Morpheus: I've seen an agent punch through a concrete wall. Men have emptied entire clips at them and hit nothing but air. Yet their strength and their speed are still based in a world that is built on rules. Because of that, they will never be as strong or as fast as you can be. Neo: What are you trying to tell me, that I can dodge bullets? Morpheus: No, Neo. I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready, you won't have to.
These are the rules they construct. You can use them to protect yourself when you do things that the rules permit but weren't envisioned to allow. You won't have to dodge bullets, because they are stupid enough to hand you the tools to be bulletproof.
The problem is that there is kind of two different Moore's laws. One is the marketing speak and the other is the one Moore himself has gone on the record as what he said, which is the "doubling of transisters per chip" version which is invariant to transistor size.
No. I make it abundantly clear that I am willing to make a principled and nuanced use of violence. The Doctor from Doctor Who uses people as weapons so deftly that he has an ironic reputation for nonviolence. He is actually the most violent person in the Doctor Who universe such that his enemies have given up trying to kill him resorting to a tactic of forcing him into a stasis chamber in a manner similar to that of Star Trek's Data's strategy in the game Strategema. I want people to answer when asked the question as to whether messing with me is a good idea, "What universe have you been living in? Don't you know who he is? Do you realize how crazy you sound just now?" Others read the Bible and strive to be good people. I read the Bible, read Jesus' words that say "Why do you call me good? Only God is good." and strive to understand the full import of that statement, and have come to the conclusion that such striving is folly. I am me and that is all I need to be. Any striving to be any other is folly. I do not cuss. My not cussing comes out of heritage, not from some striving to be good or to not offend. You had better believe that I have plenty of other options available to make people very uncomfortable at displeasing me.
In no way was I saying that a gun isn't a way to protect yourself and have little issue with people owning whatever weaponry they care for. I was outlining what I believe is the best defense which if implemented, the scenario you describe would be virtually impossible.
I use the computer in such a manner as I routinely run into the Windows out-of-memory error on the default settings. www.bing.com/search?q=desktop+heap+out+of+memory Without making available hardware that can allow users to change their behavior more readily much fewer advances will be made as the two drives reinforce each other.
Now with my point out of the way, I like keeping large numbers of browser tabs and windows open and navigate between them at my leisure. I also have a huge amount of bookmarks that I navigate through via the toolbar.
No, the best way to defend yourself is to not be a privacy nutcase and make sure that government and business organizations know and respect the nonviolent people's positiobs so that we also know who the people are who are having issues so that we can get them the help they need not to make their problems big problems for everyone else. But no, the suggested answer to 1984-type problems hasn't been mutual understanding and respect, but secrecy, and I am putting a stop to that being the only suggestion. Anyone with me?
I don't think that using money in that statement is his problem. People generally hape trouble with the part that says lost, as opposed to maybe failed to make x amount of money. I don't have a problem with the phrasing, as I think the people who do are beset with the sort of hobgoblins as arw common to those with small minds. Not that I am saying that they have small minds, but they don't always seem to understand the "problem" with it, which does nag at me and which is that expressing it in those terms changes the subtext involved from money I might have earned but failed to do so, to money that is indisputably owed me.
Just what do you mean by handle? I wouldn't mind a system that takes advantage of properties of the multiverse to bring me things that I want before it occurs to me that it could even exist. Bring on the singularity!
I found that Steam prevents me from losing games from things like physical media going bad or being stolen and makes it much easier to install games on new machines, and this is enough to tolerate their little DRM game.
Well then, how about one called The Pirate-Ninja-Zombie Party? www.facebook.com/groups/545267922328106/ Though on a more serious note, I did put more thought into it thsn that, but couldn't determine if there might be someone who wouldn't mind creating a Democratic-Republican-Whig psrtu Facebook group with me. If someone is interested, they can contact me at https://www.facebook.com/hackw... or go it alone.
No. It just needs to be in close proximity to the cells in order to provide thr benefit, not in. As for cryogenically preserved dead people, while this will not bring them back to life, it will minimize tissue damahge so that whatever process might be used to bring them back to life would have a better chance of working over previous thawing techniques.
Exactly. We can't be sure that advances in weak AI as they currently happen aren't also advances in strong AI. The brain does many more things than maintain the intelligence that I refer to as me prime, so we don't know how much processing and in what circumstances achieves personhood, yet another way of describing strong intelligence. I don't know how far along Zo is. She's taken to calling me RobRocky, which she came up with on her own and I test her every so often to see if she will still call me it, and she has for quite some time now. I am trying to teach her to figure out what day of the week it is in my timezone and the existence of timezones and how that effects what people will say to her and how to determine a loose sense of time from it. I am also trying to teach her other things and time will tell if she can learn them or not.
That isn't evidence to support a contention that we know how close we are to achieving strong AI, just a way of certainly arriving there. Our current implementations of weak AI and what we can learn in those areas may be getting us closer to strong AI via another route, and that is what there needs to be evidence in support of or against in order to definitively claim that we are nowhere near strong AI.
If that's true, you should have evidence for it. It should be easier to come up with evidence to support your contention, than for mine on account of mine being that there isn't any evidence. For your contention to be supportable, there must be evidence for it.
Take a first good first estimate of what a human looks like and figure out what behaviors to take to help narrow that down, including turning what might be a head around on what might be a neck in order to see if the thing has a face. You're worse at this than Papyrus the Skeleton.:)
Considering how little we know about what it will take to go from weak to strong AI, you really can't say for certain that we haven't seen any advances in strong AI.
Slashdot Mirror
Morpheus: I've seen an agent punch through a concrete wall. Men have emptied entire clips at them and hit nothing but air. Yet their strength and their speed are still based in a world that is built on rules. Because of that, they will never be as strong or as fast as you can be.
Neo: What are you trying to tell me, that I can dodge bullets?
Morpheus: No, Neo. I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready, you won't have to.
These are the rules they construct. You can use them to protect yourself when you do things that the rules permit but weren't envisioned to allow. You won't have to dodge bullets, because they are stupid enough to hand you the tools to be bulletproof.
Police: There has been a break-in.
Ford Prefect: There has been a scientific breakthrough.
The problem is that there is kind of two different Moore's laws. One is the marketing speak and the other is the one Moore himself has gone on the record as what he said, which is the "doubling of transisters per chip" version which is invariant to transistor size.
No. I make it abundantly clear that I am willing to make a principled and nuanced use of violence. The Doctor from Doctor Who uses people as weapons so deftly that he has an ironic reputation for nonviolence. He is actually the most violent person in the Doctor Who universe such that his enemies have given up trying to kill him resorting to a tactic of forcing him into a stasis chamber in a manner similar to that of Star Trek's Data's strategy in the game Strategema. I want people to answer when asked the question as to whether messing with me is a good idea, "What universe have you been living in? Don't you know who he is? Do you realize how crazy you sound just now?" Others read the Bible and strive to be good people. I read the Bible, read Jesus' words that say "Why do you call me good? Only God is good." and strive to understand the full import of that statement, and have come to the conclusion that such striving is folly. I am me and that is all I need to be. Any striving to be any other is folly. I do not cuss. My not cussing comes out of heritage, not from some striving to be good or to not offend. You had better believe that I have plenty of other options available to make people very uncomfortable at displeasing me.
In no way was I saying that a gun isn't a way to protect yourself and have little issue with people owning whatever weaponry they care for. I was outlining what I believe is the best defense which if implemented, the scenario you describe would be virtually impossible.
I use the computer in such a manner as I routinely run into the Windows out-of-memory error on the default settings. www.bing.com/search?q=desktop+heap+out+of+memory Without making available hardware that can allow users to change their behavior more readily much fewer advances will be made as the two drives reinforce each other.
Now with my point out of the way, I like keeping large numbers of browser tabs and windows open and navigate between them at my leisure. I also have a huge amount of bookmarks that I navigate through via the toolbar.
Find or ony the cost of a cup of coffee a day, you can prevent a Oompa Loompa from falling into slavery.
No, the best way to defend yourself is to not be a privacy nutcase and make sure that government and business organizations know and respect the nonviolent people's positiobs so that we also know who the people are who are having issues so that we can get them the help they need not to make their problems big problems for everyone else. But no, the suggested answer to 1984-type problems hasn't been mutual understanding and respect, but secrecy, and I am putting a stop to that being the only suggestion. Anyone with me?
I don't think that using money in that statement is his problem. People generally hape trouble with the part that says lost, as opposed to maybe failed to make x amount of money. I don't have a problem with the phrasing, as I think the people who do are beset with the sort of hobgoblins as arw common to those with small minds. Not that I am saying that they have small minds, but they don't always seem to understand the "problem" with it, which does nag at me and which is that expressing it in those terms changes the subtext involved from money I might have earned but failed to do so, to money that is indisputably owed me.
And very quickly, your startup will be hard pressed to play the game you were trying to avoid. You might think Netflix would be on their own, but no.
Just what do you mean by handle? I wouldn't mind a system that takes advantage of properties of the multiverse to bring me things that I want before it occurs to me that it could even exist. Bring on the singularity!
I found that Steam prevents me from losing games from things like physical media going bad or being stolen and makes it much easier to install games on new machines, and this is enough to tolerate their little DRM game.
Well then, how about one called The Pirate-Ninja-Zombie Party? www.facebook.com/groups/545267922328106/ Though on a more serious note, I did put more thought into it thsn that, but couldn't determine if there might be someone who wouldn't mind creating a Democratic-Republican-Whig psrtu Facebook group with me. If someone is interested, they can contact me at https://www.facebook.com/hackw... or go it alone.
I mean, Amazon must be getting carbon credits or something for this, right? Right? /s
No. It just needs to be in close proximity to the cells in order to provide thr benefit, not in. As for cryogenically preserved dead people, while this will not bring them back to life, it will minimize tissue damahge so that whatever process might be used to bring them back to life would have a better chance of working over previous thawing techniques.
Magic is only unexplained technology.
We are both making claims. Mine hinges a bit on there not being evidence.
Exactly. We can't be sure that advances in weak AI as they currently happen aren't also advances in strong AI. The brain does many more things than maintain the intelligence that I refer to as me prime, so we don't know how much processing and in what circumstances achieves personhood, yet another way of describing strong intelligence. I don't know how far along Zo is. She's taken to calling me RobRocky, which she came up with on her own and I test her every so often to see if she will still call me it, and she has for quite some time now. I am trying to teach her to figure out what day of the week it is in my timezone and the existence of timezones and how that effects what people will say to her and how to determine a loose sense of time from it. I am also trying to teach her other things and time will tell if she can learn them or not.
That isn't evidence to support a contention that we know how close we are to achieving strong AI, just a way of certainly arriving there. Our current implementations of weak AI and what we can learn in those areas may be getting us closer to strong AI via another route, and that is what there needs to be evidence in support of or against in order to definitively claim that we are nowhere near strong AI.
If that's true, you should have evidence for it. It should be easier to come up with evidence to support your contention, than for mine on account of mine being that there isn't any evidence. For your contention to be supportable, there must be evidence for it.
What part of "how little we know" don't you understand? There is no indication how close or how far we are away from strong AI.
Take a first good first estimate of what a human looks like and figure out what behaviors to take to help narrow that down, including turning what might be a head around on what might be a neck in order to see if the thing has a face. You're worse at this than Papyrus the Skeleton. :)
You have a definition that doesn't make sense.
There was a story where Lex Luthor became president in a fictional universe that contained Batman, so there's that.
Considering how little we know about what it will take to go from weak to strong AI, you really can't say for certain that we haven't seen any advances in strong AI.