Because there's ethical concerns to doing the sort of thing that is necessary to eliminate cancer and other nasty genetic disorders, and to reduce the rate of other genetic predispositions such as heart disease, diabetes, and violent crime, and the way to bring mankind to new levels of health and strength and intellect. I think the primary ethical concern is "they might look down on us".
Now we just need the followup study that finds that the women who's brains looked more male were more interested in in things like programming, while the men who's brains looked more female were more interested in things like complaining that somebody on the internet said something sexist.
With AIs, this takes it to another level. If one AI knows the program the other is running, they can screw over the other one with impunity. "My 'minimum distance from another car' limit is smaller than yours, get off the track." It could be countered by having an AI that tries to detect when another is trying to screw them, but that is likely to have some hilarious miscalculations. Even then, if you have their AI program you can go just under the limit before counter-screwing routines activate.
In the end, it'll be fun to see how they do information security of their AI program vs social engineering. Mind games indeed.
Not everyone thinks that granting people 1 billion years* of exclusive use of an idea is something that ought to be supported.
* Yes, it's only ~100 years now, but do you really think they'll ever let it expire? Since copyright's lifespan is now longer than human's lifespan, making it longer doesn't really make a difference other than to quash historical production so as to push up the price of new production.
It's not a dupe, it's a double whammy. They can't force ISPs to block piratebay, and they have to pay their legal costs.
Maybe instead of spending all our time complaining about dupes, we could instead use one post to laugh at them for being unable to block TPB and the other one to laugh about their having to pay the legal fees.
So... you don't believe that narcc's life being worth more than $1000 can adequately compete in the marketplace of ideas and thus the only way it can succeed is by forcefully silencing the competition?
Now that we're treating college as a necessity for getting a job, it's nice to see one that gives itself a financial incentive to actually perform that function.
How would you feel about an ad supporting a particular murder-for-hire business?
How I feel doesn't matter. That cannot be considered sufficient justification for denying others their rights. You're still free to personally oppose it, speak in opposition, produce your own ads offering a counterpoint -- just like they are. That's the nice thing about the freedom of speech. It protects everyone, not just those with which some authority happens to agree.
So then you'd have no problem with me going around saying, "I'll pay $1000 to anyone who would murder narcc" and wouldn't want me arrested if I did that?
That is, as you are already well aware, a completely different issue. An issue, I might add, that is completely unrelated to the one under discussion.
Nope, I'm not seeing it. If you had been consistent and supported freedom of speech for all speech no matter the content, I would have respected you. Disagreed, but respected you. Just to be clear: I do believe that some speech is harmful and it would be beneficial to suppress, eg murder for hire offers, and as such I can't resent Mr Anonymous Coward his opinion that a similar thing holds true of commercial religious advertizing. That said, I do not trust any authority figure to make the distinction. In particular, people must be free to speak in support of illegal activities because otherwise bad laws can't be opposed.
I also consider media and communications companies to be a worse threat to free speech than government -- government can't stop you from speaking, can merely punish you afterwards, but the media and communications companies can directly censor your speech.
Going back to the first posts, all I have to say is "So... you don't believe that narcc's life being worth more than $1000 can adequately compete in the marketplace of ideas and thus the only way it can succeed is by forcefully silencing the competition?"
Would your response to my post have been different [if it were an atheist ad being blocked instead]? We can safely assume your response would have been different. I can tell you why, if you're interested.
Is the reason because your post would have been different and therefore a different reply would have been appropriate?
So then you'd have no problem with me going around saying, "I'll pay $1000 to anyone who would murder narcc" and wouldn't want me arrested if I did that? That is, after all, speech, and you don't believe the government should suppress speech, right? Or do you, perhaps, think the negative consequences of suppressing that sort of speech are less than the negative consequences of allowing it?
When you act to suppress speech with which you disagree, you're tacitly admitting that your own ideas aren't capable of competing adequately on equal footing.
That's the point where your post becomes a strawman. When you act to suppress speech with which you disagree, you're deciding that the negative effects of that speech outweigh the negative effects of suppressing that speech. Not some nonsense about losing in the marketplace of ideas, and definitely not some nonsense about "the only way it can succeed is by forcefully silencing the competition".
Incidentally, there is no country where you can speak freely without your speech being forcefully suppressed.
How about the on the grounds that the ads might persuade more people to become theist? As an atheist, that is all the reason I need to suppress the ads.
So... you don't believe that atheism can adequately compete in the marketplace of ideas and thus the only way it can succeed is by forcefully silencing the competition?
It must be difficult for you...
Strawman.
It's entirely obvious that 1) Ads convince people of things. 2) People are opposed to things with sufficient conviction that they would not want to see ads supporting that thing. 3) The "marketplace of ideas" is not a winner-takes-all, which is why for example there is more than one religion.
How would you feel about an ad supporting teen promiscuity, terrorism, a particular murder-for-hire business, etc? Or don't you believe that non-murder can adequately compete in the marketplace of ideas and thus the only way it can succeed is by forcefully silencing the competition?
At the height of the conflict, as the new Iraqi government battled a wave of deadly car bombings, it purchased more than 7,000 ADE 651 units worth tens of millions of dollars
It cost tens of millions of dollars. It is worth tens of dollars as scrap. Sometimes, you don't get what you pay for.
I consider a willful act of doing harm to be worse than negligence.
Only on a case-by-case basis. For example, I'd consider widespread willful negligence that results in the deaths of thousands do be way more serious a crime than a serial killer who's reaching his second dozen victims.
Adding proper security is probably a small portion of the total cost of development and I doubt many device manufactures would knowingly skimp in that area knowing how vulnerable they are to lawsuits. What is more likely to happen is that attacks get more sophisticated over time and products that did have reasonable security when implanted in your body 5 years ago, don't anymore.
That's not how security works, except security by obscurity. Bugs don't mysteriously appear in old code; they have always been there and are merely discovered. You can build code that is and will forever be resistant to network attacks (unless they find your password). I understand it's possible to build provably secure code, it's just very expensive.
If the CIO of an Internet of Things company is spending 1/3 of their time thinking about security, yet is still so incompetent... maybe they would be better off paying 1/3 of a CIO's salary to a random slashdotter for 5 minutes of their time.
Of course, no matter how long they take thinking about security, they're still going to sacrifice security for usability every time, so I don't know what purpose thinking about it has.
Slashdot Mirror
Why are we not funding this?
Because there's ethical concerns to doing the sort of thing that is necessary to eliminate cancer and other nasty genetic disorders, and to reduce the rate of other genetic predispositions such as heart disease, diabetes, and violent crime, and the way to bring mankind to new levels of health and strength and intellect. I think the primary ethical concern is "they might look down on us".
The idea that people will be judged by their genetics is ridiculous.
Not very familiar with humans, are you? Or are you thinking that with genetic engineering we'll find a cure for racism and sexism?
Now we just need the followup study that finds that the women who's brains looked more male were more interested in in things like programming, while the men who's brains looked more female were more interested in things like complaining that somebody on the internet said something sexist.
You could say going freelance is a roll of the Dice.
#helpImTrappedInATweetFactory
Useless new emojis are for :cow: Moo, :cow2:, moo.
Will it last forever?
With AIs, this takes it to another level. If one AI knows the program the other is running, they can screw over the other one with impunity. "My 'minimum distance from another car' limit is smaller than yours, get off the track." It could be countered by having an AI that tries to detect when another is trying to screw them, but that is likely to have some hilarious miscalculations. Even then, if you have their AI program you can go just under the limit before counter-screwing routines activate.
In the end, it'll be fun to see how they do information security of their AI program vs social engineering. Mind games indeed.
Not everyone thinks that granting people 1 billion years* of exclusive use of an idea is something that ought to be supported.
* Yes, it's only ~100 years now, but do you really think they'll ever let it expire? Since copyright's lifespan is now longer than human's lifespan, making it longer doesn't really make a difference other than to quash historical production so as to push up the price of new production.
It's not a dupe, it's a double whammy. They can't force ISPs to block piratebay, and they have to pay their legal costs.
Maybe instead of spending all our time complaining about dupes, we could instead use one post to laugh at them for being unable to block TPB and the other one to laugh about their having to pay the legal fees.
So ... you don't believe that narcc's life being worth more than $1000 can adequately compete in the marketplace of ideas and thus the only way it can succeed is by forcefully silencing the competition?
It must be difficult for you...
Now that we're treating college as a necessity for getting a job, it's nice to see one that gives itself a financial incentive to actually perform that function.
How would you feel about an ad supporting a particular murder-for-hire business?
How I feel doesn't matter. That cannot be considered sufficient justification for denying others their rights. You're still free to personally oppose it, speak in opposition, produce your own ads offering a counterpoint -- just like they are. That's the nice thing about the freedom of speech. It protects everyone, not just those with which some authority happens to agree.
So then you'd have no problem with me going around saying, "I'll pay $1000 to anyone who would murder narcc" and wouldn't want me arrested if I did that?
That is, as you are already well aware, a completely different issue. An issue, I might add, that is completely unrelated to the one under discussion.
Nope, I'm not seeing it. If you had been consistent and supported freedom of speech for all speech no matter the content, I would have respected you. Disagreed, but respected you. Just to be clear: I do believe that some speech is harmful and it would be beneficial to suppress, eg murder for hire offers, and as such I can't resent Mr Anonymous Coward his opinion that a similar thing holds true of commercial religious advertizing. That said, I do not trust any authority figure to make the distinction. In particular, people must be free to speak in support of illegal activities because otherwise bad laws can't be opposed.
I also consider media and communications companies to be a worse threat to free speech than government -- government can't stop you from speaking, can merely punish you afterwards, but the media and communications companies can directly censor your speech.
Going back to the first posts, all I have to say is "So ... you don't believe that narcc's life being worth more than $1000 can adequately compete in the marketplace of ideas and thus the only way it can succeed is by forcefully silencing the competition?"
Would your response to my post have been different [if it were an atheist ad being blocked instead]? We can safely assume your response would have been different. I can tell you why, if you're interested.
Is the reason because your post would have been different and therefore a different reply would have been appropriate?
So then you'd have no problem with me going around saying, "I'll pay $1000 to anyone who would murder narcc" and wouldn't want me arrested if I did that? That is, after all, speech, and you don't believe the government should suppress speech, right? Or do you, perhaps, think the negative consequences of suppressing that sort of speech are less than the negative consequences of allowing it?
When you act to suppress speech with which you disagree, you're tacitly admitting that your own ideas aren't capable of competing adequately on equal footing.
That's the point where your post becomes a strawman. When you act to suppress speech with which you disagree, you're deciding that the negative effects of that speech outweigh the negative effects of suppressing that speech. Not some nonsense about losing in the marketplace of ideas, and definitely not some nonsense about "the only way it can succeed is by forcefully silencing the competition".
Incidentally, there is no country where you can speak freely without your speech being forcefully suppressed.
Next up: Stone candy.
It's stone soup. Look it up.
How about the on the grounds that the ads might persuade more people to become theist? As an atheist, that is all the reason I need to suppress the ads.
So ... you don't believe that atheism can adequately compete in the marketplace of ideas and thus the only way it can succeed is by forcefully silencing the competition?
It must be difficult for you...
Strawman.
It's entirely obvious that
1) Ads convince people of things.
2) People are opposed to things with sufficient conviction that they would not want to see ads supporting that thing.
3) The "marketplace of ideas" is not a winner-takes-all, which is why for example there is more than one religion.
How would you feel about an ad supporting teen promiscuity, terrorism, a particular murder-for-hire business, etc? Or don't you believe that non-murder can adequately compete in the marketplace of ideas and thus the only way it can succeed is by forcefully silencing the competition?
What is comment section coming to without a post about cows?
High cellulose foods are for cows. Moo, moo, etc.
There is obviously a correlation between being dateless and becoming a terrorist.
And if they use explosives, then you could say they got a blowjob.
Anyone know when Microsoft will release a new version of Windows to replace Windows 7?
Electronic warfare
At the height of the conflict, as the new Iraqi government battled a wave of deadly car bombings, it purchased more than 7,000 ADE 651 units worth tens of millions of dollars
It cost tens of millions of dollars. It is worth tens of dollars as scrap. Sometimes, you don't get what you pay for.
I consider a willful act of doing harm to be worse than negligence.
Only on a case-by-case basis. For example, I'd consider widespread willful negligence that results in the deaths of thousands do be way more serious a crime than a serial killer who's reaching his second dozen victims.
Adding proper security is probably a small portion of the total cost of development and I doubt many device manufactures would knowingly skimp in that area knowing how vulnerable they are to lawsuits. What is more likely to happen is that attacks get more sophisticated over time and products that did have reasonable security when implanted in your body 5 years ago, don't anymore.
That's not how security works, except security by obscurity. Bugs don't mysteriously appear in old code; they have always been there and are merely discovered. You can build code that is and will forever be resistant to network attacks (unless they find your password). I understand it's possible to build provably secure code, it's just very expensive.
But that would qualify.
Which, making life-critical devices which are vulnerable to hackers to save money on security, or to ask people with insecure devices for money?
If the CIO of an Internet of Things company is spending 1/3 of their time thinking about security, yet is still so incompetent... maybe they would be better off paying 1/3 of a CIO's salary to a random slashdotter for 5 minutes of their time.
Of course, no matter how long they take thinking about security, they're still going to sacrifice security for usability every time, so I don't know what purpose thinking about it has.