The sad thing is that nowadays if you have the sniffles you can't get antibiotics without going to a doctor, and yet if your pet guppy isn't looking so good you can get some for your aquarium. And farmers seem to think antibiotic is an essential nutrient, no problem so long as it's not for humans! But try to get some for yourself and you'll get the lecture about antibiotic resistance. Unless it's for your soap.
On the other hand, at least they have a few antibiotics reserved for humans in real trouble, but on the other hand antibiotics everywhere breed antibiotic resistant bacteria, and many of the mechanisms bacteria use for antibiotic resistance give them total or partial immunity to other antibiotics.
Doesn't matter if part of the debt is held by Americans. The government could, should they choose, replace the one dollar bill with a trillion dollar bill, and reimburse only Americans (as a handout) for the resulting inflation. Then pay each of our foreign debtors one dollar, and keep the change. Of course that would be a dick move on the government's part, but that wouldn't be new. A bonus of doing this is that people won't want to lend the US money, and therefore they'd finally have a balanced budget.
There currently is no distinction -- things are programmed to behave like they're intelligent, because in all these decades no one has figured out how to make them actually intelligent. (This applies somewhat to people too)
the thing to take home is that they built into the algorithm the ability to fret over the situation. if it just projected and saved what can be saved, it wouldn't fret or hesitate - and hesitate is really the wrong word.
Unlikely that they added the ability to fret. More likely that they gave it the rule "prevent any automaton from falling into the hole" rather than "prevent as many automatons as possible from falling into the hole". Thus in the former case if it can't find a solution that saves both, it would keep looking forever. If you wanted one that looked more like indecision, you could give it the rule "move the automaton closest to the hole away from the hole".
The trouble with computers is that they do as they're told, and do not attempt to figure out what you want. I suppose you could write a program that will instead of doing what it is told, tries to identify what you want and do that instead. But I expect that would go horribly wrong...
Your system has too many vulnerabilities. The worst is its reliance on criminals to be loyal and diligent, any one of whom could compromise your entire organization's communication. Almost as bad is using a 2 byte encryption key (the index to a book). And then you want them doing steganography, and by hand? They'll be raising every red flag there is.
On the other hand, you could simply use private/public keys. Each person has their own set of keys, and the key itself is encrypted with a decent password.
When developing a good AI is outlawed, outlaws will be the first to develop a good AI. And it will likely go poorly, but not like the pathetic rogue AIs of movies.
I would like a 1000 terabyte per second up/down connection, with no filtering or fastlanes, for one cent a month. No? How about a compromise... meet me halfway?
Sure, if you don't know how to make an AI then your only choice is only multiplayer. However, I find that multiplayer games tend to have less depth then single-player games. This may not be a problem for first person shooters, but even RTS games have to be simpler when you can't pause (though simpler is not necessarily bad). On the other hand, nobody likes waiting for the other player to take their turn on a game where you aren't pressed for time. MMOs usually have a decent system where you can play alone or with a group at whatever difficulty you choose, but someone seems to have made a rule that all MMOs must be a perpetual grind. Oh, and they also eat more into your real-world social life, as you might notice if you try to interact with someone playing an online game.
Of course, the real reasons developers love multiplayer are pretty obvious. They can have a developer owned server, which guarantees them DRM and also they can kill off the game when it's time to make people buy the sequels. They can sell DLC, or suck micropayments out of people. But you can tell when they're doing it for the community when they allow you to run a server and don't have micropayements.
From a law enforcement perspective I absolutely agree with you. From a military perspective, this is not true. You don't want to blind someone for 24 hours and have them back on the battlefield (as one example of obviously many).
Could you give an example of a weapon that disables someone for 24 hours? Most weapons would disable for minutes or hours (flashbang, tear gas, taser, tranquilizers), or for weeks or months (eg bullets).
Worst is something that will almost certainly kill you, but does it slowly. More humane, but hardly different in the end, is something that kills you quickly. Best is something that takes you out of commission for a while, but causes no permanent damage. Fairly rotten is something that has a tendency to cause permanent disability, but less likely to kill. This last one causes a lot of damage to militaries and governments, even if individuals would prefer to be permanently disabled then killed. Although bullets can maim, they generally result in either a recoverable wound, or death. Conversely, weak lasers will only result in temporary or permanent eye damage, and have enough ammo that you can fire it continuously.
But how long until googling becomes the standard term for any web search? It is conveniently shorter, after all. And probably more specific, since search engines sometimes search stuff not directly on the web.
My guess is you did a quick look on Wikipedia (the level of "understanding" you demonstrate is consistent with that) and now pretend to be in possession of grande insights. I can only call that a mega-fail.
I see that your skill at identifying other people's knowledge is consistent with your skill at understanding mathematical theorems.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but did Mr Logan have a warrant to search all of Washington? And where's his probable cause? Or maybe his search for child porn, wasn't a search?
To put it in a different perspective, one person was violating the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution in order to enforce a law violating the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. And everyone thinks his victim is the dangerous one.
Or it could have been too expensive and Apple decided that secret failed drop tests forced them to gallantly abandon the project in favor of the cheaper alternative.
So it was indeed that you misunderstood Godel's incompleteness theorem. Yes, I'm aware of it, and was even suspecting that was what you had misunderstood, but wanted to hear from you just in case it wasn't. Anyhow, the theorem says nothing about the laws of nature -- only that every (certain kind of mathematical system) will have a true statement that will be unprovable in that system. But there is no hint that one of the unprovable things might be a law of nature, and if it were you could simply prove it in a different mathematical system.
What science can't do is produce absolutely certain deductive proofs. This is because science does not start with axioms but rather tries to discover them by induction. I'd also note that the axioms of science implied by the scientific method (ie, that the universe's laws are consistent across time and space, and that the universe is objective rather than subjective) can't ever be proven either. Of course, axioms by their very nature can never be proven.
PS: If you were interested in Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, you may also be interested in Turing's Halting Problem.
They routinely do not even know very basic things about science, like Incompleteness, and routinely claim it would "explain everything", when one of the most important scientific insights is that science cannot do that.
I've never heard of such a thing. It sounds like something you made up or misunderstood.
But then what will police depts do for money when they no longer have to write $6.2 BILLION dollars worth of traffic tickets?
After all, self-driving cars should be very legal drivers.
Could have sworn I read about a place that made it illegal to follow every traffic law (because the only people who would do that are people carrying drugs and they don't want to be pulled over). But I can't find it again.
Though it is complicated by the government service issue, there are ways to measure performance...
You forgot the most important measure of performance: income generated for the Patent Office. The fake attempt at reigning in employees is just to distract from what the real problem is: the more patents, the more profit for the USPTO.
Slashdot Mirror
The sad thing is that nowadays if you have the sniffles you can't get antibiotics without going to a doctor, and yet if your pet guppy isn't looking so good you can get some for your aquarium. And farmers seem to think antibiotic is an essential nutrient, no problem so long as it's not for humans! But try to get some for yourself and you'll get the lecture about antibiotic resistance. Unless it's for your soap.
On the other hand, at least they have a few antibiotics reserved for humans in real trouble, but on the other hand antibiotics everywhere breed antibiotic resistant bacteria, and many of the mechanisms bacteria use for antibiotic resistance give them total or partial immunity to other antibiotics.
Doesn't matter if part of the debt is held by Americans. The government could, should they choose, replace the one dollar bill with a trillion dollar bill, and reimburse only Americans (as a handout) for the resulting inflation. Then pay each of our foreign debtors one dollar, and keep the change. Of course that would be a dick move on the government's part, but that wouldn't be new. A bonus of doing this is that people won't want to lend the US money, and therefore they'd finally have a balanced budget.
If we decide we can't (or don't want to) pay our debts, it won't be us that is screwed.
There currently is no distinction -- things are programmed to behave like they're intelligent, because in all these decades no one has figured out how to make them actually intelligent. (This applies somewhat to people too)
the thing to take home is that they built into the algorithm the ability to fret over the situation. if it just projected and saved what can be saved, it wouldn't fret or hesitate - and hesitate is really the wrong word.
Unlikely that they added the ability to fret. More likely that they gave it the rule "prevent any automaton from falling into the hole" rather than "prevent as many automatons as possible from falling into the hole". Thus in the former case if it can't find a solution that saves both, it would keep looking forever. If you wanted one that looked more like indecision, you could give it the rule "move the automaton closest to the hole away from the hole".
The trouble with computers is that they do as they're told, and do not attempt to figure out what you want. I suppose you could write a program that will instead of doing what it is told, tries to identify what you want and do that instead. But I expect that would go horribly wrong...
Your system has too many vulnerabilities. The worst is its reliance on criminals to be loyal and diligent, any one of whom could compromise your entire organization's communication. Almost as bad is using a 2 byte encryption key (the index to a book). And then you want them doing steganography, and by hand? They'll be raising every red flag there is.
On the other hand, you could simply use private/public keys. Each person has their own set of keys, and the key itself is encrypted with a decent password.
When developing a good AI is outlawed, outlaws will be the first to develop a good AI. And it will likely go poorly, but not like the pathetic rogue AIs of movies.
I would like a 1000 terabyte per second up/down connection, with no filtering or fastlanes, for one cent a month. No? How about a compromise... meet me halfway?
Sure, if you don't know how to make an AI then your only choice is only multiplayer. However, I find that multiplayer games tend to have less depth then single-player games. This may not be a problem for first person shooters, but even RTS games have to be simpler when you can't pause (though simpler is not necessarily bad). On the other hand, nobody likes waiting for the other player to take their turn on a game where you aren't pressed for time. MMOs usually have a decent system where you can play alone or with a group at whatever difficulty you choose, but someone seems to have made a rule that all MMOs must be a perpetual grind. Oh, and they also eat more into your real-world social life, as you might notice if you try to interact with someone playing an online game.
Of course, the real reasons developers love multiplayer are pretty obvious. They can have a developer owned server, which guarantees them DRM and also they can kill off the game when it's time to make people buy the sequels. They can sell DLC, or suck micropayments out of people. But you can tell when they're doing it for the community when they allow you to run a server and don't have micropayements.
From a law enforcement perspective I absolutely agree with you. From a military perspective, this is not true. You don't want to blind someone for 24 hours and have them back on the battlefield (as one example of obviously many).
Could you give an example of a weapon that disables someone for 24 hours? Most weapons would disable for minutes or hours (flashbang, tear gas, taser, tranquilizers), or for weeks or months (eg bullets).
Worst is something that will almost certainly kill you, but does it slowly. More humane, but hardly different in the end, is something that kills you quickly. Best is something that takes you out of commission for a while, but causes no permanent damage. Fairly rotten is something that has a tendency to cause permanent disability, but less likely to kill. This last one causes a lot of damage to militaries and governments, even if individuals would prefer to be permanently disabled then killed. Although bullets can maim, they generally result in either a recoverable wound, or death. Conversely, weak lasers will only result in temporary or permanent eye damage, and have enough ammo that you can fire it continuously.
But how long until googling becomes the standard term for any web search? It is conveniently shorter, after all. And probably more specific, since search engines sometimes search stuff not directly on the web.
My guess is you did a quick look on Wikipedia (the level of "understanding" you demonstrate is consistent with that) and now pretend to be in possession of grande insights. I can only call that a mega-fail.
I see that your skill at identifying other people's knowledge is consistent with your skill at understanding mathematical theorems.
"High School Student Builds Gun That Unlocks With Your Fingerprint"
I feel so special! But, how did he get my fingerprint?
Where is the 4th Amendment violation?
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but did Mr Logan have a warrant to search all of Washington? And where's his probable cause? Or maybe his search for child porn, wasn't a search?
To put it in a different perspective, one person was violating the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution in order to enforce a law violating the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. And everyone thinks his victim is the dangerous one.
The "fuck the constitution" reality show.
Wow... a reality show that actually depicts reality!
No, when it's an Apple product it is strengthened by iOns.
Or it could have been too expensive and Apple decided that secret failed drop tests forced them to gallantly abandon the project in favor of the cheaper alternative.
So it was indeed that you misunderstood Godel's incompleteness theorem. Yes, I'm aware of it, and was even suspecting that was what you had misunderstood, but wanted to hear from you just in case it wasn't. Anyhow, the theorem says nothing about the laws of nature -- only that every (certain kind of mathematical system) will have a true statement that will be unprovable in that system. But there is no hint that one of the unprovable things might be a law of nature, and if it were you could simply prove it in a different mathematical system.
What science can't do is produce absolutely certain deductive proofs. This is because science does not start with axioms but rather tries to discover them by induction. I'd also note that the axioms of science implied by the scientific method (ie, that the universe's laws are consistent across time and space, and that the universe is objective rather than subjective) can't ever be proven either. Of course, axioms by their very nature can never be proven.
PS: If you were interested in Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, you may also be interested in Turing's Halting Problem.
Why even bother getting an extension?
So that we'll deserve it?
Sure it is. By faith you can know it is true that you believe the thing you have faith about.
They routinely do not even know very basic things about science, like Incompleteness, and routinely claim it would "explain everything", when one of the most important scientific insights is that science cannot do that.
I've never heard of such a thing. It sounds like something you made up or misunderstood.
But then what will police depts do for money when they no longer have to write $6.2 BILLION dollars worth of traffic tickets?
After all, self-driving cars should be very legal drivers.
Could have sworn I read about a place that made it illegal to follow every traffic law (because the only people who would do that are people carrying drugs and they don't want to be pulled over). But I can't find it again.
Though it is complicated by the government service issue, there are ways to measure performance...
You forgot the most important measure of performance: income generated for the Patent Office. The fake attempt at reigning in employees is just to distract from what the real problem is: the more patents, the more profit for the USPTO.