Yes, if you listen casually to early Black Sabbath music, it sounds like a celebration of evil, but if you listen carefully it's actually Christian music. Hell, Iron Maiden's two minutes to midnight is an anti-abortion song.
Wow, I never thought I could dislike heavy metal more than I do already
Thank you for your comments, I believe the readers can tell who the actual "moron" is in this case!
Well, yeah, it's you.
Nice to hear from someone on Uber's PR team, by the way. One criticism is that you failed to use the word "disruptive" but you got in a good old "paradigm shift", so overall not bad.
Passengers don't want to get robbed and raped by their drivers. They don't want drivers who are drunk. They don't want to be injured by uninsured drivers. The Uber free market isn't very good at eliminating those risks.
Neither is your oh-so-precious government regulations. There are plenty of stories of people getting assaulted or raped by a 'legit' taxi driver.
So, because the system is not perfect, it is worthless and should be replaced by a free for all?
The laws against murder don't prevent a certain number of murders, therefore we should abolish the laws against murder?
When you can store hundreds and hundreds of GBs of data really cheaply, who cares about a slight saving in file size for their gentleman's fine art collection?
Though as an aside if you are broke its hard to see what you are worried about losing in the case of a data breach.
He said "very poor" not "broke". And you are a lot more vulnerable when you are metaphorically on the breadline, as relatively minor extra cost could tip you over the edge.
If it isn't self-aware, it isn't AI. It's just a useful application.
The entire field of AI disagrees with you.
Well, then the entire field of AI is wrong. You can't take commonly used and understood words and just decide they mean something different.
If you wanted to, you could define "self-awareness" as the ability for a computer to put itself into standby mode after a certain amount of time. That doesn't make it even as self aware as my cat looking in a mirror, never mind a human being.
You need to put some sort of marker against AI/Artificial Intelligence to show that you're using it in a non standard way.
"To say that AI will start doing what it wants for its own purposes is like saying a calculator will start making its own calculations."
This is only true if you define "artificial intelligence" as being "a slightly more advanced computer programme than we have at the moment" rather than anything resembling actual intelligence.
I'd place it amongst such outdated concepts as "the aether" and "the harmony of the spheres". I didn't realise that anyone apart from neo-Nazi mass murderers thought it had any meaning any more.
So your argument is that, if we equate intelligence and education, anyone who isn't as well educated is less intelligent, therefore less educated people in Africa are by definition less intelligent, so it's true to say that Africans are less intelligent?
You might want to look at your initial assumption and consider the terms "circular reasoning" and "begging the question".
Going to the definition of the word, racist means discrimination on the basis of race. A simple true statement like, "whites are pale-skinned and blacks are dark-skinned" is discriminating on the basis of skin color (race).
You're playing with words. "Discrimination" can mean either the simple act of differentiating between two things, or in a phrase like "racial discrimination" acting in a negative manner towards a group.
Someone's skin colour is as trivial a differentiator as their hair or eye colour, anyway.
For example, one could say that it is racist to suggest that white people are brighter than black, but when talking strictly about the optical spectrum, this is indisputable, since white, by definition, is a brighter color than black.
I hope that was supposed to be funny, because otherwise it's a contender for Stupidest Post of the Year.
Even if having a different skin colour made you a different "race", and even if IQ tests were accurate and bias-free, and even if different "races" had different average IQs, it still shouldn't make any difference to how we treat people.
We don't say to kids "you've been tested at the age of 10 and have an IQ of 85, therefore you are not allowed any further education, you can only apply for minimum wage jobs, you can't vote and we're going to sterilise you". They are free to do the best they can with whatever gifts or disadvantages they've been given.
So why would it make any difference if there was a slightly different proportion in IQ scores between black, white or brown skinned people?
You'd still have some black lawyers and doctors, and some white unemployed junkies.
So, you're saying that IQ tests are biased towards intelligent people? Damn
*sigh*
If you give the same intelligence test to (1) a wealthy, highly educated person from a supportive family and (2) the illiterate oldest child in a group of subsistence farmers you had better have a good way of discounting the cultural and developmental factors involved if you claim to be measuring pure intelligence.
Slashdot Mirror
"Rape me, rape me, rape me - oooohhh!"
Yes, if you listen casually to early Black Sabbath music, it sounds like a celebration of evil, but if you listen carefully it's actually Christian music. Hell, Iron Maiden's two minutes to midnight is an anti-abortion song.
Wow, I never thought I could dislike heavy metal more than I do already
Surely on slashdot of all places we should be aware of the power and joy of the car metaphor/analogy?
Unfortunately, it doesn't, so you don't.
one of mine is a phil collins song, that i have no idea what he is really singing, but it sounds like 'paper plate, paper plate!' to me...
Your first mistake is in listening to a Phil Collins song in the first place.
Your second mistake is assuming that a Phil Collins song makes sense.
Thank you for your comments, I believe the readers can tell who the actual "moron" is in this case!
Well, yeah, it's you.
Nice to hear from someone on Uber's PR team, by the way. One criticism is that you failed to use the word "disruptive" but you got in a good old "paradigm shift", so overall not bad.
Spotted on slashdot, the lesser-spotted "Uber shill".
Passengers don't want to get robbed and raped by their drivers. They don't want drivers who are drunk. They don't want to be injured by uninsured drivers. The Uber free market isn't very good at eliminating those risks.
Neither is your oh-so-precious government regulations. There are plenty of stories of people getting assaulted or raped by a 'legit' taxi driver.
So, because the system is not perfect, it is worthless and should be replaced by a free for all?
The laws against murder don't prevent a certain number of murders, therefore we should abolish the laws against murder?
So, no, the 'evil corporate' did not intentially poison its consumers, the dodgy suppliers did.
The dodgy suppliers are part of the corporate system too.
May I get off your lawn?
In both cases, The Government acts purely to thwart the Free Market out of some sort of deadly socialist envy.
Lawsuits are out of reach for most people simply because of the cost.
In Libertarian World, that's your fault for being poor.
When you can store hundreds and hundreds of GBs of data really cheaply, who cares about a slight saving in file size for their gentleman's fine art collection?
Though as an aside if you are broke its hard to see what you are worried about losing in the case of a data breach.
He said "very poor" not "broke". And you are a lot more vulnerable when you are metaphorically on the breadline, as relatively minor extra cost could tip you over the edge.
If it isn't self-aware, it isn't AI. It's just a useful application.
The entire field of AI disagrees with you.
Well, then the entire field of AI is wrong. You can't take commonly used and understood words and just decide they mean something different.
If you wanted to, you could define "self-awareness" as the ability for a computer to put itself into standby mode after a certain amount of time. That doesn't make it even as self aware as my cat looking in a mirror, never mind a human being.
You need to put some sort of marker against AI/Artificial Intelligence to show that you're using it in a non standard way.
Hawking is not smart.
What, are you some hyper-intelligent AI from the future?
He's pretty clever by contemporary human standards.
But unless you're mentally ill in some horrible way, you know they do.
"To say that AI will start doing what it wants for its own purposes is like saying a calculator will start making its own calculations."
This is only true if you define "artificial intelligence" as being "a slightly more advanced computer programme than we have at the moment" rather than anything resembling actual intelligence.
genetics exemplified in racial groups
And what, scientifically, is a "racial group"?
I'd place it amongst such outdated concepts as "the aether" and "the harmony of the spheres". I didn't realise that anyone apart from neo-Nazi mass murderers thought it had any meaning any more.
Recognizing someone's contribution does not endorse their shortfalls.
And conversely, having made that contribution does not excuse their shortfalls.
You might want to look at your initial assumption and consider the terms "circular reasoning" and "begging the question".
Going to the definition of the word, racist means discrimination on the basis of race. A simple true statement like, "whites are pale-skinned and blacks are dark-skinned" is discriminating on the basis of skin color (race).
You're playing with words. "Discrimination" can mean either the simple act of differentiating between two things, or in a phrase like "racial discrimination" acting in a negative manner towards a group.
Someone's skin colour is as trivial a differentiator as their hair or eye colour, anyway.
For example, one could say that it is racist to suggest that white people are brighter than black, but when talking strictly about the optical spectrum, this is indisputable, since white, by definition, is a brighter color than black.
I hope that was supposed to be funny, because otherwise it's a contender for Stupidest Post of the Year.
We don't say to kids "you've been tested at the age of 10 and have an IQ of 85, therefore you are not allowed any further education, you can only apply for minimum wage jobs, you can't vote and we're going to sterilise you". They are free to do the best they can with whatever gifts or disadvantages they've been given.
So why would it make any difference if there was a slightly different proportion in IQ scores between black, white or brown skinned people?
You'd still have some black lawyers and doctors, and some white unemployed junkies.
So, you're saying that IQ tests are biased towards intelligent people? Damn
*sigh*
If you give the same intelligence test to (1) a wealthy, highly educated person from a supportive family and (2) the illiterate oldest child in a group of subsistence farmers you had better have a good way of discounting the cultural and developmental factors involved if you claim to be measuring pure intelligence.