The terms of the TPA stipulate that when a deal is formally submitted to Congress, they must act within 90 legislative days. According to Politico, many expect Congress to vote on the bill either during the Summer of 2016 or in the lame-duck session after the 2016 elections.
There is still time to stop this corrupt giveaway of power to corporate interests, and a political campaign season is an excellent time to do it.
If Apple is not paying US taxes because they are parking revenue in Ireland, why should they care what the US dollar does? Or are they admitting that they are repatriating that money to the US? In that case, why aren't they paying tax on it?
I first saw Minsky give a presentation in 1973, at MIT. It was full of confident assertions that, as soon as we had sufficient CPU power, say by 1980 or so, we would have true AI. It was just around the corner and we would have to get used to its implications, etc.; all it would take would be a few megaflops and more RAM, and that was all improving rapidly.
This was not the last confident presentation I have heard from an AI researcher. It all gives me a certain skepticism about confident AI predictions.
"let's not forget that they [China] intentionally created a whole bunch of dangerous and unwanted space debris back in 2007 with an anti-satellite missile test. Nothing peaceful about blowing up satellites."
As in "no other country*1 would do that"?
*1 Except, of course, USA.
Well, the Soviet Union did it too. We and the Soviets at least had the taste to pick satellites orbiting closer to the atmosphere, so the debris wouldn't be around for a century or so.
You still need a couple security guards so someone is always on-site. Hardware repairs can be contracted out to Dell/HP/etc. And then your own techs only very occasionally need to stop by.
I have been to a lot of data centers with key card entry and no guard. Equinox always has a guard, but that's more security theater than anything else.
I have been in plenty of data centers and they are generally unmanned, especially after hours. Generally, if there is a person there, they are either a security guard, site manager or a local sales rep (i.e, they may be physically there, but they are not techs). Even if you have some sort of "warm hands" service (i.e., a guy you can call and get to push a button to restart your server), they will generally be offsite and will have to drive to your location. If there are techs around, it is likely to be because someone is doing a buildout or other work.
In other words, this sounds a lot like what EdgeConneX is proposing, so I am not sure what's supposed to be new here.
Only a fool or an idiot would think that the people who run things are going to allow themselves to be replaced by machinery. As almost all laws are written by lawyers, there really isn't anything more to say about this.
The Internet of Things (IOT) is being driven by commercial interests that are more interesting in spying (known in commercial circles as marketing) and in control. Benefits will accrue, but they will not accrue to the people paying for the gear, which makes the IOT value subtracting for the average citizen.
The condition for science is that it has to be testable in principle, NOT that it has to be testable within the limits of current technology. When Higgs came up with his theory there was no accelerator capable of testing it (although we did not know that at the time). So would that make the Higgs mechanism non-science until the 21st century when we built the LHC? Clearly not. So, unless String theory is completely untestable in principle, regardless of potential future technological advances, it is science albeit science which is currently impossible to test with current technology.
String theory is arguably not science not because it makes predictions we cannot test, but because it basically makes no predictions at all. Originally, when people realized the importance of 10-dimensional manifolds (i.e., of theories with 6 compact dimensions), there was a lot of excitement as people thought (and confidently said) that there would be one and only one suitable such manifold, which would have led to concrete (if maybe hard to test) predictions. But, now, there is a huge number (order 10^500) of such manifolds known, each basically allowing for a separate theory, and we have no idea which could be the right one.
Also, there is the pesky fact that predictions have been made about the foundations of string theory (that, for example, the LHC would detect the supersymmetric partners of existing particles), and they have not been born out by experiment,
Having said that, my personal feeling is that string theory is science, but science that is unlikely to be fruitful. Eventually, unless this changes, something else will come along, and it will cease to be the center of attention for theoretical physics.
Wanting to go see grandma does not equal wanting to get skin cancer and nowhere on an airline ticket does it say you will be forced to endure radiation
I don't like these scanners either, but please don't be an idiot. The amount of ionizing radiation you get from the scanner is radically smaller than the extra amount you are going to get from spending time in an aircraft at 38000 ft, or eating a banana.
That is certainly true if the software is working correctly, and keeping those rasters scanning. Can you verify that that is true for each machine you go through?
Slashdot Mirror
There is still time to stop this corrupt giveaway of power to corporate interests, and a political campaign season is an excellent time to do it.
There, I fixed your headline for you.
If Apple is not paying US taxes because they are parking revenue in Ireland, why should they care what the US dollar does? Or are they admitting that they are repatriating that money to the US? In that case, why aren't they paying tax on it?
I first saw Minsky give a presentation in 1973, at MIT. It was full of confident assertions that, as soon as we had sufficient CPU power, say by 1980 or so, we would have true AI. It was just around the corner and we would have to get used to its implications, etc.; all it would take would be a few megaflops and more RAM, and that was all improving rapidly.
This was not the last confident presentation I have heard from an AI researcher. It all gives me a certain skepticism about confident AI predictions.
I have to wonder if this isn't a path to telepathy, either natural or mediated by technology.
It's MKS (meters - kilogram - second). You got a problem with that?
Uh, we have the LRO, which can image any location on either side of the Moon with 10 cm resolution.
"let's not forget that they [China] intentionally created a whole bunch of dangerous and unwanted space debris back in 2007 with an anti-satellite missile test. Nothing peaceful about blowing up satellites."
As in "no other country*1 would do that"?
*1 Except, of course, USA.
Well, the Soviet Union did it too. We and the Soviets at least had the taste to pick satellites orbiting closer to the atmosphere, so the debris wouldn't be around for a century or so.
You still need a couple security guards so someone is always on-site. Hardware repairs can be contracted out to Dell/HP/etc. And then your own techs only very occasionally need to stop by.
I have been to a lot of data centers with key card entry and no guard. Equinox always has a guard, but that's more security theater than anything else.
now that the internet has been upgraded to a series of tubes i am not sure what AOL is doing any longer.
From all accounts, neither are they.
I have been in plenty of data centers and they are generally unmanned, especially after hours. Generally, if there is a person there, they are either a security guard, site manager or a local sales rep (i.e, they may be physically there, but they are not techs). Even if you have some sort of "warm hands" service (i.e., a guy you can call and get to push a button to restart your server), they will generally be offsite and will have to drive to your location. If there are techs around, it is likely to be because someone is doing a buildout or other work.
In other words, this sounds a lot like what EdgeConneX is proposing, so I am not sure what's supposed to be new here.
I hereby predict that Facebook will disappear before phone numbers.
Let's come back in 20 years and compare my track record with David Marcus's.
Is there any actual, normal person out there even faintly interested in this crap?
Yes, there is. Marketing at Amazon. They're coming for you, too, bro.
You have an interesting definition of normal, and for that matter, of actual.
the masses of asses who don't think beyond "ooh, shiny". They are clearly in the majority, just look around.
That may be true, but just who do you think configures their networks and sets up their devices?
Not.
Don't try bring any of this junk in a SCIF.
Only a fool or an idiot would think that the people who run things are going to allow themselves to be replaced by machinery. As almost all laws are written by lawyers, there really isn't anything more to say about this.
It is a shame that the best way to block this bad idea may be the gridlock in Congress.
The Internet of Things (IOT) is being driven by commercial interests that are more interesting in spying (known in commercial circles as marketing) and in control. Benefits will accrue, but they will not accrue to the people paying for the gear, which makes the IOT value subtracting for the average citizen.
The condition for science is that it has to be testable in principle, NOT that it has to be testable within the limits of current technology. When Higgs came up with his theory there was no accelerator capable of testing it (although we did not know that at the time). So would that make the Higgs mechanism non-science until the 21st century when we built the LHC? Clearly not. So, unless String theory is completely untestable in principle, regardless of potential future technological advances, it is science albeit science which is currently impossible to test with current technology.
String theory is arguably not science not because it makes predictions we cannot test, but because it basically makes no predictions at all. Originally, when people realized the importance of 10-dimensional manifolds (i.e., of theories with 6 compact dimensions), there was a lot of excitement as people thought (and confidently said) that there would be one and only one suitable such manifold, which would have led to concrete (if maybe hard to test) predictions. But, now, there is a huge number (order 10^500) of such manifolds known, each basically allowing for a separate theory, and we have no idea which could be the right one.
Also, there is the pesky fact that predictions have been made about the foundations of string theory (that, for example, the LHC would detect the supersymmetric partners of existing particles), and they have not been born out by experiment,
Having said that, my personal feeling is that string theory is science, but science that is unlikely to be fruitful. Eventually, unless this changes, something else will come along, and it will cease to be the center of attention for theoretical physics.
No. Nothing in our times matches the stupidity of the climate change deniers.
I'd rather not be irradiated in the first place.
And please indicate where these are at all effective.
They were quite effective in getting Michael Chertoff consulting and lobbying income, which is their only true purpose.
Wanting to go see grandma does not equal wanting to get skin cancer and nowhere on an airline ticket does it say you will be forced to endure radiation
I don't like these scanners either, but please don't be an idiot. The amount of ionizing radiation you get from the scanner is radically smaller than the extra amount you are going to get from spending time in an aircraft at 38000 ft, or eating a banana.
That is certainly true if the software is working correctly, and keeping those rasters scanning. Can you verify that that is true for each machine you go through?
It's not like there is a lot of experimental evidence here, one way or the other.
Really. To paraphrase FDR, "the thing we really have to fear is fear itself."
I am just going to leave it at that.