well, there is increased efficiency, fewer dangerous jobs, Increased food production and more effective distribution of food and resources, better medicine, and the ability to advance human technology and science at an unheard of pace because we can now co-orlate and model systems on a level unparalleled in human history.
Don't forget, computers don't just mean, the box on the desk, there are a multitude of computers in every vehicle made since the 80's , they are part of CAT scans, MIR, and ultrasound machines. They are used to regulate the electric grid , and disseminate information that otherwise it would take months for an interested person to search and understand.
I'd say computer are a tool, the purpose of a tool is to amplify the effects of human actions. The actions of the humans are either or good or bad, the tool still amplifies them.
Use a hammer to build a house, use a hammer to kill your neighbor over beer, either way , the good or the evil does not exist within the hammer.
until of coarse Pakistan or China steel the technology. Where are all those , if we don't build it , someone else will, folks who frequent here , who always think developing every piece of technology is good.
no , they have balanced voice, because they offer a different perspective. Don't you know you are supposed to value 'diversity'. That balance was struck and agreed on as a condition of the the more rural states forming a union with the more populous states. If you oppose the balance of that social contract, then logically you must also allow for the renegotiation of the union, or it being dissolved, because you are advocating against the terms of the existing social contract.
wow, that is an interesting claim? Any primary documentation? Any actual evidence? I suspect if it could be produced, without also compromising himself, Trump would have already jailed Obama, Nixon didn't go to jail because he was pardoned by his vice president, but what you are saying is worse then anything Nixon did.
I'm now waiting for the first sonar based night vision app to come out:) Maybe something that enhances the low light camera? I wonder how good it is with distance? Can you map a room with it?
There seems to be some real conflicts in the laws here. How is it possible , someone who is earning minimum wage would be below the poverty level and qualify for SNAP?
I guess that is part of Senator Sanders point here.
It seems however , contradictory to add an additional tax to a company as basically a penalty for following the law. If it is unfair to pay wages that low , it would be better to simply raise minimum wage. The fact you can't get enough support to do that should tell you maybe you are thinking about it wrong.
I hope there is also a clause in the law that prevents a company from firing someone when they apply for SNAP or I would expect amazon to write it into their employment contract that , while working for them , you may not apply.
No, If I want to use netflix there is no reason the ISP should get to denigrate it's performance vs youtube or any other video service. I the customer paid for the bandwidth and by treating different service differently they are no delivering what they sell. Of coarse they bury terms somewhere deep in their contract that basically say , we can do whatever we want but that doesn't change the perception they create. Nor does it change what I want, which is , access to the service I decide to access at the data rate I paid for, regardless of which service it is. Throttling internet traffic based on the data provider rather then the consumer is unnecessary , disingenuous and nothing more then an attempt to manipulate markets. It should be illegal.
Actually , the reason certificates and https were invented is because without them there is no way to prove that when you type cnn.com on your web browser that you are getting a page from a computer that has anything to do with the entity you are wanting to trust. Any router, any DNS equipment , anywhere along the route can reroute you to a different page, one that logs your keystrokes and then sends you to the real site. So yes, this issue is deeper and harder then you might think. I'm sure one of the other problems they are considering is Denial of service attacks, which are hard to completely overcome because some server listing at a specific IP and port 80 needs to answer when your browser makes a request.
I'm not saying I can think of a better way, but I'm not saying nobody can just because I can't.
Stop using computers to solve problems they can't. If you want vocabulary police that is what moderated web boards are for and you pay the cost of people to review content and create a walled garden. Nothing posted without review. Using a computer to filter 'unwanted' language is like using a car to take down unwanted walls in your house. Just not the right tool for the job.
because after all, words don't equate to subjects or concepts and even if they did no subject or concept is one any person should find offensive, regardless of how personally denigrating it may be to them or harmful for their children to understand.
( for those challenged in identifying sarcasm this whole post was that).
Problem is , there is probably some truth behind what they are saying, but the hyperbole and hype are there to try and gain political control. If it was absent and people we discussing , practical , real , everyday solutions, then there would be change. Because in order to be practical a solution has to solve 'enough' of the problem the current tech does and do so more efficiently ( aka for less total money).
What people seem to want, is quick answers that let them continue doing what they have always done and the government types just used the environment as a political hokey puck.
If you actually were going for rebellion your first task would be to use guns to start knocking taking bigger equipment. Funding would be the hardest problem in modern times though.
Agreed but that argument only makes sense if those rights are endowed by a creator and unfortunately many people no longer believe the premise so cannot sustain the conclusion.
OK that makes more sense. Your definition of freedom derived from materialism begins with assumption 2. You define a free agent as someone who believes the illusion you choose. If 'you' is nothing more than a collection of parts evolved to optimize certain environmental accidents then what is choice other then a series of electrical signals that terminate in tissue stimulation.
Your definition of deterministic also seems too narrow. Why is the human ability to predict a system part of the definition? Isn't it good enough to have complete predictability if you had complete knowledge,? The uncertainty principle speaks to our ability to observe, it does not mean the information does not exist.
Your second statement is more intersecting to me because I have no way of defining the terms you used in a way that allows me to tell if what you say is true or false.
What is a self directed agent? What does it mean for the universe to be non deterministic?
Please definite your terms as I'm always interested in learning something new
You have not really thought through the problem. Even if the diety existed but did not Grant free will, then there is no freedom. So the belief freedom exist dies not negate the need for option 1.
OK a 3d printer IS a complicated machine. Much more than my cell phone. Maybe 3D printers are easier to use to be, anyone able to use one is capable of reading this article and doing what they want with it.
What grounds are there for stopping this information from being published? I mean, you need complicated machines and a lot of knowledge to actually use it don't you? If you have that much knowledge how hard can it be to come up with the plans yourself? Even so, I can find information on how to build bombs a plenty, destroy sensitive infrastructure , avoid surveillance,and kill people with various types of poisons and weapons, some of which I can outright buy on the internet. So WHAT is danger is this preventing , other then making those lobbing for gun restrictions looks like loonies? I mean , there must be 5000 better ways to protect people from Gun violence, why spend your time and resources? What is the gain?
From what? Do you really live in the illusion you get to choose? Did you choose where you were born? Who your parents were/ are? The language you speak first? Did you choose education you were given?
There are only two rationally sustainable world views on freedom:
1) Freedom exists as a gift , granted to us by a transcendent and absolute truth which is also a will or a being and is the cause of the physical forces and the whole universe as well as all ethical and moral principles. We are free in as much as we are allowed by that being to choose or reject what is good.
OR
2) freedom is an illusion , all human beings are simply the composite of their environment and genetics absolute truth does not exist ( or is unknowable) and personal desires of a human being no more or less important then those of an ape or an elephant. In which case as pavlov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov) was prone to say. "The sooner we get over this idea that free will exists and go about governing the human race, the better off we will all be".
HINT: If something inside you tells you that the second option 'just can't be true' you are right, because the cause of the universe within the first option has made every creature in such a way that experience draws them towards truth. Your desire can be your first piece of evidence in a long discovery of what is true and false. Or try to embrace number 2 fully and feel the utter coldness and meaninglessness of that world view, perhaps then you will realize it is incorrect.
What would be really interesting, if the data can be attained , I don't know if it is available, would be to look at actual cost. If you take 30 big software companies, and ask , what kind of profit do they make and when, what are their actual cost ( overhead, employees, help desk etc, including research and loss from products that bomb). What does it actually cost to run a successful software company and what is the minum unit price you could sell successful software at and still break even/ make a 50% profit etc.
I have difficulty believing large corporations and their management have no handle on this problem. Not that it isn't complicated, but just like casino's you have to quantify risk vs rearward and rig the game so you don't go broke.
If the data was available for study , it would make an interesting jumping off point for discussions like copyright law and licensing, because ideally we would optimize the law so that these corporations that do well would make serious profit, but not hold the populous hostage for every last penny that can be squeezed from them for 100 years, like they currently can do.
"But the United States doesn't offer any type of universal ID" Why on earth would I WANT a universal ID system. Who does that benefit? NOT the consumer, NOT the average person in society. While the lack of one might be some inconvenience, and it certainly increases the chance of crime. The social and political cost of making it easy for any political group who takes power to track everyone and anyone they 'don't like' and to IDENTIFY them easily is not worth the convince. The reality is that sometimes in order for society to progress there needs to be political and sometimes even physical upheaval, but creating a system where each person can be uniquely identified at any given point is 90% of the way to solving the problem of complete and absolute control of actions ( if not thoughts) of an entire society. It is the antithesis of freedom. Who does it benefit? Not small business who actually meet and know their customers, NOT people working and relating to other people, it befits primarily LARGE and or remote corporations who have no other way of establish trust.
"Apparently in violation of campaign finance laws" I'm confused how paying off Denials was part of Trumps political campaign any more then any of the payments Bill Cosby made to those he was trying to keep silent. I mean, isn't 'protection your reputation' something you can do at any time regardless of running for public office? Aren't those kinds of payments normal for CEO's and various celebrities? He made a bunch of his staff sing NDA's , so does the salary of all of those staffers which was only received on condition of signing an NDA count as a campaign contribution?
Not saying the man isn't dishonest or doesn't deserve what he get's here, but that seems like a real stretch of the law's intent if not it's actual practice.
Yeah, I wish there was a lot more of that on the internet. If we are ever going to start 'depolarizing' our society we have to get the point where we can at least respect the right of the other person to have an opposing view of a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
$$$ - nough said
well, there is increased efficiency, fewer dangerous jobs, Increased food production and more effective distribution of food and resources, better medicine, and the ability to advance human technology and science at an unheard of pace because we can now co-orlate and model systems on a level unparalleled in human history.
Don't forget, computers don't just mean, the box on the desk, there are a multitude of computers in every vehicle made since the 80's , they are part of CAT scans, MIR, and ultrasound machines. They are used to regulate the electric grid , and disseminate information that otherwise it would take months for an interested person to search and understand.
I'd say computer are a tool, the purpose of a tool is to amplify the effects of human actions. The actions of the humans are either or good or bad, the tool still amplifies them.
Use a hammer to build a house, use a hammer to kill your neighbor over beer, either way , the good or the evil does not exist within the hammer.
until of coarse Pakistan or China steel the technology.
Where are all those , if we don't build it , someone else will, folks who frequent here , who always think developing every piece of technology is good.
no , they have balanced voice, because they offer a different perspective. Don't you know you are supposed to value 'diversity'. That balance was struck and agreed on as a condition of the the more rural states forming a union with the more populous states. If you oppose the balance of that social contract, then logically you must also allow for the renegotiation of the union, or it being dissolved, because you are advocating against the terms of the existing social contract.
wow, that is an interesting claim? Any primary documentation? Any actual evidence? I suspect if it could be produced, without also compromising himself, Trump would have already jailed Obama, Nixon didn't go to jail because he was pardoned by his vice president, but what you are saying is worse then anything Nixon did.
I'm now waiting for the first sonar based night vision app to come out :) Maybe something that enhances the low light camera?
I wonder how good it is with distance? Can you map a room with it?
There seems to be some real conflicts in the laws here.
How is it possible , someone who is earning minimum wage would be below the poverty level and qualify for SNAP?
I guess that is part of Senator Sanders point here.
It seems however , contradictory to add an additional tax to a company as basically a penalty for following the law. If it is unfair to pay wages that low , it would be better to simply raise minimum wage. The fact you can't get enough support to do that should tell you maybe you are thinking about it wrong.
I hope there is also a clause in the law that prevents a company from firing someone when they apply for SNAP or I would expect amazon to write it into their employment contract that , while working for them , you may not apply.
No, If I want to use netflix there is no reason the ISP should get to denigrate it's performance vs youtube or any other video service. I the customer paid for the bandwidth and by treating different service differently they are no delivering what they sell. Of coarse they bury terms somewhere deep in their contract that basically say , we can do whatever we want but that doesn't change the perception they create. Nor does it change what I want, which is , access to the service I decide to access at the data rate I paid for, regardless of which service it is. Throttling internet traffic based on the data provider rather then the consumer is unnecessary , disingenuous and nothing more then an attempt to manipulate markets. It should be illegal.
Actually , the reason certificates and https were invented is because without them there is no way to prove that when you type cnn.com on your web browser that you are getting a page from a computer that has anything to do with the entity you are wanting to trust. Any router, any DNS equipment , anywhere along the route can reroute you to a different page, one that logs your keystrokes and then sends you to the real site. So yes, this issue is deeper and harder then you might think. I'm sure one of the other problems they are considering is Denial of service attacks, which are hard to completely overcome because some server listing at a specific IP and port 80 needs to answer when your browser makes a request.
I'm not saying I can think of a better way, but I'm not saying nobody can just because I can't.
Stop using computers to solve problems they can't.
If you want vocabulary police that is what moderated web boards are for and you pay the cost of people to review content and create a walled garden. Nothing posted without review.
Using a computer to filter 'unwanted' language is like using a car to take down unwanted walls in your house. Just not the right tool for the job.
because after all, words don't equate to subjects or concepts and even if they did no subject or concept is one any person should find offensive, regardless of how personally denigrating it may be to them or harmful for their children to understand.
( for those challenged in identifying sarcasm this whole post was that).
Problem is , there is probably some truth behind what they are saying, but the hyperbole and hype are there to try and gain political control. If it was absent and people we discussing , practical , real , everyday solutions, then there would be change. Because in order to be practical a solution has to solve 'enough' of the problem the current tech does and do so more efficiently ( aka for less total money).
What people seem to want, is quick answers that let them continue doing what they have always done and the government types just used the environment as a political hokey puck.
sounds good to me. I vote for disconnecting them from the internet as well. It is powered by a lot of unclean electricity.
If you actually were going for rebellion your first task would be to use guns to start knocking taking bigger equipment. Funding would be the hardest problem in modern times though.
Agreed but that argument only makes sense if those rights are endowed by a creator and unfortunately many people no longer believe the premise so cannot sustain the conclusion.
OK that makes more sense. Your definition of freedom derived from materialism begins with assumption 2.
You define a free agent as someone who believes the illusion you choose. If 'you' is nothing more than a collection of parts evolved to optimize certain environmental accidents then what is choice other then a series of electrical signals that terminate in tissue stimulation.
Your definition of deterministic also seems too narrow. Why is the human ability to predict a system part of the definition? Isn't it good enough to have complete predictability if you had complete knowledge,? The uncertainty principle speaks to our ability to observe, it does not mean the information does not exist.
Your second statement is more intersecting to me because I have no way of defining the terms you used in a way that allows me to tell if what you say is true or false.
What is a self directed agent? What does it mean for the universe to be non deterministic?
Please definite your terms as I'm always interested in learning something new
You have not really thought through the problem. Even if the diety existed but did not Grant free will, then there is no freedom. So the belief freedom exist dies not negate the need for option 1.
OK a 3d printer IS a complicated machine. Much more than my cell phone. Maybe 3D printers are easier to use to be, anyone able to use one is capable of reading this article and doing what they want with it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
What grounds are there for stopping this information from being published? I mean, you need complicated machines and a lot of knowledge to actually use it don't you? If you have that much knowledge how hard can it be to come up with the plans yourself? Even so, I can find information on how to build bombs a plenty, destroy sensitive infrastructure , avoid surveillance ,and kill people with various types of poisons and weapons, some of which I can outright buy on the internet.
So WHAT is danger is this preventing , other then making those lobbing for gun restrictions looks like loonies? I mean , there must be 5000 better ways to protect people from Gun violence, why spend your time and resources? What is the gain?
From what? Do you really live in the illusion you get to choose? Did you choose where you were born? Who your parents were/ are? The language you speak first?
Did you choose education you were given?
There are only two rationally sustainable world views on freedom:
1) Freedom exists as a gift , granted to us by a transcendent and absolute truth which is also a will or a being and is the cause of the physical forces and the whole universe as well as all ethical and moral principles.
We are free in as much as we are allowed by that being to choose or reject what is good.
OR
2) freedom is an illusion , all human beings are simply the composite of their environment and genetics absolute truth does not exist ( or is unknowable) and personal desires of a human being no more or less important then those of an ape or an elephant. In which case as pavlov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov) was prone to say. "The sooner we get over this idea that free will exists and go about governing the human race, the better off we will all be".
HINT: If something inside you tells you that the second option 'just can't be true' you are right, because the cause of the universe within the first option has made every creature in such a way that experience draws them towards truth. Your desire can be your first piece of evidence in a long discovery of what is true and false. Or try to embrace number 2 fully and feel the utter coldness and meaninglessness of that world view, perhaps then you will realize it is incorrect.
What would be really interesting, if the data can be attained , I don't know if it is available, would be to look at actual cost. If you take 30 big software companies, and ask , what kind of profit do they make and when, what are their actual cost ( overhead, employees, help desk etc, including research and loss from products that bomb). What does it actually cost to run a successful software company and what is the minum unit price you could sell successful software at and still break even/ make a 50% profit etc.
I have difficulty believing large corporations and their management have no handle on this problem. Not that it isn't complicated, but just like casino's you have to quantify risk vs rearward and rig the game so you don't go broke.
If the data was available for study , it would make an interesting jumping off point for discussions like copyright law and licensing, because ideally we would optimize the law so that these corporations that do well would make serious profit, but not hold the populous hostage for every last penny that can be squeezed from them for 100 years, like they currently can do.
"But the United States doesn't offer any type of universal ID"
Why on earth would I WANT a universal ID system. Who does that benefit? NOT the consumer, NOT the average person in society. While the lack of one might be some inconvenience, and it certainly increases the chance of crime. The social and political cost of making it easy for any political group who takes power to track everyone and anyone they 'don't like' and to IDENTIFY them easily is not worth the convince. The reality is that sometimes in order for society to progress there needs to be political and sometimes even physical upheaval, but creating a system where each person can be uniquely identified at any given point is 90% of the way to solving the problem of complete and absolute control of actions ( if not thoughts) of an entire society. It is the antithesis of freedom.
Who does it benefit? Not small business who actually meet and know their customers, NOT people working and relating to other people, it befits primarily LARGE and or remote corporations who have no other way of establish trust.
"Apparently in violation of campaign finance laws"
I'm confused how paying off Denials was part of Trumps political campaign any more then any of the payments Bill Cosby made to those he was trying to keep silent. I mean, isn't 'protection your reputation' something you can do at any time regardless of running for public office? Aren't those kinds of payments normal for CEO's and various celebrities? He made a bunch of his staff sing NDA's , so does the salary of all of those staffers which was only received on condition of signing an NDA count as a campaign contribution?
Not saying the man isn't dishonest or doesn't deserve what he get's here, but that seems like a real stretch of the law's intent if not it's actual practice.
Yeah, I wish there was a lot more of that on the internet.
If we are ever going to start 'depolarizing' our society we have to get the point where we can at least respect the right of the other person to have an opposing view of a problem.