Civil prosecution for failing to use their desired pronouns? I find that extremely unlikely, and even less likely that a judge would consider it. Please provide examples.
You attended a mandatory presentation about gender identification issues. Who made it mandatory? No government has informed me of one I have to attend. I'd suspect that your employer or contract equivalent made it a condition of working there, and at that point it isn't a free speech issue. If the company thinks you're offending customers, they have every right to fire you (in some jurisdictions it might require record-keeping). If the company thinks you might offend customers, they might want to have workshops on how to avoid it.
Me? I think it only polite to address people as they want to be addressed. I would vary from that only if I deliberately wanted to be impolite.
If my health care providers leak information in ways I didn't authorize, I don't have to show harm for them to be in HIPAA trouble just for their speech. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? If someone says something false about me that can harm me in the future, should I be able to sue for slander now? These are acts that may well have no visible bad consequences at the time a lawsuit is appropriate.
It would appear that the Democrats/MSM/Left/[other people you dislike] are correct. The public is really stupid in some ways and susceptible to the power of advertisements. Otherwise, we wouldn't have all those advertisements. Exactly what we should do about it is an open issue.
Also, voter suppression is more of a Republican thing. They don't want poor people and minorities to have the same ease of voting that Republicans want.
If your speech is free of consequences, why speak? Nobody will do anything you ask them to. Nobody will pay attention. People typically ask questions because they want answers, a consequence of their speech. People usually say things because they want consequences.
If that's free speech, I don't want it.
You appear to want speech free of the consequences you don't want, but with the consequences you do want. We don't get to pick and choose our consequences, though.
This requires each individual to have a private key, secret, not given to anyone, and available for use whenever the individual's identity is verified. The private key is impossible to fake (assuming good asymmetric crypto is used), but there's many ways a bad guy could get hold of it. If it's on a card or something, someone could steal your wallet. If it's a number you type into a system, well, keyloggers do exist. If compromised, it would be very difficult to rebuild the trust.
It works well for the purposes it's used for now, as far as I know, but I really doubt that anything all that interesting to a criminal is protected by a GPG key.
And then there's the problem that you have to give out your password everywhere you go, while keeping it secret. Might as well use the Social Security number.
So, the bad guy gets a photograph and fingerprints and has a government ID card made that'll look good enough with a mediocre scan. Unless you're saying the applicant should always appear in person for credit decisions, there's no connection between bad guy and recorded data. We could avoid a lot of fraud by requiring people to go places physically, and disrupt a very large amount of business.
The credit-giving agency then has to call a phone number, and get someone who will say they're the guy being impersonated. What phone number? How does the agency confirm that the phone number is the right one? The crook needs to have a cell phone. It may have to be registered under a name the bad guy doesn't quite have the legal right to use. Now, you've pushed the burden of authentication onto the phone company, since that's the one external record you use. Use snail mail? There's several ways around that. File a phony address with the credit application. Send a change of address form. Watch mail deliveries to the correct address, and steal the envelope.
Weather is chaotic. This means that we have the storms we have partly because we have global warming. If we didn't, we'd have different storms. Any weather event can be attributed partly to global warming.
I've been told, by people who appear to know what they're talking about, that quantum computers are limited in what they can do. For example, they can cut the effective key length for a cipher in half, but not more. That would mean that AES-256 is invulnerable to brute-force attacks using quantum computers (at least using only the current resources of the entire Solar System).
No US-based VPN provider is going to protect your privacy against a US search warrant. Not and stay in business, anyway. The only way they can protect the client is to not keep log information. (After the Patriot Act, the American Library Association issued a strong recommendation that libraries not keep any information on who checked out what in the past, all records to be discarded when an item is returned.)
So, you have to know what sort of log data the provider keeps to judge how well the provider will protect your privacy.
Innovation is risky. It can flop completely, or it can be a big success. With crowdfunding, you have all the possibility of losing everything you contributed, combined with the lack of ability to succeed big. Not a good fit.
Replicators aren't fundamentally impossible, merely difficult. There's a big difference between wanting a chicken sandwich and wanting an exact copy of a Platonic ideal chicken sandwich. We can already 3D-print certain foodstuffs with a printer well under $1K (and it's probably become cheaper, since I priced it a year and a half ago).
Transporters? They're fussier, since if I step into one I want to walk out as one specific human. There's some work on quantum teleportation, which bypasses the uncertainty principle, but I don't know any practical way to do it.
Warp drive? There's the Alcubierre drive being kicked around today. It's very far from being possible currently, and may never be. Relativity tells us that faster-than-light travel is the same as time travel, and Kirk wound up in the Twentieth Century several times (probably because the sets were cheaper, much like, say, "A Piece of the Action", where he winds up on a world tailored after Earth at a certain period).
The communicators are souped-up versions of cell phones. Tricorders are sensor packs with recording capability, and I don't know what I'd want with one. They were handled by Spock and McCoy for scientific and medical purposes, not normally by the crew in general.
What I'm absolutely sure of is that, assuming civilization persists, the stuff available two centuries from now will look like magic, just not the sort of magic that we predict.
Actually, my original iPhone did pretty much everything I used a PDA for, so I stopped using the PDA. It could keep track of my schedule and my contacts, and it had decent web-based games, and it did more. It handled my email well and had a good web browser. It even made phone calls.
That's one of the reason crowdfunders might be conservative. If a venture capitalist funds ten startups, all it takes is one big success to make it financially worthwhile, covering the costs of all ten and then some. If I contribute to ten Kickstarter projects, and one wins big, I've got one good whatever. If the product is a huge success for its company, I've got my whatever, and that's it.
If something's innovative, that means it has a good chance of going bust and a real chance of making it big. As a crowdfunder, it may be a tossup: tails I lose, heads I likely win a little. If it's some people doing the same sort of thing they've done two times before, I'm likely going to win a little. The contributions and reward levels are, in my experience, never enough to constitute a real win. I get something nice before the general public, probably at a minor discount, and it's possible that the something might never exist if it wasn't for our contributions.
Also, venture capitalists can meet the founders and talk to them. Their individual contribution is big enough to get them individual treatment. I can only judge KS projects by what I can find out as a member of the public. If someone comes around with a new and potentially brilliant idea, I can't judge the chance of success or the competence of the someone..
So, I support Kickstarter projects that are basically people doing what they've done before, if they're making things I'm going to want, and the contribution is not so much money that I'd be seriously annoyed if I lost it.
I got a cheap one with a large screen mostly as a PDF reader. It works great for that. It doesn't do what my laptop and smartphone can do, at least not very well, but a page-sized screen that works in portrait mode is great.
The car can certainly be programmed to recognize larger and smaller animals, and therefore it's easy to insert a rule about similar animals of different size on different sides of the road. We don't have to have separate rules for large and small sheep, cows, ducks, capybaras, pangolins, etc. This doesn't require intelligence.
Besides, for varying X, what are the triggers that will send young Xs running to their mothers? I don't know myself. Doubtless you know what will spook lambs, and that makes you a safer driver in your part of the world.
Are you sure we don't use stereo vision? We can't use it to judge distances real accurately, but it's very good at saying whether object X is close than object Y, or whether object X is closer or farther than it was a moment ago. It is possible to drive with one eye, but when my left eye didn't work properly (Anterior Basement Membrane Dystrophy, if you're interested) I was putting a lot of attention into seeing what I could with my right.
The pattern for much of AI since the 1950s has been: Human says that to do X requires intelligence. AI researcher unveils a system that does X. Human then looks at how the researcher did it and says "That's not intelligence." Human then says that to do Y requires intelligence, and the cycle repeats.
Humans, basically, seem to be very bad at figuring out what needs intelligence. I see no reason to believe that safe automatic driving with better than human sensors will require intelligence.
640K? I filled my first personal computer all the way up to 48K. The mainframe I was working on then had a 128K address space (although it did have 60-bit words). Eventually they added the bank-switching capability so it could use more than 128K words.
So, yes, 640K was more than enough for lots of us when we got started.
The average driver is actually pretty good, in terms of accidents and accident severity per mile traveled. We have highways full of people who are not selected for driving ability, and cars are rarely in accidents.
Slashdot Mirror
Civil prosecution for failing to use their desired pronouns? I find that extremely unlikely, and even less likely that a judge would consider it. Please provide examples.
You attended a mandatory presentation about gender identification issues. Who made it mandatory? No government has informed me of one I have to attend. I'd suspect that your employer or contract equivalent made it a condition of working there, and at that point it isn't a free speech issue. If the company thinks you're offending customers, they have every right to fire you (in some jurisdictions it might require record-keeping). If the company thinks you might offend customers, they might want to have workshops on how to avoid it.
Me? I think it only polite to address people as they want to be addressed. I would vary from that only if I deliberately wanted to be impolite.
If my health care providers leak information in ways I didn't authorize, I don't have to show harm for them to be in HIPAA trouble just for their speech. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? If someone says something false about me that can harm me in the future, should I be able to sue for slander now? These are acts that may well have no visible bad consequences at the time a lawsuit is appropriate.
It would appear that the Democrats/MSM/Left/[other people you dislike] are correct. The public is really stupid in some ways and susceptible to the power of advertisements. Otherwise, we wouldn't have all those advertisements. Exactly what we should do about it is an open issue.
Also, voter suppression is more of a Republican thing. They don't want poor people and minorities to have the same ease of voting that Republicans want.
If your speech is free of consequences, why speak? Nobody will do anything you ask them to. Nobody will pay attention. People typically ask questions because they want answers, a consequence of their speech. People usually say things because they want consequences.
If that's free speech, I don't want it.
You appear to want speech free of the consequences you don't want, but with the consequences you do want. We don't get to pick and choose our consequences, though.
This requires each individual to have a private key, secret, not given to anyone, and available for use whenever the individual's identity is verified. The private key is impossible to fake (assuming good asymmetric crypto is used), but there's many ways a bad guy could get hold of it. If it's on a card or something, someone could steal your wallet. If it's a number you type into a system, well, keyloggers do exist. If compromised, it would be very difficult to rebuild the trust.
It works well for the purposes it's used for now, as far as I know, but I really doubt that anything all that interesting to a criminal is protected by a GPG key.
Depends where in the US and who you are and what you look like. People have been convicted on scanty evidence before.
And then there's the problem that you have to give out your password everywhere you go, while keeping it secret. Might as well use the Social Security number.
So, the bad guy gets a photograph and fingerprints and has a government ID card made that'll look good enough with a mediocre scan. Unless you're saying the applicant should always appear in person for credit decisions, there's no connection between bad guy and recorded data. We could avoid a lot of fraud by requiring people to go places physically, and disrupt a very large amount of business.
The credit-giving agency then has to call a phone number, and get someone who will say they're the guy being impersonated. What phone number? How does the agency confirm that the phone number is the right one? The crook needs to have a cell phone. It may have to be registered under a name the bad guy doesn't quite have the legal right to use. Now, you've pushed the burden of authentication onto the phone company, since that's the one external record you use. Use snail mail? There's several ways around that. File a phony address with the credit application. Send a change of address form. Watch mail deliveries to the correct address, and steal the envelope.
I really don't think that's going to work.
More readable filenames were a good idea. Allowing spaces in them is iffier.
It's not simple (very few things in computer vision are), but it's an animal recognition feature, not a behavior prediction feature.
Weather is chaotic. This means that we have the storms we have partly because we have global warming. If we didn't, we'd have different storms. Any weather event can be attributed partly to global warming.
I've been told, by people who appear to know what they're talking about, that quantum computers are limited in what they can do. For example, they can cut the effective key length for a cipher in half, but not more. That would mean that AES-256 is invulnerable to brute-force attacks using quantum computers (at least using only the current resources of the entire Solar System).
Perhaps, but search warrants are easy for law enforcement to get given probable cause (and, unfortunately, sometimes easy to get without it).
No US-based VPN provider is going to protect your privacy against a US search warrant. Not and stay in business, anyway. The only way they can protect the client is to not keep log information. (After the Patriot Act, the American Library Association issued a strong recommendation that libraries not keep any information on who checked out what in the past, all records to be discarded when an item is returned.)
So, you have to know what sort of log data the provider keeps to judge how well the provider will protect your privacy.
Innovation is risky. It can flop completely, or it can be a big success. With crowdfunding, you have all the possibility of losing everything you contributed, combined with the lack of ability to succeed big. Not a good fit.
Replicators aren't fundamentally impossible, merely difficult. There's a big difference between wanting a chicken sandwich and wanting an exact copy of a Platonic ideal chicken sandwich. We can already 3D-print certain foodstuffs with a printer well under $1K (and it's probably become cheaper, since I priced it a year and a half ago).
Transporters? They're fussier, since if I step into one I want to walk out as one specific human. There's some work on quantum teleportation, which bypasses the uncertainty principle, but I don't know any practical way to do it.
Warp drive? There's the Alcubierre drive being kicked around today. It's very far from being possible currently, and may never be. Relativity tells us that faster-than-light travel is the same as time travel, and Kirk wound up in the Twentieth Century several times (probably because the sets were cheaper, much like, say, "A Piece of the Action", where he winds up on a world tailored after Earth at a certain period).
The communicators are souped-up versions of cell phones. Tricorders are sensor packs with recording capability, and I don't know what I'd want with one. They were handled by Spock and McCoy for scientific and medical purposes, not normally by the crew in general.
What I'm absolutely sure of is that, assuming civilization persists, the stuff available two centuries from now will look like magic, just not the sort of magic that we predict.
Actually, my original iPhone did pretty much everything I used a PDA for, so I stopped using the PDA. It could keep track of my schedule and my contacts, and it had decent web-based games, and it did more. It handled my email well and had a good web browser. It even made phone calls.
That's one of the reason crowdfunders might be conservative. If a venture capitalist funds ten startups, all it takes is one big success to make it financially worthwhile, covering the costs of all ten and then some. If I contribute to ten Kickstarter projects, and one wins big, I've got one good whatever. If the product is a huge success for its company, I've got my whatever, and that's it.
If something's innovative, that means it has a good chance of going bust and a real chance of making it big. As a crowdfunder, it may be a tossup: tails I lose, heads I likely win a little. If it's some people doing the same sort of thing they've done two times before, I'm likely going to win a little. The contributions and reward levels are, in my experience, never enough to constitute a real win. I get something nice before the general public, probably at a minor discount, and it's possible that the something might never exist if it wasn't for our contributions.
Also, venture capitalists can meet the founders and talk to them. Their individual contribution is big enough to get them individual treatment. I can only judge KS projects by what I can find out as a member of the public. If someone comes around with a new and potentially brilliant idea, I can't judge the chance of success or the competence of the someone..
So, I support Kickstarter projects that are basically people doing what they've done before, if they're making things I'm going to want, and the contribution is not so much money that I'd be seriously annoyed if I lost it.
I got a cheap one with a large screen mostly as a PDF reader. It works great for that. It doesn't do what my laptop and smartphone can do, at least not very well, but a page-sized screen that works in portrait mode is great.
The car can certainly be programmed to recognize larger and smaller animals, and therefore it's easy to insert a rule about similar animals of different size on different sides of the road. We don't have to have separate rules for large and small sheep, cows, ducks, capybaras, pangolins, etc. This doesn't require intelligence.
Besides, for varying X, what are the triggers that will send young Xs running to their mothers? I don't know myself. Doubtless you know what will spook lambs, and that makes you a safer driver in your part of the world.
Are you sure we don't use stereo vision? We can't use it to judge distances real accurately, but it's very good at saying whether object X is close than object Y, or whether object X is closer or farther than it was a moment ago. It is possible to drive with one eye, but when my left eye didn't work properly (Anterior Basement Membrane Dystrophy, if you're interested) I was putting a lot of attention into seeing what I could with my right.
The pattern for much of AI since the 1950s has been: Human says that to do X requires intelligence. AI researcher unveils a system that does X. Human then looks at how the researcher did it and says "That's not intelligence." Human then says that to do Y requires intelligence, and the cycle repeats.
Humans, basically, seem to be very bad at figuring out what needs intelligence. I see no reason to believe that safe automatic driving with better than human sensors will require intelligence.
The cameras in my car are better at recognizing lane markers when it's raining at night than I am.
640K? I filled my first personal computer all the way up to 48K. The mainframe I was working on then had a 128K address space (although it did have 60-bit words). Eventually they added the bank-switching capability so it could use more than 128K words.
So, yes, 640K was more than enough for lots of us when we got started.
The average driver is actually pretty good, in terms of accidents and accident severity per mile traveled. We have highways full of people who are not selected for driving ability, and cars are rarely in accidents.