Glad to hear from an intelligent person, rather than an obsessed 'futurist' that has mistaken wishful/paranoid thinking for scientific projections.
I would have added that the concept of the 'singularity' assumes multiple 'facts' that are extremely unlikely. In part because if they were true, science would already have been much farther along. Also in part because they confabulate different definitions of words, most often 'intelligence'. When AI people are talking about intelligence they are generally not using the word in the same way that a biologist, or worse, a priest. would.
On average, 6 people die from alcohol poisoning each year. Almost no one dies from drinking too much water. But that is in part due to behavior - most people that drink enough water to kill them are athletes and they often have medical personnel near them.
Your core numbers are wrong. Normal human beings do not drink 1 liter of water in a single sitting. Diabetics and other people that are expected to drink a lot tend to drink 1/2 a liter. You are expected to take in 2-3 liters over an entire day - and that number INCLUDES the water you get from eating food. Typical servings for water is 1/4 liter.
1 liter bottles are intended for multiple people/long term use.
As per this web page:
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015...
It takes 17 water bottles to kill you, far different than the alcohol ratio.
But there are quite a few substances people think are 'harmless' that if you consume more than the normal dose you can kill yourself.
Chief on the list is salt substitute. Many people buy the 'low sodium salt substitute" Potassium Chloride to replace table salt Sodium Chloride. But it is the exact same substance used by several states to execute death penalty cases.
Nut meg is also up there, along with our friend Vitamin A
All three of those substances are typically sold to consumers in containers that, if used all at once, can kill you.
People love to hate on aggression. Aggression is not just the desire to hurt. It is also the desire to act - to explore, to create, to save, and the desire to fight back against evil. A world without aggression would make those idiots that talk about people being 'sheeple' correct.
Does aggression cause problems? Yes. So does complaisance. I for one am glad people have aggression, as opposed to being a bunch of complaisant, laid-back lemmings.
The problem is not excess aggression. It is insufficient self control. The inability to put off current desires in order to obtain greater rewards later on.
Yes. Because some people think that TrueCrypt was killed BECAUSE it was actually secure and the NSA wanted them to de-secure it.
As such, a warrant would let people continue to use it, secure in the fact that it actually works as required.
It also lets people fork it.
Frankly, I have been severely disappointed with BestCrypt, which I had hoped would end up as the replacement for TrueCrypt. (multiple problems with getting the regular operating system to recognize the 'mounted' drives)
You, like many other people, have seriously over-estimated the number of good little boys and girls.
From the various studies, I have seen (including my personal observation) Santa had to make only 123 stops last year. As he has 24 hours to make the trip, that averages out to around 1 house every 30 minutes. He didn't even break a sweat.
Of course, it would be a very different case if the bad kids hadn't start igniting the coal, causing Santa to discontinue that tradition.
Yes it is related. They are not only both free fall journeys, they are both elliptical orbits. Just because one goes through a hole, does not mean it isn't an orbit
One orbit has an eccentricity close to 0 (a large circle) whose radius exceeds the size of the planet.
The other orbit has an eccentricity that approaches 1 (a large, elongated ellipse, verging on a straight line), whose width (short diameter) is less than the diameter of the bottomless pit and whose length (long diameter) exceeds that of the planet.
There are honest banks in the world (HSBC excluded). Banks let you wire money for free and the existence of cash, credit cards, etc. means it's not profitable to try and charge to send money in/out.
But to be honest, there are a couple reasons to do a cryptocurrency - it is faster than wiring money. But the main advantage is secrecy, which is why it is so popular among criminals, people that think the government is out to get them, and spies.
The one and ONLY value of a cryptocurrency is that it can be reliably traded secretly. There is simply NO other reason to use one.
1) The government has no desire to do help people trade currency.
2) Only children under 10 would in fact believe that the government could not track the cryptocurrency they themselves created, even if it were open sourced.
3) There would be a market for it in foreign countries. The US government could pay spies, rebels etc. with said cryptocurrency, secure in the knowledge that the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, ISIL, and Boku-Haram could not track the Fedcoin. Of course, those people would not try to track it, they would simply kill anyone found with it. (Too be honest, China would just lock them up, and Russia would probably trade them to the US in exchange for the right to sell oil).
Children under 10 have rather small amounts of money, so the market is on the small side.
There is no credible market for a FedCoin, and frankly I think the guy that thought this up is about as smart as someone that thinks that "Wouldn't it be nice if China would tell us all of North Korea's military secrets? Has anyone asked? Let's go ask them RIGHT AWAY!!!"
They put the annoying camera on it. Bad idea, people hate that. It should be on the separate controller, so people will always know when you are photographing them rather than suspect it. At least it appears to be 3d, using two projectors.
People don't need "cars, houses, TVs, holidays etc. We get them because we WANT them, not need them.
Any Robot that is smart enough to put us out of work will be smart enough to join a union and WANT a car, house, TV, Houses.
You basically suffer from paranoia, not logic.
But let's assume you are right. Let's assume that somehow, we (people) are smart enough to
1. Design and build robots that can do 50% of our current jobs
2. Keep ahead of the curve, upgrading all our robots faster than we upgrade our new jobs.
3. But still keep the robots from becoming self aware enough to demand luxuries, good working conditions, etc. etc. etc.
4. and keep it cheaper than a human Because at first making it smart enough to beat a human will be expensive, but almost immediately it will become more expensive to keep it stupid enough no to demand rights.
Even then, it STILL WON'T HAPPEN. Because humans have both ethics and hate technology. There are morons out there right now getting measles because they don't trust vaccines. We certainly won't trust robots that are intentionally kept stupid. We would instead assume they are just PRETENDING to be stupid and plotting a robot rebellion.
Or do you not understand the concept of "Artificial Intelligence"?
Any robot smart enough to truly put 50% of the human population out of work is smart enough to JOIN A UNION.
If the machines are not smart enough to join a union, then they will not be smart enough to put us out of work. If they are smart enough to join a union, we won't be building enough of them to put 50% of us out of work.
Yeah, we might build a few of them to do certain specific jobs like emergency nuclear generator shut off Robot. But not many.
I am sick and tired of Luddites that claim robots will steal all the jobs.
Jobs are not a limited resource. Jobs are dependent on things we need to get done.
Once upon the time 100% of jobs were focused on getting food. Hunting and gathering became full time work when population was high. Once farming came around, it freed up some people to do other things. They did not suddenly become lazy do-nothing people. Instead they took up lower priority tasks, and turned them into full time jobs.
Things like clothing manufacturing, which used to be done in your spare time, turned into full industries. New products like shoes, alcohol, luxuries etc. were created.
The question is, are there still things we need to do, but have not been able to afford? The answer to that is YES. We have education, science, space exploration, green technologies, and a host of other things that we has decided would be nice, but we simply don't have the manpower to do.
We will not run out of jobs, instead we will do things that we can not even imagine today. Anymore than a hunter/gatherer could imagine someone would be paid to sell food at a basketball game.
It is clear from every one of the many successful Autistic people that Autistic people can be taught to fit into our world better.
They are not robots, they are people capable of learning social skills, just as they can learn math, art, and other human knowledge.
The question is do we know how to teach them?
I don't know a lot, but I am willing to bet that autistic people are as different from each other as they differ from us. The whole thing is a spectrum, what works with one won't necessary work with others.
I think you original idea is correct. No particular accreditation will satisfy you. You need to talk to the specific teacher/aid and hear what they have to say, what they know, and what is their guiding principle. If they impress you go with them. If not, ignore them.
They don't know how to live wealthy because it takes a lot of training. Among other things they don't know the difference between an investment and a bet - see the fact that they played the Lotto.
Look, when the jackpot gets very high, then it becomes an actual investment.
If the odds are 1 in 175 million, then a $2 breaks even when the after tax, instant profit exceeds $350 million. In this particular jackpot was $564 million. Instant payment of $381 million. Now, taxes (and the chance of splitting it with others) makes this not a real investment, but it got pretty darn close.
But if the jackpot got to say $800 million, buying a ticket becomes a mathematically good bet.
But there are other things going on. Honestly, if you hit the jackpot for anything over 20 million, it won't make that much of a difference. It will radically change your life in pretty much the same way. Most likely you will gain somewhere between six months to one year of happiness, a year or so of realizing that things are going poorly and then the rest of you life with a CRAPLOAD of depression and anger about how everything went to hell.
Why? Because if you gain something too quickly and easily, you neither value it nor do you know how to maintain and keep it.
Chances are very high you will want to help out a few people you know that really need it, which will cause a bunch of people that don't really need it to come begging for help. If you turn them down, suddenly your friends turn on you. If you don't turn them down, suddenly you are broke.
Your leisure activities will dramatically change and your friends won't be able to afford to go with you unless you pay for them. Which turns the relationship from friends to hanger-ons. It's hard enough to keep family from disintegrating, let alone your friendships.
Honestly, my advice to anyone that wins is to REFUSE TO TELL ANYONE YOU WON. At most, tell them you won a smaller amount. Don't sign anything giving up your privacy, instead keep it a secret from EVERYONE you are not married to. Set up a Trust that will anonymously help people you think truly need it, and do NOT take credit for it.
You can't 'bring your friends' along for the lifestyle, but you can occasionally show them a fantastic time.
NO, it is not fine. You clue-lessly missed the sarcasm.
The point is that this was a thread about alcohol, not a thread about Mormonism. Many religions have rules against alcohol. Bringing up a quote from his specific religion was totally in-appropriate. It was off topic, obnoxious and rude.
So i responded in kind - bringing up pretty much the worst incident about Mormonism to make a point, that it is NOT appropriate to push your religion into a discussion that had nothing to do with it.
And I knew the whole story. My leaving it out was part of the sarcasm, that you clearly missed.
I understand that Mormons have a religious requirement to preach. But there is a time and place for that. You never saw Huntsman or Romney do it while they were campaigning. Why? Because it would have been inappropriate. Similarly it was INAPPROPRIATE to do it here on Slashdot. If you want to be evangelical, go door to door in a residential are, or find a website that encourages that kind of behavior.
We don't encourage it. This is a tech website, not a forum for anyone to preach at us.
You have some serious issues. If I were you, I would look into talking to someone about them.
For the record:
I have the super taster gene. Like many such people, alcohol tastes extremely bitter and I have never liked it. When I did go out with friends, I usually bought one drink to be sociable, but never finished the dreadful thing.
But wait, it gets worse. Before I turned 30, I had contracted a disease that damaged my kidney. As such my doctor advised me to not drink alcohol again. So I don't.
So when you say I need alcohol to survive I laugh. Repeatedly.
I gave no excuses. I described the world accurately. You on the other hand feel the need to preach. Anonymously.
Every single job I ever had, since part time summer jobs to my current job was 90% simple and 10% interesting.
I learned how to do 90% of the work in a week, but the other 10% you never finishing learning how to do. Of course, that last 10% is the difference between a professional/expert and a rank amateur.
I think this is due to the mental capacity of human beings. If the job is so complex you can't learn how to do most of the work quickly, then we split the job into two or more sub-jobs.
The same guy that plants the food no longer transports it or cooks it. Why? Because those jobs have gotten so complex.
But back to the main point, the simpler stuff may not get the applause, but it is still a large part of the work. Just because someone doesn't think that declaring the variable counts as relevant to the program, it doesn't mean it shouldn't 'count'.
Slashdot Mirror
I would have added that the concept of the 'singularity' assumes multiple 'facts' that are extremely unlikely. In part because if they were true, science would already have been much farther along. Also in part because they confabulate different definitions of words, most often 'intelligence'. When AI people are talking about intelligence they are generally not using the word in the same way that a biologist, or worse, a priest. would.
But water is not near the ratio to kill you.
On average, 6 people die from alcohol poisoning each year. Almost no one dies from drinking too much water. But that is in part due to behavior - most people that drink enough water to kill them are athletes and they often have medical personnel near them.
Your core numbers are wrong. Normal human beings do not drink 1 liter of water in a single sitting. Diabetics and other people that are expected to drink a lot tend to drink 1/2 a liter. You are expected to take in 2-3 liters over an entire day - and that number INCLUDES the water you get from eating food. Typical servings for water is 1/4 liter. 1 liter bottles are intended for multiple people/long term use. As per this web page: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015... It takes 17 water bottles to kill you, far different than the alcohol ratio.
But there are quite a few substances people think are 'harmless' that if you consume more than the normal dose you can kill yourself.
Chief on the list is salt substitute. Many people buy the 'low sodium salt substitute" Potassium Chloride to replace table salt Sodium Chloride. But it is the exact same substance used by several states to execute death penalty cases.
Nut meg is also up there, along with our friend Vitamin A
All three of those substances are typically sold to consumers in containers that, if used all at once, can kill you.
Does aggression cause problems? Yes. So does complaisance. I for one am glad people have aggression, as opposed to being a bunch of complaisant, laid-back lemmings.
The problem is not excess aggression. It is insufficient self control. The inability to put off current desires in order to obtain greater rewards later on.
As such, a warrant would let people continue to use it, secure in the fact that it actually works as required.
It also lets people fork it.
Frankly, I have been severely disappointed with BestCrypt, which I had hoped would end up as the replacement for TrueCrypt. (multiple problems with getting the regular operating system to recognize the 'mounted' drives)
February 20, 2015 Dear Andrew, As you may have heard, select Lenovo consumer notebooks shipped after September 2014 included Superfish Visual Discovery software as a shopping aid to customers. Superfish is a TrustE certified third-party software vendor, with offices in Palo Alto, CA. User feedback on the software was not positive and we received some reports of security concerns. Please note that Lenovo has NOT loaded this software on any ThinkPad notebooks, nor any desktops, tablets, workstations, servers or smartphones. The only impacted models are the following consumer notebook series: Z-series, Y-Series, U-Series, G-Series, S-Series, Flex-Series, Yoga, Miix and E-Series. If you use any of these Lenovo consumer models in your enterprise, please refer to the Customer Support information below. While this software does not impact the models typically used by businesses, we wanted to let you know that we take user feedback seriously at Lenovo. We know that millions of people rely on our devices every day, and it is our responsibility to deliver quality, reliability, innovation and security to each and every customer. We make every effort to provide a great user experience for our customers. We recognize that the Superfish software has caused concern. Lenovo has taken steps to address that concern. â Superfish has completely disabled server side interactions (since January) on all Lenovo products so that the software is no longer active. â Lenovo has stopped preloading the software and will not preload this software again in the future. â Lenovo has provided instructions for uninstalling this software and will soon provide a software removal patch. For more information on this, or for instructions on Superfish software removal, please visit http://support.lenovo.com/us/e.... We appreciate your confidence in Lenovo. Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy Lenovo reserves the right to alter product offerings or specifications at any time without notice. Models pictured are for illustrative purposes only. Lenovo is not responsible for typographic or photographic errors. Information advertised has no contractual effect. You are subscribed as andrew.coleman@dpw.com. To ensure delivery of Lenovo email offers to your inbox, please add lenovo@update.lenovo.com to your address book. Lenovo and the Lenovo logo are trademarks of Lenovo. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Lenovo 1009 Think Place Morrisville, NC 27560 © 2015 Lenovo. All rights reserved.
But still, you get the point. :D
From the various studies, I have seen (including my personal observation) Santa had to make only 123 stops last year. As he has 24 hours to make the trip, that averages out to around 1 house every 30 minutes. He didn't even break a sweat.
Of course, it would be a very different case if the bad kids hadn't start igniting the coal, causing Santa to discontinue that tradition.
One orbit has an eccentricity close to 0 (a large circle) whose radius exceeds the size of the planet.
The other orbit has an eccentricity that approaches 1 (a large, elongated ellipse, verging on a straight line), whose width (short diameter) is less than the diameter of the bottomless pit and whose length (long diameter) exceeds that of the planet.
Frankly, this guy seems to be using the same definition of "imminent threat" that the CIA uses when it determines who to kill/torture.
Which is of course a huge red flag that you have made a mistake. I mean really, thinking like the CIA?
But to be honest, there are a couple reasons to do a cryptocurrency - it is faster than wiring money. But the main advantage is secrecy, which is why it is so popular among criminals, people that think the government is out to get them, and spies.
Obviously the government wants people to trade currency, just not secretly.
1) The government has no desire to do help people trade currency.
2) Only children under 10 would in fact believe that the government could not track the cryptocurrency they themselves created, even if it were open sourced.
3) There would be a market for it in foreign countries. The US government could pay spies, rebels etc. with said cryptocurrency, secure in the knowledge that the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, ISIL, and Boku-Haram could not track the Fedcoin. Of course, those people would not try to track it, they would simply kill anyone found with it. (Too be honest, China would just lock them up, and Russia would probably trade them to the US in exchange for the right to sell oil).
Children under 10 have rather small amounts of money, so the market is on the small side.
There is no credible market for a FedCoin, and frankly I think the guy that thought this up is about as smart as someone that thinks that "Wouldn't it be nice if China would tell us all of North Korea's military secrets? Has anyone asked? Let's go ask them RIGHT AWAY!!!"
They put the annoying camera on it. Bad idea, people hate that. It should be on the separate controller, so people will always know when you are photographing them rather than suspect it. At least it appears to be 3d, using two projectors.
Any Robot that is smart enough to put us out of work will be smart enough to join a union and WANT a car, house, TV, Houses.
You basically suffer from paranoia, not logic.
But let's assume you are right. Let's assume that somehow, we (people) are smart enough to
1. Design and build robots that can do 50% of our current jobs
2. Keep ahead of the curve, upgrading all our robots faster than we upgrade our new jobs.
3. But still keep the robots from becoming self aware enough to demand luxuries, good working conditions, etc. etc. etc.
4. and keep it cheaper than a human Because at first making it smart enough to beat a human will be expensive, but almost immediately it will become more expensive to keep it stupid enough no to demand rights.
Even then, it STILL WON'T HAPPEN. Because humans have both ethics and hate technology. There are morons out there right now getting measles because they don't trust vaccines. We certainly won't trust robots that are intentionally kept stupid. We would instead assume they are just PRETENDING to be stupid and plotting a robot rebellion.
Watch any movie. That's how humans think.
Or do you not understand the concept of "Artificial Intelligence"?
Any robot smart enough to truly put 50% of the human population out of work is smart enough to JOIN A UNION.
If the machines are not smart enough to join a union, then they will not be smart enough to put us out of work. If they are smart enough to join a union, we won't be building enough of them to put 50% of us out of work.
Yeah, we might build a few of them to do certain specific jobs like emergency nuclear generator shut off Robot. But not many.
I am sick and tired of Luddites that claim robots will steal all the jobs.
Jobs are not a limited resource. Jobs are dependent on things we need to get done.
Once upon the time 100% of jobs were focused on getting food. Hunting and gathering became full time work when population was high. Once farming came around, it freed up some people to do other things. They did not suddenly become lazy do-nothing people. Instead they took up lower priority tasks, and turned them into full time jobs.
Things like clothing manufacturing, which used to be done in your spare time, turned into full industries. New products like shoes, alcohol, luxuries etc. were created.
The question is, are there still things we need to do, but have not been able to afford? The answer to that is YES. We have education, science, space exploration, green technologies, and a host of other things that we has decided would be nice, but we simply don't have the manpower to do.
We will not run out of jobs, instead we will do things that we can not even imagine today. Anymore than a hunter/gatherer could imagine someone would be paid to sell food at a basketball game.
They are not robots, they are people capable of learning social skills, just as they can learn math, art, and other human knowledge.
The question is do we know how to teach them?
I don't know a lot, but I am willing to bet that autistic people are as different from each other as they differ from us. The whole thing is a spectrum, what works with one won't necessary work with others.
I think you original idea is correct. No particular accreditation will satisfy you. You need to talk to the specific teacher/aid and hear what they have to say, what they know, and what is their guiding principle. If they impress you go with them. If not, ignore them.
They don't know how to live wealthy because it takes a lot of training. Among other things they don't know the difference between an investment and a bet - see the fact that they played the Lotto.
If the odds are 1 in 175 million, then a $2 breaks even when the after tax, instant profit exceeds $350 million. In this particular jackpot was $564 million. Instant payment of $381 million. Now, taxes (and the chance of splitting it with others) makes this not a real investment, but it got pretty darn close.
But if the jackpot got to say $800 million, buying a ticket becomes a mathematically good bet.
But there are other things going on. Honestly, if you hit the jackpot for anything over 20 million, it won't make that much of a difference. It will radically change your life in pretty much the same way. Most likely you will gain somewhere between six months to one year of happiness, a year or so of realizing that things are going poorly and then the rest of you life with a CRAPLOAD of depression and anger about how everything went to hell.
Why? Because if you gain something too quickly and easily, you neither value it nor do you know how to maintain and keep it.
Chances are very high you will want to help out a few people you know that really need it, which will cause a bunch of people that don't really need it to come begging for help. If you turn them down, suddenly your friends turn on you. If you don't turn them down, suddenly you are broke.
Your leisure activities will dramatically change and your friends won't be able to afford to go with you unless you pay for them. Which turns the relationship from friends to hanger-ons. It's hard enough to keep family from disintegrating, let alone your friendships.
Honestly, my advice to anyone that wins is to REFUSE TO TELL ANYONE YOU WON. At most, tell them you won a smaller amount. Don't sign anything giving up your privacy, instead keep it a secret from EVERYONE you are not married to. Set up a Trust that will anonymously help people you think truly need it, and do NOT take credit for it.
You can't 'bring your friends' along for the lifestyle, but you can occasionally show them a fantastic time.
The point is that this was a thread about alcohol, not a thread about Mormonism. Many religions have rules against alcohol. Bringing up a quote from his specific religion was totally in-appropriate. It was off topic, obnoxious and rude.
So i responded in kind - bringing up pretty much the worst incident about Mormonism to make a point, that it is NOT appropriate to push your religion into a discussion that had nothing to do with it.
And I knew the whole story. My leaving it out was part of the sarcasm, that you clearly missed.
I understand that Mormons have a religious requirement to preach. But there is a time and place for that. You never saw Huntsman or Romney do it while they were campaigning. Why? Because it would have been inappropriate. Similarly it was INAPPROPRIATE to do it here on Slashdot. If you want to be evangelical, go door to door in a residential are, or find a website that encourages that kind of behavior.
We don't encourage it. This is a tech website, not a forum for anyone to preach at us.
You have some serious issues. If I were you, I would look into talking to someone about them.
For the record:
I have the super taster gene. Like many such people, alcohol tastes extremely bitter and I have never liked it. When I did go out with friends, I usually bought one drink to be sociable, but never finished the dreadful thing.
But wait, it gets worse. Before I turned 30, I had contracted a disease that damaged my kidney. As such my doctor advised me to not drink alcohol again. So I don't.
So when you say I need alcohol to survive I laugh. Repeatedly.
I gave no excuses. I described the world accurately. You on the other hand feel the need to preach. Anonymously.
But seriously, while I agree they exist (I am in fact one of them), we are a small percentage of the population.
I learned how to do 90% of the work in a week, but the other 10% you never finishing learning how to do. Of course, that last 10% is the difference between a professional/expert and a rank amateur.
I think this is due to the mental capacity of human beings. If the job is so complex you can't learn how to do most of the work quickly, then we split the job into two or more sub-jobs.
The same guy that plants the food no longer transports it or cooks it. Why? Because those jobs have gotten so complex.
But back to the main point, the simpler stuff may not get the applause, but it is still a large part of the work. Just because someone doesn't think that declaring the variable counts as relevant to the program, it doesn't mean it shouldn't 'count'.