have entrusted with executive power.
That's probably the most common misconception about quantum computers... They do not solve all NP problems efficiently, only a subset called BQP: "bounded error, quantum, polynomial time". It is believed that this is completely disjoint from the "NP complete" subset.
This is honestly the worst series of articles I've ever seen in a single day on Slashdot.
A dupe, a movie advertisement, and 2 things which aren't even news.
Everything you said is true, but that's beside the point! Slashdot is for NEWS, and nothing about this article is new!
Nothing has really changed
So why is this news? Am I missing something?
This may be surprising to you, samzenpus, but there is an entire field of study called "human-computer interaction", and it has been around for about as long as computers have.
And one of the most valuable methods for gathering data has ALWAYS BEEN the observation of users.
Did you read the article AT ALL? He's not saying "it's Google's fault", he's saying "Google could handle this problem pretty efficiently, gaining some goodwill in the process."
Surely you jest!
I would rather have freedom than a reduction in terrorist attacks.
However, it doesn't matter how I feel, it matters how the people feel, because this is a democracy.
But a democracy doesn't work when the government makes decisions in secrecy; that's the real problem.
Their website references the term in a single marketing bullet point, and there is a 404'd link to an article.
If you are able to find more information (specifically about Vicarious's "new computational paradigm"), by all means share it.
Although "Recursive Cortical Network" sounds really cool, it would be nice to, you know, learn a bit about how it WORKS.
1. The issue is not that she lost her information, it's that her confidential anonymous sources have now been potentially revealed to the agency they were blowing the whistle on.
2. Where can you hide your stuff that law enforcement cannot find it if they try hard enough?
3. The government can find any excuse to raid you if they want (in this case, because in 1986 her husband was found guilty of resisting arrest). And once they do find an excuse, what can you do when an elite, armored team shows up at your doorstep?
There is nothing you as an individual can do to retaliate against this, other than speaking out (as she is doing). If you really want to prevent this from happening, choose to live somewhere else, or just be a nice little citizen and never try to rock the boat.
You just took what 90% of people think of as a moral argument and decided to view it logically. I think I like you.
"We made a device with curved corners first, now you can't make one, na-na-na-na-na-na!"
Although patent trolls are bad, there are a lot bigger entities to fear with the current definitions of patentability.
The very concept of free will is itself a silly one, devised by simple-minded people. And it has absolutely NOTHING to do with science.
First of all there really is no such thing as "free will", REGARDLESS of whether the universe is deterministic or not; the concept is by nature a contradiction. The generally accepted definition of free will is "I am the ultimate cause of my actions". To put it another way, "I am the ultimate originator of my will". If you are the religious type, then when you say "you", you're talking about some abstract notion of a soul, and we can't really delve any further. But this is a scientific paper, so "you" means the collection of thoughts, memories, and wills residing in your skull. So really we're saying "my will determines my will", which of course doesn't make sense! You couldn't have "chosen" your "original" will (which went on to determine your future wills); you weren't born yet! It is a prime example of causa sui.
But moving on to the paper, it's rife with invalid assumptions. For example: "If decisions are freely made, then those decisions can form the basis for condemning people to prison". That assumes that we condemn a person to prison because they made a bad decision and they "deserve it". That's an oversimplification. We condemn people to prison in order to dissuade other people from committing crimes, and to reduce the likelihood of condemned people committing more crimes. Free will and determinism have nothing to do with it.
Also, the paper never really attempts to form a test for free will. The poor summary is more to blame here than the paper itself. The paper forms a test for the PERCEPTION of free will, which the author arbitrarily defines as "being unable to know the result of a decision before actually making that decision" (which implies recursive reasoning, which is the main criteria for the test). So a thermostat does not have free will because an external device could easily predict its output. But a computer has the perception of free will, because as an extension to Turing's halting problem, it is possible to create algorithms where it is impossible to know the output faster than it takes to actually go through the algorithm.
What does this really mean, practically speaking? Absolutely nothing. These are concepts that have been discussed for many years; nothing is being added here. It's disappointing that this kind of thing is able to make it to the Slashdot front page.
HA, good point.
Do you really need to know your child is at risk of Alzheimer's before you decide to teach them healthy habits and encourage brain activity?
Then newsflash: you may be a really shitty parent.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623#comic
Insurance is, by definition, payment to mitigate risk. If one has the ability to back up that risk, as the 1% do, it is on average better to not get insurance. A bit of a gamble, yes, but the upper class gamble with their money all the time. Although I'm not rich, I still forego insurance whenever possible (such as the "extra insurance" offered for rental cars, which is absurdly high).
I dunno, in every news article I see there's just that one picture of him... Could have been 'shopped.
Aside from the other obvious reasons, such as "it looks awful" and "for the types of things I search for, it's vastly inferior to Google".
The black market has a much higher demand for vulnerabilities, and there's also some inherent risk for such dealings, so it makes sense that the price would be higher. If you want to go with that route, go ahead, Google isn't forcing you. Google is just offering compensation based on what the defects are worth to them; I don't know why you would expect otherwise.
You could go to jail for 10 years for posting a comment online which someone decides is a terrorist threat.