3b: Attempt to leave the airport naked to show that you're not carrying any weapons, you don't care about being seen naked, and that you're standing on principle.
That's my problem with this hypocrisy -- that it's somehow okay for government to force your exposure through technological means without a warrant or explicit consent as long as nobody else sees. That's like saying it's okay to peer through someone's window as long as they don't know you're watching, when in reality, you're only avoiding the *consequences*. Likewise the government is trying to avoid the consequences of their otherwise illegal behavior by claiming that nobody else sees the images, so there's no harm, ignoring the fact that harm isn't a prerequisite for a crime having occurred, and hasn't been for quite some time now.
I think it's exceedingly unlikely that humans are non-deterministic, but I also believe it's irrelevant.
First, here's why I think it's unlikely: There is very little evidence that conscious behavior is random (and mounds of evidence to the contrary), and even less evidence that "random" unconscious behavior is a truly random rather than pseudorandom (unpredictable but deterministic). To distinguish the two requires repeatability; something which is currently impossible in measuring human behavior due to the complexity of variables and our inability to control for them. Think of it like dropping a leaf -- its trajectory will be subject to innumerable variables and parts thereof, including wind speed, air flow over its surface, orientation upon release, and any momentum imparted by the release itself. As such, its fall will be unpredictable, but only due to lack of data, not lack of determinism. Start controlling for variables by, say, dropping it in a vacuum, and the results become much more predictable.
Since all behavior at the macroscopic level is deterministic (and by behavior, I mean physical processes, and by physical processes I mean anything other than "supernatural" events), then the extraordinary claim that humans are non-deterministic requires extraordinary evidence IMO, which has certainly not been met by any study I'm aware of, and would certainly be front-page news if it existed. As such, assuming that the brain is deterministic, then any variables which can be defined and measured can be also replicated or simulated. It may well be that human consciousness is the result of much more than simply the mechanical structure of neurons (and I believe that's highly likely, the same way a video game is more than the structure of the components in your system), but complexity is not randomness, no matter how similar they appear.
Finally, the reason it doesn't matter whether or not randomness is an issue is that any system could be designed to include randomness if it's found to be relevant. Randomness is unpredictable (non-deterministic), but its influence can still be measured and its effects and limits can be quantified. For example, a random error could cause an improper bank transfer, but the limits to that error are whatever the maximal values are for the computers involved. The effects would be an unexpected balance change, and they are easily quantifiable and, since banks don't like errors, correctable. But there's no physical imperative that they be corrected, strictly speaking. We could simply allow for randomness in banking if we so decided. I suspect that we won't value randomness in consciousness simulation/replication, but if we do, it's easy enough to add.
If Comcast cut all connections to Level3, comcast customers would still be able to reach Netflix just fine...
Would they? I thought they were moving their content servers to Level 3 exclusively?
Comcast would be able to use other routes to Level3.
Potentially, assuming Level 3 didn't decide to drop all packets originating from Comcast IPs.
Regardless, the point remains that Level 3 provides access to content providers, Comcast provides access to content consumers, and each gets to charge its customers. That's a pretty equitable arrangement by most standards.
Of course it's physical -- what else would it be? What else *could* it be? The problem is that brains don't have JTAGs, and so it's quite difficult to tap all the inputs and outputs to run reproducible experiments, particularly while keeping the brain alive and functional. Add to that the fact that no two brains are identical, and you've really got your work cut out for you. The reason it's so easy to reverse engineer a chip (relatively speaking) is that one is an exact duplicate and representative of all others of its kind. This almost definitely does not hold true for brains except in a very generalized sense.
So you're bound to your brain. You cannot live forever unless your particular, specific, physical brain stays in tact.
When you load a saved game, do you say "Wait a minute, this isn't the exact same game I was playing?!?" or do you just pick up where you left off? It's the same principle. No, it's not the same instance of you, but it's still you, and you're still in the exact same state as you were when you were saved [wow, unfortunate word choice Christians], assuming a flawless copy with perfect fidelity. From the perspective of the artificial brain, it would still be your consciousness, continued from the moment you stepped into the brain scanning machine (or whatever). It's essentially irrelevant that "you" aren't running on your old hardware, except that obviously your new experiences would be substantially different than your old. It would change you, but so does any other significant life experience, so that's rather moot -- your consciousness is still your consciousness.
For what it's worth, I used to think this scenario was likely when I was a kid, but now I'd be extremely (though pleasantly) surprised if we see anything close in our lifetimes. There's nothing on the horizon that even approaches the ability to map the physical structure of a brain, let alone the contents stored within. We don't even understand how knowledge is physically stored, so we're a long, long way away from copying brains to machines.
I think Moore's law is becoming increasingly pointless to most of the world. It talks about speed
It doesn't actually talk about speed at all; it talks about the cost of manufacturing chips of 2^n density where n increments every 18-24 months cost remains constant. It is, in fact, exactly what you go on to say is relevant despite the fact that what you're describing IS Moore's Law exactly.
Toyota produces a lot morehybrids than just the Prius, so either all of their hybrids are loss leaders or, more likely, they're not really losing money on hybrid sales at all.
Equitable isn't necessarily measured in bytes in each direction. In this case, the equity is the ability for Comcast customers to access Netflix (and other sites that route through Level 3). The only way this wouldn't be seen as an equitable arrangement by a network dominated by end-users, with traffic overwhelmingly flowing in one direction, was if Comcast had some sort of competitive offering with a quirky name that starts with an X.
Whether it is directly in the form of higher internet prices, or indirectly through Netflix in the form of higher subscription fees; I see very little difference.
Seeing as I'm not a Netflix customer, I see a big difference.
I just download the torrents... much simpler that way. Of course that's just for shows I forget to record.
On the DVR it takes about 3-4 seconds to skip an entire commercial break. Even with some sloppiness/rewind action, that's maybe 30 seconds per hour-long show, 60 seconds tops; far faster than editing.
If I cared about archiving anything on TV, I might do some editing, but I'd probably just resort to Blu-Ray rips from "the cloud," as it were.
The Pentagon Papers actually brought a story to light, while these leaked cables are pretty much "meh." I'm not saying Assange did or didn't do anything wrong, but there's a much more compelling case to be made when an entire government conspiracy is revealed vice revealing a few letters from diplomats confirming things we already knew in less than diplomatic language. At least that's how it stands thus far... perhaps further releases will reveal something more sinister, although I'd be surprised since a) one would expect such documents, if they exist, to be released first, and b) Assange is already hyping the next release regarding some bank, essentially implying that the show is over as far as the cables go.
Agreed, I've had excellent results for Avast. I only wish they'd update their managed client and ADNM (which was rather crap to begin with) to version 5.
Interesting, but an account is a contract, and contracts cannot be continued by a non-living person, nor can they be transferred unless the contract explicitly makes allowances for that. For example, one may have a contract of employment with his employer, but the executor/principle certainly cannot become the new employee in your stead.
I suspect this law will be ruled invalid should it ever be tested in court.
Sure, but the examples you give -- debts, children, and burial -- are your (or someone's) legal obligation. Accounts are neither obligations nor rights, so then what are they? The only other possibility is that it's an asset. In fact, a cursory Google search appears to confirm that this law asserts just that.
As an aside, children are a notable exception, in that if there are no surviving parents or guardians, then the decision is ultimately up to a judge. You will may be considered, but the best interest of the child will always prevail (theoretically).
So I don't think it's as simple as you make it out to be, and I will be interested to see how this plays out.
More interestingly (to me, since I'm not dead (yet)), if an account is part of an estate in death, then how does that affect its status in life? Is it *my* property? And if so, what rights do I have to it beyond what Facebook provides in the license agreement? And if it's not my property in life, then how can it possibly be part of my estate in death?
Slashdot Mirror
Thinking is hard.
3b: Attempt to leave the airport naked to show that you're not carrying any weapons, you don't care about being seen naked, and that you're standing on principle.
That's my problem with this hypocrisy -- that it's somehow okay for government to force your exposure through technological means without a warrant or explicit consent as long as nobody else sees. That's like saying it's okay to peer through someone's window as long as they don't know you're watching, when in reality, you're only avoiding the *consequences*. Likewise the government is trying to avoid the consequences of their otherwise illegal behavior by claiming that nobody else sees the images, so there's no harm, ignoring the fact that harm isn't a prerequisite for a crime having occurred, and hasn't been for quite some time now.
I think it's exceedingly unlikely that humans are non-deterministic, but I also believe it's irrelevant.
First, here's why I think it's unlikely: There is very little evidence that conscious behavior is random (and mounds of evidence to the contrary), and even less evidence that "random" unconscious behavior is a truly random rather than pseudorandom (unpredictable but deterministic). To distinguish the two requires repeatability; something which is currently impossible in measuring human behavior due to the complexity of variables and our inability to control for them. Think of it like dropping a leaf -- its trajectory will be subject to innumerable variables and parts thereof, including wind speed, air flow over its surface, orientation upon release, and any momentum imparted by the release itself. As such, its fall will be unpredictable, but only due to lack of data, not lack of determinism. Start controlling for variables by, say, dropping it in a vacuum, and the results become much more predictable.
Since all behavior at the macroscopic level is deterministic (and by behavior, I mean physical processes, and by physical processes I mean anything other than "supernatural" events), then the extraordinary claim that humans are non-deterministic requires extraordinary evidence IMO, which has certainly not been met by any study I'm aware of, and would certainly be front-page news if it existed. As such, assuming that the brain is deterministic, then any variables which can be defined and measured can be also replicated or simulated. It may well be that human consciousness is the result of much more than simply the mechanical structure of neurons (and I believe that's highly likely, the same way a video game is more than the structure of the components in your system), but complexity is not randomness, no matter how similar they appear.
Finally, the reason it doesn't matter whether or not randomness is an issue is that any system could be designed to include randomness if it's found to be relevant. Randomness is unpredictable (non-deterministic), but its influence can still be measured and its effects and limits can be quantified. For example, a random error could cause an improper bank transfer, but the limits to that error are whatever the maximal values are for the computers involved. The effects would be an unexpected balance change, and they are easily quantifiable and, since banks don't like errors, correctable. But there's no physical imperative that they be corrected, strictly speaking. We could simply allow for randomness in banking if we so decided. I suspect that we won't value randomness in consciousness simulation/replication, but if we do, it's easy enough to add.
The DoD is hardly an ideal model of security. I'll leave it at that.
If Comcast cut all connections to Level3, comcast customers would still be able to reach Netflix just fine...
Would they? I thought they were moving their content servers to Level 3 exclusively?
Comcast would be able to use other routes to Level3.
Potentially, assuming Level 3 didn't decide to drop all packets originating from Comcast IPs.
Regardless, the point remains that Level 3 provides access to content providers, Comcast provides access to content consumers, and each gets to charge its customers. That's a pretty equitable arrangement by most standards.
This is the program I wrote in 5th grade. I replaced the computer twice, the monitor 3x, and now it runs in an emulator.
In my view consciousness is non-physical.
Of course it's physical -- what else would it be? What else *could* it be? The problem is that brains don't have JTAGs, and so it's quite difficult to tap all the inputs and outputs to run reproducible experiments, particularly while keeping the brain alive and functional. Add to that the fact that no two brains are identical, and you've really got your work cut out for you. The reason it's so easy to reverse engineer a chip (relatively speaking) is that one is an exact duplicate and representative of all others of its kind. This almost definitely does not hold true for brains except in a very generalized sense.
So you're bound to your brain. You cannot live forever unless your particular, specific, physical brain stays in tact.
When you load a saved game, do you say "Wait a minute, this isn't the exact same game I was playing?!?" or do you just pick up where you left off? It's the same principle. No, it's not the same instance of you, but it's still you, and you're still in the exact same state as you were when you were saved [wow, unfortunate word choice Christians], assuming a flawless copy with perfect fidelity. From the perspective of the artificial brain, it would still be your consciousness, continued from the moment you stepped into the brain scanning machine (or whatever). It's essentially irrelevant that "you" aren't running on your old hardware, except that obviously your new experiences would be substantially different than your old. It would change you, but so does any other significant life experience, so that's rather moot -- your consciousness is still your consciousness.
For what it's worth, I used to think this scenario was likely when I was a kid, but now I'd be extremely (though pleasantly) surprised if we see anything close in our lifetimes. There's nothing on the horizon that even approaches the ability to map the physical structure of a brain, let alone the contents stored within. We don't even understand how knowledge is physically stored, so we're a long, long way away from copying brains to machines.
goodluckwiththatsir
I think Moore's law is becoming increasingly pointless to most of the world. It talks about speed
It doesn't actually talk about speed at all; it talks about the cost of manufacturing chips of 2^n density where n increments every 18-24 months cost remains constant. It is, in fact, exactly what you go on to say is relevant despite the fact that what you're describing IS Moore's Law exactly.
Toyota produces a lot more hybrids than just the Prius, so either all of their hybrids are loss leaders or, more likely, they're not really losing money on hybrid sales at all.
Gosh, if only the FBI had more than two agents!
Equitable isn't necessarily measured in bytes in each direction. In this case, the equity is the ability for Comcast customers to access Netflix (and other sites that route through Level 3). The only way this wouldn't be seen as an equitable arrangement by a network dominated by end-users, with traffic overwhelmingly flowing in one direction, was if Comcast had some sort of competitive offering with a quirky name that starts with an X.
Whether it is directly in the form of higher internet prices, or indirectly through Netflix in the form of higher subscription fees; I see very little difference.
Seeing as I'm not a Netflix customer, I see a big difference.
Yes, but now Comcast will lower your bill!
I just download the torrents... much simpler that way. Of course that's just for shows I forget to record.
On the DVR it takes about 3-4 seconds to skip an entire commercial break. Even with some sloppiness/rewind action, that's maybe 30 seconds per hour-long show, 60 seconds tops; far faster than editing.
If I cared about archiving anything on TV, I might do some editing, but I'd probably just resort to Blu-Ray rips from "the cloud," as it were.
I've taught mine to shut her whore mouth when Billy Mays is talking.
The Pentagon Papers actually brought a story to light, while these leaked cables are pretty much "meh." I'm not saying Assange did or didn't do anything wrong, but there's a much more compelling case to be made when an entire government conspiracy is revealed vice revealing a few letters from diplomats confirming things we already knew in less than diplomatic language. At least that's how it stands thus far... perhaps further releases will reveal something more sinister, although I'd be surprised since a) one would expect such documents, if they exist, to be released first, and b) Assange is already hyping the next release regarding some bank, essentially implying that the show is over as far as the cables go.
Don't accept shampoo, demand the real thing!
Perhaps it should be pronounced NAY-SAY, and maybe spelled that way too.
Agreed, I've had excellent results for Avast. I only wish they'd update their managed client and ADNM (which was rather crap to begin with) to version 5.
Interesting, but an account is a contract, and contracts cannot be continued by a non-living person, nor can they be transferred unless the contract explicitly makes allowances for that. For example, one may have a contract of employment with his employer, but the executor/principle certainly cannot become the new employee in your stead.
I suspect this law will be ruled invalid should it ever be tested in court.
Sure, but the examples you give -- debts, children, and burial -- are your (or someone's) legal obligation. Accounts are neither obligations nor rights, so then what are they? The only other possibility is that it's an asset. In fact, a cursory Google search appears to confirm that this law asserts just that.
As an aside, children are a notable exception, in that if there are no surviving parents or guardians, then the decision is ultimately up to a judge. You will may be considered, but the best interest of the child will always prevail (theoretically).
So I don't think it's as simple as you make it out to be, and I will be interested to see how this plays out.
More interestingly (to me, since I'm not dead (yet)), if an account is part of an estate in death, then how does that affect its status in life? Is it *my* property? And if so, what rights do I have to it beyond what Facebook provides in the license agreement? And if it's not my property in life, then how can it possibly be part of my estate in death?
That they apparently have people in Oklahoma, or that they have internet access!