I don't know about you, but my grandmother can't fix her own computer to save her own life. She NEEDS a tech support company. Are we really going to let some dipshit apples spoil the whole bunch for a giant swath of the public who NEEDS this kind of shit to even make Excel add the total of a column for them? We shouldn't. We should just tell people what to look for in a scammer. IE someone who calls you first about problems with your computer you didn't know you had. Also, someone claiming to be from 'Windows technical support' or anyone claiming to know shit about your computer, at all, preemptively. Just say no! teach anyone who owns a computer that, and you've instantly made it less profitable to be a scammer, and also potentially created tens of thousands of more hilarious youtube videos of people leading scammers on until they meet their inevitably obnoxious conclusion that you aren't falling for it. Sell Ads on THAT.
At first there is extreme displacement. It's called 'disruption.' But eventually people find something else to do. Even if your job is telling the multitude of AIs what it is that people actually like, there are always jobs for people to do. You can't disrupt people out of existence. People have other people as customers. They can use automatons to help sell to those people... but you still have to care about what those people want... When have luddites ever been right?
big companies that reward their executives with stock, or large numbers of options, usually put restrictions on the sale as part of the contract. For example, the most common contract is that they can sell their stock, but only on a 6-month schedule. So they had to have it scheduled for sale at least 6 months ahead of time. I have no knowledge of Equifax in particular, but this is SOP. It would raise a shit ton of eyebrows if not. And, if it's only just a little over a million bucks, that sounds to me like they had it scheduled. Because, if they were playing the inside they'd have made a shit-ton more than that between them.
Again, since Washington apparently need demons to distract us from the other ones we already know about, lets choose the ones who could possibly have been our allies instead. Microcosm for the entire US-Russian relationship. Fucked up.
This is not a comparison of apples to apples here. The constitution actually grants the STATES the right to pick the president by granting them a certain lot of electoral votes in proportion to their populations. How they decide to allocate them is up to the states. The 'popular vote' at a national level isn't actually a thing. It's only aggregated by statisticians, because really popular votes are only used by the states to help determine how they will allot their federally granted electoral votes, and really I do mean 'help determine' because not all of them electoral college members are required to vote with the popular vote, and nor have they ever been.
It's not whether or not this thing always makes perfect decisions... it should be about whether or not it makes better ones than people, on average. If it does, that's a win.
First: Change your password -- if there is an "ever since" in this story you should have changed it "ever since" you FIRST noticed that. Duh. And second... Troll.
Cash is currently an option. It won't be forever. There are significant strides in Europe and India right now toward 'cashless' economies, because the government thinks it never misses out on taxes and the underground economy is supposedly all brought into the daylight -- but that just drives people into trading other things on the black market. It'll get worse over time and happen here too eventually. So you can either spend your TIME worrying about that, or you can just spend your MONEY, pay taxes, and grumble about the government. Unless you plan to overthrow a government or become a criminal, this is the wonderful future -- and it's YOUR wonderful, non-anonymous future. I don't like it either, but what can I do? Probably something illegal, but I'd rather just not bother.
I agree with this. I have been inspired by speakers at conferences. I have even learned a few things. And all of them were technology related. You just have to do your research up-front and know if you're in for a techie conference, or one that's only ostensibly techie, and is instead about tech culture. The cultural ones are nearly complete garbage, while the tech ones can be entirely inspiring.
True, but you're speaking only from a hardware perspective. I have been to 'good conferences' where they have talks that spark me to research new ideas that eventually lead to productive lines of inquiry (RailsConf or in a previous life, PDC) and ones that are just advertisements or feature "Touchy Feely" talks about programmer sentiment and egos (RubyConf, total Yuck.) The ones that make me think, or research, are worth it. Even some of the keynotes (RailsConf 2016, keynote by Paul Lamere, from Spotify, fired my imagination and prompted me to take 6 months of courses on Big Data and Machine learning, which will eventually pay my employer dividends and then some,) by big names in their fields are worth the entire costs. It just means you need to know where to go, and what to look for, and what to avoid. Talks about diversity for the sake of coloration, or whatever, are little more than rants about unfairness, which leads to nothing company 'costs' if you buy in to them. But ones about how they take advantage of technologies (like one I saw [by a woman, speaking of diversity, which didn't even mention the fact that she was a woman -- BECAUSE THAT ISN'T THE IMPORTANT PART] about how Github used the Scientist gem to migrate their entire security structure without any downtime...) they can lead to local 'breakthroughs.' My advice is to stay away from 'touchy feely' conferences about developers and how they 'feel' at work, and to go to those that focus on the actual state of technology and what's out there and how to use it for your own personal, professional, and business's growth. Being around people who care about the same things, especially when those things are putting numbers on the board, is a great thing. NOT ALL CONFERENCES ARE CREATED EQUAL. That's just how it is. Do your research up front.
You're actually not right. It can be AI without being sentient, and in this case, it is just that. It's a general purpose learning algorithm. Not a strategic poker playing algorithm. It doesn't need to be sentient to be intelligent. You're confusing General AI with Narrow AI. This is a Narrow AI, to be sure, but if you string enough Narrow AI's up together, they can eventually give the same appearance of a General AI. This is just one milestone along the way. In particular, it dethrones the idea that poker is the last bastion of human dominance in cognition. Obviously we'll have to find a new bastion, like the fact that we are, so far, the only General Intelligence thus far observed or produced.
To ensure the national defense, to enforce individual property rights, and prevent violent crime. Also, to enforce contracts between private entities in the courts.
If that was their best option, (per you, they have no other better options,) and you remove Uber from the equation, you've still done them a disservice by taking that OPPORTUNITY to work for Uber away. Afterall, that was their best option. You can't have it both ways. It's either their best opportunity or it isn't.
Force would be against their will. What people SAY they are willing to do and what they actually do are very different things. If they really didn't think they were getting a benefit equal to or greater than their involvement with Uber, they would quit. That's the difference between force and not force. Whether they like their other options or not, they have options. Anyone who stays working for uber, or any other company for that matter, CHOOSES to. That is the opposite of force.
Yeah, but if they did ratify it, then there would be no argument. I get what you're saying. And it's the same as what the founders said. That's why it is that way in the constitution. But, we have a way to change that, and I was just enumerating it. Not that it would necessarily pass, but just saying. At that point, "States" would become virtually irrelevant in the context of the presidential election. If that's what they want then fine, if not, also fine. Just saying.
I would be ok with this. Even if this went into effect though, it couldn't prevent the reality star from becoming president this time. (Not that I'd rather Hillary. I'd actually rather just puke that these were our choices.)
Nobody is forcing anyone to drive for Uber. Quit if you don't like it. Holy crap there's someone willing to pay you to drive your own car. If that's not your bag, fine. But go somewhere else to complain about it.
I'm not talking about what is right and what is wrong, better or worse. I'm describing what is, and why it was originally put there. I gave no normative direction on it at all. It takes a constitutional amendment to change it. So, either run for office yourself, or get on the horn to your congressmen, because 'fairness' speculation is getting you nowhere.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about you, but my grandmother can't fix her own computer to save her own life. She NEEDS a tech support company. Are we really going to let some dipshit apples spoil the whole bunch for a giant swath of the public who NEEDS this kind of shit to even make Excel add the total of a column for them? We shouldn't. We should just tell people what to look for in a scammer. IE someone who calls you first about problems with your computer you didn't know you had. Also, someone claiming to be from 'Windows technical support' or anyone claiming to know shit about your computer, at all, preemptively. Just say no! teach anyone who owns a computer that, and you've instantly made it less profitable to be a scammer, and also potentially created tens of thousands of more hilarious youtube videos of people leading scammers on until they meet their inevitably obnoxious conclusion that you aren't falling for it. Sell Ads on THAT.
At first there is extreme displacement. It's called 'disruption.' But eventually people find something else to do. Even if your job is telling the multitude of AIs what it is that people actually like, there are always jobs for people to do. You can't disrupt people out of existence. People have other people as customers. They can use automatons to help sell to those people... but you still have to care about what those people want... When have luddites ever been right?
big companies that reward their executives with stock, or large numbers of options, usually put restrictions on the sale as part of the contract. For example, the most common contract is that they can sell their stock, but only on a 6-month schedule. So they had to have it scheduled for sale at least 6 months ahead of time. I have no knowledge of Equifax in particular, but this is SOP. It would raise a shit ton of eyebrows if not. And, if it's only just a little over a million bucks, that sounds to me like they had it scheduled. Because, if they were playing the inside they'd have made a shit-ton more than that between them.
Again, since Washington apparently need demons to distract us from the other ones we already know about, lets choose the ones who could possibly have been our allies instead. Microcosm for the entire US-Russian relationship. Fucked up.
If his hard drive would have just been wiped by a virus he'd be in the same boat. use a remote repo. no excuses.
Same AF. I love it.
This is not a comparison of apples to apples here. The constitution actually grants the STATES the right to pick the president by granting them a certain lot of electoral votes in proportion to their populations. How they decide to allocate them is up to the states. The 'popular vote' at a national level isn't actually a thing. It's only aggregated by statisticians, because really popular votes are only used by the states to help determine how they will allot their federally granted electoral votes, and really I do mean 'help determine' because not all of them electoral college members are required to vote with the popular vote, and nor have they ever been.
These colonists were still very supportive of government and the church working in tandem
Oh really? Which church was 'the church' that you speak of? Which religion was it even?
It's not whether or not this thing always makes perfect decisions... it should be about whether or not it makes better ones than people, on average. If it does, that's a win.
First: Change your password -- if there is an "ever since" in this story you should have changed it "ever since" you FIRST noticed that. Duh. And second... Troll.
Cash is currently an option. It won't be forever. There are significant strides in Europe and India right now toward 'cashless' economies, because the government thinks it never misses out on taxes and the underground economy is supposedly all brought into the daylight -- but that just drives people into trading other things on the black market. It'll get worse over time and happen here too eventually. So you can either spend your TIME worrying about that, or you can just spend your MONEY, pay taxes, and grumble about the government. Unless you plan to overthrow a government or become a criminal, this is the wonderful future -- and it's YOUR wonderful, non-anonymous future. I don't like it either, but what can I do? Probably something illegal, but I'd rather just not bother.
I agree with this. I have been inspired by speakers at conferences. I have even learned a few things. And all of them were technology related. You just have to do your research up-front and know if you're in for a techie conference, or one that's only ostensibly techie, and is instead about tech culture. The cultural ones are nearly complete garbage, while the tech ones can be entirely inspiring.
True, but you're speaking only from a hardware perspective. I have been to 'good conferences' where they have talks that spark me to research new ideas that eventually lead to productive lines of inquiry (RailsConf or in a previous life, PDC) and ones that are just advertisements or feature "Touchy Feely" talks about programmer sentiment and egos (RubyConf, total Yuck.) The ones that make me think, or research, are worth it. Even some of the keynotes (RailsConf 2016, keynote by Paul Lamere, from Spotify, fired my imagination and prompted me to take 6 months of courses on Big Data and Machine learning, which will eventually pay my employer dividends and then some,) by big names in their fields are worth the entire costs. It just means you need to know where to go, and what to look for, and what to avoid. Talks about diversity for the sake of coloration, or whatever, are little more than rants about unfairness, which leads to nothing company 'costs' if you buy in to them. But ones about how they take advantage of technologies (like one I saw [by a woman, speaking of diversity, which didn't even mention the fact that she was a woman -- BECAUSE THAT ISN'T THE IMPORTANT PART] about how Github used the Scientist gem to migrate their entire security structure without any downtime...) they can lead to local 'breakthroughs.' My advice is to stay away from 'touchy feely' conferences about developers and how they 'feel' at work, and to go to those that focus on the actual state of technology and what's out there and how to use it for your own personal, professional, and business's growth. Being around people who care about the same things, especially when those things are putting numbers on the board, is a great thing. NOT ALL CONFERENCES ARE CREATED EQUAL. That's just how it is. Do your research up front.
You're actually not right. It can be AI without being sentient, and in this case, it is just that. It's a general purpose learning algorithm. Not a strategic poker playing algorithm. It doesn't need to be sentient to be intelligent. You're confusing General AI with Narrow AI. This is a Narrow AI, to be sure, but if you string enough Narrow AI's up together, they can eventually give the same appearance of a General AI. This is just one milestone along the way. In particular, it dethrones the idea that poker is the last bastion of human dominance in cognition. Obviously we'll have to find a new bastion, like the fact that we are, so far, the only General Intelligence thus far observed or produced.
See the comment subject for more information.
To ensure the national defense, to enforce individual property rights, and prevent violent crime. Also, to enforce contracts between private entities in the courts.
If Uber is the best job they can find, they had better be happy that Uber is there for them to find.
If that was their best option, (per you, they have no other better options,) and you remove Uber from the equation, you've still done them a disservice by taking that OPPORTUNITY to work for Uber away. Afterall, that was their best option. You can't have it both ways. It's either their best opportunity or it isn't.
Force would be against their will. What people SAY they are willing to do and what they actually do are very different things. If they really didn't think they were getting a benefit equal to or greater than their involvement with Uber, they would quit. That's the difference between force and not force. Whether they like their other options or not, they have options. Anyone who stays working for uber, or any other company for that matter, CHOOSES to. That is the opposite of force.
Yeah, but if they did ratify it, then there would be no argument. I get what you're saying. And it's the same as what the founders said. That's why it is that way in the constitution. But, we have a way to change that, and I was just enumerating it. Not that it would necessarily pass, but just saying. At that point, "States" would become virtually irrelevant in the context of the presidential election. If that's what they want then fine, if not, also fine. Just saying.
I disagree that that is a purpose of government. Sorry.
I would be ok with this. Even if this went into effect though, it couldn't prevent the reality star from becoming president this time. (Not that I'd rather Hillary. I'd actually rather just puke that these were our choices.)
There's always another option. It might not be a great one. Or the one you want, but there's always another option.
Nobody is forcing anyone to drive for Uber. Quit if you don't like it. Holy crap there's someone willing to pay you to drive your own car. If that's not your bag, fine. But go somewhere else to complain about it.
I'm not talking about what is right and what is wrong, better or worse. I'm describing what is, and why it was originally put there. I gave no normative direction on it at all. It takes a constitutional amendment to change it. So, either run for office yourself, or get on the horn to your congressmen, because 'fairness' speculation is getting you nowhere.