So, how do you tell if the hash is of something potentially objectionable? What's to stop me from creating lots of hashes of famous paintings, for example, and uploading them? How about if I destroy the Internet by uploading hash after hash of cute cat pictures, so they can never be seen on Facebook?
The reason I like the New Deal analogy is that we're basically saying that if you can't find work that pays what you want, the government is the employer of last resort and has projects that need doing.
During the New Deal, the CCC built a lot of things that are still in use today. People went out and did real work and learned useful skills. The reason the government paid for it was that nobody else would fund those or similar projects, not that the projects weren't worth doing. Currently, such employment would be mostly make-work, since we can't efficiently use large numbers of low-skill people, and the skills they learned wouldn't get them a decent living.
Actually, it would reduce welfare administration costs dramatically. A lot of the current welfare system is devoted to making sure nobody gets more than they should. If everybody is supposed to get a certain fixed amount, most of that overhead goes away.
Religious periods aren't necessarily high-culture periods. Consider Europe in the millennium starting in 400 CE - religion, yes, flourishing culture, no.
I once read that the biggest advantage of philosophy was that it enables people to recognize bad arguments. I haven't come up with a bigger advantage yet.
There are evident drawbacks to letting natural intelligence beings control cars without extensive training. Why do you thing AI has to be so massively more successful than NI?
You sound awfully certain, what with those claims and that bold type and all, but I don't see any support for your thesis.
We don't need to understand the brain to create intelligence, just as we didn't have to understand how bumblebees fly in order to have powered flight. Just because the only intelligent things nowadays have brains doesn't mean all intelligent things must have brains or something that functions like one. We need to create intelligence, not a soul or anything like that, and that's measured by observing the potentially intelligent thing. Think about the Turing test - if you could have an intelligent conversation on varying subjects with an entity, does it matter whether that entity is biological or not? We understand other people and consider them intelligent because they have similar behaviors to what we have.
In some applications (bank loans, medical diagnoses) it's vital for a system to be able to explain itself. In most, it isn't important. Typically, what's important is the answer, and getting it as fast and as accurate as possible.
Artificial neural nets can't explain themselves. The logic is part of coefficient values throughout the net, and it isn't always reliable. They're still useful.
The Russian Federation and Russian Empire are not the same geographic area. The Russian Empire contained most or all of the Russian Federation, and included Finland, much of Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, and the Caucasus countries. Look at the Soviet boundaries and add Finland and Poland through Warsaw.
To represent analog data from sound *entirely* accurately via digital mechanisms, you actually need digital sampling frequencies on the order of hundreds of millions or possibly even billions of hertz.
C'mon. The standard human ear goes up to maybe 28KHz under ideal conditions. Let's kick that up to 40KHz for giggles. Anything above that is wasted. That means a sample rate of 80KHz will do just fine for human hearing.
The problem with analog precision is keeping it from form to form. In this case, we're taking a sound and we're using it to control some sort of stylus cutting grooves. There's going to be limitations on how precisely the stylus can cut at high frequencies. If you get really, really precise, you're not dealing with the music, but rather artifacts from the system.
Is that really what they teach you in entry-level data communications classes?
On the off chance that you're actually serious....
Having this satellite will benefit all of us to a very, very small extent. There is no commercial value, and it's expensive. If no government does it, it won't happen, because no industry is able to extract very small amounts of money from enough people to do it.
It's a tragedy of the commons. Each of us individually is better off without contributing a buck to the satellite. Each of us is better off if everybody chips in a buck.
You are entirely right on D&D lifting from Tolkein (and other places)...their halflings were just (legally forced/threatened) renames of hobbits IIRC.
As one who bought the original version of D&D (which didn't say "role-playing" anywhere), you're correct. The game had hobbits, ents, and balrogs. TSR had to change those pretty fast when the Tolkien estate caught up with them. (Apparently "orcs" had prior use, so they kept that.) The game itself wasn't particularly like Tolkien's writing, but it borrowed monsters and player races from all sorts of places.
There was fantasy before Tolkien. Tolkien just made it popular. Tolkien's fantasy wasn't really much different from other fantasy, but his worldbuilding was great.
The next big change in fantasy was Dungeons and Dragons. Tolkien's wizards knew things, and were capable of unusual things. Dungeons and Dragons made wizards into artillery, firing powerful fireball and lightning bolt spells to kill large numbers of monsters. Gandalf the White would rate maybe sixth level on the D&D power scale, unimpressive for an ancient angel in human form. After D&D, wizards tended to have high damage output.
As far as world-building went, M.A.R. "Phil" Barker and Greg Stafford put out games based on Tekumel and Glorantha respectively in the early days of RPGs, and those were also very finely detailed worlds.
Meanwhile, there continues to be exactly zero evidence of Trump having anything whatsoever to do with the Russians
Completely and utterly false, this shows that you aren't interested in any sort of reasonable argument.
Trump has a lot of business dealings with Russians that are on public record. We know he deals with the Russians. Many of his close associates have denied Russian connections and been shown to be liars. There's evidence. You could argue against some of the evidence, but apparently that's too difficult so you wish it away.
Except that Sanders did better in caucus states than in primary states. Delegates that were chosen by free election by people in general were more likely to be pro-Clinton than delegates produced by the party apparatus.
Sanders had a better reputation because he hadn't been seriously attacked. If nominated, he would have been considerably more vulnerable to Republican campaigning than Clinton was. I don't think he would have done better.
Clinton won the nomination because the average Democrat preferred her over Sanders.
IIRC, Paula Jones' claims didn't meet the legal definition of sexual harassment, and she couldn't show damages. Clinton was clearly being a jerk, but that's not chargeable. There are more or less believable accusations about Clinton that are worse.
Corporate income taxes are paid out of profits, so they can't affect the prices charged. The price charged to maximize profit is exactly the same as the price charged to maximize profit * 0.6. Similarly, corporate income taxes can't make a business unprofitable.
Nobody starts an art project on the grounds that they might make money forty years in the future. Art projects that take twenty years are done for love, not cash. It's a good thing to reward artists of all sorts, but twenty years is going to motivate all the ones motivated by money.
I was unclear. I'm not cautious in the sense of driving slower than traffic. That's dangerous, as you say. I keep larger intervals than most people, wait for bigger gaps to turn into, that sort of thing.
Slashdot Mirror
So, how do you tell if the hash is of something potentially objectionable? What's to stop me from creating lots of hashes of famous paintings, for example, and uploading them? How about if I destroy the Internet by uploading hash after hash of cute cat pictures, so they can never be seen on Facebook?
During the New Deal, the CCC built a lot of things that are still in use today. People went out and did real work and learned useful skills. The reason the government paid for it was that nobody else would fund those or similar projects, not that the projects weren't worth doing. Currently, such employment would be mostly make-work, since we can't efficiently use large numbers of low-skill people, and the skills they learned wouldn't get them a decent living.
Actually, it would reduce welfare administration costs dramatically. A lot of the current welfare system is devoted to making sure nobody gets more than they should. If everybody is supposed to get a certain fixed amount, most of that overhead goes away.
Religious periods aren't necessarily high-culture periods. Consider Europe in the millennium starting in 400 CE - religion, yes, flourishing culture, no.
I once read that the biggest advantage of philosophy was that it enables people to recognize bad arguments. I haven't come up with a bigger advantage yet.
There are evident drawbacks to letting natural intelligence beings control cars without extensive training. Why do you thing AI has to be so massively more successful than NI?
You sound awfully certain, what with those claims and that bold type and all, but I don't see any support for your thesis.
We don't need to understand the brain to create intelligence, just as we didn't have to understand how bumblebees fly in order to have powered flight. Just because the only intelligent things nowadays have brains doesn't mean all intelligent things must have brains or something that functions like one. We need to create intelligence, not a soul or anything like that, and that's measured by observing the potentially intelligent thing. Think about the Turing test - if you could have an intelligent conversation on varying subjects with an entity, does it matter whether that entity is biological or not? We understand other people and consider them intelligent because they have similar behaviors to what we have.
In some applications (bank loans, medical diagnoses) it's vital for a system to be able to explain itself. In most, it isn't important. Typically, what's important is the answer, and getting it as fast and as accurate as possible.
Artificial neural nets can't explain themselves. The logic is part of coefficient values throughout the net, and it isn't always reliable. They're still useful.
Until there aren't enough for people to be interested in them, and then the whole thing collapses.
The Russian Federation and Russian Empire are not the same geographic area. The Russian Empire contained most or all of the Russian Federation, and included Finland, much of Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, and the Caucasus countries. Look at the Soviet boundaries and add Finland and Poland through Warsaw.
Thing is, I don't have the same hearing that I did forty years ago. It takes a lot less precision to sound perfect to me nowadays.
C'mon. The standard human ear goes up to maybe 28KHz under ideal conditions. Let's kick that up to 40KHz for giggles. Anything above that is wasted. That means a sample rate of 80KHz will do just fine for human hearing.
The problem with analog precision is keeping it from form to form. In this case, we're taking a sound and we're using it to control some sort of stylus cutting grooves. There's going to be limitations on how precisely the stylus can cut at high frequencies. If you get really, really precise, you're not dealing with the music, but rather artifacts from the system.
Is that really what they teach you in entry-level data communications classes?
On the off chance that you're actually serious....
Having this satellite will benefit all of us to a very, very small extent. There is no commercial value, and it's expensive. If no government does it, it won't happen, because no industry is able to extract very small amounts of money from enough people to do it.
It's a tragedy of the commons. Each of us individually is better off without contributing a buck to the satellite. Each of us is better off if everybody chips in a buck.
I've seen speculation that the eagles were a literal deus ex machina, sent by Eru on specific errands.
You mean Saruman?
The latest Harry Dresden novel comes uncomfortably close to that
As one who bought the original version of D&D (which didn't say "role-playing" anywhere), you're correct. The game had hobbits, ents, and balrogs. TSR had to change those pretty fast when the Tolkien estate caught up with them. (Apparently "orcs" had prior use, so they kept that.) The game itself wasn't particularly like Tolkien's writing, but it borrowed monsters and player races from all sorts of places.
There was fantasy before Tolkien. Tolkien just made it popular. Tolkien's fantasy wasn't really much different from other fantasy, but his worldbuilding was great.
The next big change in fantasy was Dungeons and Dragons. Tolkien's wizards knew things, and were capable of unusual things. Dungeons and Dragons made wizards into artillery, firing powerful fireball and lightning bolt spells to kill large numbers of monsters. Gandalf the White would rate maybe sixth level on the D&D power scale, unimpressive for an ancient angel in human form. After D&D, wizards tended to have high damage output.
As far as world-building went, M.A.R. "Phil" Barker and Greg Stafford put out games based on Tekumel and Glorantha respectively in the early days of RPGs, and those were also very finely detailed worlds.
Completely and utterly false, this shows that you aren't interested in any sort of reasonable argument.
Trump has a lot of business dealings with Russians that are on public record. We know he deals with the Russians. Many of his close associates have denied Russian connections and been shown to be liars. There's evidence. You could argue against some of the evidence, but apparently that's too difficult so you wish it away.
Except that Sanders did better in caucus states than in primary states. Delegates that were chosen by free election by people in general were more likely to be pro-Clinton than delegates produced by the party apparatus.
Sanders had a better reputation because he hadn't been seriously attacked. If nominated, he would have been considerably more vulnerable to Republican campaigning than Clinton was. I don't think he would have done better.
Clinton won the nomination because the average Democrat preferred her over Sanders.
IIRC, Paula Jones' claims didn't meet the legal definition of sexual harassment, and she couldn't show damages. Clinton was clearly being a jerk, but that's not chargeable. There are more or less believable accusations about Clinton that are worse.
Corporate income taxes are paid out of profits, so they can't affect the prices charged. The price charged to maximize profit is exactly the same as the price charged to maximize profit * 0.6. Similarly, corporate income taxes can't make a business unprofitable.
Nobody starts an art project on the grounds that they might make money forty years in the future. Art projects that take twenty years are done for love, not cash. It's a good thing to reward artists of all sorts, but twenty years is going to motivate all the ones motivated by money.
I was unclear. I'm not cautious in the sense of driving slower than traffic. That's dangerous, as you say. I keep larger intervals than most people, wait for bigger gaps to turn into, that sort of thing.