Brain neuroplasticity doesn’t allow one to reliably store information over time (our data, regardless how rich at a given point it time, will change and/or degrade with experience/routine). However, we are experts in adaptation and creativity (with a few billion years of experience, give or take). For reliable storage buy hdd/ssd, I would suggest a raid system and search engine on top, way cheaper! Disappointing that big tech companies, who presumably “threatens” the world with their understating of AI hold on such narrow views.
Every species has its own evolution path. There were many species before us, that at that time looked like the winner, say dinosaurs, what would had happen if other species instead of following their own path will had adopted/copied them?
I think many civilizations, like species, are doomed to “fail” while others will choose a different path and move forward, yet maybe to fail in the a next step. Life if anything is about diversity and walking your own path just a thought.
Life is highly resilient/adaptable, earth itself went through at least five mass extension events. It doesn’t seem to be, by any measure, a game of chance.
And maybe they are silent just because they are “silent”
I don’t understand why everyone clings on the medieval assumption that advanced civilization will have a big footprint, which is a lot of noise and waste, or either spread far and wide in the universe like diseases?
If you just observe our own recent technological evolution, we go for smaller, more efficient, highly targeted communication/broadcasting, lower the waste (well not there yet but we are aware). If you just project our own latest technological evolution a few hundred or thousands years in the future, the likelihood is high that we will be under high constrain to become extremely efficient and therefore difficult to be spotted from afar, at least with our current level of technology.
Widespread manipulation is done anyway in the actual campaign.. as most people will vote with little or no clue of what... so I would not worry much abut that bias.
As for online banking system I would say it's secure enough to use just that - you can check the number fraud vs volume of transactions... I did some research some time ago on that and I think the numbers are something like 1 in 10 million.. negligible I would say as 40-50 votes wont make any real difference.
As I see it, there are two major advantages for online voting. First is the cost, once you ha an online system you would save probably as much save hundreds of millions $ over traditional methods. Then is the fact that being alot cheaper and easier that you can organize a vote (like a referendum) as easy.
For anonymity one simple idea is to use a chain of hashes:
- first create hash of an id by a government agency
- then that hash will go to a second and third party (private entity or civic organization) to be hashed again .
- use that final when you cast the vote
A system like will ensure validation of an individual and yet preserve the anonymity – unless all parties involved in the system are compromised.
You could use a chain of hashes - staring with first hash of an id by a government agency, then that hash will go to a second and third party (private or civic organization) to be hashed again. This system will ensure validation of an individual and yet preserve the anonymity – unless all parties involved in the system are compromised.
Then you can store these hashes in a smart card, either standard format or usb key format. The cost for the cards and additional readers will be less anyway then the cost of organization traditional voting systems.
At the application level, plugins for browsers or mobile apps can be written to access the smart card with a pin.
In terms of validation on the backend, the vote request can be simultaneously pushed to three different servers, say government agency, opposition parties and a civil agency servers. Cross-validation between these should match.
Now, even in the case of weak online payment systems, as we have at the moment, only base of cc number and 3 digits on the back, the fraud percentages are small compared with potential fraud in traditional voting systems – so in any case I don't see real reasons not to adopt an online voting system.
And there are other patents filled by Magic Leap Inc - https://www.google.com/search?...
My "rough" guess is that they are probably looking at a system which combines freeform optical waveguide prism/compensation lens with an image generated by virtual retinal display.
After I checked some of the job requirements posted on their website I was initially tempted to think that they are working on a VRD(virtual retinal display) variant. Then I found this - http://www.google.com/patents/...
Pros or Cons are of value as long as they have substance... comments such - "great stuff" or "what a pile of s***e" I would consider myself as trolling as they add no value to the conversation.
What I would like to is a well tough, decent use of argumentation to make a point either way.
Coming up with a religious argument on a subject tagged as pure fact based science will qualify as trolling as well... I would think.
I would be willing to pay for good debate on a subject or idea if that has substance... but I think I would reward the participants based on their involvement rather than a moderated system.
First, I don't they are attempting to read actual thoughts. That will fairly difficult given the complexity of "wiring" - a few billions of neurons each with an average of thousands of connections. However those connections are reasonable stable as a whole and given a known external excitation such as stroboscopic light or even sound it might be possible to detect certain patterns in a EEG signal or MRI which are unique to an individual.
However, if this is developed for the good cause so the "thief" will have access to this technology. And as other biometrics the problem here is these are easy to duplicate. Brain waves might be only slightly difficult but fingerprints or iris scanning you can easily get them from everywhere. Try door handles for fingerprints or a good picture on the street or through a good telescope. Not to mention that some could install fake machines for fools to make a reliable copy....
So I think this technology is doomed - is more like an interesting gadget but no good for the industry. Interesting to do research on and might yield some results which could help somewhere else for the money some fools put in this approach.
The good old password still rocks in the field. In my opinion there is only one way to uniquely identify a living creature... and that cannot be reproduced. I will let you figure that out:)
True, there is no scientific reason as why not... perhaps just a lack of interest until now... And I am also sure they could create something to inhibit the absorption rate at a certain level to avoid the other side effect.
Same they can do with drugs - they could create drugs with no dependency effect and sell them legally at every pharmacy. This way we can gain control on the drug usage problem and put out of business a huge criminal network. Well, instead they choose a simpler inefficient solution to ban... from which the only result was an well established network of drug dealers.
I mean human centric by the fact we model everything around ourselves - we even imagine God in our image. Which might be ok to some extent but it's "selfish" when you gaze at the surrounding universe.
Wrong, can cure cold and many other diseases - and also man added many "breaths" to their life, just have a look at statistics over the last century - and that's thanks to science. And we do have answers to some extent about what make human - human. Not sure about the soul... in my knowledge this is just a fantasy with no hard evidence to support it. One of the many fantasies I can create myself with my imagination in every given moment.
True there are many questions with no answer and many answers half way through and many other questions yet to be asked. However that convenient label answer "God" to everything it won't do... not even for a true believer.
An individual Human mind might have a limit... a group of human minds might do better yet limited... an infinite group of human alike minds might be as big as universe:)
Well then... who's image he created women?
On the other hand people seem to suffer of this "human centric" syndrome... ever since they put the earth the centre of the universe and then the sun, and then the galaxy.
It might be simpler to label everything we don't know as God... everything we do, good or bad, as God's will - yet is just a label, an excuse not to answer the real question.
Slashdot Mirror
Brain neuroplasticity doesn’t allow one to reliably store information over time (our data, regardless how rich at a given point it time, will change and/or degrade with experience/routine). However, we are experts in adaptation and creativity (with a few billion years of experience, give or take). For reliable storage buy hdd/ssd, I would suggest a raid system and search engine on top, way cheaper! Disappointing that big tech companies, who presumably “threatens” the world with their understating of AI hold on such narrow views.
Every species has its own evolution path. There were many species before us, that at that time looked like the winner, say dinosaurs, what would had happen if other species instead of following their own path will had adopted/copied them?
I think many civilizations, like species, are doomed to “fail” while others will choose a different path and move forward, yet maybe to fail in the a next step. Life if anything is about diversity and walking your own path just a thought.
Life is highly resilient/adaptable, earth itself went through at least five mass extension events. It doesn’t seem to be, by any measure, a game of chance.
And maybe they are silent just because they are “silent”
I don’t understand why everyone clings on the medieval assumption that advanced civilization will have a big footprint, which is a lot of noise and waste, or either spread far and wide in the universe like diseases?
If you just observe our own recent technological evolution, we go for smaller, more efficient, highly targeted communication/broadcasting, lower the waste (well not there yet but we are aware). If you just project our own latest technological evolution a few hundred or thousands years in the future, the likelihood is high that we will be under high constrain to become extremely efficient and therefore difficult to be spotted from afar, at least with our current level of technology.
Widespread manipulation is done anyway in the actual campaign .. as most people will vote with little or no clue of what ... so I would not worry much abut that bias.
... I did some research some time ago on that and I think the numbers are something like 1 in 10 million .. negligible I would say as 40-50 votes wont make any real difference.
As for online banking system I would say it's secure enough to use just that - you can check the number fraud vs volume of transactions
As I see it, there are two major advantages for online voting. First is the cost, once you ha an online system you would save probably as much save hundreds of millions $ over traditional methods. Then is the fact that being alot cheaper and easier that you can organize a vote (like a referendum) as easy.
For anonymity one simple idea is to use a chain of hashes:
- first create hash of an id by a government agency
- then that hash will go to a second and third party (private entity or civic organization) to be hashed again .
- use that final when you cast the vote
A system like will ensure validation of an individual and yet preserve the anonymity – unless all parties involved in the system are compromised.
You could use a chain of hashes - staring with first hash of an id by a government agency, then that hash will go to a second and third party (private or civic organization) to be hashed again .
This system will ensure validation of an individual and yet preserve the anonymity – unless all parties involved in the system are compromised.
Then you can store these hashes in a smart card, either standard format or usb key format. The cost for the cards and additional readers will be less anyway then the cost of organization traditional voting systems.
At the application level, plugins for browsers or mobile apps can be written to access the smart card with a pin. In terms of validation on the backend, the vote request can be simultaneously pushed to three different servers, say government agency, opposition parties and a civil agency servers. Cross-validation between these should match.
Now, even in the case of weak online payment systems, as we have at the moment, only base of cc number and 3 digits on the back, the fraud percentages are small compared with potential fraud in traditional voting systems – so in any case I don't see real reasons not to adopt an online voting system.
And there are other patents filled by Magic Leap Inc - https://www.google.com/search?... My "rough" guess is that they are probably looking at a system which combines freeform optical waveguide prism/compensation lens with an image generated by virtual retinal display.
After I checked some of the job requirements posted on their website I was initially tempted to think that they are working on a VRD(virtual retinal display) variant. Then I found this - http://www.google.com/patents/...
Pros or Cons are of value as long as they have substance ... comments such - "great stuff" or "what a pile of s***e" I would consider myself as trolling as they add no value to the conversation.
What I would like to is a well tough, decent use of argumentation to make a point either way.
Coming up with a religious argument on a subject tagged as pure fact based science will qualify as trolling as well ... I would think.
I would be willing to pay for good debate on a subject or idea if that has substance ... but I think I would reward the participants based on their involvement rather than a moderated system.
First, I don't they are attempting to read actual thoughts. That will fairly difficult given the complexity of "wiring" - a few billions of neurons each with an average of thousands of connections. However those connections are reasonable stable as a whole and given a known external excitation such as stroboscopic light or even sound it might be possible to detect certain patterns in a EEG signal or MRI which are unique to an individual.
....
... and that cannot be reproduced. I will let you figure that out :)
However, if this is developed for the good cause so the "thief" will have access to this technology. And as other biometrics the problem here is these are easy to duplicate. Brain waves might be only slightly difficult but fingerprints or iris scanning you can easily get them from everywhere. Try door handles for fingerprints or a good picture on the street or through a good telescope. Not to mention that some could install fake machines for fools to make a reliable copy
So I think this technology is doomed - is more like an interesting gadget but no good for the industry. Interesting to do research on and might yield some results which could help somewhere else for the money some fools put in this approach.
The good old password still rocks in the field. In my opinion there is only one way to uniquely identify a living creature
True, there is no scientific reason as why not ... perhaps just a lack of interest until now... And I am also sure they could create something to inhibit the absorption rate at a certain level to avoid the other side effect.
... from which the only result was an well established network of drug dealers.
Same they can do with drugs - they could create drugs with no dependency effect and sell them legally at every pharmacy. This way we can gain control on the drug usage problem and put out of business a huge criminal network.
Well, instead they choose a simpler inefficient solution to ban
I mean human centric by the fact we model everything around ourselves - we even imagine God in our image. Which might be ok to some extent but it's "selfish" when you gaze at the surrounding universe.
... in my knowledge this is just a fantasy with no hard evidence to support it. One of the many fantasies I can create myself with my imagination in every given moment.
... not even for a true believer.
... a group of human minds might do better yet limited ... an infinite group of human alike minds might be as big as universe :)
Wrong, can cure cold and many other diseases - and also man added many "breaths" to their life, just have a look at statistics over the last century - and that's thanks to science. And we do have answers to some extent about what make human - human.
Not sure about the soul
True there are many questions with no answer and many answers half way through and many other questions yet to be asked. However that convenient label answer "God" to everything it won't do
An individual Human mind might have a limit
Well then ... who's image he created women?
On the other hand people seem to suffer of this "human centric" syndrome ... ever since they put the earth the centre of the universe and then the sun, and then the galaxy.
It might be simpler to label everything we don't know as God ... everything we do, good or bad, as God's will - yet is just a label, an excuse not to answer the real question.