I love my country, America, but I fear my Government.
Too bad all those 2nd Amendment nutjobs forget about their fear of the government that they need guns so as to violently overthrow a tyrannical government, when the government tells them that someone is opposing the NSA's plot to secretly spy on Americans to find out which of them owns guns/"are a threat to national security".
You're conflicted because you're stuck on the idea of public schools. Imagine what outcry there would be, if the government decided that students can only receive financial assistance for state colleges. Why can't they do a similar system with education at the school level?
Put a different way: What are the odds that a terrorist does something nasty to you? What are the odds that your government does something nasty to you?
Any sane person* would be more terrified if their company was aiding their government, than if they were aiding the terrorists.
* except of course for people living in countries with daily terrorist attacks
They could just use the (totally non-Orwellian) cameras on the TVs to identify when you go away, and automatically pause the advertizement until you get back. I wonder, if one company did this, would the others immediately follow suit because of higher profits this quarter and nevermind the backlash?
Second, the site uses a multiple signature escrow system to assure an exploit is real. The presumption being the site is real and is not itself a means to pirate Bitcoin by them being put in escrow.
Any idea how that works? The only way I know of to produce partial keys has one person entirely in charge, which wouldn't work for an untrusted escrow service.
And unlike most Dark Web markets, it allows only so-called multisignature transactions. That means the bitcoins are held at an address jointly controlled by the buyer, the seller, and the market’s admins. For the money to be moved to the seller’s account, two out of three of those parties must sign off on the deal, giving the administrators the tie-breaking vote to resolve disputes.
Nah, I bet you just realized that you value human life at less than $560 of your dollars to the life of one human being in a poor country.* But that makes you feel uncomfortable, so you prefer to drive that sort of thought out of your mind.
*According to a random study I found on the internet:
A 2006 study estimated the cost per DALY [year of healthy life] averted with the traditional EPI vaccines ranges from US$ 7 to US$ 438 The cost per death averted ranges from US$ 205 in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa to US$ 3,540 in Europe and Central Asia.
So if you choose the most cost-effective vaccine to save 80 years of life, you could spend $7*80 = $560.
Imprisonment is irreversible too. Go ahead and see if you can give someone the years of their life back, the skills they lost, their previous psychological state, their job, their wife and friends they may have lost.
Not everyone has a price measured in dollars, i assure you. I may have a price, but i have yet to see a dollar amount that matches what im worth.
Almost everything has a price measured in dollars. Including human life.* I assume you simply haven't thought about it (or are trying to brag), since it is unlikely you'd be one of the few people who wouldn't "sell out" to save millions of lives.
*you can spend money to save a number of human lives, and may or may not choose to do so. This sets upper and lower bounds on how much you value human life.
And this, people, is why you don't have the death sentence.
Because psychologically torturing someone for the rest of their life, on the off chance that new evidence eventually proves them innocent is so much better?
And if we let them out again, then we can pat ourselves on the back because they're not dead, and totally ignore the fact that we ruined their life, and ignore the probability that they would have been found innocent if we had applied the higher standards and automatic appeal they would have gotten had the death sentence been on the table. My opinion? Life in prison should be treated as a death sentence from the legal perspective, invoking all the usual legal protections granted to those facing the death sentence.
Well, if you had to choose on moral grounds (as opposed to just siding with the most powerful), which would you rather worship: 1) A beautiful angel of light, reputed to have been instrumental in mankind acquiring morality. However, this entity is less powerful than his rival YAHWEH. 2) A powerful entity self-describing as being vengeful and jealous, reputed to have forbidden mankind from acquiring morality, then cursing them, their descendants, and the entire planet when they did anyways. Also reputed to eternally torture people, and to require a blood sacrifice to forgive even the smallest offense against him. Also reputed to have such a holier-than-thou attitude that he will kill any who look at him. Also reputed to violate people's free will by hardening their hearts, so that he can show off his might.
What you're saying is that God is able to eliminate evil, and he's willing to eliminate evil, he just wants to allow evil to continue for a few thousand years first?
I'd like to be able to search for regular expressions, or at least boolean. I'd like to be able to specify the context of a word, eg Java (geography), Java (coffee), Java (programming), or similarly the context for the search.
Clearly an upside of ubiquitous surveillance is that now towing companies can provide you with both loss of transportation *and* loss of employment. Be sure to call Advanced Towing for their excellent customer service!
If God were to stop it, and supposedly he could, it would mean that he would have to override the consequences of what are supposedly freely willed human decisions, making the very point of giving us free will in the first place moot.
OK then, quick free will/morality test: 1) You see a criminal beating an innocent child to death. You have with you a cell phone, a tazer, and a handgun. Do you intervene? Does your intervention mean the criminal doesn't have free will?
2) You see a criminal beating an innocent child to death. You're omniscient and omnipotent. In particular, you have the ability to teleport to a nearby location in the form of a human owning a cell phone, a tazer, and a handgun. Do you intervene? Does your intervention mean the criminal doesn't have free will?
Bonus question: If someone tries to flap their arms and fly, does their inability to do so impinge on their free will? Conversely, if there were a law of physics that prevented murder, would such a law of physics impinge on a person's free will? If your answers don't match, how do you tell the difference between a law of physics that impinges on free will and a law of physics that doesn't?
then they would be *safer* here in the USA where the NSA is not allowed to spy on them,
Trouble is, the US Constitution is more like a guideline than a law, since there is no punishment for violating it. On the other hand, in non-US countries it would be possible to arrest the NSA agents for espionage, at least in theory, or at least publicly humiliate their agency by holding their agent until they say "pretty please".
No, because there is all kinds of intelligence that is not measurable by IQ tests. For example, a huge chunk of our brains is the visual cortex, but for some reason people don't consider it a sign of intelligence to be able to be able to distinguish basic objects like apples or elephants, or to recognize spoken words (especially with background chatter), or to hold a meaningful conversation. Yet anyone who's tried to have a computer do it knows what a PITA it is. Speaking of computers, just about every math skill is done better by computers, but almost no one considers a computer intelligent.
So at the very least you have 1) raw brain/computing power 2) specialized skills 3) knowledge/data/programming which is rather like precalculated solutions.
Maybe the researchers (or journalists reporting on the article) aren't intelligent enough to realize that correlation does not equal causation. Maybe people who aren't wasting all their time enjoying themselves are both less happy and more intelligent.
Looks like you're too lazy to look it up too. We don't know, and can't agree upon, a proper definition of intelligence. And it makes a difference what exact definition is used in a study. The definition of "intelligence" used in this study is IQ, so your link is to the wrong article.
I suspect we won't be able to clearly define intelligence until we create a general AI...
Slashdot Mirror
I love my country, America, but I fear my Government.
Too bad all those 2nd Amendment nutjobs forget about their fear of the government that they need guns so as to violently overthrow a tyrannical government, when the government tells them that someone is opposing the NSA's plot to secretly spy on Americans to find out which of them owns guns/"are a threat to national security".
I'm 34 and I say give him the guillotine.
I say we give him the guillotine, and all the heads of the NSA who lied to us and to Congress about the illegal violations of the Fourth Amendment.
I guess I'll have to vaccinate my kid, but as a protest I'll give him a spray bottle with measles virus to go spraying around the school.
You're conflicted because you're stuck on the idea of public schools. Imagine what outcry there would be, if the government decided that students can only receive financial assistance for state colleges. Why can't they do a similar system with education at the school level?
Put a different way:
What are the odds that a terrorist does something nasty to you?
What are the odds that your government does something nasty to you?
Any sane person* would be more terrified if their company was aiding their government, than if they were aiding the terrorists.
* except of course for people living in countries with daily terrorist attacks
They could just use the (totally non-Orwellian) cameras on the TVs to identify when you go away, and automatically pause the advertizement until you get back. I wonder, if one company did this, would the others immediately follow suit because of higher profits this quarter and nevermind the backlash?
Install my security software at http://nsa.gov/download/backdoor.exe it is guaranteed to reduce hacking attempts on your systems by 99%.
Second, the site uses a multiple signature escrow system to assure an exploit is real. The presumption being the site is real and is not itself a means to pirate Bitcoin by them being put in escrow.
Any idea how that works? The only way I know of to produce partial keys has one person entirely in charge, which wouldn't work for an untrusted escrow service.
And unlike most Dark Web markets, it allows only so-called multisignature transactions. That means the bitcoins are held at an address jointly controlled by the buyer, the seller, and the market’s admins. For the money to be moved to the seller’s account, two out of three of those parties must sign off on the deal, giving the administrators the tie-breaking vote to resolve disputes.
If you like this new initiative, click "like" on the post announcing it. Also do so if you don't like the new initiative.
Only psychopaths think like this.
Nah, I bet you just realized that you value human life at less than $560 of your dollars to the life of one human being in a poor country.* But that makes you feel uncomfortable, so you prefer to drive that sort of thought out of your mind.
*According to a random study I found on the internet:
A 2006 study estimated the cost per DALY [year of healthy life] averted with the traditional EPI vaccines ranges from US$ 7 to US$ 438 The cost per death averted ranges from US$ 205 in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa to US$ 3,540 in Europe and Central Asia.
So if you choose the most cost-effective vaccine to save 80 years of life, you could spend $7*80 = $560.
Imprisonment is irreversible too. Go ahead and see if you can give someone the years of their life back, the skills they lost, their previous psychological state, their job, their wife and friends they may have lost.
Not everyone has a price measured in dollars, i assure you. I may have a price, but i have yet to see a dollar amount that matches what im worth.
Almost everything has a price measured in dollars. Including human life.* I assume you simply haven't thought about it (or are trying to brag), since it is unlikely you'd be one of the few people who wouldn't "sell out" to save millions of lives.
*you can spend money to save a number of human lives, and may or may not choose to do so. This sets upper and lower bounds on how much you value human life.
It's a breath of fresh air to a dying industry.
And this, people, is why you don't have the death sentence.
Because psychologically torturing someone for the rest of their life, on the off chance that new evidence eventually proves them innocent is so much better?
And if we let them out again, then we can pat ourselves on the back because they're not dead, and totally ignore the fact that we ruined their life, and ignore the probability that they would have been found innocent if we had applied the higher standards and automatic appeal they would have gotten had the death sentence been on the table. My opinion? Life in prison should be treated as a death sentence from the legal perspective, invoking all the usual legal protections granted to those facing the death sentence.
Well, if you had to choose on moral grounds (as opposed to just siding with the most powerful), which would you rather worship:
1) A beautiful angel of light, reputed to have been instrumental in mankind acquiring morality. However, this entity is less powerful than his rival YAHWEH.
2) A powerful entity self-describing as being vengeful and jealous, reputed to have forbidden mankind from acquiring morality, then cursing them, their descendants, and the entire planet when they did anyways. Also reputed to eternally torture people, and to require a blood sacrifice to forgive even the smallest offense against him. Also reputed to have such a holier-than-thou attitude that he will kill any who look at him. Also reputed to violate people's free will by hardening their hearts, so that he can show off his might.
What you're saying is that God is able to eliminate evil, and he's willing to eliminate evil, he just wants to allow evil to continue for a few thousand years first?
I'd like to be able to search for regular expressions, or at least boolean. I'd like to be able to specify the context of a word, eg Java (geography), Java (coffee), Java (programming), or similarly the context for the search.
Clearly an upside of ubiquitous surveillance is that now towing companies can provide you with both loss of transportation *and* loss of employment. Be sure to call Advanced Towing for their excellent customer service!
If God were to stop it, and supposedly he could, it would mean that he would have to override the consequences of what are supposedly freely willed human decisions, making the very point of giving us free will in the first place moot.
OK then, quick free will/morality test:
1) You see a criminal beating an innocent child to death. You have with you a cell phone, a tazer, and a handgun. Do you intervene? Does your intervention mean the criminal doesn't have free will?
2) You see a criminal beating an innocent child to death. You're omniscient and omnipotent. In particular, you have the ability to teleport to a nearby location in the form of a human owning a cell phone, a tazer, and a handgun. Do you intervene? Does your intervention mean the criminal doesn't have free will?
Bonus question: If someone tries to flap their arms and fly, does their inability to do so impinge on their free will? Conversely, if there were a law of physics that prevented murder, would such a law of physics impinge on a person's free will? If your answers don't match, how do you tell the difference between a law of physics that impinges on free will and a law of physics that doesn't?
then they would be *safer* here in the USA where the NSA is not allowed to spy on them,
Trouble is, the US Constitution is more like a guideline than a law, since there is no punishment for violating it. On the other hand, in non-US countries it would be possible to arrest the NSA agents for espionage, at least in theory, or at least publicly humiliate their agency by holding their agent until they say "pretty please".
No, because there is all kinds of intelligence that is not measurable by IQ tests. For example, a huge chunk of our brains is the visual cortex, but for some reason people don't consider it a sign of intelligence to be able to be able to distinguish basic objects like apples or elephants, or to recognize spoken words (especially with background chatter), or to hold a meaningful conversation. Yet anyone who's tried to have a computer do it knows what a PITA it is. Speaking of computers, just about every math skill is done better by computers, but almost no one considers a computer intelligent.
So at the very least you have 1) raw brain/computing power 2) specialized skills 3) knowledge/data/programming which is rather like precalculated solutions.
Even worse, intelligent people may be more easily bored, and there is a whole boatload of boring things that are necessary for success.
Maybe the researchers (or journalists reporting on the article) aren't intelligent enough to realize that correlation does not equal causation. Maybe people who aren't wasting all their time enjoying themselves are both less happy and more intelligent.
You're too lazy to look it up?
Looks like you're too lazy to look it up too. We don't know, and can't agree upon, a proper definition of intelligence. And it makes a difference what exact definition is used in a study. The definition of "intelligence" used in this study is IQ, so your link is to the wrong article.
I suspect we won't be able to clearly define intelligence until we create a general AI...
It's almost as if the microbes we get antibiotics from have been around for millions of years...