No, France didn't "stick to their guns" becuase they knew they were "right" (debatable), they did it because Chirac is still in TotalFinaElf's back pocket.
Insinuate all you want about Halliburton, but George Bush isn't the one holding on to his presidency to postpone some corruption trials.
"the fact remains that gaming on dial-up is excruciatingly slow"
This is a software problem, not a hardware one. I'm sure many of us can remember a time when 14.4 kbps was more than fast enough to play games on to your heart's content. So long as game writers are letting their code bloat to the point of requiring broadband, they'll still be screwing themselves out of the vast majority of the people on-line.
First off, neurons can and do behave the way they do because of the "quantum mechanical phenomena" you dismiss, just as transistors do. I don't think we can write them off so easily when, if we didn't know about them, we wouldn't even build the computers we're having this discussion on, let alone the subject AI.
Secondly, it seems you're saying that a sufficiently "elevated" intelligence can predict what a "lesser" life form can do with 100% certainty. To prove that, though, you're going to have to demonstrate it, and I don't think you can do that (at least not yet). Our species is about as intelligent as you're going to find on this planet, but even we can't predict what single living cells are going to do at any given moment with that kind of certainty. If we were, cancer wouldn't be such a problem for us.
And your requirement of a "real-time simulation" is curious, because that suggests that we would be able to predict even a fellow human's behavior at a particular moment with 100% precision if we were simply given enough time. We've had several thousand years of recorded history. Are we any closer to understanding people living in ancient Mesopotamia better than our next-door neighbors?
"However, there are untrainably mentally handicapped people who can not communicate with others, much less handle taking care of themselves."
Actually, since they are incapable of understanding the oath, they're prohibited from becoming naturalized citizens (short of a specific act of Congress for the individual). If an AI is capable of understanding the oath, it could be argued that they should have the same rights as all humans (citizens or not) in the US.
"where it takes a trial to put someone who is severely mentally handicapped under government custody."
The trial is required to demonstrate that the person in question is far enough below average to require the special circumstances (we more or less assume that everybody can function in society, etc. etc.). I think you can view the AI's trial as trying to demonstrate that the machine is that far above average, requiring special treatment by the state. When AIs of this calibur become the norm, then I think it would be the time to assume that all machines that look/function/perform in a certain way are all considered sentient.
"Unfortunately, your reference to article XI is WILDLY out of any context. This ONLY refers to defense appropriations by the governor."
Its only context is that of the powers of the governor's office. The "for the necessary defence and support of the commonwealth; and for the protection and preservation of the inhabitants thereof" part doesn't mean "only defense spending" any more than "the people have a right to alter the government," means "armed insurrection." Why else would the governor have to sign the yearly budgets?
"I guess maybe it ISN'T the governors responsibility to act as the judiciary?"
Civics 101: It is the judiciary's responsibility to interpret the law. Law enforcement is the role of the executive. Judges can't tell the police how to do their job, only whether or not what the police are doing is actually legal.
"However, more saliently, having the governor of MA usurp the rights of state and federal judiciaries is probably WORSE than MS"
Outside of things like, say, the Fourteenth Amendment, Massachusetts and federal courts (especially not the federal courts) have no say in what the commonwealth's budget looks like. Or are you forgetting your previous reference to "checks and balances?"
"Okay, I hope next he bans MA from purchasing anything made by those goddamn jews. After all, that's his perogative!"
Nice straw man. Not only would that run afowl of commonwealth and federal guarantees for freedom of worship, he isn't dictating policy for the entire commonwealth (or even the entire commonwealth government). His decision in specific and his power in general don't extend outside of his department.
"I like to live in a country where the fundamentals of our constitution are broken for petty values,"
OK, you obviously saw the links I had to the Massachusetts Constitution, and copies of the federal constitution are easy enough to come by. Exactly what parts are being violated here? For example, you say that he's trying to exercise power delegated to the judiciary. Which specific articles did you have in mind?
"Nonetheless, having a policy that subjugates the rights of the constituency for ulterior motives probably sets a dangerous precedent."
What rights? Whose rights? The governor still has the power to replace him, and the voters still have the power to replace the governor. He's not giving himself any more money to spend, so he's not stepping on the legislature's toes. The only "harm" he's doing to Microsoft is not giving them more money, so I fail to see how this steps on the judiciary's toes (or does Microsoft have a right to his department's money?). His decision is clearly based on Microsoft's procedures and policies, so it can't be argued that he's hampering Microsoft's civil liberties. What have I left out?
"I reread it and can't find anything that might give you that opinion."
The "taxpayer money" and "competitive bidding" parts.
"It would be worth 10 trillion dollars of government money to you so that no one has to download a free MS Word document viewer?"
Here is another example of you equating "cost" with "price tag." Requiring a download from Microsoft may not cost any money, but it still costs civil liberties
Microsoft's Word format is a black box, legally if not technologically. Requiring laws to be published in Word format gives Microsoft ultimate control over how those laws are viewed and interpreted, and by whom (especially as new DRM policies are implemented in the format). Requiring voters to download a free (beer) Word viewer means that their government is open to public scrutiny and review only by Microsoft's good graces. Other than Microsoft's say-so, what assurance is there that the text in the Word document I'm reading is actually the same text that was passed by the legislature? Consider your answer before dismissing this as Orwellian paranoia.
Free and open access to government by the constituency is one of the cornerstones upon which modern republicanism is built. Closed standards in government by their very nature inhibit public review and discourse, because you can't complain about what you aren't allowed to see. They abridge the freedom of speech.
You wanted to know what I would pay to avoid putting unnecessary restrictions on access to government? I would pay with my life. What dollar amount that's worth I'll let you decide for yourself.
From here, it would seem the governor of the Massachusetts has a role in punishing illegal behavior as well as overseeing the commonwealth's spending practices, and has had it since at least 25 October 1780.
"I hope history has shown that robber baron monopolies can't stand,"
Just the opposite: history has shown that robber barons will continue to persist and fester unless and until government ensures free and fair access to the market. There is no reason to believe Vanderbilt's Standard Oil, for example, wouldn't continue to own the oil market to this day without the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
"but I don't want Eric Kreiss as the judge, jury and executioner."
Secretary Kriss, as an appointee by the governor, can dictate his department's spending practices however he damn well pleases (and the commonwealth's Information Technology Division is a part of his department). Otherwise, what would be the point in having the office to begin with?
"Further, allowing this sets a dangerous precedent."
Allowing government officers to manage their own departments by their own discretion is a "dangerous precedent?" Huh?
What alternatives did you have in mind? Athenian democracy? Should we have Kriss drink some hemlock?
"what's to stop MS from convincing other state governments from mandating MS?"
The fact that this isn't a mandate; it's a decree. There are no campaigns to donate to or voters to buy as far as this policy is concerned, just the secretary's discretion. The worst Microsoft could do is buy a new governor, and even then the new governor would have to have a better reason to replace Kriss than "out-of-state money told me to." Especially since the commonwealth's attorney general is independent of the governor.
"Is your example an example of cost? Hmm, doesn't seem to be."
Judging from your original post, "cost" to you is synonymous with "price tag." Hence my use of the words "cheaper" and "more expensive."
"Maybe it's an example of benefit? Hold on, it sounds like you might be getting somewhere."
The benefit is access to government, something generally not associated with price tags (unless you're a die-hard cynical Marxist). It's also something that rarely gets mentioned in the competitive bids you referred to earlier.
"Is this functionality you describe worth 10 million dollars? What about 10 billion? 10 trillion?"
None of the above. I'm not one that feels that a price tag could (or should) be associated with free ("as in speech") access to government, and there is only one choice that is acceptable in a republican form of government.
"My contention is that total cost v. total benefit should be the primary consideration."
Except that there are more important things in government than how much something costs.
Let's say your state is like most and maintains an online database of legislation, past and present. As a concerned voter, you would like to see what your elected representatives are up to. What would you rather have: A more expensive solution that lets you review bills in an open format (plaintext, PostScript, etc.) or a cheaper solution that requires all curious voters to have Office XP?
Just wait unilt the release date. After Wind Waker was released and they started to pack the first bonus disk in with the consoles, they also bundled it with a Nintendo Power subscription at their online store. So even if they don't make it a pre-order gimmick for Four Swords GCN, you'll still be able to get it.
I'm currently putting off a few other orders from their store until this comes out (mmm... SNES s-video...).
" But blowing up a few satellites hardly constitutes a 'major' war, merely an important part of it."
No, ASAT constitutes a major war in and of itself. Essentially, there are only two ways to destroy a satellite:
From space - Space-based weaponry are outright prohibited by Outer Space Treaty of 1967. Consider that not even WMD are carte blanche prohibited in this fashion. Most countries that have even the smallest presence in space will view a space-based ASAT attack as something along the lines of "total war" and will reflexively respond in kind. *
From the ground - Generally, this would involve weapons riding up on something that looks an awful lot like an ICBM. NORAD would only have a few minutes to determine if the missile's intended target is in orbit or on the ground before coordinating their response. If there's even a chance that a hostile blip on a ballistic arc over North America could be aiming at a ground-based target, rest assured that thermonuclear missiles will be launched in response.
* Because I know somebody will bring it up: Yes, the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty. No, it did not violate the ABM Treaty. The US withdrew from the treaty using the rules for withdrawal spelled out by said treaty when the NMD project was about to enter legal gray areas. Orders of magnitude less signifigant than what we're discussing here. If you're trying to find something to compare a suprise use of space-based weaponry to, pretend the DPRK kept quiet about their nuclear program until Seoul, Yokosuka and Fairbanks were vaporized.
Slashdot Mirror
"Sure, it may take a few hours to count all the votes,"
Two words: scan tron.
Is it still illegal electioneering if the pop-up server is housed at least 600 feet away from the nearest polling place?
"1) Why were such people allowed to run the plant?"
From each, according to their ability to bullshit; to each, according to their pary membership.
Or, in terms people around here understand: In Soviet Ukraine, incompetent workers fire you!
"2) What prevents such people from running other plants?"
Other people that are allowed to complain about them.
"Available in red, purple, pink, sky blue, and glow-in-the-dark green."
Bah! All you early adopters can pre-order now, but I'm going to wait for them to offer a Cherenkov Blue version.
Where's the Cowboy Neal option you insensitive clods?!
"Doesn't it seem interesting that they were are all the stereotypical, most well known weasels?"
Kinda hard for people to vote for choices they don't know.
Unless, of course, they're using a Diebold voting machine
<RIMSHOT/>
No, France didn't "stick to their guns" becuase they knew they were "right" (debatable), they did it because Chirac is still in TotalFinaElf's back pocket.
Insinuate all you want about Halliburton, but George Bush isn't the one holding on to his presidency to postpone some corruption trials.
"Reassuring PR is Stage Two; remember that Stage One is silence your critics."
No, stage one is "collect underpants!" Everybody knows that! Sheesh!
Wake me up when they bring back the NS Savannah.
Are you a citizen of your state? Are you over the age of 25? Run against him next year.
"the fact remains that gaming on dial-up is excruciatingly slow"
This is a software problem, not a hardware one. I'm sure many of us can remember a time when 14.4 kbps was more than fast enough to play games on to your heart's content. So long as game writers are letting their code bloat to the point of requiring broadband, they'll still be screwing themselves out of the vast majority of the people on-line.
"This would mark the eighth installment"
So this would make it number 9, right?
LSL 4 kicked so much ass...
First off, neurons can and do behave the way they do because of the "quantum mechanical phenomena" you dismiss, just as transistors do. I don't think we can write them off so easily when, if we didn't know about them, we wouldn't even build the computers we're having this discussion on, let alone the subject AI.
Secondly, it seems you're saying that a sufficiently "elevated" intelligence can predict what a "lesser" life form can do with 100% certainty. To prove that, though, you're going to have to demonstrate it, and I don't think you can do that (at least not yet). Our species is about as intelligent as you're going to find on this planet, but even we can't predict what single living cells are going to do at any given moment with that kind of certainty. If we were, cancer wouldn't be such a problem for us.
And your requirement of a "real-time simulation" is curious, because that suggests that we would be able to predict even a fellow human's behavior at a particular moment with 100% precision if we were simply given enough time. We've had several thousand years of recorded history. Are we any closer to understanding people living in ancient Mesopotamia better than our next-door neighbors?
"However, there are untrainably mentally handicapped people who can not communicate with others, much less handle taking care of themselves."
Actually, since they are incapable of understanding the oath, they're prohibited from becoming naturalized citizens (short of a specific act of Congress for the individual). If an AI is capable of understanding the oath, it could be argued that they should have the same rights as all humans (citizens or not) in the US.
"where it takes a trial to put someone who is severely mentally handicapped under government custody."
The trial is required to demonstrate that the person in question is far enough below average to require the special circumstances (we more or less assume that everybody can function in society, etc. etc.). I think you can view the AI's trial as trying to demonstrate that the machine is that far above average, requiring special treatment by the state. When AIs of this calibur become the norm, then I think it would be the time to assume that all machines that look/function/perform in a certain way are all considered sentient.
"Unfortunately, your reference to article XI is WILDLY out of any context. This ONLY refers to defense appropriations by the governor."
Its only context is that of the powers of the governor's office. The "for the necessary defence and support of the commonwealth; and for the protection and preservation of the inhabitants thereof" part doesn't mean "only defense spending" any more than "the people have a right to alter the government," means "armed insurrection." Why else would the governor have to sign the yearly budgets?
"I guess maybe it ISN'T the governors responsibility to act as the judiciary?"
Civics 101: It is the judiciary's responsibility to interpret the law. Law enforcement is the role of the executive. Judges can't tell the police how to do their job, only whether or not what the police are doing is actually legal.
"However, more saliently, having the governor of MA usurp the rights of state and federal judiciaries is probably WORSE than MS"
Outside of things like, say, the Fourteenth Amendment, Massachusetts and federal courts (especially not the federal courts) have no say in what the commonwealth's budget looks like. Or are you forgetting your previous reference to "checks and balances?"
"Okay, I hope next he bans MA from purchasing anything made by those goddamn jews. After all, that's his perogative!"
Nice straw man. Not only would that run afowl of commonwealth and federal guarantees for freedom of worship, he isn't dictating policy for the entire commonwealth (or even the entire commonwealth government). His decision in specific and his power in general don't extend outside of his department.
"I like to live in a country where the fundamentals of our constitution are broken for petty values,"
OK, you obviously saw the links I had to the Massachusetts Constitution, and copies of the federal constitution are easy enough to come by. Exactly what parts are being violated here? For example, you say that he's trying to exercise power delegated to the judiciary. Which specific articles did you have in mind?
"Nonetheless, having a policy that subjugates the rights of the constituency for ulterior motives probably sets a dangerous precedent."
What rights? Whose rights? The governor still has the power to replace him, and the voters still have the power to replace the governor. He's not giving himself any more money to spend, so he's not stepping on the legislature's toes. The only "harm" he's doing to Microsoft is not giving them more money, so I fail to see how this steps on the judiciary's toes (or does Microsoft have a right to his department's money?). His decision is clearly based on Microsoft's procedures and policies, so it can't be argued that he's hampering Microsoft's civil liberties. What have I left out?
"I reread it and can't find anything that might give you that opinion."
The "taxpayer money" and "competitive bidding" parts.
"It would be worth 10 trillion dollars of government money to you so that no one has to download a free MS Word document viewer?"
Here is another example of you equating "cost" with "price tag." Requiring a download from Microsoft may not cost any money, but it still costs civil liberties
Microsoft's Word format is a black box, legally if not technologically. Requiring laws to be published in Word format gives Microsoft ultimate control over how those laws are viewed and interpreted, and by whom (especially as new DRM policies are implemented in the format). Requiring voters to download a free (beer) Word viewer means that their government is open to public scrutiny and review only by Microsoft's good graces. Other than Microsoft's say-so, what assurance is there that the text in the Word document I'm reading is actually the same text that was passed by the legislature? Consider your answer before dismissing this as Orwellian paranoia.
Free and open access to government by the constituency is one of the cornerstones upon which modern republicanism is built. Closed standards in government by their very nature inhibit public review and discourse, because you can't complain about what you aren't allowed to see. They abridge the freedom of speech.
You wanted to know what I would pay to avoid putting unnecessary restrictions on access to government? I would pay with my life. What dollar amount that's worth I'll let you decide for yourself.
From here, it would seem the governor of the Massachusetts has a role in punishing illegal behavior as well as overseeing the commonwealth's spending practices, and has had it since at least 25 October 1780.
"I hope history has shown that robber baron monopolies can't stand,"
Just the opposite: history has shown that robber barons will continue to persist and fester unless and until government ensures free and fair access to the market. There is no reason to believe Vanderbilt's Standard Oil, for example, wouldn't continue to own the oil market to this day without the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
"but I don't want Eric Kreiss as the judge, jury and executioner."
Secretary Kriss, as an appointee by the governor, can dictate his department's spending practices however he damn well pleases (and the commonwealth's Information Technology Division is a part of his department). Otherwise, what would be the point in having the office to begin with?
"Further, allowing this sets a dangerous precedent."
Allowing government officers to manage their own departments by their own discretion is a "dangerous precedent?" Huh?
What alternatives did you have in mind? Athenian democracy? Should we have Kriss drink some hemlock?
"what's to stop MS from convincing other state governments from mandating MS?"
The fact that this isn't a mandate; it's a decree. There are no campaigns to donate to or voters to buy as far as this policy is concerned, just the secretary's discretion. The worst Microsoft could do is buy a new governor, and even then the new governor would have to have a better reason to replace Kriss than "out-of-state money told me to." Especially since the commonwealth's attorney general is independent of the governor.
"Is your example an example of cost? Hmm, doesn't seem to be."
Judging from your original post, "cost" to you is synonymous with "price tag." Hence my use of the words "cheaper" and "more expensive."
"Maybe it's an example of benefit? Hold on, it sounds like you might be getting somewhere."
The benefit is access to government, something generally not associated with price tags (unless you're a die-hard cynical Marxist). It's also something that rarely gets mentioned in the competitive bids you referred to earlier.
"Is this functionality you describe worth 10 million dollars? What about 10 billion? 10 trillion?"
None of the above. I'm not one that feels that a price tag could (or should) be associated with free ("as in speech") access to government, and there is only one choice that is acceptable in a republican form of government.
"Unless you're mad as a hatter(...)"
So be it.
"My contention is that total cost v. total benefit should be the primary consideration."
Except that there are more important things in government than how much something costs.
Let's say your state is like most and maintains an online database of legislation, past and present. As a concerned voter, you would like to see what your elected representatives are up to. What would you rather have: A more expensive solution that lets you review bills in an open format (plaintext, PostScript, etc.) or a cheaper solution that requires all curious voters to have Office XP?
Just wait unilt the release date. After Wind Waker was released and they started to pack the first bonus disk in with the consoles, they also bundled it with a Nintendo Power subscription at their online store. So even if they don't make it a pre-order gimmick for Four Swords GCN, you'll still be able to get it.
I'm currently putting off a few other orders from their store until this comes out (mmm... SNES s-video...).
" When is everyone going to figure out that everything in 1984 isn't coming true?"
1 January 1985.
No, ASAT constitutes a major war in and of itself. Essentially, there are only two ways to destroy a satellite:
- From space - Space-based weaponry are outright prohibited by Outer Space Treaty of 1967. Consider that not even WMD are carte blanche prohibited in this fashion. Most countries that have even the smallest presence in space will view a space-based ASAT attack as something along the lines of "total war" and will reflexively respond in kind. *
- From the ground - Generally, this would involve weapons riding up on something that looks an awful lot like an ICBM. NORAD would only have a few minutes to determine if the missile's intended target is in orbit or on the ground before coordinating their response. If there's even a chance that a hostile blip on a ballistic arc over North America could be aiming at a ground-based target, rest assured that thermonuclear missiles will be launched in response.
* Because I know somebody will bring it up: Yes, the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty. No, it did not violate the ABM Treaty. The US withdrew from the treaty using the rules for withdrawal spelled out by said treaty when the NMD project was about to enter legal gray areas. Orders of magnitude less signifigant than what we're discussing here. If you're trying to find something to compare a suprise use of space-based weaponry to, pretend the DPRK kept quiet about their nuclear program until Seoul, Yokosuka and Fairbanks were vaporized.Nova on PBS does more with a few hours a week than the Science Channel is able to do with seven whole day's worth of programming.
Nah, they just couldn't find the allen wrench so they just gave up.
Will I be able to use it to dump Famicom/NES ROMs through a GBA dumper?