I invite an individual into my house. They start talking about how having sex with minors is perfectly okay and shouldn't be against the law, how it should be accepted as 'normal' and 'natural' by society in general, and that anyone who disagrees with them is a prude and is totally wrong. Furthermore they infer that they've had sex with underage children and you thought it was great. I'm completely and utterly opposed to all of this, it's all completely wrong so far as I'm concerned, and I tell this person they have to leave, immediately.
Using your logic, I shouldn't have the right to tell them to leave, even though it's my house and they're a guest.
It's Googles' house, and those people were guests. Google told them "GTFO" because it's against their rules.
A private company is not bound by the Constitution in the same way that the Government is. The Government may have to put up with jackasses like that speaking their minds (so long as they aren't breaking any laws, that is) but a private company like Google or Go Daddy doesn't have to.
No, I'm sorry, but you don't understand the concepts involved, and apparently think they're some sort of 'magic' that 'just happens'. You can't write computer code for something you don't understand, we don't understand how our own brains work, any PhD researching the human brain will tell you that, and that's what you don't understand. You can expand IBM's Watson supercomputer to a hundred times it's capacity and it's still not going to magically 'wake up' and start being sentient. All of the 'advancements' you're hyping in the first part of your comment are going down a technological dead-end; there is no 'Mycroft' from The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress at the end of that. First we have to understand how our own brains produce the phenomenon they do. Then we'll have a shot at building machines that can also do that.
What you said, plus this:
The real 'threat' of so-called (inappropriately named, mind you) 'AI'? People believing it's like a 'person in a box' or somesuch nonsense; thinking it's actually sentient, conscious, self-aware, and that it can actually think, but for some reason doesn't talk to us. In other words, expecting way too much out of it because they believe the media hype and the words of authority figures (government officials, politicians, etc) who are technologically ignorant and therefore don't know what the hell they're talking about either. The fact of the matter is, your dog is more conscious, self-aware, and thinking (capable of true cognition) than any so-called 'AI' currently is, and there's no timeline I've ever seen or heard about that says we'll ever have any machine capable of those things, either. After all, we don't even begin to understand how it is that our own flesh brains are capable of things like consciousness, self-awareness, or 'creative thought', humor, and so on -- and there's no timeline for when we'll understand the mechanics behind those things, either. Every so-called 'machine intelligence' we have today is just a pale imitation of those traits. Again: your dog has a better understanding of humans than any machine does. People will inevitably trust machines too much, with disasterous results.
I'm mostly surprised that the owner of the drone is free and able to speak to the press, instead of being shuffled off to a blacksite somewhere, held in locked windowless room, and subjected to 'enhanced interrogation' to get him to confess his ties to some extremist group or other, while they trash his home sift through his life, and destroy his reputation with everyone he knows by pulling them all in for questioning.
I think with a little bit of ingenuity you could actually hijack that frequency especially since it transmits a constant tone. A competing signal could, I think, be used to modulate it, piggybacking other information on it.
Of course it would be. Otherwise citizens could make a very valid argument that the government isn't doing a very good job. Even if some people have to die or be emotionally scarred for life, the health and well-being of the Party is more important than any single individual.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The technology is being rushed to market by companies more interested in profit than safety, and politicians, beaurocrats, and the general public, none of which understand the technology in question, all think they're going to get "K.I.T.T." from the 80's TV series Knight Rider, not some half-assed piece of software with less cognitive capability than the family dog.
No matter. You're clearly and objectively wrong, I am right, and there will not be any 'self driving cars' with ZERO controls for a human driver, not in our lifetime, and not until there is fully human-level, REAL AI, not the half-assed thing they have now -- and that's the way it needs to be whether you like it or not. This is not TV, this is not the movies, your robotic English butler ain't driving you to work while you sip your Earl Grey. You'll be driving yourself the rest of your life, deal with it.
Or slightly less dystopian than that, but not by much. Imagine this:
You get your car insurance bill. The premium went up a sizeable amount for no apparent reason. You call them up and ask why, since you have no tickets or accidents. They tell you "You're at risk for driving under the influence so we had to raise your rates". You ask them, how they came to that conclusion? "We see you go to such-and-such bar two or three times a week." How the hell do you know that? "it's from the GPS data on your smartphone"
Pry the steering wheel from my cold, dead fingers. You will NOT take away MY CHOICES. Go be a slave if you like, I'll have none of it -- and neither will the majority of people.
I'd rather trust trained, tested, experienced human pilots, who can and are held accountable for their actions, than JUST some half-assed so-called improperly named 'artificial intelligence' that doesn't even have the reasoning ability of a dog, and since it's not self-aware and has no sense of self preservation or any emotions whatsoever, by definition doesn't even have the capability to give a damn whether it -- and the human passengers -- live or die. Their so-called 'AI' has no 'skin in the game', as the saying goes, and neither does the programmer who wrote it. The plane goes down and everyone dies, *he* gets to live.
Except it doesn't work that way, vis-a-vis the planet Venus; there is a point at which the trend goes into a runaway condition, even if human civilization magically ceased to exist.
On the one hand they want to ruin encryption, spy on everyone on the internet, censor the living hell out of everything, and there's no end to how many cameras they install all over the place. On the other hand there's this. Make up your mind, UK.
Why does the FCC hate the American people so much?
Oh no Citizen, you misunderstand! The FCC loves the American people! Because the Telecoms hoover money out of their pockets for overpriced underperforming Internet connectivity, and they put that money right into Ajit Pai's pocket! The FCC wouldn't be able to make their yacht payments without the American people!
It's a spy world, it's a spy world
It's a spy world, it's a spy world
It's a world of data, a world of tears
It's a world of ads and a world of fears
There's so much that we share, that it's time we're aware
It's a spy world after all
(Everybody now) it's a spy world after all, it's a spy world after all
(Everybody now) it's a spy world after all, it's a spy, spy, spy, spy world
The systems don't have to be perfect, they just have to be better, and the bar is not very high.
I keep hearing this 'argument', but let me tell you why it's irrelevant: self driving cars, especially ones with no controls for a human, take away our right to CHOICE. This is ALL ABOUT CHOICE. When you CANNOT control the vehicle you're travelling in, YOU NO LONGER HAVE ANY CHOICE. That is UNACCEPTABLE. I -- and most people, whether they have realized it yet or not -- will NOT TOLERATE having their choices taken away. IT IS HUMAN NATURE. Let me give you some examples of groups of people who have NO CHOICES in their lives: Convicts in prison. Small children. Mental institution patients. Kidnap victims. Hostages. Are you getting the idea?
No one will go for a box on wheels that has NO CONTROLS for a human driver. IT MUST HAVE THEM. There MUST BE a way to control the vehicle yourself. Voice control is not enough. A big red "STOP" button is not enough. Even if you ignore the FACT that so-called 'self driving cars' will NEVER be able to handle 100% of situations it encounters (and therefore, again, there MUST BE CONTROLS FOR A HUMAN DRIVER!) people will NOT TOLERATE something they can't control, that if it goes haywire can KILL THEM. Never. Ever. Anyone that says otherwise either doesn't understand, or has something wrong with them, that they LIKE having no control over their destiny.
A crystal AM radio receiver doesn't need to operate multiple microprocessors, graphics engines, audio processors, and last but not least, a transmitter capable of reaching a cell tower miles away.
My point exactly. So-called 'machine learning' doesn't actually think. Your dog has better cognitive capability. This 'technology' is being rushed way too quickly to market.
Sure. But how is it that we (the U.S.) or ANYONE ELSE on this planet should put up with them waving their nuclear dick around and demanding things? It's not like they're 'horribly misunderstood' or anything, they're complete and utter assholes and nobody actually likes them, not even China.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider this:
I invite an individual into my house. They start talking about how having sex with minors is perfectly okay and shouldn't be against the law, how it should be accepted as 'normal' and 'natural' by society in general, and that anyone who disagrees with them is a prude and is totally wrong. Furthermore they infer that they've had sex with underage children and you thought it was great. I'm completely and utterly opposed to all of this, it's all completely wrong so far as I'm concerned, and I tell this person they have to leave, immediately.
Using your logic, I shouldn't have the right to tell them to leave, even though it's my house and they're a guest.
It's Googles' house, and those people were guests. Google told them "GTFO" because it's against their rules.
A private company is not bound by the Constitution in the same way that the Government is. The Government may have to put up with jackasses like that speaking their minds (so long as they aren't breaking any laws, that is) but a private company like Google or Go Daddy doesn't have to.
No, I'm sorry, but you don't understand the concepts involved, and apparently think they're some sort of 'magic' that 'just happens'. You can't write computer code for something you don't understand, we don't understand how our own brains work, any PhD researching the human brain will tell you that, and that's what you don't understand. You can expand IBM's Watson supercomputer to a hundred times it's capacity and it's still not going to magically 'wake up' and start being sentient. All of the 'advancements' you're hyping in the first part of your comment are going down a technological dead-end; there is no 'Mycroft' from The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress at the end of that. First we have to understand how our own brains produce the phenomenon they do. Then we'll have a shot at building machines that can also do that.
What you said, plus this:
The real 'threat' of so-called (inappropriately named, mind you) 'AI'? People believing it's like a 'person in a box' or somesuch nonsense; thinking it's actually sentient, conscious, self-aware, and that it can actually think, but for some reason doesn't talk to us. In other words, expecting way too much out of it because they believe the media hype and the words of authority figures (government officials, politicians, etc) who are technologically ignorant and therefore don't know what the hell they're talking about either. The fact of the matter is, your dog is more conscious, self-aware, and thinking (capable of true cognition) than any so-called 'AI' currently is, and there's no timeline I've ever seen or heard about that says we'll ever have any machine capable of those things, either. After all, we don't even begin to understand how it is that our own flesh brains are capable of things like consciousness, self-awareness, or 'creative thought', humor, and so on -- and there's no timeline for when we'll understand the mechanics behind those things, either. Every so-called 'machine intelligence' we have today is just a pale imitation of those traits. Again: your dog has a better understanding of humans than any machine does. People will inevitably trust machines too much, with disasterous results.
I just threw up in my mouth a little. The POLITE thing to do is to warn people before you link to something like that, you sonofabitch.
I'm mostly surprised that the owner of the drone is free and able to speak to the press, instead of being shuffled off to a blacksite somewhere, held in locked windowless room, and subjected to 'enhanced interrogation' to get him to confess his ties to some extremist group or other, while they trash his home sift through his life, and destroy his reputation with everyone he knows by pulling them all in for questioning.
I think with a little bit of ingenuity you could actually hijack that frequency especially since it transmits a constant tone. A competing signal could, I think, be used to modulate it, piggybacking other information on it.
Of course it would be. Otherwise citizens could make a very valid argument that the government isn't doing a very good job. Even if some people have to die or be emotionally scarred for life, the health and well-being of the Party is more important than any single individual.
I agree with your evaluation.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The technology is being rushed to market by companies more interested in profit than safety, and politicians, beaurocrats, and the general public, none of which understand the technology in question, all think they're going to get "K.I.T.T." from the 80's TV series Knight Rider, not some half-assed piece of software with less cognitive capability than the family dog.
No matter. You're clearly and objectively wrong, I am right, and there will not be any 'self driving cars' with ZERO controls for a human driver, not in our lifetime, and not until there is fully human-level, REAL AI, not the half-assed thing they have now -- and that's the way it needs to be whether you like it or not. This is not TV, this is not the movies, your robotic English butler ain't driving you to work while you sip your Earl Grey. You'll be driving yourself the rest of your life, deal with it.
You get your car insurance bill. The premium went up a sizeable amount for no apparent reason. You call them up and ask why, since you have no tickets or accidents. They tell you "You're at risk for driving under the influence so we had to raise your rates". You ask them, how they came to that conclusion? "We see you go to such-and-such bar two or three times a week." How the hell do you know that? "it's from the GPS data on your smartphone"
Pry the steering wheel from my cold, dead fingers. You will NOT take away MY CHOICES. Go be a slave if you like, I'll have none of it -- and neither will the majority of people.
I'd rather trust trained, tested, experienced human pilots, who can and are held accountable for their actions, than JUST some half-assed so-called improperly named 'artificial intelligence' that doesn't even have the reasoning ability of a dog, and since it's not self-aware and has no sense of self preservation or any emotions whatsoever, by definition doesn't even have the capability to give a damn whether it -- and the human passengers -- live or die. Their so-called 'AI' has no 'skin in the game', as the saying goes, and neither does the programmer who wrote it. The plane goes down and everyone dies, *he* gets to live.
'Datamining'. Think 'Mickey Mouse Club' theme song.
This is a filked/satirized version of "it's A Small World".
Except it doesn't work that way, vis-a-vis the planet Venus; there is a point at which the trend goes into a runaway condition, even if human civilization magically ceased to exist.
On the one hand they want to ruin encryption, spy on everyone on the internet, censor the living hell out of everything, and there's no end to how many cameras they install all over the place. On the other hand there's this. Make up your mind, UK.
Why does the FCC hate the American people so much?
Oh no Citizen, you misunderstand! The FCC loves the American people! Because the Telecoms hoover money out of their pockets for overpriced underperforming Internet connectivity, and they put that money right into Ajit Pai's pocket! The FCC wouldn't be able to make their yacht payments without the American people!
It's a spy world, it's a spy world
It's a spy world, it's a spy world
It's a world of data, a world of tears
It's a world of ads and a world of fears
There's so much that we share, that it's time we're aware
It's a spy world after all
(Everybody now) it's a spy world after all, it's a spy world after all
(Everybody now) it's a spy world after all, it's a spy, spy, spy, spy world
The systems don't have to be perfect, they just have to be better, and the bar is not very high.
I keep hearing this 'argument', but let me tell you why it's irrelevant: self driving cars, especially ones with no controls for a human, take away our right to CHOICE. This is ALL ABOUT CHOICE. When you CANNOT control the vehicle you're travelling in, YOU NO LONGER HAVE ANY CHOICE. That is UNACCEPTABLE. I -- and most people, whether they have realized it yet or not -- will NOT TOLERATE having their choices taken away. IT IS HUMAN NATURE. Let me give you some examples of groups of people who have NO CHOICES in their lives: Convicts in prison. Small children. Mental institution patients. Kidnap victims. Hostages. Are you getting the idea?
No one will go for a box on wheels that has NO CONTROLS for a human driver. IT MUST HAVE THEM. There MUST BE a way to control the vehicle yourself. Voice control is not enough. A big red "STOP" button is not enough. Even if you ignore the FACT that so-called 'self driving cars' will NEVER be able to handle 100% of situations it encounters (and therefore, again, there MUST BE CONTROLS FOR A HUMAN DRIVER!) people will NOT TOLERATE something they can't control, that if it goes haywire can KILL THEM. Never. Ever. Anyone that says otherwise either doesn't understand, or has something wrong with them, that they LIKE having no control over their destiny.
Why don't they just plug an outlet strip into itself, then plug the phone charger into that? Infinte power! xD xD xD
That's what this reminds me of: Troll Physics memes.
A crystal AM radio receiver doesn't need to operate multiple microprocessors, graphics engines, audio processors, and last but not least, a transmitter capable of reaching a cell tower miles away.
TANSTAAFL
My point exactly. So-called 'machine learning' doesn't actually think. Your dog has better cognitive capability. This 'technology' is being rushed way too quickly to market.
https://slashdot.org/submissio...
Isn't that one of the states that love him, bigly ?
You're very obviously not a U.S. citizen. California is a Blue state (Democrat).
Sure. But how is it that we (the U.S.) or ANYONE ELSE on this planet should put up with them waving their nuclear dick around and demanding things? It's not like they're 'horribly misunderstood' or anything, they're complete and utter assholes and nobody actually likes them, not even China.