"It notes that Google has been involved in 14 of such incidents"
14 of _which_ such incidents? I mean, i can make a pretty good guess, but if i were to read the blurb without any context i might think this is the 14th time Google has passed a million miles or something.
I keep phone, keys, and pocket knife in one pocket, and wallet and comb in the other. Of course i also have a soft case i put my phone in before putting it in my pocket to protect it.
Also, i have zero idea of what pocket anyone else in my crowd keeps their phone in. Is that really something you pay attention to?
She fucked up the Middle East? You mean there was some point prior to Hillary coming along where the Middle East was unfucked up? When was that exactly?
I don't know about you but i've been worried about war with China since the 90s, and it was only that late because that's when i first learned the history of the region. Taiwan has been a ticking political time bomb since the 50s, and there was a big uptick in the potential for conflict when the Taiwan Relation Act was passed in 1979, after Nixon and well before Hillary came around.
The First and Second Taiwan Strait Crisises happened in the 50s. The Third happened in 95 and 96. In addition to that in 1951 China "peacefully liberated" Tibet, they've been trying to claim part of India, and there's some Japanese territory they want too. And of course they've never really stopped propping up North Korea.
If you think China's belligerence is some new thing that Hillary is responsible for you're the one who hasn't been paying attention to history.
I certainly don't think Hillary has been perfect, (Benghazi was certainly a fuck-up, even if it wasn't a crime) but you seem to believe in some prior perfect state of international affairs that i don't seem to recall.
And finally, according to the Hillary haters she's been negotiating the trade of political favors for cash, she's been using leverage on the FBI and Congress to get away with treasonous activity, and she's been orchestrating unprovable political assassinations.
So is she a total incompetent incapable of getting anything done, or a master politician and backroom dealer who can literally get away with murder?
I was in my teens for Reagan and the start of the first Bush administration, so my memory of what was said about them is pretty fuzzy. But i don't recall a big deal being made about nuclear war being made, and that certainly wasn't my biggest concern during either the election for Bush 1's 2nd term or either of Bush 2's terms.
He said during the first debate that attacking an Iranian ship would not start a war. (To be fair, doing so wouldn't _definitely_ start a war, but almost identical actions have been considered acts of war in the past and could easily be considered so again, so saying that it definitely wouldn't is 100% wrong.) https://www.washingtonpost.com...
And i can find any number of references for the off the wall stuff Trump has posted on twitter at 3am, in fact there has been analysis presented here on slashdot about the emotional tones of his tweets then vs when his staff is in charge: https://politics.slashdot.org/...
Now normally i wouldn't say "this person acts unhinged on twitter, therefore they'll end civilization." However he has stated himself that he's willing to cause turmoil among our allies, which will lead to politically unstable situations, he's said himself that he's willing to preemptively use nuclear weapons, and he's said things that seem to indicate he doesn't know what is and is not an act of war.
If you combine that with the kind of temper and tendency to get unhinged when he feels he's been attacked or insulted that he's demonstrated both in real life and in his late night twitter sessions, i feel that it's reasonable to be very concerned.
I'd like to think if they're going to go with the "smallest addressable display element" as the name of the thing that one of the versions would actually be small, but i guess not.
It seems that i'll have to go with one of Sony's Xperia Compact phones if i actually want small size with decent hardware, but despite owning a PS4 the notion of getting computer hardware from Sony makes me a little uneasy.
Where did i say i have any belief she cares about me?
Everything i've read about both the email servers and Benghazi so far make them sound like pretty mundane fuck-ups, the kind that pretty much all politicians make from time to time (and Bush in particular did much worse.)
But let's assume that Assange is about to leak documents proving that _everything_ the Hillary haters say about her is true. In that case then as long as i don't become a vocal political opponent of hers i can expect that she won't actively attempt to murder me. On the other those same documents would also prove that she's a savvy politician who knows how to deal with other politicians. (She can't be trading political favors for Foundation money if she doesn't know how to wheel and deal after all.)
However based only on the things that _he himself has said_, i don't trust Trump not to blunder into a nuclear war and end civilization as we know it.
Again, game theory. In the _worst_ case scenario, i'd prefer a competent but corrupt politician who isn't actively trying to murder me (even if she is trying to murder a small subset of other people) to someone who puts the entire world (including me!) at a non-trivial risk of total annihilation.
I think one could make an entirely fair argument that Clinton is far better than that worst case scenario, but given the existence of Trump that argument isn't really even necessary at the moment.
He's definitely biased, but i'm not quite sure yet if he's anti-Clinton, pro-Trump, or just pro-watching-the-world-burn.
Unless they just came into the info in the last couple months they should have released any damning revelations they had about Clinton during the primaries when it might have helped Sanders win.
At this point however the only realistic options are Trump and Clinton. And honestly even if wikileaks did have proof that the Clintons make a habit of murdering their political opponents (citation needed oh so very much) i'd still probably vote for Hillary. Trump doesn't know what an act of war is, he doesn't know how treaties and alliances work, he thinks nuclear weapons were made to be used, and he has a propensity for letting his temper get the better of him at 3am and lashing out. If he gets elected i'm honestly worried that the world might end in a nuclear fireball.
From a pure game theory standpoint in this situation i'd far rather hold my nose and vote for a known murderer who also happened to be skilled at international politics.
How about we first master having a self-sustaining civilization on Earth?
There is no such thing as a self-sustaining civilization, there are only civilizations that haven't failed yet.
If a civilization is not killed by a failure of resources it will be killed by a failure of economics, or a failure of politics, or a failure of sociology, or in some rare cases it will literally be killed by another civilization, or in some even rarer cases by the (relative) world ending.
But like biological organisms, civilizations can reproduce. They can reproduce parthenogenetically (Australia,) or by combining traits with other civilizations (UK, USA,) or by mitosis (Byzantine Empire,) or by seeds left behind after being burned to the ground (Holy Roman Empire,) or by combinations of the above, or other means that don't quite match up with normal biological processes. (And no, those analogies are not perfect.)
Which is not to say that we should not strive to improve things here on Earth. But I seriously doubt we will ever reach a point where any civilization will be perfectly self-sustaining, much less that everyone would agree on when such a point has been reached. (If nothing else the eventual death of the sun poses a serious challenge to any supposedly self-sustaining civilization, and the heat death of the universe an even bigger one.)
If we wait for this mythical perfect self-sustaining state before attempting to "reproduce" it will only reduce the odds that there will be "children" civilizations when the current ones inevitably die.
"This backlash is nonsense," said James Green, co-founder of VR developer Carbon Games. "I absolutely support him doing whatever he wants politically if it's legal. To take any other position is against American values."
I think you meant to say you absolutely support other people doing what they want politically if it's legal, such as disagreeing with Luckey, or boycotting his product, or raising money for Clinton in response. Because taking any other position would be against American values _and_ hypocritical, right?
And yes, he's perfectly within his rights to say what he said, and i'm within my rights to point out the contradiction, and other people are within their rights to respond to me with disagreements, and etc. Saying that one person gets to have their say and everyone else needs to shut up about it after that is not how political discourse works.
So they booted him off because he was costing them a ton of money and wasn't paying anything. (I guess they were providing him service as a charity?)
But does that mean that they'll kick their paying customers off as well if the costs of defending them against attacks exceed the revenue they're getting from that specific customer? If so that would mean you could put Akamai out of business just by targeting one customer at a time, moving on to a new one as each one was evicted from the service.
I believe the real solution would be to invest the billions in AI. Which is also a problem that already has a lot of people working on it, but as you say, less so than the amount already being poured into medical research.
Just figure out how to create AI and raise it in such a manner that it views humans as somewhat dumb but amusing pets. Then stand back and let it cross reference all the existing medical knowledge and figure out how to save us. And it could probably solve a lot of other non-medical problems at the same time.
(The downside is that it may also decide to spay or neuter most/all of us to keep the population in check, but if i get a significantly longer and healthier lifespan in a wealthier and more peaceful world i think i can deal.)
If there were it almost certainly would have come
out by now and be front page headlines for every news organization in the US
These things do float to the top of the headlines every so often, but generally they're quickly forgotten about. I'm not sure why that is exactly. Because Trump's supporters don't care when he does something illegal or immoral? Because he does so many of them that nobody can stay focused on just one long enough for it to become a real issue? I have no idea.
I spend my commute time listening to audiobooks. In fact my commute has become my primary method of consuming novels and i rarely find time to read printed or ebooks outside of that. So even if i wanted to spend my commute doing something else while an AI drove i'd end up having to reschedule some other non-driving time to make up for the "reading" i wasn't getting done during the same period.
That said though, i don't think the same really applies to people who haven't already found some productive use for their commute time. The article seems vague and hand-wavey at best (as well as full of grammatical errors.) Just because 30-50% claim now they'd be too worried to do something else while the AI drove doesn't mean they'd feel the same way after owning or using such a car for several days or weeks. People are often far more willing to adapt to things than they would predict. And even if that number were valid the other 50-70% would still be getting more free time, so the generalized statement would still be false.
I think both of you are over-attributing this to "voting for them because they're X" when it's more "voting for them because they're not Y".
I don't particularly like Clinton. I don't think she's a crook or a serial murderer or any of the other crazy conspiracy theories, I just think she's a bit more conservative than i'd really like. But there's no way i'm going to help throw the election to Trump by voting for anyone other than the person who is most likely to defeat Trump.
Until we get rid of the first past the post voting system voting either R or D says a lot more about who you _don't_ want to be president. (And voting for a third party says either that you (possibly mistakenly) believe your vote has 0% chance of making a difference or you really don't care who gets elected.)
No you see, it is easy. Either it is or it isn't; so it's 50/50.
I've got the same combination on my luggage!...er, i mean that's the exact same assumption i make about either/or questions as a person with very little knowledge of statistics who knows nothing about the underlying factors!
If they're smart they'll continue to roll out old features. I'm still playing the game, but a lot less so since they took away the ability to actually find the pokemon i want, and haven't spent a cent on it since that point.
And how long does your estate/corporation retain rights to your own voice and appearance after death? Does copyright law apply? Trademark law? If the rights expire after the lifetime of the actor plus 70 years will we reach a point sometime around, i dunno, 2086 or so when there are no employment opportunities for new actors because all the "great" actors are already in the public domain?
I'm on the T-Mobile pay-as-you-go plan. $30 a month ($30 period, no extra taxes) for "unlimited" data (throttled after 5GB per month), unlimited texts, and 100 minutes per month.
In the three years i've been using the plan i've gone over the 100 minutes once when i was on a business trip. Ended up spending about $30 extra that month (i believe the extra rate is 10 cents/minute.)
I may have gone over the 5GB data limit a couple times near the end of the month, but either it was a short enough period or the throttling wasn't severe enough such that i really didn't notice it.
As long as we're sharing related SF, see also Michael F Flynn's novel "Firestar" and its three sequels. It's basically a series about a Space X-like company that wrapped up the year Space X was actually founded, and has the reuse of fuel tanks as habitats as a side note.
And in response to all the people saying that the cost of either modifying the tanks to server dual purposes or performing additional construction in space makes it infeasible you're probably right. If we were talking about a one time deal. However if we ever get to the point where we have enough people in space that we need to start doing construction work anyways the economics will seriously change, so it's not unreasonable to start looking into it now. And if nothing else just the materials alone might be well worth the small cost to boost the tanks a little higher, even if they end up just getting disassembled for parts and raw materials.
Slashdot Mirror
"prefix 1. removal of or from something specified: deforest, dethrone"
"It notes that Google has been involved in 14 of such incidents"
14 of _which_ such incidents? I mean, i can make a pretty good guess, but if i were to read the blurb without any context i might think this is the 14th time Google has passed a million miles or something.
I keep phone, keys, and pocket knife in one pocket, and wallet and comb in the other. Of course i also have a soft case i put my phone in before putting it in my pocket to protect it.
Also, i have zero idea of what pocket anyone else in my crowd keeps their phone in. Is that really something you pay attention to?
She fucked up the Middle East? You mean there was some point prior to Hillary coming along where the Middle East was unfucked up? When was that exactly?
I don't know about you but i've been worried about war with China since the 90s, and it was only that late because that's when i first learned the history of the region. Taiwan has been a ticking political time bomb since the 50s, and there was a big uptick in the potential for conflict when the Taiwan Relation Act was passed in 1979, after Nixon and well before Hillary came around.
The First and Second Taiwan Strait Crisises happened in the 50s. The Third happened in 95 and 96. In addition to that in 1951 China "peacefully liberated" Tibet, they've been trying to claim part of India, and there's some Japanese territory they want too. And of course they've never really stopped propping up North Korea.
If you think China's belligerence is some new thing that Hillary is responsible for you're the one who hasn't been paying attention to history.
I certainly don't think Hillary has been perfect, (Benghazi was certainly a fuck-up, even if it wasn't a crime) but you seem to believe in some prior perfect state of international affairs that i don't seem to recall.
And finally, according to the Hillary haters she's been negotiating the trade of political favors for cash, she's been using leverage on the FBI and Congress to get away with treasonous activity, and she's been orchestrating unprovable political assassinations.
So is she a total incompetent incapable of getting anything done, or a master politician and backroom dealer who can literally get away with murder?
I was in my teens for Reagan and the start of the first Bush administration, so my memory of what was said about them is pretty fuzzy. But i don't recall a big deal being made about nuclear war being made, and that certainly wasn't my biggest concern during either the election for Bush 1's 2nd term or either of Bush 2's terms.
But Trump has said that he's okay with using nuclear weapons offensively:
https://thinkprogress.org/9-te...
Trump has also said that he won't guarantee defending our allies, which is potentially a very destabilizing action:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
He said during the first debate that attacking an Iranian ship would not start a war. (To be fair, doing so wouldn't _definitely_ start a war, but almost identical actions have been considered acts of war in the past and could easily be considered so again, so saying that it definitely wouldn't is 100% wrong.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
And i can find any number of references for the off the wall stuff Trump has posted on twitter at 3am, in fact there has been analysis presented here on slashdot about the emotional tones of his tweets then vs when his staff is in charge:
https://politics.slashdot.org/...
Now normally i wouldn't say "this person acts unhinged on twitter, therefore they'll end civilization." However he has stated himself that he's willing to cause turmoil among our allies, which will lead to politically unstable situations, he's said himself that he's willing to preemptively use nuclear weapons, and he's said things that seem to indicate he doesn't know what is and is not an act of war.
If you combine that with the kind of temper and tendency to get unhinged when he feels he's been attacked or insulted that he's demonstrated both in real life and in his late night twitter sessions, i feel that it's reasonable to be very concerned.
I'd like to think if they're going to go with the "smallest addressable display element" as the name of the thing that one of the versions would actually be small, but i guess not.
It seems that i'll have to go with one of Sony's Xperia Compact phones if i actually want small size with decent hardware, but despite owning a PS4 the notion of getting computer hardware from Sony makes me a little uneasy.
Where did i say i have any belief she cares about me?
Everything i've read about both the email servers and Benghazi so far make them sound like pretty mundane fuck-ups, the kind that pretty much all politicians make from time to time (and Bush in particular did much worse.)
But let's assume that Assange is about to leak documents proving that _everything_ the Hillary haters say about her is true. In that case then as long as i don't become a vocal political opponent of hers i can expect that she won't actively attempt to murder me. On the other those same documents would also prove that she's a savvy politician who knows how to deal with other politicians. (She can't be trading political favors for Foundation money if she doesn't know how to wheel and deal after all.)
However based only on the things that _he himself has said_, i don't trust Trump not to blunder into a nuclear war and end civilization as we know it.
Again, game theory. In the _worst_ case scenario, i'd prefer a competent but corrupt politician who isn't actively trying to murder me (even if she is trying to murder a small subset of other people) to someone who puts the entire world (including me!) at a non-trivial risk of total annihilation.
I think one could make an entirely fair argument that Clinton is far better than that worst case scenario, but given the existence of Trump that argument isn't really even necessary at the moment.
He's definitely biased, but i'm not quite sure yet if he's anti-Clinton, pro-Trump, or just pro-watching-the-world-burn.
Unless they just came into the info in the last couple months they should have released any damning revelations they had about Clinton during the primaries when it might have helped Sanders win.
At this point however the only realistic options are Trump and Clinton. And honestly even if wikileaks did have proof that the Clintons make a habit of murdering their political opponents (citation needed oh so very much) i'd still probably vote for Hillary. Trump doesn't know what an act of war is, he doesn't know how treaties and alliances work, he thinks nuclear weapons were made to be used, and he has a propensity for letting his temper get the better of him at 3am and lashing out. If he gets elected i'm honestly worried that the world might end in a nuclear fireball.
From a pure game theory standpoint in this situation i'd far rather hold my nose and vote for a known murderer who also happened to be skilled at international politics.
Trump, Putin, and Streisand! A match made in...
*HURK*
Sorry, sorry, i don't think i can finish that thought. And now i need to go get some brain bleach.
If this like the inverse of the classic excuse for Playboy? "I only read it for the examples!"
To be fair, Samsung also makes ink cartridges. It's possible that HP just cast the safety net a little too wide.
Now they're having issues with their home appliance line too? They really need to iron out the wrinkles in their build process!
How about we first master having a self-sustaining civilization on Earth?
There is no such thing as a self-sustaining civilization, there are only civilizations that haven't failed yet.
If a civilization is not killed by a failure of resources it will be killed by a failure of economics, or a failure of politics, or a failure of sociology, or in some rare cases it will literally be killed by another civilization, or in some even rarer cases by the (relative) world ending.
But like biological organisms, civilizations can reproduce. They can reproduce parthenogenetically (Australia,) or by combining traits with other civilizations (UK, USA,) or by mitosis (Byzantine Empire,) or by seeds left behind after being burned to the ground (Holy Roman Empire,) or by combinations of the above, or other means that don't quite match up with normal biological processes. (And no, those analogies are not perfect.)
Which is not to say that we should not strive to improve things here on Earth. But I seriously doubt we will ever reach a point where any civilization will be perfectly self-sustaining, much less that everyone would agree on when such a point has been reached. (If nothing else the eventual death of the sun poses a serious challenge to any supposedly self-sustaining civilization, and the heat death of the universe an even bigger one.)
If we wait for this mythical perfect self-sustaining state before attempting to "reproduce" it will only reduce the odds that there will be "children" civilizations when the current ones inevitably die.
"This backlash is nonsense," said James Green, co-founder of VR developer Carbon Games. "I absolutely support him doing whatever he wants politically if it's legal. To take any other position is against American values."
I think you meant to say you absolutely support other people doing what they want politically if it's legal, such as disagreeing with Luckey, or boycotting his product, or raising money for Clinton in response. Because taking any other position would be against American values _and_ hypocritical, right?
And yes, he's perfectly within his rights to say what he said, and i'm within my rights to point out the contradiction, and other people are within their rights to respond to me with disagreements, and etc. Saying that one person gets to have their say and everyone else needs to shut up about it after that is not how political discourse works.
So they booted him off because he was costing them a ton of money and wasn't paying anything. (I guess they were providing him service as a charity?)
But does that mean that they'll kick their paying customers off as well if the costs of defending them against attacks exceed the revenue they're getting from that specific customer? If so that would mean you could put Akamai out of business just by targeting one customer at a time, moving on to a new one as each one was evicted from the service.
I believe the real solution would be to invest the billions in AI. Which is also a problem that already has a lot of people working on it, but as you say, less so than the amount already being poured into medical research.
Just figure out how to create AI and raise it in such a manner that it views humans as somewhat dumb but amusing pets. Then stand back and let it cross reference all the existing medical knowledge and figure out how to save us. And it could probably solve a lot of other non-medical problems at the same time.
(The downside is that it may also decide to spay or neuter most/all of us to keep the population in check, but if i get a significantly longer and healthier lifespan in a wealthier and more peaceful world i think i can deal.)
Trump may be slime, but at the moment I don't think there is any sort of definitive proof he's broken the law
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
And oh look, while trying to find details of that i found a whole list of other illegal things he's done/proposed doing:
http://www.pajiba.com/politics...
If there were it almost certainly would have come out by now and be front page headlines for every news organization in the US
These things do float to the top of the headlines every so often, but generally they're quickly forgotten about. I'm not sure why that is exactly. Because Trump's supporters don't care when he does something illegal or immoral? Because he does so many of them that nobody can stay focused on just one long enough for it to become a real issue? I have no idea.
I spend my commute time listening to audiobooks. In fact my commute has become my primary method of consuming novels and i rarely find time to read printed or ebooks outside of that. So even if i wanted to spend my commute doing something else while an AI drove i'd end up having to reschedule some other non-driving time to make up for the "reading" i wasn't getting done during the same period.
That said though, i don't think the same really applies to people who haven't already found some productive use for their commute time. The article seems vague and hand-wavey at best (as well as full of grammatical errors.) Just because 30-50% claim now they'd be too worried to do something else while the AI drove doesn't mean they'd feel the same way after owning or using such a car for several days or weeks. People are often far more willing to adapt to things than they would predict. And even if that number were valid the other 50-70% would still be getting more free time, so the generalized statement would still be false.
I think both of you are over-attributing this to "voting for them because they're X" when it's more "voting for them because they're not Y".
I don't particularly like Clinton. I don't think she's a crook or a serial murderer or any of the other crazy conspiracy theories, I just think she's a bit more conservative than i'd really like. But there's no way i'm going to help throw the election to Trump by voting for anyone other than the person who is most likely to defeat Trump.
Until we get rid of the first past the post voting system voting either R or D says a lot more about who you _don't_ want to be president. (And voting for a third party says either that you (possibly mistakenly) believe your vote has 0% chance of making a difference or you really don't care who gets elected.)
No you see, it is easy. Either it is or it isn't; so it's 50/50.
I've got the same combination on my luggage! ...er, i mean that's the exact same assumption i make about either/or questions as a person with very little knowledge of statistics who knows nothing about the underlying factors!
If they're smart they'll continue to roll out old features. I'm still playing the game, but a lot less so since they took away the ability to actually find the pokemon i want, and haven't spent a cent on it since that point.
Due to recent improvements in genetic engineering, namely CRISPR, the trend towards engineering ourselves and our children is almost inevitable:
Genetic Engineering Will Change Everything Forever - CRISPR
(Maybe that's exactly what TFA is talking about, but it's blocked for me at work.)
And how long does your estate/corporation retain rights to your own voice and appearance after death? Does copyright law apply? Trademark law? If the rights expire after the lifetime of the actor plus 70 years will we reach a point sometime around, i dunno, 2086 or so when there are no employment opportunities for new actors because all the "great" actors are already in the public domain?
I'm on the T-Mobile pay-as-you-go plan. $30 a month ($30 period, no extra taxes) for "unlimited" data (throttled after 5GB per month), unlimited texts, and 100 minutes per month.
In the three years i've been using the plan i've gone over the 100 minutes once when i was on a business trip. Ended up spending about $30 extra that month (i believe the extra rate is 10 cents/minute.)
I may have gone over the 5GB data limit a couple times near the end of the month, but either it was a short enough period or the throttling wasn't severe enough such that i really didn't notice it.
As long as we're sharing related SF, see also Michael F Flynn's novel "Firestar" and its three sequels. It's basically a series about a Space X-like company that wrapped up the year Space X was actually founded, and has the reuse of fuel tanks as habitats as a side note.
And in response to all the people saying that the cost of either modifying the tanks to server dual purposes or performing additional construction in space makes it infeasible you're probably right. If we were talking about a one time deal. However if we ever get to the point where we have enough people in space that we need to start doing construction work anyways the economics will seriously change, so it's not unreasonable to start looking into it now. And if nothing else just the materials alone might be well worth the small cost to boost the tanks a little higher, even if they end up just getting disassembled for parts and raw materials.