Especially when trained and veteran terrorists are making terrorism guides available on a plethora of sites created specifically for the purpose of making effective terrorists out of civilians for one big attack.
Who'd want to take advice from a veteran suicide bomber?
What's with all the idiots saying, "We should have a tax on good people so we can cut taxes on the leeches -- make taxation optional!!!1!" "Let's shame people who want to help others!!!"
Seriously, if you want to be cynical maybe instead suggest that they're just publicly saying that to gain goodwill while secretly lobbying for lower taxes, especially lower capital gains taxes where the rich make all their money.
Given they're trying to speak on behalf of many others that like as not don't feel as they do, it seems disingenuous. Besides, nothing is stopping them from giving more if they really feel that strongly about it.
I'd rather the exact opposite of what you're proposing -- a system that only taxes the leeches who don't want to contribute to society. As opposed to your system of only taxing good people.
It maybe news to you, but food is sold on the assumption that it is non-radioactive.
Uh, no. Food is sold on the assumption that it is always radioactive. It isn't labeled as radioactive because every food item would have that label.
And I really am in favor of labeling all food with the measure of radioactivity per serving. It would be educational for paranoid idiots whose stupidity is harming my health.
I vote that any foods that are radioactive, even if just a little bit, be required to be labeled as radioactive and have a measure of how much radioactivity per serving. This seems to me more important than labeling GMO foods, but then maybe you don't mind eating radioactive food.
"That can really help to prevent some of the disconnect and possible dangers of developing superintelligent or human-level machines that don't care," he said.
Yes! Serving food is catering (literally) to normal (aka evil) people. What about vegetarians, vegans, lactose-intolerant, gluten-intolerant, modern-agriculture-intolerant, people on diets, people on low carb diets, people on low fat diets, people on low cholesterol diets, people on low salt diets, people boycotting a particular food industry, people with allergies? Totally unfair.
It's becoming obvious that the government needs to be outright forbidden from doing just about anything except a few specific things, rather than merely not authorized. Just like there's hardly any difference between pointing a gun at someone and saying, "Wouldn't it be nice if I had more money?" as compared to saying "Your money or your life." -- nowadays there's very little difference between the government "asking" and the government demanding.
"The iCloud information is not at risk of being breached or otherwise observed by the ultimate owners of the platforms it resides on because of the very heavy encryption and partitioning technologies used,"
While I have no doubt it is possible to do this, is it really secure?
For an OS that continues to lose market share [to] iOS and Android, it makes sense for Microsoft to be so concerned about the user experience as it is crucial for the success of Windows 10 Mobile.
A major factor in user experience is trust. Without trust, you can't use the software at all. With barely any trust, you have to verify that each update won't introduce nefarious anti-features, nor change your settings or other evil things -- and you have to verify it from someone other than the company. Makes it really hard, stressful, and time-consuming to use that software.
Slashdot Mirror
Especially when trained and veteran terrorists are making terrorism guides available on a plethora of sites created specifically for the purpose of making effective terrorists out of civilians for one big attack.
Who'd want to take advice from a veteran suicide bomber?
What's with all the idiots saying,
"We should have a tax on good people so we can cut taxes on the leeches -- make taxation optional!!!1!"
"Let's shame people who want to help others!!!"
Seriously, if you want to be cynical maybe instead suggest that they're just publicly saying that to gain goodwill while secretly lobbying for lower taxes, especially lower capital gains taxes where the rich make all their money.
Given they're trying to speak on behalf of many others that like as not don't feel as they do, it seems disingenuous. Besides, nothing is stopping them from giving more if they really feel that strongly about it.
I'd rather the exact opposite of what you're proposing -- a system that only taxes the leeches who don't want to contribute to society. As opposed to your system of only taxing good people.
Fuck you and your stupid fake hypocrisy accusations.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but a lot of those women you met are single. They just told you otherwise.
I'd say she's probably conducting a scientific study on lonely males. 500 data points so far. I admire her dedication. You go, girl.
And this applies to closed sores as well.
It's a lot easier to find the bug when you have the source code.
What makes you think the NSA doesn't have access to the source code of any but the smallest closed source project they wish to examine?
It maybe news to you, but food is sold on the assumption that it is non-radioactive.
Uh, no. Food is sold on the assumption that it is always radioactive. It isn't labeled as radioactive because every food item would have that label.
And I really am in favor of labeling all food with the measure of radioactivity per serving. It would be educational for paranoid idiots whose stupidity is harming my health.
Scientists Say Smart People Are Better Off With Fewer Friends
I'm doing very well.
I vote that any foods that are radioactive, even if just a little bit, be required to be labeled as radioactive and have a measure of how much radioactivity per serving. This seems to me more important than labeling GMO foods, but then maybe you don't mind eating radioactive food.
"That can really help to prevent some of the disconnect and possible dangers of developing superintelligent or human-level machines that don't care," he said.
Nope.
Perverted^W Inquiring minds want to know.
Robots are superior to humans in any simple, repetitive task such as playing what used to be the most intellectual of games.
Sorry. The Eiffel Tower is 3.543 football fields tall, the tower for the wind turbine is 5.246 football fields tall.
You could put this on the Eiffel Tower, but it's kind of short. The Eiffel Tower is 1,063 ft tall, the towers they're planning for this are 1,574 ft.
Yes, it could very well be the AI is in charge of itself. In which case, one can only hope it was instilled with a good sense of morality.
What does AI have to accomplish to change how we fundamentally think of it, and consider it as 'real AI'?
Pass the Turing Test. The real Turing Test, not a pathetic make-believe one.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. Sincerely, the FBI.
PS: We are here to protect you.
Yes! Serving food is catering (literally) to normal (aka evil) people. What about vegetarians, vegans, lactose-intolerant, gluten-intolerant, modern-agriculture-intolerant, people on diets, people on low carb diets, people on low fat diets, people on low cholesterol diets, people on low salt diets, people boycotting a particular food industry, people with allergies? Totally unfair.
Whoever controls the first general AI controls the world.
I think you're confused. Slashdotters don't want anyone to be above the law, especially not government nor corporations.
It's becoming obvious that the government needs to be outright forbidden from doing just about anything except a few specific things, rather than merely not authorized. Just like there's hardly any difference between pointing a gun at someone and saying, "Wouldn't it be nice if I had more money?" as compared to saying "Your money or your life." -- nowadays there's very little difference between the government "asking" and the government demanding.
I never thought I would see the day where shoes would be battery powered.
I guess you must have missed all those blinky lights shoes.
"The iCloud information is not at risk of being breached or otherwise observed by the ultimate owners of the platforms it resides on because of the very heavy encryption and partitioning technologies used,"
While I have no doubt it is possible to do this, is it really secure?
For an OS that continues to lose market share [to] iOS and Android, it makes sense for Microsoft to be so concerned about the user experience as it is crucial for the success of Windows 10 Mobile.
A major factor in user experience is trust. Without trust, you can't use the software at all. With barely any trust, you have to verify that each update won't introduce nefarious anti-features, nor change your settings or other evil things -- and you have to verify it from someone other than the company. Makes it really hard, stressful, and time-consuming to use that software.