You proved my point rather than disproving it. I didn't say humans don't do stupid things. I said that stupid PROBLEMS don't kill humans, complicated ones.
They didn't build a nuclear plant without any safeguards. That would be a stupid problem. Instead they made put a lot in, then disabled or ignored them. That's a complex problem that a stupid human screwed up.
Same thing with war with Russia (Hitler had basically won the rest of the war before he started attacking Russia. He had England locked up on it's own territory. If Hitler had been nicer to occupied territory and had Generals capable of telling him to stop before Stalingrad, he would have bitten off a permanent chunk of Soviet territory)
AI's don't have friendliness. We won't try to create it or depend on it.
AI's might end up killing many or even most humans, but it will not be a FRIENDLINESS problem. I could see some moron trusting an AI to deal with a deadly virus and not using proper precautions. That might do it.
But it won't be a stupid, simple problem like friendliness or AI war machines without proper safeguards that do it.
The world is not a movie where some simple problem kills us off. We would not give AI that kind of power, because the problems Musk is talking about are obvious.
Instead we get taken in by the less obvious problems.
You want a real threat from AI? Consider a dictator that lives in a bubble. Think North Korea or Venezuela
Normally the megalomaniac leader is held back by his generals. Sure they let him do stupid things like starve half his people or order his family members torn apart by dogs (may not be true, but that's not the point.) But the generals have limits. They all have breaking points. Their are certain things they would rather risk revolution than doing. If Kim Jong Il starts talking about how he aliens are everywhere and he has to cut off an eye from every human to make sure they are really human, his generals will stop him.
Now consider what happens when his entire army is composed of AI robots.
That's the real danger from AI - humans letting a semi-sane (or fully insane) dictator control them.
But AI by itself will not kill all humans, any more than Bender the drunken robot did.
1) Extortion. No contract = no right to charge the fee. 2) Vandalism. Sabotaging a vehicle without the contractual right to do so is outright vandalism.
Most of what you said is true, but your partisan beliefs are showing. To be balanced, just as Hillary failed as a politician and Obama pivoted to Asia:
Bannon (and the more than 10 other 'resigned'/fired Trump appointees ) failed as a politician. Cripes, if a Democrat had Trump's problem holding onto people, Fox would be talking about how he's trying to solve unemployment by giving everyone in the nation a white job on their resume.
As for Trump, he clearly failed to get Mexico to pay for the wall, failed to repeal and replace Obamacare and failed to stop the war in Afghanistan. I am not going to talk about the things he considers a success that most of the country disagrees about, this is just the things that are not in dispute
Look, it is not true that no one fails. Tons of people fail. ISIS has failed. Radio Shack has failed. Sears has failed.
But once someone fails, we stop talking about them (with the possible exception of politicians.) So you stop thinking about them.
That only leaves the successful people. By definition, they did not fail, no matter how badly a previous project went. They overcame their failure and went on to success, usually by taking what they learned and trying something different.
This is the exact same the thing that every one else has done. ALL THE TIME. The company "3M" failed to create a super strong adhesive for use in the aerospace industry, so they took what they did create and "pivoted" into post it notes.
George Washington failed almost all his battles, but took what he learned and pivoted into a sneak attack at Valley Forge. Coca Cola failed at "New Coke" but pivoted back into success.
This is not a new thing, it is just a new word for something that everyone has been doing for thousands of years.
And a fool that is wining about successful people overcoming their mistakes instead of 'admitting' they failed.
We had several clients that tried this. Note the word tried.
Emails are like cockroaches. They hide in places you don't expect. Back up files, CCers, BCCers, senders, receivers. One of our major jobs was de-duplication - and we only considered something a duplicate if it was an exact duplicate.
One person ccing someone outside the company and you get screwed so darn fast.
If you do not want a judge to ever see something, do NOT put it in an email.
Lexus does not have a contract that gives them exclusive rights to your area on the condition that they sell to everyone in the area, not just the poor.
If you insist on getting a monopolistic contract with conditions, then you damn well better abide by those conditions, even if costs you some money.
Technically that is a political issue. But that's beside the point, you are wrong.
If what you said was accurate, than the government would not tax people, they would instead simply print more money.
Debasing coinage, also known as printing money, is generally disliked as a tax method. The problems with inflation exceed the benefits, basically you are taxing your senior citizens to pay for the young.
In fact private money continued to exist in part because it took governments so long to realize that using inflation/debasing was such a bad idea.
As I said earlier, private money (which only stopped in the past two hundred years) died mainly because of trust issues with banks.
The thing is, this kind of thing is not just a government request. There is this thing called "Discovery" that law firms do all the time.
I used do this job also. But instead of working for the government, I worked for a law firm.
We routinely had to gather all emails from/to a specified email account. We would do it both for our own emails and for clients.
We routinely did it in WEEKS, not years. We had similar issues of privacy, and routinely restricted the searches to certain dates, as well as even doing very complex searches. For example, if it was a sexual harassment law suit, we would search the emails for a whole bunch of dirty words, all the while excluding any email that was sent to, cc'd, or bcc'd to us - as that counted as 'privilege communication with your attorney'.
Private industry does this kind of thing all the time, and we do it on time, for relatively small amounts of money.
The government however has decided that since there are no effective punishments, they can ignore the law.
Originally coins were issued by private groups, not governments.
But those groups had issues with trust related to greed. So governments took over, solving those greed related trust issues, and replacing them with political ones.
But the software that runs ecurriences is usually distributed among many many users, and the un-compiled code is available for examination.
This eliminates the greed and political trust issues.
Which means connecting an ecurrency to government DECREASES the trust.
In what way would you prefer an estonia-bitcoin over an international one?
1) Gay people in countries where homosexuality is not protected.
2) Anyone in a totalitarian government - even if you are a supporter, they can't be trusted.
3) Pregnant teenagers that are terrified of their parents finding out (which they do when the web browser starts showing ads for diapers), before they decide what to do.
4) Any one that doesn't like being teased, laughed at or insulted.
Basically, privacy is an essential right, more important than the right to bear arms or the right for you to go around being self-righteous and judging everyone else
Yes. Because I can't remember when the last time a human driven car caused a death. Excluding Charllotesville. And Barcelona. Oh, and my Grandmother. Actually it's pretty common. Which explains why you don't think about it.
Common risks are ignored, while uncommon things get talked about.
This causes some people to think that ridiculous precautions should be taken to stop the uncommon things while doing nothing to fix the common ones.
Nope. Driver-less cars, using CURRENT technology would be safer than what we have now.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take a few years to get the tech cheaper and better while we figure out the legal and sociological changes we need to make to support them.
The entire reason we want the clean energy sources is this hypothesis (that lives saved exceed the dollar cost).
But this kind of comparison is stupid to make, which is why the true conclusion is not believed by climate deniers.
The report depends on putting a dollar value to the human life AND on a lot of other soft comparisons.
Estimations upon estimations, making it pointless, at least for the purpose of convincing the non-believers. The green believers already know it to be true and don't need convincing.
Yes, there are also several other, less dangerous flaws involving frame droppage, but the human driver is the most dangerous, unpatchable flaw in modern vehicles.
Basically, their cloaking device consists of two or more mirrors, strategically placed so that when you sit in the driver 's seat, and ONLY the driver's seat, you can see what is behind the pillar.
What exactly is patent worthy in this idea, that wasn't discovered 100's of years ago.
Names are different than directions. I checked the map and the wiki page and the part the article's map called "West" is not near "West Antartica". So they are doubly wrong, and you as well for defending their stupidity.
And you are exactly why the internet has a bad name. You admit I am generally correct, providing me with even more so, but dislike my topic, so you hope I die and call me a moron.
Thank you for personally filling the world with more useless hate. Good luck with your hate filled life.
The Courts have one job and only one job, to interpret the law.
That means that the administration has no business saying what the law is. That is entirely the Court's power.
So when they try to say what the court can and can not do, they are ALWAYS wrong. They expressly do not have the power or right to say what the law is.
The map of Antartica has an "East" and "West" half. There is no such thing. Everything not in the center is in the South. The part that is close to South America is just as much West as it is East. The part that is closer to Australia is also just as much West as it is East.
A helpful map of Antartica would have arrows pointing towards South America, Africa, and Australia.
But the words East and West has no business being on a map of the Antartica, or of the North Pole. Also, while you could put the words North on the Antartica map (and South on the North Pole map), but it would be silly and useless.
Slashdot Mirror
Amazon did not do reasonable due diligence and was the party tricked by the fraud, they should be the one to pay a penalty.
This on top of fraud complaints made against whoever did the fraud in the first part.
They are trying to do things like exempt them from having to have mirrors, window washers, etc.
You proved my point rather than disproving it. I didn't say humans don't do stupid things. I said that stupid PROBLEMS don't kill humans, complicated ones.
They didn't build a nuclear plant without any safeguards. That would be a stupid problem. Instead they made put a lot in, then disabled or ignored them. That's a complex problem that a stupid human screwed up.
Same thing with war with Russia (Hitler had basically won the rest of the war before he started attacking Russia. He had England locked up on it's own territory. If Hitler had been nicer to occupied territory and had Generals capable of telling him to stop before Stalingrad, he would have bitten off a permanent chunk of Soviet territory)
AI's don't have friendliness. We won't try to create it or depend on it.
AI's might end up killing many or even most humans, but it will not be a FRIENDLINESS problem. I could see some moron trusting an AI to deal with a deadly virus and not using proper precautions. That might do it.
But it won't be a stupid, simple problem like friendliness or AI war machines without proper safeguards that do it.
The world is not a movie where some simple problem kills us off. We would not give AI that kind of power, because the problems Musk is talking about are obvious.
Instead we get taken in by the less obvious problems.
You want a real threat from AI? Consider a dictator that lives in a bubble. Think North Korea or Venezuela
Normally the megalomaniac leader is held back by his generals. Sure they let him do stupid things like starve half his people or order his family members torn apart by dogs (may not be true, but that's not the point.) But the generals have limits. They all have breaking points. Their are certain things they would rather risk revolution than doing. If Kim Jong Il starts talking about how he aliens are everywhere and he has to cut off an eye from every human to make sure they are really human, his generals will stop him.
Now consider what happens when his entire army is composed of AI robots.
That's the real danger from AI - humans letting a semi-sane (or fully insane) dictator control them.
But AI by itself will not kill all humans, any more than Bender the drunken robot did.
The Dealership has committed multiple crimes.
1) Extortion. No contract = no right to charge the fee.
2) Vandalism. Sabotaging a vehicle without the contractual right to do so is outright vandalism.
Most of what you said is true, but your partisan beliefs are showing. To be balanced, just as Hillary failed as a politician and Obama pivoted to Asia:
Bannon (and the more than 10 other 'resigned'/fired Trump appointees ) failed as a politician. Cripes, if a Democrat had Trump's problem holding onto people, Fox would be talking about how he's trying to solve unemployment by giving everyone in the nation a white job on their resume.
As for Trump, he clearly failed to get Mexico to pay for the wall, failed to repeal and replace Obamacare and failed to stop the war in Afghanistan. I am not going to talk about the things he considers a success that most of the country disagrees about, this is just the things that are not in dispute
Look, it is not true that no one fails. Tons of people fail. ISIS has failed. Radio Shack has failed. Sears has failed.
But once someone fails, we stop talking about them (with the possible exception of politicians.) So you stop thinking about them.
That only leaves the successful people. By definition, they did not fail, no matter how badly a previous project went. They overcame their failure and went on to success, usually by taking what they learned and trying something different.
This is the exact same the thing that every one else has done. ALL THE TIME. The company "3M" failed to create a super strong adhesive for use in the aerospace industry, so they took what they did create and "pivoted" into post it notes.
George Washington failed almost all his battles, but took what he learned and pivoted into a sneak attack at Valley Forge. Coca Cola failed at "New Coke" but pivoted back into success.
This is not a new thing, it is just a new word for something that everyone has been doing for thousands of years.
And a fool that is wining about successful people overcoming their mistakes instead of 'admitting' they failed.
1) Many phone companies upload your contacts for back up services.
2) Once uploaded, that information gets passed around. Facebook owns:
Octazen (contact importer)
Rel8tion (Mobile phone advertiser)
Onavo, Osmeta, Parse, Snaptu, Spool, and Strobe (all Mobile app developers)
Gowalla (GPS tracking company)
Whatsapp (instant messenger for phones)
The most likely companies are Octazen and Whatsapp. Either of them could have gotten the phone numbers into Facebook.
We had several clients that tried this. Note the word tried.
Emails are like cockroaches. They hide in places you don't expect. Back up files, CCers, BCCers, senders, receivers. One of our major jobs was de-duplication - and we only considered something a duplicate if it was an exact duplicate.
One person ccing someone outside the company and you get screwed so darn fast.
If you do not want a judge to ever see something, do NOT put it in an email.
Lexus does not have a contract that gives them exclusive rights to your area on the condition that they sell to everyone in the area, not just the poor.
If you insist on getting a monopolistic contract with conditions, then you damn well better abide by those conditions, even if costs you some money.
Technically that is a political issue. But that's beside the point, you are wrong.
If what you said was accurate, than the government would not tax people, they would instead simply print more money.
Debasing coinage, also known as printing money, is generally disliked as a tax method. The problems with inflation exceed the benefits, basically you are taxing your senior citizens to pay for the young.
In fact private money continued to exist in part because it took governments so long to realize that using inflation/debasing was such a bad idea.
As I said earlier, private money (which only stopped in the past two hundred years) died mainly because of trust issues with banks.
The thing is, this kind of thing is not just a government request. There is this thing called "Discovery" that law firms do all the time.
I used do this job also. But instead of working for the government, I worked for a law firm.
We routinely had to gather all emails from/to a specified email account. We would do it both for our own emails and for clients.
We routinely did it in WEEKS, not years. We had similar issues of privacy, and routinely restricted the searches to certain dates, as well as even doing very complex searches. For example, if it was a sexual harassment law suit, we would search the emails for a whole bunch of dirty words, all the while excluding any email that was sent to, cc'd, or bcc'd to us - as that counted as 'privilege communication with your attorney'.
Private industry does this kind of thing all the time, and we do it on time, for relatively small amounts of money.
The government however has decided that since there are no effective punishments, they can ignore the law.
Originally coins were issued by private groups, not governments.
But those groups had issues with trust related to greed. So governments took over, solving those greed related trust issues, and replacing them with political ones.
But the software that runs ecurriences is usually distributed among many many users, and the un-compiled code is available for examination.
This eliminates the greed and political trust issues.
Which means connecting an ecurrency to government DECREASES the trust.
In what way would you prefer an estonia-bitcoin over an international one?
Let's see who cares:
1) Gay people in countries where homosexuality is not protected.
2) Anyone in a totalitarian government - even if you are a supporter, they can't be trusted.
3) Pregnant teenagers that are terrified of their parents finding out (which they do when the web browser starts showing ads for diapers), before they decide what to do.
4) Any one that doesn't like being teased, laughed at or insulted.
Basically, privacy is an essential right, more important than the right to bear arms or the right for you to go around being self-righteous and judging everyone else
Yes. Because I can't remember when the last time a human driven car caused a death. Excluding Charllotesville. And Barcelona. Oh, and my Grandmother. Actually it's pretty common. Which explains why you don't think about it.
Common risks are ignored, while uncommon things get talked about.
This causes some people to think that ridiculous precautions should be taken to stop the uncommon things while doing nothing to fix the common ones.
Nope. Driver-less cars, using CURRENT technology would be safer than what we have now.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take a few years to get the tech cheaper and better while we figure out the legal and sociological changes we need to make to support them.
Microsoft owns the default, and fools leave it alone.
Me, I prefer privacy: Duck Duck Go.
The entire reason we want the clean energy sources is this hypothesis (that lives saved exceed the dollar cost).
But this kind of comparison is stupid to make, which is why the true conclusion is not believed by climate deniers.
The report depends on putting a dollar value to the human life AND on a lot of other soft comparisons.
Estimations upon estimations, making it pointless, at least for the purpose of convincing the non-believers. The green believers already know it to be true and don't need convincing.
Yes, there are also several other, less dangerous flaws involving frame droppage, but the human driver is the most dangerous, unpatchable flaw in modern vehicles.
Basically, their cloaking device consists of two or more mirrors, strategically placed so that when you sit in the driver 's seat, and ONLY the driver's seat, you can see what is behind the pillar.
What exactly is patent worthy in this idea, that wasn't discovered 100's of years ago.
Not going to name names, no need to help bigots.
But they have web sites specifically designed to raise cash for alt-right causes.
Names are different than directions. I checked the map and the wiki page and the part the article's map called "West" is not near "West Antartica". So they are doubly wrong, and you as well for defending their stupidity.
And you are exactly why the internet has a bad name. You admit I am generally correct, providing me with even more so, but dislike my topic, so you hope I die and call me a moron.
Thank you for personally filling the world with more useless hate. Good luck with your hate filled life.
The Courts have one job and only one job, to interpret the law.
That means that the administration has no business saying what the law is. That is entirely the Court's power.
So when they try to say what the court can and can not do, they are ALWAYS wrong. They expressly do not have the power or right to say what the law is.
The map of Antartica has an "East" and "West" half. There is no such thing. Everything not in the center is in the South. The part that is close to South America is just as much West as it is East. The part that is closer to Australia is also just as much West as it is East.
A helpful map of Antartica would have arrows pointing towards South America, Africa, and Australia.
But the words East and West has no business being on a map of the Antartica, or of the North Pole. Also, while you could put the words North on the Antartica map (and South on the North Pole map), but it would be silly and useless.
Where IS it legal?
And how much did they have to bribe the corrupt state legislature to make it legal?
When you ask a historian about biology, you get crappy answers.
Astrophysicists are not specialists in non-human life, non-human psychology, or anything else related to this.
Wrong scientific field means you get a stupid answer.