Better idea: let people get really pissed at our current state of intellectual property laws. Preferably before the next Micky Mouse Shall Never Enter the Public Domain Copyright Extension Act.
Exactly how many global environmental disasters (CO2, cancer caused by particulates, mercury) does it take before we figure out we should be using newer, safer, cleaner nuclear technology?
Exactly; this is one more thing to add to the security nightmare of modern electronics. Imagine if foreign hackers use this TV to get some juicy blackmail on our politicians, and pressure them to enact favorable policies. There is a branch of the NSA that deals in preventative security, after all.
Of course. There's exactly zero chance (plus or minus 100%) that the government asked them to do that so they have yet another way to spy on their people.
Tell that to the store owner who goes through the psychological trauma of having a gun pointed in there face, many people are seriously fucked up after such incidents. The difference between the two incidents for the victims is massive.
That would only happen if the store owner is *threatened* with the gun. If the crook simply had the gun hidden on his person, the end result would have been the same whether he had the gun on him or not. Of course, a crook simply carrying a gun does increase the chances that he'd panic and shoot someone. On the other hand, a crook using a knife instead has a much higher risk that some idiot will get himself killed playing the hero because "it's only a knife".
Of course, a life sentence for merely carrying a gun seems like begging for said gun carrier to start using it.
The Turing Test has been abused, bypassed, and cheated to the point that almost no one knows what the actual Turing Test is. At this point, a new test needs to be created, a test that is difficult to cheat without making it obvious that it's not the real test. This could be "The Real Turing Test administered by [reputable group]".
Or we could make a new test, with incredibly explicit criteria that no one can nerf with a straight face and a different name. But from the sounds of it, it would be an easier test.
Those who would be best suited for assisted suicide would be those who are least able to properly consent to it. You could use a living will, but then what do you do if people change their minds? And what do you do about the sort of person who thinks they want to die but decided that irrationally and you expect would change their minds between jumping off a building and hitting the floor?
Also, given that for most suicide "attempts" the objective is to get people's attention rather than to die, what happens to all those if assisted suicide becomes legal?
They actually use the term "terrorist plots" and the term "political activity" in the same fucking sentence!
All terrorist plots are political, otherwise it wouldn't be terrorism. So political activity really is where you'd get earliest warning of possible terrorism. That's not the problem. The problem is that the government likes to crap all over the Constitution.
Even if the training consisted of "That box over there, you should use it on someone when they're having a heart attack" it would be too much for the average untrained person. Not because it would be too complicated, but because people aren't good at acting when in a panic.
Well if it was truly automatic, it could be a robot that detects when someone is having a heart attack and goes and zaps him. Such a thing would be technically possible now, although the manufacturer would likely get sued into oblivion.
He may have designed the machine, but it still needed some trained personnel to zap him. I suppose it's a win that less training was required than with the previous defibrilators, but it's not like he build one that was attached to him like an external pacemaker.
Our customers expect to get screwed over, and this legislation would put a stop to that for wired service. To ensure consistent customer experience, we must unceremoniously dump our wireline customers.
For data storage, trust no one and especially not yourself. Always keep a local copy, and copies stored by professionals (but more than one because in the long run they will go out of business), and make sure some copies are backups that your computer doesn't have access to so malware can't delete all your copies. This is, assuming your data is worth that much trouble.
For privacy, trust encryption makers rather than any big juicy targets for the NSA/hackers/whoever that are online storage companies. The difference is that encryption gives you a way to secure your data and that is all, whereas online storage companies have your data and are able to give the government access to it if they "ask nicely" and have financial incentives to slack on their data security. And make sure you don't accidentally install malware. Even so, if the NSA wants your data, they will get it -- presumably through a backdoor in your boot loader or operating system or other software, although maybe they'll add that personal touch and install a hardware keylogger.
Of course, you can combine both, by uploading encrypted files to the cloud.
... except in the case of email. By passing this law, aren't they implying that email (and therefore all other electronic communications) aren't already covered by the 4th Amendment?
How about passing a bill that gives mandatory minimum sentences for violating the Constitution?
The trained algorithm was then able to reliably pick out the most beautiful portraits. Curiously, the algorithm does this by ignoring personal details such as age, sex, race, eye colour and so on and instead focuses only on technical details such as sharpness, exposure and contrast.
In other words, the computer was unable to learn to distinguish beautiful people from ugly people.
It doesn't even require an embryo, just an unfertilized egg cell from another woman.
So does the same procedure minus doing surgery on the other woman's egg/embryo. It's a question of what's it worth for the woman to also be the genetic mother as well as the birth mother.
Slashdot Mirror
Better idea: let people get really pissed at our current state of intellectual property laws. Preferably before the next Micky Mouse Shall Never Enter the Public Domain Copyright Extension Act.
Exactly how many global environmental disasters (CO2, cancer caused by particulates, mercury) does it take before we figure out we should be using newer, safer, cleaner nuclear technology?
FTFY.
...Consumers and hobbyists signing on to a perpetual Microsoft tax.
Maybe the 365 is just Microsoft trying to put some distance from Windows 8.
Specifically, if this was an Uncanny Valley then people would prefer lower quality voice recognition.
Variety is different from the Uncanny Valley.
... but what happens on a leap year? Will Windows be unusable on that day? I mean, more unusable than it already is.
For that, you have to upgrade to Windows 365.2425.
Exactly; this is one more thing to add to the security nightmare of modern electronics. Imagine if foreign hackers use this TV to get some juicy blackmail on our politicians, and pressure them to enact favorable policies. There is a branch of the NSA that deals in preventative security, after all.
Or bouncers.
Excuse me good sir, how much for the 10,000 km bear-poking stick?
...we can trust them not to abuse this. Right?
Of course. There's exactly zero chance (plus or minus 100%) that the government asked them to do that so they have yet another way to spy on their people.
Tell that to the store owner who goes through the psychological trauma of having a gun pointed in there face, many people are seriously fucked up after such incidents. The difference between the two incidents for the victims is massive.
That would only happen if the store owner is *threatened* with the gun. If the crook simply had the gun hidden on his person, the end result would have been the same whether he had the gun on him or not. Of course, a crook simply carrying a gun does increase the chances that he'd panic and shoot someone. On the other hand, a crook using a knife instead has a much higher risk that some idiot will get himself killed playing the hero because "it's only a knife".
Of course, a life sentence for merely carrying a gun seems like begging for said gun carrier to start using it.
The Turing Test has been abused, bypassed, and cheated to the point that almost no one knows what the actual Turing Test is. At this point, a new test needs to be created, a test that is difficult to cheat without making it obvious that it's not the real test. This could be "The Real Turing Test administered by [reputable group]".
Or we could make a new test, with incredibly explicit criteria that no one can nerf with a straight face and a different name. But from the sounds of it, it would be an easier test.
Those who would be best suited for assisted suicide would be those who are least able to properly consent to it. You could use a living will, but then what do you do if people change their minds? And what do you do about the sort of person who thinks they want to die but decided that irrationally and you expect would change their minds between jumping off a building and hitting the floor?
Also, given that for most suicide "attempts" the objective is to get people's attention rather than to die, what happens to all those if assisted suicide becomes legal?
They actually use the term "terrorist plots" and the term "political activity" in the same fucking sentence!
All terrorist plots are political, otherwise it wouldn't be terrorism. So political activity really is where you'd get earliest warning of possible terrorism. That's not the problem. The problem is that the government likes to crap all over the Constitution.
Even if the training consisted of "That box over there, you should use it on someone when they're having a heart attack" it would be too much for the average untrained person. Not because it would be too complicated, but because people aren't good at acting when in a panic.
Well if it was truly automatic, it could be a robot that detects when someone is having a heart attack and goes and zaps him. Such a thing would be technically possible now, although the manufacturer would likely get sued into oblivion.
For the 1000000000th time, defibrillators don't start your heart, they stop it. That's how they all work. Look it up.
Well since it's nerds: it's like pressing the reset button (not the power on button).
He may have designed the machine, but it still needed some trained personnel to zap him. I suppose it's a win that less training was required than with the previous defibrilators, but it's not like he build one that was attached to him like an external pacemaker.
Our customers expect to get screwed over, and this legislation would put a stop to that for wired service. To ensure consistent customer experience, we must unceremoniously dump our wireline customers.
For data storage, trust no one and especially not yourself. Always keep a local copy, and copies stored by professionals (but more than one because in the long run they will go out of business), and make sure some copies are backups that your computer doesn't have access to so malware can't delete all your copies. This is, assuming your data is worth that much trouble.
For privacy, trust encryption makers rather than any big juicy targets for the NSA/hackers/whoever that are online storage companies. The difference is that encryption gives you a way to secure your data and that is all, whereas online storage companies have your data and are able to give the government access to it if they "ask nicely" and have financial incentives to slack on their data security. And make sure you don't accidentally install malware. Even so, if the NSA wants your data, they will get it -- presumably through a backdoor in your boot loader or operating system or other software, although maybe they'll add that personal touch and install a hardware keylogger.
Of course, you can combine both, by uploading encrypted files to the cloud.
... except in the case of email. By passing this law, aren't they implying that email (and therefore all other electronic communications) aren't already covered by the 4th Amendment?
How about passing a bill that gives mandatory minimum sentences for violating the Constitution?
This has been long in coming. They probably shouldn't have changed their official motto to "You've got questions, we've got blank stares."
Too bad, I know of two of his relatives who have more money then they know what is morally correct to do with.
The trained algorithm was then able to reliably pick out the most beautiful portraits. Curiously, the algorithm does this by ignoring personal details such as age, sex, race, eye colour and so on and instead focuses only on technical details such as sharpness, exposure and contrast.
In other words, the computer was unable to learn to distinguish beautiful people from ugly people.
It doesn't even require an embryo, just an unfertilized egg cell from another woman.
So does the same procedure minus doing surgery on the other woman's egg/embryo. It's a question of what's it worth for the woman to also be the genetic mother as well as the birth mother.