Fingerprints. The government doesn't have my fingerprints and I hope never will. Imagine you were at the scene of a crime, if the state already has your fingerprints they can match anyone who was there against their database, not just against known criminals.
Why would you be at the scene of a crime and not want to talk to the police? Surely you'd either want to help them with their enquires, or you're the criminal. I don't see why making it harder for criminals to escape is a bad thing.
Re:But did Kubrick write the meta-science?
on
Review: A.I.
·
· Score: 1
'Anybody with the tiniest bit of common sense would not program a robot that could harm'
No, I disagree... I haven't actually seen the film, but someone else in this thread talked about the robot being made by having human neurons mapped, this suggests a neural network. The whole point of this sort of thing is that it learns and adapts, and hardcoding ANYTHING into it is impossible. Just imagine trying to hard code something into a human brain... although the robot has been created by a human, persumably he had been allowed to develop thought and emotions on his own, thus making it impossible to de-code and add in hard coded restraints.
Who remembers when they tried to train a neural net to spot tanks in pictures? The same applies here, the structure is laid out by the creators, but the 'program' is allowed to develop in an unpredictable way.
It's not that bad if it's double glazed. I mean we have one of the display Coca-cola fridges that shops use, a shop down the road from us was throwing one out and we 'liberated' it. I'll tell you what though, those things are f**king heavy, the four of us had bruises for weeks afterwards. Anyway, the point is, it works (after a little repair), and considering that people aren't always opening and closing it to see what's inside, it does work rather efficiently!
It's huge too, so we can stokepile lots and lots of cold beer... mmmmm... beeeer
Surely, the fault doesn't lie with the porn itself, but the morals of the individual viewing it? Personally I view porn when I'm 'in the mood', and some pretty sick and twisted porn at that. Thinking of women as objects is harmless when you're just trying to 'get off', as long as you don't think of real women in the same light. Personaly, I find it impossible to think of women like that in real life, I can't help but think of people in real life, as real people! I know real people have emotions and feelings, and therefore could never bring myself to do anything harmful to someone.
You are obviously capable of differentiating between fantasies and real life, I would sugget that it is not really neccesary to bloke porn. And as far as children go, I think they need to be given a good education on morals, as long as they consider the feeling of others, they'll be ok. If they've had a good up-bringing and they come across some random porn site involving mutilation and killing, they'll be suitably disgusted.
If you ignore the fact that sex is something that children shouldn't be doing, its hard to find a justifiable reason to bloke porn sites. If then you also consider that there are only a few years between when children are capable of having sex and are actually allowed to have sex...
In my view, bloking porn sites is like trying to force people to like classical music by not letting them listen to rock music... If you agree that this analogy is at all relevant, then porn bloking seems sort of silly.
Well then, enlighten us, what makes neural nets so suited to this job? Neural nets need huge computing power, is AOL really going to set aside some super-beefy computer just to effectivly filter websites?
I agree, it seems odd that they'ed use a neural net for such a task, other then, say, some intelligent heuristic based natural language processer. This would be far faster, require not nearly as much training. Neural nets are nutoriously slow and take ages to train, and as other people have said, if filtering is put into the hands of the masses then the software has to be individually trained for each user. It would be fairly simple (I would imagine) to adapt conceptual dependency techniques to look for pornographic content on sites.
However, I disagree that neural nets are similar in performance to expert systems, a neural net can be trained for many tasks, including tasks that are general enough to render expert systems useless.
Who are you to say that this research is wrong? What would your solution be? Censor it? 'Banned research' just smacks of 'big brother'. For all we know, research that follows on from, or is inspired by this could dramatically improve our way of life. I admit that the idea of cloning people scares me, and I don't think that people should be allowed to do it, but that doesn't mean that there should be no research in the field.
The ethical question is: if people have this technology, what will they use it for?
I believe that research is always right, it's just the application that is sometimes wrong.
Fair enough, not all dubs are bad, but I can honestly say that I have only ever seen one anime that had a good dub (and I can't remember what it was). In my opinion subs are usually much better, take the dubbed version of Akira for example with the voice actors trying to say long sentences in the same time that it takes to say them in Japanese, nightmare!
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you be at the scene of a crime and not want to talk to the police? Surely you'd either want to help them with their enquires, or you're the criminal. I don't see why making it harder for criminals to escape is a bad thing.
Who remembers when they tried to train a neural net to spot tanks in pictures? The same applies here, the structure is laid out by the creators, but the 'program' is allowed to develop in an unpredictable way.
It's not that bad if it's double glazed. I mean we have one of the display Coca-cola fridges that shops use, a shop down the road from us was throwing one out and we 'liberated' it. I'll tell you what though, those things are f**king heavy, the four of us had bruises for weeks afterwards. Anyway, the point is, it works (after a little repair), and considering that people aren't always opening and closing it to see what's inside, it does work rather efficiently!
It's huge too, so we can stokepile lots and lots of cold beer... mmmmm... beeeer
Surely, the fault doesn't lie with the porn itself, but the morals of the individual viewing it? Personally I view porn when I'm 'in the mood', and some pretty sick and twisted porn at that. Thinking of women as objects is harmless when you're just trying to 'get off', as long as you don't think of real women in the same light. Personaly, I find it impossible to think of women like that in real life, I can't help but think of people in real life, as real people! I know real people have emotions and feelings, and therefore could never bring myself to do anything harmful to someone.
You are obviously capable of differentiating between fantasies and real life, I would sugget that it is not really neccesary to bloke porn. And as far as children go, I think they need to be given a good education on morals, as long as they consider the feeling of others, they'll be ok. If they've had a good up-bringing and they come across some random porn site involving mutilation and killing, they'll be suitably disgusted.
If you ignore the fact that sex is something that children shouldn't be doing, its hard to find a justifiable reason to bloke porn sites. If then you also consider that there are only a few years between when children are capable of having sex and are actually allowed to have sex...
In my view, bloking porn sites is like trying to force people to like classical music by not letting them listen to rock music... If you agree that this analogy is at all relevant, then porn bloking seems sort of silly.
Well then, enlighten us, what makes neural nets so suited to this job? Neural nets need huge computing power, is AOL really going to set aside some super-beefy computer just to effectivly filter websites?
I agree, it seems odd that they'ed use a neural net for such a task, other then, say, some intelligent heuristic based natural language processer. This would be far faster, require not nearly as much training. Neural nets are nutoriously slow and take ages to train, and as other people have said, if filtering is put into the hands of the masses then the software has to be individually trained for each user. It would be fairly simple (I would imagine) to adapt conceptual dependency techniques to look for pornographic content on sites.
However, I disagree that neural nets are similar in performance to expert systems, a neural net can be trained for many tasks, including tasks that are general enough to render expert systems useless.
Who are you to say that this research is wrong? What would your solution be? Censor it? 'Banned research' just smacks of 'big brother'. For all we know, research that follows on from, or is inspired by this could dramatically improve our way of life. I admit that the idea of cloning people scares me, and I don't think that people should be allowed to do it, but that doesn't mean that there should be no research in the field. The ethical question is: if people have this technology, what will they use it for? I believe that research is always right, it's just the application that is sometimes wrong.
Fair enough, not all dubs are bad, but I can honestly say that I have only ever seen one anime that had a good dub (and I can't remember what it was). In my opinion subs are usually much better, take the dubbed version of Akira for example with the voice actors trying to say long sentences in the same time that it takes to say them in Japanese, nightmare!