To get ai you simply allow a robot to envisage goals and figure out the steps toward it. It needs to skip steps that hurt people. You have to build that in and its difficult. Imagine a robot needs some lubricant, it needs to source it without opening somes vein. Etc. once its thinking for itself it needs ethics and morals. Most programmers will get this right, some wont
I once drove a car down a narrow lane that ended in a blind T intersection - I had to roll down the windows turn off the engine and listen to hear if there were cars coming before attempting to pull out (slowly). A self driving car would no doubt stall there forever if it was sensible and not programmed for this event - surely the driver has an override.
your assertion that there is a lack of scientific evidence for god is completely incorrect. Science has identified god as a spirit of consciousness that exists across a diverse group of humans, all acting as part of a bigger system. In the same way that bee hives have been shown to be like giant minds, so is god. Anyone denying this exists scientifically should be made aware of this fact.
if it's deterministic the casino should be fined, losers should all be refunded, and winners should keep their winnings.
i don't think it's hard for casino's to put penalty clauses in to their supplier agreements for machines etc, or to shuffle card decks more often to prevent counting etc.
too easy for someone to get the source and "tweak" it before compiling. Most problems happen on the "inside" - a rogue sys-admin could do anything with open source - no-one is going to be able to prove the binary doesn't match the source or who changed it
Um with Electric bicycles pedalling is optional and an average speed of about 20 miles per hour is provided for you by the engine. There is no need to shower if you don't pedal. I commute about 3 miles and park my bike in the corner of the office. Door to door is less than 15 minutes, and thats faster than I can do in a car as I need to park a bit further away and walk. I don't think you can compare normal cycling to an electric bike, as electrics are much faster up hills than most cyclists so can produce pretty good average speeds. Living 20 miles from work is a bit far for an electric cycle, but you could do it in an hour without breaking a sweat.
You just admitted you typed the CD-keys of software into google. Google doesn't do anything to keep what people search for hidden, in fact they go out of their way to publish it. Sure it's hard to find things that are only searched for once, but I'm certain that sharing the CD-Keys with a third party - even google - is prohibited by the license agreement
I sold my car, and bought an electric cycle this year, and I'm pretty impressed with it. I commute on it - charge it overnight once or twice a week, and don't get a sweat up even on hills into a head wind. Costs $5 per year to charge it, and $12 to insure it. Compared to my car it's ridiculously cheap - and because most of the time I'm passing cars that are waiting for other cars ahead, I get to work in around the same time as a car (12 minutes by bike. When there's no traffic I can do it 10 minutes in a car, but a normal morning is 15-20 minutes).
I've seen those tuk-tuk's around where a bike pulls a carriage and takes a couple of people in the back. All you need is a carriage on it and a bigger motor and you could go anywhere in the city on it all weather, but to be honest it's not too hot to wear rain gear on the bike anyway as you aren't working, the battery is.
I had to go out of town on a bus instead, but cost about the same as petrol for the trip would have or maybe even cheaper.
Not quite the same freedom as having a car, but at less than 10% of the cost, I'm happy enough.
I would say that within 3 years, at least 30% of the population will move to electric simply because of the cost. And I think it will be bikes not cars that show the biggest growth.
Its not about conscience and what we are doing to our children, its about capitalism - can people make money selling nuclear energy now? the rest is just marketing.
The earth is a closed system - the only energy input in the past came from the Sun or Moon. Solar energy obviously comes from the sun. Wind energy is indirectly caused by the sun warming the air. Tidal energy comes from the moon. Hydro dams are fuelled by the water cycle which is controlled by the sun. That only really leaves combustion and fission as less natural sources. Combustion occurs regularly in both Australia and California on a wide scale with bush fires.
The only other notable energy sources are:
Fossil fuels, coal, wood fires and fission.
If you run a boat engine inside a swimming pool for long enough, the water will heat up. Does that mean boats heat up the oceans? Yes, a little, not much as its so big compared to only a few boats relatively speaking.
Fission is creating energy from something that didn't occur in nature, that energy eventually turns into heat. There will be a small effect over time of heat. Enough to matter? I doubt it...
His argument must be about genetic engineering. Some people might assume it's his view that external knowledge being part of evolution is what's different, but it's not - as anyone with any real contemplation will point out - external transfer of information has been happening in many other species for many millions of years.
An example would be the documented case of Blue Tits pecking through milk bottle lids on doorsteps to get at the milk. One bird started it, others copied, new generations of birds observed and copied it. Information was passed down.
http://www.britishbirdlovers.co.uk/articles/blue-tits-and-milk-bottle-tops.html
Way too long ago to matter tho. Initially they sent a rover to earth and found no life here then, and that it was uninhabitable for them, so they went off to another planet far far away. The rover they sent here contained bacteria from their planet, some of which adapted and became the first forms of life here - thus we are all descended from martians. Not many of them left to go to this new planet - many of them didn't believe the planet was going to end, and the birthrates dropped there so the population dwindled. The remaining few battled among themselves to make it onto the escape ship but even then they didn't believe that birthrates would be any better. The trip to the new planet was so long that the only chance of success involved breeding during the journey, so those left behind never knew whether it succeeded or not. Once they got to the new planet, it wasn't habitable enough for them, it was close, but within 5-10 years they all perished of stress and fatigue. Many bacteria were successful on their new planet and changed the course of history there - killing off whole species and creating new species. In the same way that the later invasion of earth from an extra solar planet killed off the dinosaurs here. The neanderthals were alien to earth, and when they arrived they changed the course of primate evolution here - allowing humans to rise, but ultimately couldn't adapt to this environment. I'm sure I could make up more stuff but at the end of the day does it really matter?
Surely the fact terrorists have anonymous access to physical roads and footpaths is a bigger issue? If that was restricted it would make their intentions measurably harder to pursue.
The reason frogs are dying is because they aren't worth any money to anyone, so nobody really cares. In countries like France I'm sure they have bio-security to stop travelers bringing in diseases for them.
Countries are already recognizing the impact other countries can have on their climate and taking action to prevent unexpected changes.
Trying to make people care by arguing that them dying off might affect the planets future is simply doom-saying unless you can prove it, and it will be hard convincing the majority without hard proof as it won't get media coverage.
Change isn't always necessarily bad, it creates new opportunities. Sure people's hearts bleed when you talk about animals dying, but we probably kill many more to eat.
all google has to do is put advertising on the pages and pay a share to whoever owns the copyright for a video. The people posting are legally bound to make sure it is copyright, and that they are the copyright owners.
sample scenario. a CSI episode gets posted of someones tivo. people watch it. it gets a big rating. the producers sue the person who posted it for the advertising revenue and post a better quality one and rake it in off that with a share of all further advertising.
then its just the suckers that post funny home video's for free that lose out - presumably they could tick a "no advertising" clause to interrupt people watching it.
bring it on i say.
I wake to the sound of traffic - electric cars will have less noise pollution - less road noise - makes the golf courses by the motorway or houses near the ocean but with large streets between - that much nicer!
also that gagging smell of exhaust when stuck in queues of traffic. All that carbon monoxide has got to be bad for you!. Not to mention all the asthma and allergies that come from it.
I wish my scooter was electric - i could dock it at home and wouldn't have to go into those gas stations and try and juggle gloves, helmet, wallet and bankcard at the same time
I'm sorry but downloading is not akin to stealing. The people downloading don't necessarily know if the content is free because it has been paid for by the advertising on the site.
Whats really happening is someone is stealing chewing gum from a shop, and holding it out offering it to passers by - and anyone who reaches out and takes the chewing gum is now breaking the law.
Its totally ass about face - I wonder if the judges there really understand how it relates to the real world
Slashdot Mirror
To get ai you simply allow a robot to envisage goals and figure out the steps toward it. It needs to skip steps that hurt people. You have to build that in and its difficult. Imagine a robot needs some lubricant, it needs to source it without opening somes vein. Etc. once its thinking for itself it needs ethics and morals. Most programmers will get this right, some wont
easy, just take the users attempted password and user name and try and log in to any of 100 other sites with it, if you can then reject it.
Allow people to register it voluntarily and that can skip a nag screen at the start.
I once drove a car down a narrow lane that ended in a blind T intersection - I had to roll down the windows turn off the engine and listen to hear if there were cars coming before attempting to pull out (slowly). A self driving car would no doubt stall there forever if it was sensible and not programmed for this event - surely the driver has an override.
your assertion that there is a lack of scientific evidence for god is completely incorrect. Science has identified god as a spirit of consciousness that exists across a diverse group of humans, all acting as part of a bigger system. In the same way that bee hives have been shown to be like giant minds, so is god. Anyone denying this exists scientifically should be made aware of this fact.
yeah it's usually the birds temporarily drowning themselves to catch fish
His point is that by outsourcing the testing the developers know they don't have to do it themselves so bugs naturally accumulate.
if it's deterministic the casino should be fined, losers should all be refunded, and winners should keep their winnings. i don't think it's hard for casino's to put penalty clauses in to their supplier agreements for machines etc, or to shuffle card decks more often to prevent counting etc.
too easy for someone to get the source and "tweak" it before compiling. Most problems happen on the "inside" - a rogue sys-admin could do anything with open source - no-one is going to be able to prove the binary doesn't match the source or who changed it
probably all it is
I enjoy tobacco and don't mind dying younger. They're not doing anything wrong by supplying what I ask of them.
hmm sounds like you are knowingly asking them to assist you to terminate your life prematurely, I'm pretty sure there's quite a lot wrong with that.
e.g.: if (incomingMissiles = true) launchCounterAttack();
Um with Electric bicycles pedalling is optional and an average speed of about 20 miles per hour is provided for you by the engine. There is no need to shower if you don't pedal. I commute about 3 miles and park my bike in the corner of the office. Door to door is less than 15 minutes, and thats faster than I can do in a car as I need to park a bit further away and walk. I don't think you can compare normal cycling to an electric bike, as electrics are much faster up hills than most cyclists so can produce pretty good average speeds. Living 20 miles from work is a bit far for an electric cycle, but you could do it in an hour without breaking a sweat.
You just admitted you typed the CD-keys of software into google. Google doesn't do anything to keep what people search for hidden, in fact they go out of their way to publish it. Sure it's hard to find things that are only searched for once, but I'm certain that sharing the CD-Keys with a third party - even google - is prohibited by the license agreement
I sold my car, and bought an electric cycle this year, and I'm pretty impressed with it. I commute on it - charge it overnight once or twice a week, and don't get a sweat up even on hills into a head wind. Costs $5 per year to charge it, and $12 to insure it. Compared to my car it's ridiculously cheap - and because most of the time I'm passing cars that are waiting for other cars ahead, I get to work in around the same time as a car (12 minutes by bike. When there's no traffic I can do it 10 minutes in a car, but a normal morning is 15-20 minutes). I've seen those tuk-tuk's around where a bike pulls a carriage and takes a couple of people in the back. All you need is a carriage on it and a bigger motor and you could go anywhere in the city on it all weather, but to be honest it's not too hot to wear rain gear on the bike anyway as you aren't working, the battery is. I had to go out of town on a bus instead, but cost about the same as petrol for the trip would have or maybe even cheaper. Not quite the same freedom as having a car, but at less than 10% of the cost, I'm happy enough. I would say that within 3 years, at least 30% of the population will move to electric simply because of the cost. And I think it will be bikes not cars that show the biggest growth.
Its not about conscience and what we are doing to our children, its about capitalism - can people make money selling nuclear energy now? the rest is just marketing.
The earth is a closed system - the only energy input in the past came from the Sun or Moon. Solar energy obviously comes from the sun. Wind energy is indirectly caused by the sun warming the air. Tidal energy comes from the moon. Hydro dams are fuelled by the water cycle which is controlled by the sun. That only really leaves combustion and fission as less natural sources. Combustion occurs regularly in both Australia and California on a wide scale with bush fires. The only other notable energy sources are: Fossil fuels, coal, wood fires and fission. If you run a boat engine inside a swimming pool for long enough, the water will heat up. Does that mean boats heat up the oceans? Yes, a little, not much as its so big compared to only a few boats relatively speaking. Fission is creating energy from something that didn't occur in nature, that energy eventually turns into heat. There will be a small effect over time of heat. Enough to matter? I doubt it...
His argument must be about genetic engineering. Some people might assume it's his view that external knowledge being part of evolution is what's different, but it's not - as anyone with any real contemplation will point out - external transfer of information has been happening in many other species for many millions of years. An example would be the documented case of Blue Tits pecking through milk bottle lids on doorsteps to get at the milk. One bird started it, others copied, new generations of birds observed and copied it. Information was passed down. http://www.britishbirdlovers.co.uk/articles/blue-tits-and-milk-bottle-tops.html
Way too long ago to matter tho. Initially they sent a rover to earth and found no life here then, and that it was uninhabitable for them, so they went off to another planet far far away. The rover they sent here contained bacteria from their planet, some of which adapted and became the first forms of life here - thus we are all descended from martians. Not many of them left to go to this new planet - many of them didn't believe the planet was going to end, and the birthrates dropped there so the population dwindled. The remaining few battled among themselves to make it onto the escape ship but even then they didn't believe that birthrates would be any better. The trip to the new planet was so long that the only chance of success involved breeding during the journey, so those left behind never knew whether it succeeded or not. Once they got to the new planet, it wasn't habitable enough for them, it was close, but within 5-10 years they all perished of stress and fatigue. Many bacteria were successful on their new planet and changed the course of history there - killing off whole species and creating new species. In the same way that the later invasion of earth from an extra solar planet killed off the dinosaurs here. The neanderthals were alien to earth, and when they arrived they changed the course of primate evolution here - allowing humans to rise, but ultimately couldn't adapt to this environment. I'm sure I could make up more stuff but at the end of the day does it really matter?
Surely the fact terrorists have anonymous access to physical roads and footpaths is a bigger issue? If that was restricted it would make their intentions measurably harder to pursue.
The reason frogs are dying is because they aren't worth any money to anyone, so nobody really cares. In countries like France I'm sure they have bio-security to stop travelers bringing in diseases for them. Countries are already recognizing the impact other countries can have on their climate and taking action to prevent unexpected changes. Trying to make people care by arguing that them dying off might affect the planets future is simply doom-saying unless you can prove it, and it will be hard convincing the majority without hard proof as it won't get media coverage. Change isn't always necessarily bad, it creates new opportunities. Sure people's hearts bleed when you talk about animals dying, but we probably kill many more to eat.
all google has to do is put advertising on the pages and pay a share to whoever owns the copyright for a video. The people posting are legally bound to make sure it is copyright, and that they are the copyright owners. sample scenario. a CSI episode gets posted of someones tivo. people watch it. it gets a big rating. the producers sue the person who posted it for the advertising revenue and post a better quality one and rake it in off that with a share of all further advertising. then its just the suckers that post funny home video's for free that lose out - presumably they could tick a "no advertising" clause to interrupt people watching it. bring it on i say.
I wake to the sound of traffic - electric cars will have less noise pollution - less road noise - makes the golf courses by the motorway or houses near the ocean but with large streets between - that much nicer! also that gagging smell of exhaust when stuck in queues of traffic. All that carbon monoxide has got to be bad for you!. Not to mention all the asthma and allergies that come from it. I wish my scooter was electric - i could dock it at home and wouldn't have to go into those gas stations and try and juggle gloves, helmet, wallet and bankcard at the same time
I'm sorry but downloading is not akin to stealing. The people downloading don't necessarily know if the content is free because it has been paid for by the advertising on the site. Whats really happening is someone is stealing chewing gum from a shop, and holding it out offering it to passers by - and anyone who reaches out and takes the chewing gum is now breaking the law. Its totally ass about face - I wonder if the judges there really understand how it relates to the real world
I guess a UFO could be hovering in the sky, covered in bacteria from it's own planet, and get rained on.