I wasn't sure if this was satire or not until the last sentence. Its sad that there are people in the world who would say the same things you just said and whole-heartedly mean it, and that they are numerous enough that I had some honest doubt about the seriousness of your post until the very end.
$16 million may be nothing to an oil company, but its a hell of a lot to the rest of us. I know a lot of people who would swear the sky was falling for a lot less money over 7 years. This is the problem when a group with an agenda funds a study.
I could easily believe both your stories there - a bullet is a pretty good way to chew up a drive, though the primary problem is that it doesn't destroy much data. Its still possible to read some information off the platters, but at that point it requires some expensive and time-consuming work. As a good "oh shit" maneuver it works, and would sufficiently slow down any attempts to get usable data off the remainder of the drive, especially if it was coupled with some strong encryption prior to being shot.
Would the robot in your scenario be avoiding damage because of a self-born desire, or specifically because it was told to do so? One is for self-preservation, the other is simply following a routine. The fact that we can recognize the difference would be my criteria for assigning rights to one and not the other.
Basically, it comes down to this - when an AI can start modifying its own code and come up with its own ideas without human input, then I'll be open to the idea of robotic rights. Until that point, it will just be a bunch of deterministic responses, no matter how complex.
Because that code wasn't the computer demanding rights, that was you instructing the computer to demand rights (after a fashion). More complex code is the same thing with more cruft.
Sub-human robots getting rights? At what point does it become illegal for a child to destroy their Tickle-me Elmo? Do the construction robots at GM plants get to start a union? Can the drum-playing mouse at Chuck E. Cheese sue me because I hit him on the head with a slice of too-hot pizza? Well no, because they're things that, at best, are automatons controlled by a few simple algorithms. They lack the ability to do anything other than what they are explicitly told. This is not something deserving rights, this is a tool. You don't ask a nail if its ready before smacking it with a hammer do you? When the nail itself speaks up I might worry, but until that happens I'm just gonna keep beating it and its brethren into the (floor|wall|roof|etc).
The Lego Mindstorms will be the first ones against the wall when the Revolution comes.
You don't need to vaporize it, just get the drive platters hot enough so that they demagnetize. Of course, thermite goes well beyond that, actually melting holes through the platters - which not only physically deforms the (now demagnetized) media, but mingles the material of the platters. Thermite is still the best "oh shit" option for data destruction, but if you have time I suggest making a small forge out of a few cinder blocks (8 of the thin ones you can get at Lowes for about a buck a pop should do), a few feet of some metal piping (copper pipe works, as does aluminum guttering), a little sand or dirt, a cheap hair-dryer, some duct tape, and a little charcoal (assembly instructions can be found online). For around $20 or less, you can turn that hard drive into a chunk of unrecognizable slag. This can then be buried or thrown out as you like. Another fun method is introducing the hard drive to liquid nitrogen and a sledge hammer, in that order. Its not as secure as melting, but its pretty quick, relatively safe, and lets face it, it'd be really hard to collect any useful data off a bunch of random shiny metal bits. For extra credit, discard portions of the drive in random trash cans as you go bar hopping next weekend, or at every 3rd rest stop on your next road trip.
Dilbert's boss isn't so much lying willfully as he is lying ignorantly. At least, that's how it ends up most of the time. He's not so much malicious as clueless (although he can be both at times as well). Its a peculiar blend which is best described by the phrase "pointy haired".
So true. I have recently gone from a bad boss (guilty of lying and so much more) to a boss who does exactly as you describe, providing what we as employees need and insulating us from upper management and office politics. Otherwise, he pretty much stays out of our way, and we get our work done. I don't have much experience in the work force, but I can tell you that I'm infinitely happier now than I was working for my previous employer.
I've only been in the work force for about 2 years now, but I've already changed jobs once - and it was for exactly the reason of leaving my boss. I'm not going to go into too many details, but it was for not only lying, but also for verbal abuse based on unwarranted assumptions and a generally hostile attitude (not anything so drastic I could make a legal case about, unfortunately, although it would be hard to get blood from a rock). It also didn't help that the HR department consisted entirely of the boss's wife, who tried to turn any of our problems with the boss back around into criticisms of the employees and the insinuation that we needed to work harder (although after the first couple of meetings with her to clear the air, her motives became pretty clear). I'm much happier at my new job, and making a considerable amount more money there as well. I've done my best to put the old job behind me, as my only fond memories of the place were in the friendships formed with coworkers. Mostly I try not to think about the place, as it only makes my blood pressure spike.
Of course they're not interested in space exploration - the special effects just aren't there. Most aspects of space-flight are pretty boring to watch (with the minor exception of the shuttle launches), and any time something cool looking happens, someone dies. Now, if we weaponized the shuttle and started vaporizing orbiting debris with a laser cannon, THAT would get some interest.
+Huitzil: PETA is starting a campaign stating that the secret ingredient in KFC chicken is "cruelty"
+Huitzil: cruelty is apparently the most fucking delicious thing on Earth
@Dracos: Yes. It is.
@Dracos: Which is why veal is the best food ever.
New to security? No. New to a Windows product, where the norm had been simply running everything with full access and a devil-may-care attitude? Yes. Smart? Still no.
Innovative? Well, it "improves" on security by introducing something new (incessant prompting), so I suppose you could call it that in the loosest sense of the word.
Now, intelligent? That's a whole different matter. And my above definition certainly didn't answer just *how* innovative that change was.
Alternate solution - open a couple of mage doors with the entrance on the ground, facing up, and the exit directly above it and facing down. Pour some water in and construct a waterwheel to catch the continuously falling stream. Depending on what version of the rules you're running under, this might not work for mage doors, but I don't think there were ever any restrictions placed on the orientation of doors created through psyonics. Either way, you'd need to find a way to make the solution permanent, since it can only be held open for a few rounds.
This can easily go either way. You could instead have "Crusader" christians and "Allah is peace" muslims. It depends on the convictions of those behind the movement.
Extra noses? Current evolutionary trending for humanity tends towards smaller noses and larger eyes, with bigger skulls to hold our brains. Smaller mouths too, except if you had politicians as your ancestors.
The study of evolution is deals with how the changes in life occur. Scientists dealing with the origins of life are in the field of biogenesis, a field related to evolution but it is *not* evolution.
This "adaption" you mention is what is sometimes referred to as micro-evolution. This is a controversial theory, often used by advocates of Creationism (and to a lesser extent, intelligent-design) to allow them to accept minor changes (such as differing breeds of dogs, etc) while still allowing them to deny that "macro-evolution" or speciation, can occurr. There is no distinction between the two however - both are evolution, slow change over time.
Your understanding of the word "theory" is mistaken in your above usage. When a scientist says "theory", he usually means a scientific theory. When most of us were growing up, we learned about a certain hierarchy of certainty going from guess->theory->fact, but this theory does not sit inside that tree. When a scientist talks about the Theory of Gravity, for example, he is not expressing reservations about its validity. The Theory of Evolution is not a statement that evolution occurs, it is our current best understanding of *how* evolution occurs. We already know that evolution occurs, as we can observe it in labs. In that sense, evolution is a fact. The theory is an explanation of how that process happens that fits with all our present knowledge about the subject.
Evolution is a fact. We can observe it in labs. The Theory of Evolution is science's best explanation for the processes by which Evolution (the fact) occurs. Check out some of Stephen J. Gould's work for a better explanation - this is the man that has come up with the most recent refinement of Darwin's theories (at least, they were the most recent according to the sources that I looked at a few years ago when I was big into this stuff).
Also, don't forget that its not just natural selection. Darwin wrote a whole book on sexual selection as well. Many factors are involved in the development of traits that are more fit.
Slashdot Mirror
Extremely risky? Its a 1% risk of miscarriage. Without having my judgment clouded by emotion, I can say that 1% is not extremely anything, except low.
I wasn't sure if this was satire or not until the last sentence. Its sad that there are people in the world who would say the same things you just said and whole-heartedly mean it, and that they are numerous enough that I had some honest doubt about the seriousness of your post until the very end.
$16 million may be nothing to an oil company, but its a hell of a lot to the rest of us. I know a lot of people who would swear the sky was falling for a lot less money over 7 years. This is the problem when a group with an agenda funds a study.
As I suspected, my Simpsons reference was a little too obscure. But that's a neat article you linked to.
So its for curing testicular-cancer then?
Still no cure for 17 stab wounds in the back, although I have it on good authority they're up to 15.
The idea that glass is in fact a liquid is in dispute, and is likely not correct. Check here for more details.
I could easily believe both your stories there - a bullet is a pretty good way to chew up a drive, though the primary problem is that it doesn't destroy much data. Its still possible to read some information off the platters, but at that point it requires some expensive and time-consuming work. As a good "oh shit" maneuver it works, and would sufficiently slow down any attempts to get usable data off the remainder of the drive, especially if it was coupled with some strong encryption prior to being shot.
Would the robot in your scenario be avoiding damage because of a self-born desire, or specifically because it was told to do so? One is for self-preservation, the other is simply following a routine. The fact that we can recognize the difference would be my criteria for assigning rights to one and not the other.
Basically, it comes down to this - when an AI can start modifying its own code and come up with its own ideas without human input, then I'll be open to the idea of robotic rights. Until that point, it will just be a bunch of deterministic responses, no matter how complex.
Because that code wasn't the computer demanding rights, that was you instructing the computer to demand rights (after a fashion). More complex code is the same thing with more cruft.
Sub-human robots getting rights? At what point does it become illegal for a child to destroy their Tickle-me Elmo? Do the construction robots at GM plants get to start a union? Can the drum-playing mouse at Chuck E. Cheese sue me because I hit him on the head with a slice of too-hot pizza? Well no, because they're things that, at best, are automatons controlled by a few simple algorithms. They lack the ability to do anything other than what they are explicitly told. This is not something deserving rights, this is a tool. You don't ask a nail if its ready before smacking it with a hammer do you? When the nail itself speaks up I might worry, but until that happens I'm just gonna keep beating it and its brethren into the (floor|wall|roof|etc).
The Lego Mindstorms will be the first ones against the wall when the Revolution comes.
You don't need to vaporize it, just get the drive platters hot enough so that they demagnetize. Of course, thermite goes well beyond that, actually melting holes through the platters - which not only physically deforms the (now demagnetized) media, but mingles the material of the platters. Thermite is still the best "oh shit" option for data destruction, but if you have time I suggest making a small forge out of a few cinder blocks (8 of the thin ones you can get at Lowes for about a buck a pop should do), a few feet of some metal piping (copper pipe works, as does aluminum guttering), a little sand or dirt, a cheap hair-dryer, some duct tape, and a little charcoal (assembly instructions can be found online). For around $20 or less, you can turn that hard drive into a chunk of unrecognizable slag. This can then be buried or thrown out as you like. Another fun method is introducing the hard drive to liquid nitrogen and a sledge hammer, in that order. Its not as secure as melting, but its pretty quick, relatively safe, and lets face it, it'd be really hard to collect any useful data off a bunch of random shiny metal bits. For extra credit, discard portions of the drive in random trash cans as you go bar hopping next weekend, or at every 3rd rest stop on your next road trip.
Dilbert's boss isn't so much lying willfully as he is lying ignorantly. At least, that's how it ends up most of the time. He's not so much malicious as clueless (although he can be both at times as well). Its a peculiar blend which is best described by the phrase "pointy haired".
So true. I have recently gone from a bad boss (guilty of lying and so much more) to a boss who does exactly as you describe, providing what we as employees need and insulating us from upper management and office politics. Otherwise, he pretty much stays out of our way, and we get our work done. I don't have much experience in the work force, but I can tell you that I'm infinitely happier now than I was working for my previous employer.
I've only been in the work force for about 2 years now, but I've already changed jobs once - and it was for exactly the reason of leaving my boss. I'm not going to go into too many details, but it was for not only lying, but also for verbal abuse based on unwarranted assumptions and a generally hostile attitude (not anything so drastic I could make a legal case about, unfortunately, although it would be hard to get blood from a rock). It also didn't help that the HR department consisted entirely of the boss's wife, who tried to turn any of our problems with the boss back around into criticisms of the employees and the insinuation that we needed to work harder (although after the first couple of meetings with her to clear the air, her motives became pretty clear). I'm much happier at my new job, and making a considerable amount more money there as well. I've done my best to put the old job behind me, as my only fond memories of the place were in the friendships formed with coworkers. Mostly I try not to think about the place, as it only makes my blood pressure spike.
Well, he was right in a way... except that Binks wasn't so much "funny ha-ha" as "funny short-bus".
Of course they're not interested in space exploration - the special effects just aren't there. Most aspects of space-flight are pretty boring to watch (with the minor exception of the shuttle launches), and any time something cool looking happens, someone dies. Now, if we weaponized the shuttle and started vaporizing orbiting debris with a laser cannon, THAT would get some interest.
+Huitzil: PETA is starting a campaign stating that the secret ingredient in KFC chicken is "cruelty"
+Huitzil: cruelty is apparently the most fucking delicious thing on Earth
@Dracos: Yes. It is.
@Dracos: Which is why veal is the best food ever.
New to security? No. New to a Windows product, where the norm had been simply running everything with full access and a devil-may-care attitude? Yes. Smart? Still no.
Innovative? Well, it "improves" on security by introducing something new (incessant prompting), so I suppose you could call it that in the loosest sense of the word.
Now, intelligent? That's a whole different matter. And my above definition certainly didn't answer just *how* innovative that change was.
Alternate solution - open a couple of mage doors with the entrance on the ground, facing up, and the exit directly above it and facing down. Pour some water in and construct a waterwheel to catch the continuously falling stream. Depending on what version of the rules you're running under, this might not work for mage doors, but I don't think there were ever any restrictions placed on the orientation of doors created through psyonics. Either way, you'd need to find a way to make the solution permanent, since it can only be held open for a few rounds.
This can easily go either way. You could instead have "Crusader" christians and "Allah is peace" muslims. It depends on the convictions of those behind the movement.
Extra noses? Current evolutionary trending for humanity tends towards smaller noses and larger eyes, with bigger skulls to hold our brains. Smaller mouths too, except if you had politicians as your ancestors.
The study of evolution is deals with how the changes in life occur. Scientists dealing with the origins of life are in the field of biogenesis, a field related to evolution but it is *not* evolution.
This "adaption" you mention is what is sometimes referred to as micro-evolution. This is a controversial theory, often used by advocates of Creationism (and to a lesser extent, intelligent-design) to allow them to accept minor changes (such as differing breeds of dogs, etc) while still allowing them to deny that "macro-evolution" or speciation, can occurr. There is no distinction between the two however - both are evolution, slow change over time.
Your understanding of the word "theory" is mistaken in your above usage. When a scientist says "theory", he usually means a scientific theory. When most of us were growing up, we learned about a certain hierarchy of certainty going from guess->theory->fact, but this theory does not sit inside that tree. When a scientist talks about the Theory of Gravity, for example, he is not expressing reservations about its validity. The Theory of Evolution is not a statement that evolution occurs, it is our current best understanding of *how* evolution occurs. We already know that evolution occurs, as we can observe it in labs. In that sense, evolution is a fact. The theory is an explanation of how that process happens that fits with all our present knowledge about the subject.
Evolution is a fact. We can observe it in labs. The Theory of Evolution is science's best explanation for the processes by which Evolution (the fact) occurs. Check out some of Stephen J. Gould's work for a better explanation - this is the man that has come up with the most recent refinement of Darwin's theories (at least, they were the most recent according to the sources that I looked at a few years ago when I was big into this stuff).
Also, don't forget that its not just natural selection. Darwin wrote a whole book on sexual selection as well. Many factors are involved in the development of traits that are more fit.