True... But that's because we have an app for every stupid thing on mobile. Which both makes sense, and is infuriating. But PCs are hardly going away. It's just that Linux is great for some things, Windows for others. I have not run into anything that Macs are superior for in quite some time. iOS is limited by policy (and there are good reasons for this... Mostly tied to its user base methinks). Android, in most cases is superior overall for my needs, and most of the needs of those I know. I work in IT, and I can honestly say most of my coworkers despise iPhones.
It's going to sound odd, but incompetence can itself be conspiracy. This is a common result of appointing ideologues. Poor management breaks agencies when it is done purposefully. Give an agency a responsibility, then chip away at their enforcement powers and budget so their mission is impossible, then claim the money is wasted. Cut rules then claim this as the cause for more investment which was planned under the old rules. Fire competent people and replace with party-line soldiers who steer the boat into the reef. This is the way the game is played.
All true. But to lead, one has to innovate, develop, and invent. Granted, there are certainly benefits to their approach (excluding the co-opting of IP), but in the end, it is ultimately self-limiting.
Which, in the long run, is less than helpful to them. If one subscribes to the premise that The Party wishes to lead their country to greatness, to being a superpower, if not THE superpower, then one must therefore assume they think this is a good idea. The psychology is simple, that they believe that their party is the only hope for this to happen. What they are missing is that the limitations on the exchange of ideas in the end limits their nation's potential. They think unity of purpose alone can lead them to their end goal, but they have missed a simple reality: Unity of purpose alone leads to the risk that, if they drive off a cliff, they do so as one.
As for humans, we can in the vast majority of cases, tell cat from dog (read feline from canine) from a single still image. Hyenas challenge this as they are technically more closely related to cats, but they are odd in many ways. But harm is a concept, not an object. This requires understanding, and again, we have no evidence any AI can even approximate actual understanding.
A lot of this is 100% on point. However, let's look at something more direct... Define harm. Then, define relative value of different harms, to different life forms, different people (age category, relative health and mobility, etc). For example, surgery involves infliction of limited harm with the purpose of repairing greater harm. But then plastic surgery would seem extremely contradictory to a computer unless it understood beauty, attractiveness, etc.
Take feline as a category. Computers can do categories reasonably well, but they lack understanding. What makes this feline vs. that canine? Humans can sort of explain it, but a lot of it is we just inherently pick up on it (despite the fact cats and dogs are members of the same general branch of mammals). Retractable claws seem the most direct path, but then you look at cheetahs. In the end, this lack of understanding is the key issue. Processing is what you have identified, and it is certainly part of the equation.
Until computers in some way "wake up", these laws are utterly useless as they are currently conceived. We need to have this ready, as we don't know how (and therefore when) such a thing will happen, but this, on its own, would just generate a false sense of security.
Here's the real problem: Utopian and Dystopian systems are going to use the same tools. The big divide between them will be motive and power. To illustrate, an app (really a giant AI in the background) providing alternative solutions that you can decide between could be Utopian. However, if the AI is programmed to consider the good of its creators above the good of its customers (individuals and the general society at large), this rapidly becomes Dystopian. The same is true if a political agenda outside of the consideration of individual/societal benefit is considered. And we have carefully avoided the notion of applying any generic rules to the development of AI.
We are in uncharted territory here, with private entities having this kind of information capabilities. It is nearly impossible to put the genie back in the bottle here, so we need to figure out how to control the genie, rather than it controlling us. As to how, I haven't a clue.
This method of avoiding a false positive could be improved by the following:
Two different machines testing
Machines must be from different manufacturers
Keep the delay and re-run mentioned
Reasonable doubt relies on the notion that we have minimized statistical chances of error. This regimen may be tedious, but we can make sure the innocent are not caught up with the guilty. But yeah, don't be drunk behind the wheel. I have a little sympathy for the person on the very edge of the range, but none beyond.
Why did you call him an asshole? He didn't say anything about driving drunk, and it's obviously assumed that everyone is talking about a situation where the driver is sober. But what do you do when a cop wants to test the sobriety? Don't we want to have DWI/DUI laws? If you have these laws, you need some way to investigate suspects. But impaling innocent people (yes, I'm using totally loaded language here, on purpose) is something most of us don't want.
So a whole game develops in the middle ground of uncertainty. Go too far one way, and you don't really have effective laws against drunk driving. Go too far the other way, and you're poking holes in innocent people to make them bleed. Breathalysers were a great compromise.. if only they hadn't tried to keep the inner workings a secret from the very society that judges the accused, thereby making them bullshit "evidence." FAIL.
Open up the breathalysers to auditing and maintenance and you'll have a useful technology. Just like we eventually determine with everything else that's important (e.g. the software in your desktop computer). Anything you can't audit, is bullshit.
Technically it's not a conviction. It is considered a violation of the terms of licensing. Under US law one cannot be convicted except by a jury (or judge if a jury is declined). In some states refusal is a separate crime, but again, not an automatic conviction.
Respectfully, this assertion is probably incorrect. Nociceptors are responsible for transmitting data from the body indicating damage, true. However, perception of pain takes place in the brain, and can in fact be experienced without exterior stimulation. Typically this results in some serious pain being experienced despite a lack of damage. Ask amputees. Now, usually, when the system is working it seems that the brain fills in data from multiple sources and derives that there is nothing wrong. However, without data coming in there is no source to double check. If this hypothesis is correct, who knows what you'd experience.
First, serif, sans-serif, and fixed width (which is also serif/sans-serif) works differently depending on whether it is hard copy or if it is on a pixelated screen. Generally, serif fonts work better on hard copy, sans-serif on screens. There are many theories as to why, but when I was learning typography, this was a thing.
Secondly, only fixed-width fonts benefit from double-spacing between sentences. Generally, after a sentence stop there is a greater visual space between the end of one word and the beginning of another.
I could also argue there's likely going to be questions as to demographics (likely primarily age of the reader), though this is speculative. To make matters worse, serif and sans-serif are not the only variables. Eyesight would likely correlate with age, but type of vision flaws could also have a major impact. Indeed, this could get phenomenally complicated quite quckly.
Finally, double spacing after a stop was only a rule for typewriters. It was never a grammatical rule.
For this study to be valid, it would need to account for the following variables, one way with single spacing, and separately with double spacing:
All of this is true. But at the same time, the theory is that if the data is only accessed/used by systems and not people, there are fewer ethical concerns. Note, I mean Facebook's theory. And to a limited degree this is likely true. Also, no matter how good the tools to avoid abuse are, this can and does happen everywhere sometimes. I don't see this as a newsworthy story, frankly. But here's the thing, and the potential problem with privacy in general: The services people want depend on their information being available to the service provider.
The Internet is new, social media is newer. We don't yet have this properly incorporated into our society. People forget the telephone itself took nearly two generations for that to happen. This is going to take some time, and smart legislation.
Admittedly, the article suggests a comatose state. However, imagine being in this state: No sensory input from any normal sources. The potential for the final state of the body to translate into a sensation of pain from any/all possible sources. I understand the goal here, and maybe at some point this would be a viable option. However, to me, this is kind of terrifying. The animal cruelty implications aren't minor, either.
Technically we've never found out. We know Marxism doesn't work, and that's because it always gets stuck at the part where leadership is supposed to surrender their power to the proletariat... Also, we've never had the means to put people in a more flexible state of work before.
You presume, however, that Socialism is the goal... It really isn't. The problem we face, at least potentially, is that Capitalism in its current form cannot persist in light of what appears to be coming. Even if it wasn't, Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism as a philosophy, never suggested it should be unregulated (quite the opposite, actually). So... If you have a better approach that prevents a return to some variation of serfdom, I suggest you start working on it. We're probably going to need it.
In all probability, for a given range of metabolisms, pasta is probably a healthy component in a well-rounded diet. This likely even goes for small amounts of junk food. Our ancestors developed the ability to consume the widest array of foods in the known animal kingdom. This suggests that our systems are best calibrated to for exactly that. Even further, the needs likely change slowly throughout our adult lives in more subtle ways than we might imagine.
There's no perfect diet. Diet is only one of several factors in health. I think we need to get the interested parties out of the science. Like, I have little doubt chocolate has health benefits, but I also have little doubt that it has negative health implications as well. Nothing in biochemistry is simple.
Oh, I did my taxes over a month ago. My theory is simple: You have until a particular date. Your ability to receive on that last date should not affect me, but rather you. Therefore, for those paying by this means, a one-day extension (assuming it's back up by the next day) should be enacted. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I think we established that, for reasons both fair and unfair, this cannot happen. And Bernie was already near the maximum age I was comfortable with electing to this office. Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand...
This misses the whole point that this system failed on the due date for a mandatory payment. It also misses the fact that a lot of people don't bother with having printed checks any longer. It even further misses the point that not everyone can just bail from work and run to the post office to get that postmark and still have a job. While we crack wise about cursive, they've been raised paperless by the same schlubbs that are giving them shit for being raised paperless.
I think the problem is misidentified in your comment, but in the details. The data publication is part of the peer review and publication process. It allows another specialist in the field to go over your study and its results, and attempt to replicate them. It also allows for discussion of conclusions. The "Abstract" is supposed to be the basic, plain language breakdown, including the conclusions. However, while you're right about the societal issue, there's a deeper one: All of the relatively easy science has been done. The questions are getting more complex. We're looking to more subtle phenomena to find more secrets of the way reality works.
The observations of physical phenomena that allow computers to work far exceeds the time of Newton (believed by many to be the last time one human could know the sum total of accumulated knowledge about nature). Fields are specialized, and "jargon/technobabble" are the layman's epithets for a field's shorthand that he/she doesn't get. Yes, we could likely simplify the law. Knowledge is not so readily boiled down. No one bats an eye at the odd uses of common words you find in the skilled trades, but everyone loses their shit when a scientist falls back on terms with precise meanings within their own fields.
NOTE: It was once common practice to include an attempt at a layperson's digest with a lot of papers, or at least publish it alongside the paper. This has gone away, which is a shame. However, when every such digest turns into Dunning-Kruger effect demonstration with the public, I would think it gets old. But a lot of the science being done now is beyond the limits of common understanding. Quantum computing, block chains, AMPS firewalls... It's hard to try to break that stuff down for the masses when the Flat Earthers are gaining ground!
From that perspective I can see it. However, there is the question of having large enough ordinance to cause sufficient damage to prevent the secondary nuclear charge from detonating. Without knowing the outer shell structure of the warheads, that's not the easiest thing.
This may be the case, but TPP is poorly constructed. VERY poorly constructed. This is one case where no deal would be better than a bad one. Especially where copyright law is concerned. And if signed and ratified, even Congress would be unable to change things locked by treaty.
Slashdot Mirror
True... But that's because we have an app for every stupid thing on mobile. Which both makes sense, and is infuriating. But PCs are hardly going away. It's just that Linux is great for some things, Windows for others. I have not run into anything that Macs are superior for in quite some time. iOS is limited by policy (and there are good reasons for this... Mostly tied to its user base methinks). Android, in most cases is superior overall for my needs, and most of the needs of those I know. I work in IT, and I can honestly say most of my coworkers despise iPhones.
It's going to sound odd, but incompetence can itself be conspiracy. This is a common result of appointing ideologues. Poor management breaks agencies when it is done purposefully. Give an agency a responsibility, then chip away at their enforcement powers and budget so their mission is impossible, then claim the money is wasted. Cut rules then claim this as the cause for more investment which was planned under the old rules. Fire competent people and replace with party-line soldiers who steer the boat into the reef. This is the way the game is played.
Linux? Sure. OS X? The relative number of applications available for OS X vs. Windows suggests this is, in fact, not the case.
All true. But to lead, one has to innovate, develop, and invent. Granted, there are certainly benefits to their approach (excluding the co-opting of IP), but in the end, it is ultimately self-limiting.
Which, in the long run, is less than helpful to them. If one subscribes to the premise that The Party wishes to lead their country to greatness, to being a superpower, if not THE superpower, then one must therefore assume they think this is a good idea. The psychology is simple, that they believe that their party is the only hope for this to happen. What they are missing is that the limitations on the exchange of ideas in the end limits their nation's potential. They think unity of purpose alone can lead them to their end goal, but they have missed a simple reality: Unity of purpose alone leads to the risk that, if they drive off a cliff, they do so as one.
As for humans, we can in the vast majority of cases, tell cat from dog (read feline from canine) from a single still image. Hyenas challenge this as they are technically more closely related to cats, but they are odd in many ways. But harm is a concept, not an object. This requires understanding, and again, we have no evidence any AI can even approximate actual understanding.
A lot of this is 100% on point. However, let's look at something more direct... Define harm. Then, define relative value of different harms, to different life forms, different people (age category, relative health and mobility, etc). For example, surgery involves infliction of limited harm with the purpose of repairing greater harm. But then plastic surgery would seem extremely contradictory to a computer unless it understood beauty, attractiveness, etc.
Take feline as a category. Computers can do categories reasonably well, but they lack understanding. What makes this feline vs. that canine? Humans can sort of explain it, but a lot of it is we just inherently pick up on it (despite the fact cats and dogs are members of the same general branch of mammals). Retractable claws seem the most direct path, but then you look at cheetahs. In the end, this lack of understanding is the key issue. Processing is what you have identified, and it is certainly part of the equation.
Until computers in some way "wake up", these laws are utterly useless as they are currently conceived. We need to have this ready, as we don't know how (and therefore when) such a thing will happen, but this, on its own, would just generate a false sense of security.
Here's the real problem: Utopian and Dystopian systems are going to use the same tools. The big divide between them will be motive and power. To illustrate, an app (really a giant AI in the background) providing alternative solutions that you can decide between could be Utopian. However, if the AI is programmed to consider the good of its creators above the good of its customers (individuals and the general society at large), this rapidly becomes Dystopian. The same is true if a political agenda outside of the consideration of individual/societal benefit is considered. And we have carefully avoided the notion of applying any generic rules to the development of AI.
We are in uncharted territory here, with private entities having this kind of information capabilities. It is nearly impossible to put the genie back in the bottle here, so we need to figure out how to control the genie, rather than it controlling us. As to how, I haven't a clue.
This method of avoiding a false positive could be improved by the following:
Reasonable doubt relies on the notion that we have minimized statistical chances of error. This regimen may be tedious, but we can make sure the innocent are not caught up with the guilty. But yeah, don't be drunk behind the wheel. I have a little sympathy for the person on the very edge of the range, but none beyond.
Why did you call him an asshole? He didn't say anything about driving drunk, and it's obviously assumed that everyone is talking about a situation where the driver is sober. But what do you do when a cop wants to test the sobriety? Don't we want to have DWI/DUI laws? If you have these laws, you need some way to investigate suspects. But impaling innocent people (yes, I'm using totally loaded language here, on purpose) is something most of us don't want.
So a whole game develops in the middle ground of uncertainty. Go too far one way, and you don't really have effective laws against drunk driving. Go too far the other way, and you're poking holes in innocent people to make them bleed. Breathalysers were a great compromise .. if only they hadn't tried to keep the inner workings a secret from the very society that judges the accused, thereby making them bullshit "evidence." FAIL.
Open up the breathalysers to auditing and maintenance and you'll have a useful technology. Just like we eventually determine with everything else that's important (e.g. the software in your desktop computer). Anything you can't audit, is bullshit.
This! So much this!
Technically it's not a conviction. It is considered a violation of the terms of licensing. Under US law one cannot be convicted except by a jury (or judge if a jury is declined). In some states refusal is a separate crime, but again, not an automatic conviction.
Respectfully, this assertion is probably incorrect. Nociceptors are responsible for transmitting data from the body indicating damage, true. However, perception of pain takes place in the brain, and can in fact be experienced without exterior stimulation. Typically this results in some serious pain being experienced despite a lack of damage. Ask amputees. Now, usually, when the system is working it seems that the brain fills in data from multiple sources and derives that there is nothing wrong. However, without data coming in there is no source to double check. If this hypothesis is correct, who knows what you'd experience.
Where to begin...
First, serif, sans-serif, and fixed width (which is also serif/sans-serif) works differently depending on whether it is hard copy or if it is on a pixelated screen. Generally, serif fonts work better on hard copy, sans-serif on screens. There are many theories as to why, but when I was learning typography, this was a thing.
Secondly, only fixed-width fonts benefit from double-spacing between sentences. Generally, after a sentence stop there is a greater visual space between the end of one word and the beginning of another.
I could also argue there's likely going to be questions as to demographics (likely primarily age of the reader), though this is speculative. To make matters worse, serif and sans-serif are not the only variables. Eyesight would likely correlate with age, but type of vision flaws could also have a major impact. Indeed, this could get phenomenally complicated quite quckly.
Finally, double spacing after a stop was only a rule for typewriters. It was never a grammatical rule.
For this study to be valid, it would need to account for the following variables, one way with single spacing, and separately with double spacing:
All of this is true. But at the same time, the theory is that if the data is only accessed/used by systems and not people, there are fewer ethical concerns. Note, I mean Facebook's theory. And to a limited degree this is likely true. Also, no matter how good the tools to avoid abuse are, this can and does happen everywhere sometimes. I don't see this as a newsworthy story, frankly. But here's the thing, and the potential problem with privacy in general: The services people want depend on their information being available to the service provider.
The Internet is new, social media is newer. We don't yet have this properly incorporated into our society. People forget the telephone itself took nearly two generations for that to happen. This is going to take some time, and smart legislation.
Admittedly, the article suggests a comatose state. However, imagine being in this state: No sensory input from any normal sources. The potential for the final state of the body to translate into a sensation of pain from any/all possible sources. I understand the goal here, and maybe at some point this would be a viable option. However, to me, this is kind of terrifying. The animal cruelty implications aren't minor, either.
Technically we've never found out. We know Marxism doesn't work, and that's because it always gets stuck at the part where leadership is supposed to surrender their power to the proletariat... Also, we've never had the means to put people in a more flexible state of work before.
You presume, however, that Socialism is the goal... It really isn't. The problem we face, at least potentially, is that Capitalism in its current form cannot persist in light of what appears to be coming. Even if it wasn't, Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism as a philosophy, never suggested it should be unregulated (quite the opposite, actually). So... If you have a better approach that prevents a return to some variation of serfdom, I suggest you start working on it. We're probably going to need it.
Yes. "Enquote" is a real word. As in, I enquoted "enquote". This could get real recursive, real quick.
My work here is done.
In all probability, for a given range of metabolisms, pasta is probably a healthy component in a well-rounded diet. This likely even goes for small amounts of junk food. Our ancestors developed the ability to consume the widest array of foods in the known animal kingdom. This suggests that our systems are best calibrated to for exactly that. Even further, the needs likely change slowly throughout our adult lives in more subtle ways than we might imagine.
There's no perfect diet. Diet is only one of several factors in health. I think we need to get the interested parties out of the science. Like, I have little doubt chocolate has health benefits, but I also have little doubt that it has negative health implications as well. Nothing in biochemistry is simple.
Oh, I did my taxes over a month ago. My theory is simple: You have until a particular date. Your ability to receive on that last date should not affect me, but rather you. Therefore, for those paying by this means, a one-day extension (assuming it's back up by the next day) should be enacted. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Um... No.
I think we established that, for reasons both fair and unfair, this cannot happen. And Bernie was already near the maximum age I was comfortable with electing to this office. Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand...
This misses the whole point that this system failed on the due date for a mandatory payment. It also misses the fact that a lot of people don't bother with having printed checks any longer. It even further misses the point that not everyone can just bail from work and run to the post office to get that postmark and still have a job. While we crack wise about cursive, they've been raised paperless by the same schlubbs that are giving them shit for being raised paperless.
I think the problem is misidentified in your comment, but in the details. The data publication is part of the peer review and publication process. It allows another specialist in the field to go over your study and its results, and attempt to replicate them. It also allows for discussion of conclusions. The "Abstract" is supposed to be the basic, plain language breakdown, including the conclusions. However, while you're right about the societal issue, there's a deeper one: All of the relatively easy science has been done. The questions are getting more complex. We're looking to more subtle phenomena to find more secrets of the way reality works.
The observations of physical phenomena that allow computers to work far exceeds the time of Newton (believed by many to be the last time one human could know the sum total of accumulated knowledge about nature). Fields are specialized, and "jargon/technobabble" are the layman's epithets for a field's shorthand that he/she doesn't get. Yes, we could likely simplify the law. Knowledge is not so readily boiled down. No one bats an eye at the odd uses of common words you find in the skilled trades, but everyone loses their shit when a scientist falls back on terms with precise meanings within their own fields.
NOTE: It was once common practice to include an attempt at a layperson's digest with a lot of papers, or at least publish it alongside the paper. This has gone away, which is a shame. However, when every such digest turns into Dunning-Kruger effect demonstration with the public, I would think it gets old. But a lot of the science being done now is beyond the limits of common understanding. Quantum computing, block chains, AMPS firewalls... It's hard to try to break that stuff down for the masses when the Flat Earthers are gaining ground!
From that perspective I can see it. However, there is the question of having large enough ordinance to cause sufficient damage to prevent the secondary nuclear charge from detonating. Without knowing the outer shell structure of the warheads, that's not the easiest thing.
One can only hope. On all points.
This may be the case, but TPP is poorly constructed. VERY poorly constructed. This is one case where no deal would be better than a bad one. Especially where copyright law is concerned. And if signed and ratified, even Congress would be unable to change things locked by treaty.