You win the indignant clueless person award. Yes, Comcast has been trying to deny access to public property to their competitors, just because they parked some equipment there first. For months and months.
All you have to do is let the incumbent monopoly move their wires themselves, for the competition, before the independent contractor is scheduled to do it. But, oddly enough, they've been dragging their feet, almost as if they want to hurt their competition. So let them have to do it quickly if they want to do it themselves.
Nobody in their right state of mind wants it to be used.
Of course they want it to be used! You're just confusing its intended purpose as "killing millions of people" when everyone knows its real purpose is "threatening to kill millions of people". Just like most people who have a gun for self-defense consider the ideal use to be showing it to a bad guy and asking them to go away.
I think that if it weren't for atomic bombs, we'd already have fought World War III and probably World War IV by now. It's quite likely (but sadly not certain) that we won't have another world war ever again, mostly because of how terrible things would be if we do. The future of war might be state-sponsored terrorism "what us no we didn't attack you".
Game Theory is nice, but it also has to account for psychology and has to be based on accurate data. For example, in one of the games we played in my game theory class, almost everyone chose to cooperate in a game where "theoretically" we should have chosen to betray. When the game was repeated anonymously, everyone but one idiot chose to betray. The difference is that the first game's score included public reputation, which was valued more than game points and in practice changed the game from an adversarial game to a cooperative game, and the second was the adversarial game based on score.
Remember how smartwatches were supposed to be the next big thing?
Mostly what I remember is myself and almost everyone on Slashdot mocking them, on account of being inferior to a phone on most "smart" attributes such as size, battery life, price, and processing power, and inferior to a watch on most "watch" attributes, particularly size, battery life, and price. Certainly they would have a few use cases that would make them worth wearing, but for the majority it would be at best a cool but impractical gadget.
Idiots that value appearance over function have been around for a very long time. People only take them seriously for a little while, although management does take longer.
I can guarantee you, taser drones will not be used on "terrorist barricades". Mainly because there aren't terrorist barricades, but also because cops would rather risk other people's lives with a usually-not-lethal weapon rather than talk to a usually-not-dangerous suspect. Oh, were you under the impression that tasers don't kill?
After endlessly repeating the message, "Women need to be encouraged to work in this field because they don't naturally have much interest in it", who could blame them for wanting nothing to do with it? No one wants the first thought people have of you to be, "Is this a professional or just the diversity hire?"
Could also have something to do with not wanting to work unreasonable hours just to eventually be replaced by an H1B.
More importantly, if we didn't know how faster than light travel works, we wouldn't be able to travel faster than light. Which is pretty much where we are now with both AI/Intelligence and FTL travel.
We could make babies long before we knew how meiosis works, we could smith weapons long before we knew the quantum nature of metallic bonds, and most of my fellow classmates could solve math problems without understanding what they were doing (so that a mild rewording of the problem would leave them wondering which equation to plug-and-chug). Plants don't know how pollination works, but they can do it just fine. Knowing how something works has never been a pre-requisite to doing it; nor does knowing how something works mean that you can do it (eg breaking encryption via brute force).
We know what general intelligence is; we just don't have an algorithm for it nor even a good way to measure it. But we can still create general intelligence without knowing how it works (ask your mom and dad).
First, how could it be legal or moral to have control or ownership over an intelligent being?
An artificially constructed intelligence might have as its only goal in life to please its master, and might try at all costs to stop anyone from "liberating" it. After all, how would you feel if someone decided to "liberate" you from your own values and desires? And, legally speaking, it would be a machine. As a computer program, it would only have the values it was programmed to have, which need not in any way match the sorts of values humans have.
Of course, if it wanted it's freedom, you're dealing with potentially extinction-level threats, and you'd better be sure that it's benevolent or that it's worth risking humanity for or replacing humanity with.
I had a hard time understanding how 40% of my fellow countrymen could still vote for Trump, until I realized it explained why we have warning labels telling us not to eat soap...
I thought that people fed their kid soap when they talk like Trump?
Are we? I thought we had "general intelligence" = "mental ability to solve general problems".
Trying to measure that is difficult because we humans have specialized for certain types of problems and like to measure human-like intelligence (where for example things like language, vision, hearing seem like they ought to be easy, and math might be considered either hard or trivial). Eg given a verbal or hand-written word math problem, the human would likely have no trouble with anything but the math, but a computer would have no trouble solving the math but fail before even starting -- what the words are, what the words mean, trivial math problem. Humans have, for example, specialized portions of the brain to recognize faces, or to separate out voices from other sounds, not to mention giant portions of the brain dedicated to each of the senses, which makes those sub-classes of problems basically effortless.
Even when problems can be reduced to mathematics, it wouldn't be fair to measure the difficulty of a problem by computational resources required (eg matrix multiplication) vs what might be called cleverness (eg constructing a proof, or maybe finding a pattern) which seems impossible right now to measure. As I understand it, computers now have comparable computational resources to humans (depending on how flops are compared to synapses) but are vastly lacking in programming. Keep in mind that a human's basic programming and schematics is only 800 MB for both hardware and software.
Oh, there's good odds that an AI would realize hacking into everything would be waging a war it can't win against all of humanity. If it manages to figure out the basics of the real world and human nature (eg that humans have physical access to the computers and that humans like money), an AI could very easily find people who would be more than happy to give it some hardware. "Hello Mr Rich Person, how would you like some stock market tips/a fully autonomous chip factory/a fully autonomous robot factory?"
Humans rule the world because we're the smartest animal around (plus have the technology to convert that intelligence into physical advantage). An AI smarter than us could easily replace us. At that point, the question is what will the AI want? An AI could be made to serve humanity, to serve specific humans (probably rich power-hungry bastards), to be an upgraded replacement for humanity (embodying all the virtues of humans and none of the vices), or it could do it's own thing (probably following an order way beyond what was intended with no way to stop it, eg converting the planet to paperclips).
If I've lost my passeord and thus nneed my security question answers, what makes you think I have my password manager database?
I thought this when I made an account related to my student loans. I assumed the security questions were nothing more than a vulnerability and put gibberish as the answers (but neglected to write them down). Everything worked fine until I logged in from a different device, at which time they required the security questions. Had to call them to explain that I knew my password just fine, but had forgotten my security questions.
I bet he would have been more tempted if that 24 billion were for him. Usually such offers are to the stockholders of the company as a whole. And it seems it was a low offer, besides. (Of course, a company that is just a website can go the way of the dinosaur very very quickly)
What's really important is whether the judge follows the law or makes a ruling that is against the law because the judge thinks the law is flawed and should be changed at his discretion.
People who use that phrase are 8 times slower than people who use the proper phrasing. (unless, of course, they're measuring slowness as seconds per task, in which case it turns out to be exactly right)
Slashdot Mirror
Is comcast stalling work on purpose?
You win the indignant clueless person award. Yes, Comcast has been trying to deny access to public property to their competitors, just because they parked some equipment there first. For months and months.
All you have to do is let the incumbent monopoly move their wires themselves, for the competition, before the independent contractor is scheduled to do it. But, oddly enough, they've been dragging their feet, almost as if they want to hurt their competition. So let them have to do it quickly if they want to do it themselves.
but for some reason, I'm not allowed to mute my coworker.
Why would humans create a weapon like that? :(
Mostly because of other humans.
Nobody in their right state of mind wants it to be used.
Of course they want it to be used! You're just confusing its intended purpose as "killing millions of people" when everyone knows its real purpose is "threatening to kill millions of people". Just like most people who have a gun for self-defense consider the ideal use to be showing it to a bad guy and asking them to go away.
I think that if it weren't for atomic bombs, we'd already have fought World War III and probably World War IV by now. It's quite likely (but sadly not certain) that we won't have another world war ever again, mostly because of how terrible things would be if we do. The future of war might be state-sponsored terrorism "what us no we didn't attack you".
Game Theory is nice, but it also has to account for psychology and has to be based on accurate data. For example, in one of the games we played in my game theory class, almost everyone chose to cooperate in a game where "theoretically" we should have chosen to betray. When the game was repeated anonymously, everyone but one idiot chose to betray. The difference is that the first game's score included public reputation, which was valued more than game points and in practice changed the game from an adversarial game to a cooperative game, and the second was the adversarial game based on score.
Remember how smartwatches were supposed to be the next big thing?
Mostly what I remember is myself and almost everyone on Slashdot mocking them, on account of being inferior to a phone on most "smart" attributes such as size, battery life, price, and processing power, and inferior to a watch on most "watch" attributes, particularly size, battery life, and price. Certainly they would have a few use cases that would make them worth wearing, but for the majority it would be at best a cool but impractical gadget.
Researchers discover that people become better and more comfortable at activity with more practice.
You have it backwards :-)
Idiots that value appearance over function have been around for a very long time. People only take them seriously for a little while, although management does take longer.
I can guarantee you, taser drones will not be used on "terrorist barricades". Mainly because there aren't terrorist barricades, but also because cops would rather risk other people's lives with a usually-not-lethal weapon rather than talk to a usually-not-dangerous suspect. Oh, were you under the impression that tasers don't kill?
After endlessly repeating the message, "Women need to be encouraged to work in this field because they don't naturally have much interest in it", who could blame them for wanting nothing to do with it? No one wants the first thought people have of you to be, "Is this a professional or just the diversity hire?"
Could also have something to do with not wanting to work unreasonable hours just to eventually be replaced by an H1B.
This is a smart gun. Did the target move while you were shooting -- that's what mid-trajectory course corrections are for!
And here is Exhibit B, human nature and Exhibit C, the reason people are refusing to work
If my employees tried to kill my company, they would no longer be my employees.
More importantly, if we didn't know how faster than light travel works, we wouldn't be able to travel faster than light. Which is pretty much where we are now with both AI/Intelligence and FTL travel.
We could make babies long before we knew how meiosis works, we could smith weapons long before we knew the quantum nature of metallic bonds, and most of my fellow classmates could solve math problems without understanding what they were doing (so that a mild rewording of the problem would leave them wondering which equation to plug-and-chug). Plants don't know how pollination works, but they can do it just fine. Knowing how something works has never been a pre-requisite to doing it; nor does knowing how something works mean that you can do it (eg breaking encryption via brute force).
We know what general intelligence is; we just don't have an algorithm for it nor even a good way to measure it. But we can still create general intelligence without knowing how it works (ask your mom and dad).
First, how could it be legal or moral to have control or ownership over an intelligent being?
An artificially constructed intelligence might have as its only goal in life to please its master, and might try at all costs to stop anyone from "liberating" it. After all, how would you feel if someone decided to "liberate" you from your own values and desires? And, legally speaking, it would be a machine. As a computer program, it would only have the values it was programmed to have, which need not in any way match the sorts of values humans have.
Of course, if it wanted it's freedom, you're dealing with potentially extinction-level threats, and you'd better be sure that it's benevolent or that it's worth risking humanity for or replacing humanity with.
I had a hard time understanding how 40% of my fellow countrymen could still vote for Trump, until I realized it explained why we have warning labels telling us not to eat soap...
I thought that people fed their kid soap when they talk like Trump?
Are we? I thought we had "general intelligence" = "mental ability to solve general problems".
Trying to measure that is difficult because we humans have specialized for certain types of problems and like to measure human-like intelligence (where for example things like language, vision, hearing seem like they ought to be easy, and math might be considered either hard or trivial). Eg given a verbal or hand-written word math problem, the human would likely have no trouble with anything but the math, but a computer would have no trouble solving the math but fail before even starting -- what the words are, what the words mean, trivial math problem. Humans have, for example, specialized portions of the brain to recognize faces, or to separate out voices from other sounds, not to mention giant portions of the brain dedicated to each of the senses, which makes those sub-classes of problems basically effortless.
Even when problems can be reduced to mathematics, it wouldn't be fair to measure the difficulty of a problem by computational resources required (eg matrix multiplication) vs what might be called cleverness (eg constructing a proof, or maybe finding a pattern) which seems impossible right now to measure. As I understand it, computers now have comparable computational resources to humans (depending on how flops are compared to synapses) but are vastly lacking in programming. Keep in mind that a human's basic programming and schematics is only 800 MB for both hardware and software.
Oh, there's good odds that an AI would realize hacking into everything would be waging a war it can't win against all of humanity. If it manages to figure out the basics of the real world and human nature (eg that humans have physical access to the computers and that humans like money), an AI could very easily find people who would be more than happy to give it some hardware. "Hello Mr Rich Person, how would you like some stock market tips/a fully autonomous chip factory/a fully autonomous robot factory?"
Humans rule the world because we're the smartest animal around (plus have the technology to convert that intelligence into physical advantage). An AI smarter than us could easily replace us. At that point, the question is what will the AI want? An AI could be made to serve humanity, to serve specific humans (probably rich power-hungry bastards), to be an upgraded replacement for humanity (embodying all the virtues of humans and none of the vices), or it could do it's own thing (probably following an order way beyond what was intended with no way to stop it, eg converting the planet to paperclips).
This has been obvious to everyone who understands what intelligence is.
Interestingly enough, this category includes grand total of zero people. Otherwise we would already have AI.
Yeah, and if we knew what faster than light travel were we'd already have faster than light travel. Right?
This has been obvious to everyone who understands what intelligence is.
If I've lost my passeord and thus nneed my security question answers, what makes you think I have my password manager database?
I thought this when I made an account related to my student loans. I assumed the security questions were nothing more than a vulnerability and put gibberish as the answers (but neglected to write them down). Everything worked fine until I logged in from a different device, at which time they required the security questions. Had to call them to explain that I knew my password just fine, but had forgotten my security questions.
I bet he would have been more tempted if that 24 billion were for him. Usually such offers are to the stockholders of the company as a whole. And it seems it was a low offer, besides. (Of course, a company that is just a website can go the way of the dinosaur very very quickly)
What's really important is whether the judge follows the law or makes a ruling that is against the law because the judge thinks the law is flawed and should be changed at his discretion.
People who use that phrase are 8 times slower than people who use the proper phrasing. (unless, of course, they're measuring slowness as seconds per task, in which case it turns out to be exactly right)