This isn't even that complicated, really. We've figured out the vast majority of the basic principles of the things we encounter in daily life. It's similar to where people live... It's easy to inhabit land that's easily accessible and comfortable. It takes far more effort to blaze trails into difficult environments. Also, as the boundaries expand, it takes more work to expand them further. This is really a sign we learned a lot in the last two centuries, and now the hard part begins.
This is a fair consideration. However, it's not quite as dire as that for a number of reasons. My approach would be to engineer a mosquito which won't transmit malaria, but otherwise of the same species. The problem isn't that mosquitoes bite humans exactly, but rather that they transmit the disease. If we could provoke the mosquitoes to have an immune response to the pathogen, the problem should self-resolve.
In the end, nature is doing these experiments all of the time in less overt, but very random ways. Banning a technology won't really make it go away, anyway.
Quantum gravity isn't a part of it. So, until someone figures that out in a way consistent with the observations made so far, the story is still evolving. The Standard Model does an amazing job of accounting for much of what we have seen. My hope is the Event Horizon Telescope project will reveal clues to this. It's likely based on its successes that the Standard Model is correct up to the edges of its predictions. It might be a minor modification to extreme cases, or it might be a major revision to how the math is done, but it's missing something.
Appreciated, thomst. Though in this case, the hypothesis I was referring to was indeed quantized inertia, which has yet to rise to the level of theory. My writing was lazy, however.
Philosophy is a perfectly valid, and arguably necessary field of study. So many philosophers I have known, however, get lost in the weeds when applying philosophy to science (a needful step in integrating science into society). Watch some of the discussions on philosophy, mathematics, and infinity. It's both fascinating, and at times infuriating. But it will likely make you think.
That QM makes little sense or doesn't fit other theories is irrelevant. That it makes predictions that are verifiable makes it a scientific theory. That those predictions are as close to perfect as they are (barring the Vacuum Catastrophe) makes it a pretty solid theory, though yes, incomplete. Further, it is no more likely to be discarded than Newton's laws of gravity in that it is a pretty good approximation for most purposes. So, unless a more accurate theory later arises which is easier to work with, it won't go away.
Your thoughts about replication are utterly irrefutable, however. As for pseudoscience allegations, if it's testable it's real science, even if the hypothesis is eventually excluded.
Some apps (and not that many) have added code to increase security. This is honestly a good thing. Also, like most good things, this is not the majority of apps.
On the flip side, they have absolutely added functionality - for the developers: Data collection, as much as they think they can even remotely talk you into. This is a problem.
We don't perceive this as a feature, but they do. That additional code is definitely serving their purposes.
The intent of the Founding Fathers was that the Legislative Branch be the most powerful because it would be the slowest to act. The most important of these, however, was that the nature of the Legislature would guarantee it be the most deliberative and divided. This would prevent it from being too overwhelmingly of one voice, and tending to keep it a bit centrist. And while this hasn't worked out perfectly, it lacks the dramatic lurching nature of the Executive branch.
The Executive branch was envisioned as primarily related to foreign affairs, but the veto power significantly beefed up the domestic powers as well. The ideas there were more complicated. We need to be able to react quickly and decisively to world events, hence a unitary executive. The veto power was intended to prevent a runaway legislature, just in case (because mob mentalities can occur in Congress).
The biggest cession of power that has happened is related to use of the military, as presidents were not supposed to have the power to commit the nation to war. That there is no clause stating that military action not pre-approved by Congress can only be defensive in nature and solidly enforced is problematic. But of course, one would need to define "defensive".
No chance in the US? You're joking, right? Almost all of our local and state elections, and absolutely all of our Federal elections, are "first-past-the-post", which translates to "winner-takes-all". The Separation of Powers reduces the risk, certainly. However, our Legislative branch has been happy to cede power to the Executive. We are slow-rolling to monarchy. I don't care if I voted for the current POTUS or not, I don't want that much power in one person's hands.
As for control by the corporations, you might wish to reconsider. Studies have been done, and in the US there is almost no chance of any law with popular support happening if the large corporate interests oppose it. The opposite cannot be said to be true.
Imagine yourself in this position. Maybe you bought into the message and were hopeful you'd be working for a true populist. You then watch as the leader you sought to follow is trying to steer the ship of state into an iceberg on the assumption the ship is unsinkable. But history already has judged that notion. If you resign, maybe the ship hits the iceberg. Stay and maybe it still does, but you tried. But if you help the Captain hit the iceberg, what greater purpose did your sacrifice serve? Your nation suffers, you committed probable crimes, and it just gets worse from there.
These people may serve at the pleasure of the President, but they don't work for the President. The AG doesn't, the FBI doesn't. Their work for the Office doesn't immediately translate to working for the office holder. It's a fine distinction which used to be less important under better office holders.
I wasn't a fan of George W. Bush, but I never considered him a bull in a china shop. Occasionally inept, but not generally incompetent or insanely corrupt. Obama could have been more forceful. Both men seemed to follow their conscience. Amorality is the perfect description for what we have now, and a servant of The People isn't necessarily going to resign in protest if they think they can prevent disaster... Assuming that's the motive.
But let's be real here: Nixon was brought down by those who put Country ahead of Party. We need that now, and frankly always. It's rare in history, however, to see the two priorities diverge so strongly.
The only way to truly judge a human being is in how they treat others who have no power, when they think no one is looking. In those moments you know more about who they really are than they do.
For the moment. Except we have a bit of a problem in the long run. IF machines can "wake up", we likely won't do it on purpose (since we don't know what it would take to do it), which also means it will probably be an accident. The day this happens, we had better hope that the instinct to empathy is plausible in our creations. As a side note, however, when less empathy has been associated too strongly with maturity, we have seen the worst crimes against humanity. By this measure, Stalin was very mature.
Really it comes down to a basic truth: This was an experiment, and while it doesn't eliminate UBI as a concept, this suggests this might not be a good way to do it. And that's FANTASTIC! Because now we know a way something won't work. This is why I want to see this type of thing: Actually anticipating a problem before it arrives, and trying solutions. This isn't a bad thing. It's a brilliant effort to get ahead of the problems.
And now we need to determine the lessons learned. Ideological presumptions have no place in this step.
I never claimed that words lost their old meanings. To be clear, they've mostly gained new ones which have displaced their old meanings in regular use. Languages evolve, both grammatically and in word meaning. Most words start as either slang or loan words. Further, you're confusing vocabulary (symbols chosen for ideas) with language (the use of symbols to represent thought). Symbols get re-purposed.
We have new words for new things, but we also have old words for new things. Which type of mouse you reference is determined contextually. Further, to "know" someone indeed was used in isolation. It came from the notion of carnal knowledge, but had an alternate contextual meaning. See definition 7 at http://www.dictionary.com/brow.... Also listed as such in older printed dictionaries.
Look up Old English. It's mostly unrecognizable (though fascinating). Alternatively, you can refer to https://ideas.ted.com/20-words.... But note I work with a professional linguist. As she so elegantly pointed out, "If languages never changed, we'd only have one in all the world."
If you doubt language is fluid, I invite you to consider the following:
Queer was once a word for odd or strange. Then it became a slur toward non-heterosexuals. Now it's something the once slurred community has taken ownership of.
Read Shakespeare and apply modern meanings to the words. Lots of things will break, or tragedies will gain comedic value.
The meaning of "knowing" someone has definitely changed since the King James Bible. How many people do you "know"?
Bad. Yes, the word bad. Which still means bad, but under the correct circumstances can be good. For instance, "bad ass", which actually can also mean two things.
This is the reality. It causes the legal system lots of problems, frankly, because it's hard to legislate a natural cognitive process. Also, it's hard to legislate around a natural cognitive process.
Different companies went different ways. But... Porn had a lot to do with initial video formats on the web. As a general rule, humans like sex- Doing, watching, reading about it, talking and writing about it, most seek it in some fashion. Given it's critical role in keeping the species going, it makes sense that those who seek it more reproduced more successfully. So it makes sense that it drives technology only slightly less than survival (a.k.a. combat). It's unfortunate, but hard to deny.
At that point you will have the people rich enough to live an extra fifty years and everyone else. And those super rich people will work to mold the society to suit them because their horizon is longer than ours.
If that means they finally treat climate change and environmental destruction as the serious problems they really are, then I'm all for it.
Assume they already do. Do you really think the effort to design AI programming that can make kill decisions for armed robots will remain with the military? I don't really expect most of them want to do this, mind you, but a few almost certainly do. And a reduction in population would probably lower CO2emissions. Do I expect this? Generally no, but it is well within the realm of plausibility.
To kill the 2-party system will require a new amendment to the Constitution to eliminate the first-past-the-post approach. To eliminate gerrymandering will require a similar level of action. I have extreme doubts that the powers-that-be will allow this to happen easily.
Well, when Obama took office, the economy was contracting at a record post-war pace. Since then, the rate of decline of wages had been reduced a bit. Further, the Democrats only controlled the legislature for two years during the Obama administration. Two years to reverse a 40-year trend seems a bit unreasonable.
Wealth concentration has become a serious concern not because of social justice concerns (though that could be debated as a consideration), but soon as a serious threat to the economic and political stability of the world generally. Since the baby boomer generation gained marginal control of the vote, investment in society has declined to almost nil, while the tools for concentrating wealth have become far more effective. Trading algorithms run faster than any human can process, and the truly powerful can afford to have servers as close as possible to the exchanges for maximum advantage.
The true reality is we are on the verge of a massive economic shift, and it is already in progress. The odds are against any kind of "better" jobs to replace those lost to automation. New career fields will close faster than they can be created and replaced. Given what I do for a living, I can confirm this is already happening, and rapidly. The old notions of capitalism as it exists currently cannot survive without starving out the population.
I may think Trump is the worst president in over 100 years... You may think Obama was horrible... It's irrelevant. Without leaders who can read the writing on the wall, we're all screwed. That shrinking middle class is going to rapidly disappear, and those who are at the fringes of the upper economic class will become destitute as well as their supposedly "skilled" jobs disappear.
You add the specter of looming arms races with the other global posers, and the military need for rapid response will drive AI development in ways that will accelerate this process out of control as it bleeds into the civilian economy.
Save the blame game and ideological spats for debate class. We don't have time for them anymore. We need to start serious discussions about what to do about what's here, and what's coming.
This is why we need strong encryption and authentication as a legal requirement for all personal information databases. Law enforcement may not like it, but if they require backdoors on encryption schemes and access, this will continue to make them as vulnerable as everyone else. They have proven the argument they oppose for us. I get the problems this causes, but the damage allowed by not using proper data protection is generally much worse. And now they may end up learning this the hard way, and that's a shame.
Yeah... No. Though I understand the direction you're heading in, commoner is a birth class, and we are not (in name at least) an aristocracy. Now if you're suggesting that the dispassionate wish to limit the excesses in public discourse, that's fine. Now that that's over...
Any variable value placed into the Drake Equation is at this point speculative. Of course we couldbe alone, but the odds are hard to predict. Further, there are variables that affect the ability of technology to get into space in the first place. These could include sufficiently massive planet preventing space travel, lack of sufficient materials to build space-worthy craft, lack of sufficient land mass to support a civilization with the necessary infrastructure, or maybe just a lack of desire. We can't know. And it's not like we could detect another civ like our own more than a dozen light-years out anyway.
First, I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest polar solar arrays. Second, where solar is lower, wind is usually more available. The poles tend to be windy. But how many people actually live there?
OR... The statement they have a confession is true, and they're not simply assuming there were no others involved. There are a lot of short sellers looking to see Tesla take a hit, so there is a potential profit motive. And while it may seem unlikely, were I Musk and I suspected someone looking to cause damage, I wouldn't be looking at the auto companies in the US. Honestly, I'd be looking at brokerage firms.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't even that complicated, really. We've figured out the vast majority of the basic principles of the things we encounter in daily life. It's similar to where people live... It's easy to inhabit land that's easily accessible and comfortable. It takes far more effort to blaze trails into difficult environments. Also, as the boundaries expand, it takes more work to expand them further. This is really a sign we learned a lot in the last two centuries, and now the hard part begins.
This is a fair consideration. However, it's not quite as dire as that for a number of reasons. My approach would be to engineer a mosquito which won't transmit malaria, but otherwise of the same species. The problem isn't that mosquitoes bite humans exactly, but rather that they transmit the disease. If we could provoke the mosquitoes to have an immune response to the pathogen, the problem should self-resolve.
In the end, nature is doing these experiments all of the time in less overt, but very random ways. Banning a technology won't really make it go away, anyway.
Quantum gravity isn't a part of it. So, until someone figures that out in a way consistent with the observations made so far, the story is still evolving. The Standard Model does an amazing job of accounting for much of what we have seen. My hope is the Event Horizon Telescope project will reveal clues to this. It's likely based on its successes that the Standard Model is correct up to the edges of its predictions. It might be a minor modification to extreme cases, or it might be a major revision to how the math is done, but it's missing something.
Appreciated, thomst. Though in this case, the hypothesis I was referring to was indeed quantized inertia, which has yet to rise to the level of theory. My writing was lazy, however.
Philosophy is a perfectly valid, and arguably necessary field of study. So many philosophers I have known, however, get lost in the weeds when applying philosophy to science (a needful step in integrating science into society). Watch some of the discussions on philosophy, mathematics, and infinity. It's both fascinating, and at times infuriating. But it will likely make you think.
That QM makes little sense or doesn't fit other theories is irrelevant. That it makes predictions that are verifiable makes it a scientific theory. That those predictions are as close to perfect as they are (barring the Vacuum Catastrophe) makes it a pretty solid theory, though yes, incomplete. Further, it is no more likely to be discarded than Newton's laws of gravity in that it is a pretty good approximation for most purposes. So, unless a more accurate theory later arises which is easier to work with, it won't go away.
Your thoughts about replication are utterly irrefutable, however. As for pseudoscience allegations, if it's testable it's real science, even if the hypothesis is eventually excluded.
So what we're saying is, this is the arachnid version of, "Eat, drink, and be merry!"
This does not make me like them more.
Some apps (and not that many) have added code to increase security. This is honestly a good thing. Also, like most good things, this is not the majority of apps.
On the flip side, they have absolutely added functionality - for the developers: Data collection, as much as they think they can even remotely talk you into. This is a problem.
We don't perceive this as a feature, but they do. That additional code is definitely serving their purposes.
The intent of the Founding Fathers was that the Legislative Branch be the most powerful because it would be the slowest to act. The most important of these, however, was that the nature of the Legislature would guarantee it be the most deliberative and divided. This would prevent it from being too overwhelmingly of one voice, and tending to keep it a bit centrist. And while this hasn't worked out perfectly, it lacks the dramatic lurching nature of the Executive branch.
The Executive branch was envisioned as primarily related to foreign affairs, but the veto power significantly beefed up the domestic powers as well. The ideas there were more complicated. We need to be able to react quickly and decisively to world events, hence a unitary executive. The veto power was intended to prevent a runaway legislature, just in case (because mob mentalities can occur in Congress).
The biggest cession of power that has happened is related to use of the military, as presidents were not supposed to have the power to commit the nation to war. That there is no clause stating that military action not pre-approved by Congress can only be defensive in nature and solidly enforced is problematic. But of course, one would need to define "defensive".
No chance in the US? You're joking, right? Almost all of our local and state elections, and absolutely all of our Federal elections, are "first-past-the-post", which translates to "winner-takes-all". The Separation of Powers reduces the risk, certainly. However, our Legislative branch has been happy to cede power to the Executive. We are slow-rolling to monarchy. I don't care if I voted for the current POTUS or not, I don't want that much power in one person's hands.
As for control by the corporations, you might wish to reconsider. Studies have been done, and in the US there is almost no chance of any law with popular support happening if the large corporate interests oppose it. The opposite cannot be said to be true.
Imagine yourself in this position. Maybe you bought into the message and were hopeful you'd be working for a true populist. You then watch as the leader you sought to follow is trying to steer the ship of state into an iceberg on the assumption the ship is unsinkable. But history already has judged that notion. If you resign, maybe the ship hits the iceberg. Stay and maybe it still does, but you tried. But if you help the Captain hit the iceberg, what greater purpose did your sacrifice serve? Your nation suffers, you committed probable crimes, and it just gets worse from there.
These people may serve at the pleasure of the President, but they don't work for the President. The AG doesn't, the FBI doesn't. Their work for the Office doesn't immediately translate to working for the office holder. It's a fine distinction which used to be less important under better office holders.
I wasn't a fan of George W. Bush, but I never considered him a bull in a china shop. Occasionally inept, but not generally incompetent or insanely corrupt. Obama could have been more forceful. Both men seemed to follow their conscience. Amorality is the perfect description for what we have now, and a servant of The People isn't necessarily going to resign in protest if they think they can prevent disaster... Assuming that's the motive.
But let's be real here: Nixon was brought down by those who put Country ahead of Party. We need that now, and frankly always. It's rare in history, however, to see the two priorities diverge so strongly.
The only way to truly judge a human being is in how they treat others who have no power, when they think no one is looking. In those moments you know more about who they really are than they do.
For the moment. Except we have a bit of a problem in the long run. IF machines can "wake up", we likely won't do it on purpose (since we don't know what it would take to do it), which also means it will probably be an accident. The day this happens, we had better hope that the instinct to empathy is plausible in our creations. As a side note, however, when less empathy has been associated too strongly with maturity, we have seen the worst crimes against humanity. By this measure, Stalin was very mature.
Really it comes down to a basic truth: This was an experiment, and while it doesn't eliminate UBI as a concept, this suggests this might not be a good way to do it. And that's FANTASTIC! Because now we know a way something won't work. This is why I want to see this type of thing: Actually anticipating a problem before it arrives, and trying solutions. This isn't a bad thing. It's a brilliant effort to get ahead of the problems.
And now we need to determine the lessons learned. Ideological presumptions have no place in this step.
I never claimed that words lost their old meanings. To be clear, they've mostly gained new ones which have displaced their old meanings in regular use. Languages evolve, both grammatically and in word meaning. Most words start as either slang or loan words. Further, you're confusing vocabulary (symbols chosen for ideas) with language (the use of symbols to represent thought). Symbols get re-purposed.
We have new words for new things, but we also have old words for new things. Which type of mouse you reference is determined contextually. Further, to "know" someone indeed was used in isolation. It came from the notion of carnal knowledge, but had an alternate contextual meaning. See definition 7 at http://www.dictionary.com/brow.... Also listed as such in older printed dictionaries.
Look up Old English. It's mostly unrecognizable (though fascinating). Alternatively, you can refer to https://ideas.ted.com/20-words.... But note I work with a professional linguist. As she so elegantly pointed out, "If languages never changed, we'd only have one in all the world."
If you doubt language is fluid, I invite you to consider the following:
Queer was once a word for odd or strange. Then it became a slur toward non-heterosexuals. Now it's something the once slurred community has taken ownership of.
Read Shakespeare and apply modern meanings to the words. Lots of things will break, or tragedies will gain comedic value.
The meaning of "knowing" someone has definitely changed since the King James Bible. How many people do you "know"?
Bad. Yes, the word bad. Which still means bad, but under the correct circumstances can be good. For instance, "bad ass", which actually can also mean two things.
This is the reality. It causes the legal system lots of problems, frankly, because it's hard to legislate a natural cognitive process. Also, it's hard to legislate around a natural cognitive process.
Different companies went different ways. But... Porn had a lot to do with initial video formats on the web. As a general rule, humans like sex- Doing, watching, reading about it, talking and writing about it, most seek it in some fashion. Given it's critical role in keeping the species going, it makes sense that those who seek it more reproduced more successfully. So it makes sense that it drives technology only slightly less than survival (a.k.a. combat). It's unfortunate, but hard to deny.
At that point you will have the people rich enough to live an extra fifty years and everyone else. And those super rich people will work to mold the society to suit them because their horizon is longer than ours.
If that means they finally treat climate change and environmental destruction as the serious problems they really are, then I'm all for it.
Assume they already do. Do you really think the effort to design AI programming that can make kill decisions for armed robots will remain with the military? I don't really expect most of them want to do this, mind you, but a few almost certainly do. And a reduction in population would probably lower CO2emissions. Do I expect this? Generally no, but it is well within the realm of plausibility.
To kill the 2-party system will require a new amendment to the Constitution to eliminate the first-past-the-post approach. To eliminate gerrymandering will require a similar level of action. I have extreme doubts that the powers-that-be will allow this to happen easily.
Well, when Obama took office, the economy was contracting at a record post-war pace. Since then, the rate of decline of wages had been reduced a bit. Further, the Democrats only controlled the legislature for two years during the Obama administration. Two years to reverse a 40-year trend seems a bit unreasonable.
Wealth concentration has become a serious concern not because of social justice concerns (though that could be debated as a consideration), but soon as a serious threat to the economic and political stability of the world generally. Since the baby boomer generation gained marginal control of the vote, investment in society has declined to almost nil, while the tools for concentrating wealth have become far more effective. Trading algorithms run faster than any human can process, and the truly powerful can afford to have servers as close as possible to the exchanges for maximum advantage.
The true reality is we are on the verge of a massive economic shift, and it is already in progress. The odds are against any kind of "better" jobs to replace those lost to automation. New career fields will close faster than they can be created and replaced. Given what I do for a living, I can confirm this is already happening, and rapidly. The old notions of capitalism as it exists currently cannot survive without starving out the population.
I may think Trump is the worst president in over 100 years... You may think Obama was horrible... It's irrelevant. Without leaders who can read the writing on the wall, we're all screwed. That shrinking middle class is going to rapidly disappear, and those who are at the fringes of the upper economic class will become destitute as well as their supposedly "skilled" jobs disappear.
You add the specter of looming arms races with the other global posers, and the military need for rapid response will drive AI development in ways that will accelerate this process out of control as it bleeds into the civilian economy.
Save the blame game and ideological spats for debate class. We don't have time for them anymore. We need to start serious discussions about what to do about what's here, and what's coming.
Any unnecessary harm to someone is a shame. If nothing is learned from it, the shame is even greater.
That's where strong authentication would come in, but you're not wrong.
This is why we need strong encryption and authentication as a legal requirement for all personal information databases. Law enforcement may not like it, but if they require backdoors on encryption schemes and access, this will continue to make them as vulnerable as everyone else. They have proven the argument they oppose for us. I get the problems this causes, but the damage allowed by not using proper data protection is generally much worse. And now they may end up learning this the hard way, and that's a shame.
Yeah... No. Though I understand the direction you're heading in, commoner is a birth class, and we are not (in name at least) an aristocracy. Now if you're suggesting that the dispassionate wish to limit the excesses in public discourse, that's fine. Now that that's over...
Any variable value placed into the Drake Equation is at this point speculative. Of course we couldbe alone, but the odds are hard to predict. Further, there are variables that affect the ability of technology to get into space in the first place. These could include sufficiently massive planet preventing space travel, lack of sufficient materials to build space-worthy craft, lack of sufficient land mass to support a civilization with the necessary infrastructure, or maybe just a lack of desire. We can't know. And it's not like we could detect another civ like our own more than a dozen light-years out anyway.
First, I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest polar solar arrays. Second, where solar is lower, wind is usually more available. The poles tend to be windy. But how many people actually live there?
OR... The statement they have a confession is true, and they're not simply assuming there were no others involved. There are a lot of short sellers looking to see Tesla take a hit, so there is a potential profit motive. And while it may seem unlikely, were I Musk and I suspected someone looking to cause damage, I wouldn't be looking at the auto companies in the US. Honestly, I'd be looking at brokerage firms.