Really? I'm pretty sure that MoO2 gave you a chance to steal technology when you conquered a planet (Though I've rarely seen it, as I usually play Psilons).
Or possibly because most countries use their military to protect themselves rather than to invade other countries (on the other side of the planet).
No. Invading people doesn't give you advanced technology, spending money on military R&D does. This isn't Master of Orion where you get technology for winning a battle.
Except that these kind of people don't appear to have too much of a problem aquiring weapons in the first place.
Ah, so because some criminals can get weapons anyway, we should just sell as much military hardware as we like to anyone who wants it, as they'll just get it anywhere? Does that translate well into your views on civilian arms-control? Do you agree with the statement that the US should sell weapons to whoever wants them, in whatever quantity they want?
There's two things we're talking about in this situation. The first is advanced military technology. Most other countries do not have these things, if only because their military R&D budgets are smaller. This is aircraft parts, nuclear technology, etc.
The other thing is regular small arms. Nobody is saying that you can't get those things elsewhere, but that America shouldn't necessarily export those anywhere in any quantity. To, you know, stop random warlords or organized crime from being able to acquire military equipment in large supply.
On a personal level, I am deeply disturbed by your anti-American bias. Not everything America (or Americans) does is a pure expression of arrogance and contempt.
Deniable encryption makes that distinction irrelevant, particularly if stacked. Since it's a baseline (indeed, central) feature of freely-available security software, I'd say it's not just an edge case.
Why do people continually refer to Turing's test as a monolithic entity. That's like asking whether, say, a car (this being slashdot) can pass "the speed test". The idea of being able to tell the computer from a human is an important style of testing, but referring to it as a specific test is ridiculous.
Doubtless we've made some advances in chat capability, false identities, etc. But no machine could pass a Turing test based on emotion. Happy/sad stories, jokes, etc. You could try some flashy tricks with huge databases and word frequencies to solve the former, but that stumbles on the latter.
We're just not there yet. And we're not going to get there with more of the same.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 383,000 people employed in the Motion picture and sound recording industries in September 2008.
My money is on the idea that they took the amount the industries estimate they lose from piracy and then divided that by some moderate wage.
I'm aware of the broken window fallacy, as you can see here. In this type of R&D, there are very few explosions. You don't randomly blow up your expensive, high-tech lasers.
Your Hummer dig is a typical argument from ignorance. It's the only piece of obvious military tech that has wandered into your life, so you assume it is the sum of all military developments. Take a look here for a counterexample (that is, defense technology that has some obvious applications for civilian use).
Of course research devoted strictly to defense won't go as far toward civilian ends as pure civilian funding. However, defense research can provide non-military benefits, while also contributing to (*shock*) national defense. And I believe that defense is a reasonable end to spend money on.
You, my friend, are despairing at the human condition, not any particular incarnation of military spending. Wealth and power and lack of consequences have generally walked hand-in-hand for the entirety of human history. I would suggest that you focus your efforts into finding ways that we can, at the peak of our technological development, cheat the cycle of history and change what it means to be human. Because that is what it would take to resolve the problems you're talking about.
How much are the Japanese actually putting into that endeavor? I mean, they've estimated the cost at a trillion yen, but I'm pretty sure they haven't actually budgeted that money out.
Also, I'd be careful in demarcating military research to strongly. As I said in another post, building these things would require a great deal of high-tech American manufacturing, which I can hardly view as a bad thing. And I'm sure someone will come up with something to do with cheap lasers (I hear there's some promising fusion research in that direction).
If by "wars" you mean "engineers and high-technology manufacturing infrastructure".
Military R&D is sharply distinct from the actual act of deploying military assets and blowing things up.
(I'll admit, I'm hardly objective in this regard, but I believe I've chosen my path in life because it worked with my principles, not the other way around)
Downlink Telementary Sub-Systems, which sounds like something more akin to Battlestar Galactica
Sounds like someone hasn't been watching closely. Doesn't he know that starships are principally operated by wrought-iron wheels and analog needle gauges?
In the general case of advancing AI research, you're right. We're getting no closer to building a real brain by trying to make bigger blank slates; we've exceeded the computational capacity of some animals whose abilities still can't be replicated. However, when talking specifically about Go, a game only humans can play, our computers still have dramatically inferior capabilities to the biological competitor.
P.S., Unless you're making a joke I'm missing, it's "Gaius"
I really loved what Del Toro did with several of the scenes (The dolls in the intro, the forest god, the elven throne), but much of the rest of it just seemed... lame and obvious, like any other mainstream action movie. What resulted was this strange combination of beautiful moments juxtaposed with predictable one-liners.
I'm glad I saw it, but I really wish it had felt like Del Toro's other work. I suppose he did it to attract a proper American audience?
I'm always surprised by the apparent discontinuity between the sort of AI research that goes on in computer science departments (where "connectionism" is a dirty word), and the fact that a lot of modern neuroscientists seem to think that we'll solve a lot of the brain by figuring out the connections.
And, honestly, I don't think that DSI/DTI is really going to give us very much insight beyond bulk connectionism. When I spoke to Walter Schneider at a Neuromorphic computing workshop this past April, he told me that these sorts of processes operate at at a resolution around a tenth of a millimeter. While that's good for determining the highways of the brain, you can't very well figure out how a steel mill works by looking at a map its delivery trucks follow.
I suspect that any assurances from me will mean little and less (you seem to have a well-defined opinion about what DARPA does and why), I think that the ideas I'm pursuing here are sufficiently general that it would be foolish to shy away from them on grounds that they might be used for some military application. You could say the very same about any advanced computing device.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? I'm pretty sure that MoO2 gave you a chance to steal technology when you conquered a planet (Though I've rarely seen it, as I usually play Psilons).
No. Invading people doesn't give you advanced technology, spending money on military R&D does. This isn't Master of Orion where you get technology for winning a battle.
Ah, so because some criminals can get weapons anyway, we should just sell as much military hardware as we like to anyone who wants it, as they'll just get it anywhere? Does that translate well into your views on civilian arms-control? Do you agree with the statement that the US should sell weapons to whoever wants them, in whatever quantity they want?
No, it's not.
There's two things we're talking about in this situation. The first is advanced military technology. Most other countries do not have these things, if only because their military R&D budgets are smaller. This is aircraft parts, nuclear technology, etc.
The other thing is regular small arms. Nobody is saying that you can't get those things elsewhere, but that America shouldn't necessarily export those anywhere in any quantity. To, you know, stop random warlords or organized crime from being able to acquire military equipment in large supply.
On a personal level, I am deeply disturbed by your anti-American bias. Not everything America (or Americans) does is a pure expression of arrogance and contempt.
Deniable encryption makes that distinction irrelevant, particularly if stacked. Since it's a baseline (indeed, central) feature of freely-available security software, I'd say it's not just an edge case.
Why do people continually refer to Turing's test as a monolithic entity. That's like asking whether, say, a car (this being slashdot) can pass "the speed test". The idea of being able to tell the computer from a human is an important style of testing, but referring to it as a specific test is ridiculous.
Doubtless we've made some advances in chat capability, false identities, etc. But no machine could pass a Turing test based on emotion. Happy/sad stories, jokes, etc. You could try some flashy tricks with huge databases and word frequencies to solve the former, but that stumbles on the latter.
We're just not there yet. And we're not going to get there with more of the same.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 383,000 people employed in the Motion picture and sound recording industries in September 2008.
My money is on the idea that they took the amount the industries estimate they lose from piracy and then divided that by some moderate wage.
I'm aware of the broken window fallacy, as you can see here. In this type of R&D, there are very few explosions. You don't randomly blow up your expensive, high-tech lasers.
Your Hummer dig is a typical argument from ignorance. It's the only piece of obvious military tech that has wandered into your life, so you assume it is the sum of all military developments. Take a look here for a counterexample (that is, defense technology that has some obvious applications for civilian use).
Of course research devoted strictly to defense won't go as far toward civilian ends as pure civilian funding. However, defense research can provide non-military benefits, while also contributing to (*shock*) national defense. And I believe that defense is a reasonable end to spend money on.
You, my friend, are despairing at the human condition, not any particular incarnation of military spending. Wealth and power and lack of consequences have generally walked hand-in-hand for the entirety of human history. I would suggest that you focus your efforts into finding ways that we can, at the peak of our technological development, cheat the cycle of history and change what it means to be human. Because that is what it would take to resolve the problems you're talking about.
How much are the Japanese actually putting into that endeavor? I mean, they've estimated the cost at a trillion yen, but I'm pretty sure they haven't actually budgeted that money out.
Also, I'd be careful in demarcating military research to strongly. As I said in another post, building these things would require a great deal of high-tech American manufacturing, which I can hardly view as a bad thing. And I'm sure someone will come up with something to do with cheap lasers (I hear there's some promising fusion research in that direction).
Indeed. The U.S. hasn't been pursuing space elevators at all
Perhaps by "easy" you meant "facile".
Since Vietnam. The recent wars have been pretty clean of carpet bombings, chemical weapons attacks, and offensive nuclear detonations.
If by "wars" you mean "engineers and high-technology manufacturing infrastructure".
Military R&D is sharply distinct from the actual act of deploying military assets and blowing things up.
(I'll admit, I'm hardly objective in this regard, but I believe I've chosen my path in life because it worked with my principles, not the other way around)
It stuck once they started deploying these into combat zones.
That joke's really... jumped the shark?
Sounds like someone hasn't been watching closely. Doesn't he know that starships are principally operated by wrought-iron wheels and analog needle gauges?
No, no. It's "C gives you enough rope to hang yourself. C++ gives you enough rope to hang yourself and every programmer who comes after you"
In the general case of advancing AI research, you're right. We're getting no closer to building a real brain by trying to make bigger blank slates; we've exceeded the computational capacity of some animals whose abilities still can't be replicated. However, when talking specifically about Go, a game only humans can play, our computers still have dramatically inferior capabilities to the biological competitor.
P.S., Unless you're making a joke I'm missing, it's "Gaius"
Incorrect. Mules are sometimes (rarely) fertile.
Wikipedia: Fertile mules
Yeah, just wait until the cliffhanger ending where this Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. swoops down and stabs Ray Beckerman from behind.
It's time that someone had the courage to stand up and say: "I'm for that guy everybody loves".
Thank you, Sir_Real. Thank you for doing the work that we didn't need to do for the karma. Thank you. Thank you.
(Now, where's my sarcasm mark...)
I really loved what Del Toro did with several of the scenes (The dolls in the intro, the forest god, the elven throne), but much of the rest of it just seemed... lame and obvious, like any other mainstream action movie. What resulted was this strange combination of beautiful moments juxtaposed with predictable one-liners.
I'm glad I saw it, but I really wish it had felt like Del Toro's other work. I suppose he did it to attract a proper American audience?
I'm always surprised by the apparent discontinuity between the sort of AI research that goes on in computer science departments (where "connectionism" is a dirty word), and the fact that a lot of modern neuroscientists seem to think that we'll solve a lot of the brain by figuring out the connections.
And, honestly, I don't think that DSI/DTI is really going to give us very much insight beyond bulk connectionism. When I spoke to Walter Schneider at a Neuromorphic computing workshop this past April, he told me that these sorts of processes operate at at a resolution around a tenth of a millimeter. While that's good for determining the highways of the brain, you can't very well figure out how a steel mill works by looking at a map its delivery trucks follow.
Sorry about that, I just got a lot more emails than I expected. I want to give them all their proper consideration, so it'll take a day or so.
I suspect that any assurances from me will mean little and less (you seem to have a well-defined opinion about what DARPA does and why), I think that the ideas I'm pursuing here are sufficiently general that it would be foolish to shy away from them on grounds that they might be used for some military application. You could say the very same about any advanced computing device.
Well, yes, I'm asking a question, not offering an answer. Is there something specific you'd like me to clarify?