We can already ID future republican babies at 1 year with like 80% accuracy. That's not a crazy leap to find a partial genetic basis.
And this is true, not made up: it's the easily scared babies. Babies that show a faster, stronger fear response to scary images are more likely to be republicans as adults by a pretty substantial margin.
And the bush administration, though not bush himself, was pushing the (clearly bogus) nuclear line pretty hard. "Aluminum tubes! Why else would they ever need to buy aluminum tubes?"
It's not even about the companies. It's about how hurting others for your own gain can't ever be profitable after the law has gotten involved. If it is, then the perverse incentives that leaves will poison every choice made.
Yeah, I don't really want to see Google or Apple or MS go bankrupt because of court fees, but if the economic benefits from forming a trust is the only thing keeping you in business, you've already failed and abusive behavior is just hiding that for a while.
And that is to make sure that the companies in question get at most zero dollars and zero cents net profit from their scummy decisions.
Forming an employer trust is really really really scummy, and can make a lot of money. Throwing the book at them isn't enough. You need to drop the entire 16 volume set on them from terminal velocity.
Ah the good old "arugment ad dictionarium" going exclusively to definition #2 to prove that your accusations of being narrow-minded are totes unreasonable.
The way ya'll keep equating humanness to intelligence, even as a joke, is a really stupid thing.
Our tests, we humans use on each other to determine intelligence like IQ or GI tests? They aren't testing our humanity, our empathy, our emotionality, our drive, our neuroticism. They're testing, get this, our pattern recognition.
The exact thing the OP was whining about being called AI.
Posting uninformed opinions on slashdot is not NI.
Okay, that's a bit hostile, but the point is that AI as a field refers to creating software solutions to problems without knowing the full details of what those problems entail. Solutions that can be easily applied to a completely different kind of problem without re-engineering.
That doesn't make it amazing, as good as a human(or even an insect), but the field isn't "Artificial Personhood" for a reason.
On the other hand, if you can't trust OpenSSL for security, a major open source project whose entire purpose is security, who can you trust in the OS world?
Obviously, as a developer, I know that security flaws are just another way to make mistakes, but once you know about heartbleed, how can you assume nothing else of similar scale has been found by nefarious actors?
Well, sure. But there are worse abuses in more recent history. One only needs to turn their gaze on segregation and go "oh, yeah, half our country thought second-class citizens were a great idea".
It's amazingly symbolic of the progress we've made that there are just large numbers of people complaining about Islam and world religions being covered in social studies segments rather than being against the law, like German was.
America: We're not as xenophobic as we used to be! America: From many come one, yeah, we're even tolerating those people now. America: Our courts force us to obey the first amendment.
Yes. Absolutely. If you can't treat print as a regular old function, it causes problems. You can't pass it as a __call__able argument to methods, you can't wrap and replace it for special situations, you can't use any number of language features for function calls(like *args).
The language has powerful tools that are more obscure to fiddle with functions, and not nearly as many for statements. Unifying print with the rest of the language was absolutely a necessary, if painful, step.
"The law" tends to have attributes about what is valid that require some subjective assessment. Nominally these are ironed out through extremely legalistic language, and court precedents. In practice, it frequently includes those the law applies to making judgements.
Theft laws, for example, don't preclude my occasional unsolicited handling of your property within the bounds of common sense, like, say, me bringing you your umbrella you left behind by accident.
Social engineering, political pressure, and the fact that the worst people are most interested in covering up their past means this will be abused. Every sane and pragmatic consideration to prevent abuse will have workarounds well known to scummy specialists, who know who to ask, who to lie to, and how to submit requests.
Any living creatures are going to evolve from simpler species that needed to struggle with each other for resources to survive. Any species which has some way to maintain knowledge for advanced scientific study is going to have to evolve/learn to work together more recently in their past, or else knowledge dies with individuals.
The reality is that while morphological and chemical and genetic differences with extraterrestrials will doubtlessly be profound, the inevitable common backstory of evolution will give them some behavioral similarities. "Criminally insane" is our modern, cooperative brains examining our more competitive behavioral roots and seeing the innate conflict.
Well, "one day fish" is a bit silly. But larger populations of us humans do cause greater ecological harm.
In places where wastewater treatement isn't up to snuff, the fecal coliform bacteria causing complete ecosystem collapse. Which is more than a little worse than the stressors placed by estrogen.
It's not so much that they're scum, it's that they mistake "ethical" with "imaginary line-in-the-sand absolutist moral law based". Ethics are difficult and nuanced, and sometimes raise questions you don't have the answer to. Those sorts of things aren't especially convenient for large groups united for the sake of ad campaigns and political lobbying.
If you actually asked the question of "what does ethical corporate usage of beasts of burden look like?", you'd end up with a very complicated answer.
You'll see this symptom with every political group that's actually genuinely grassroots and purpose oriented.
Perhaps a mind to near-future practical applications. If you had proposed 10 years ago, that they focus on setting aside relevant code for linux on cell phones, people might have had similar concerns.
Small-scale quadrotor drone control software is likely going to be a big deal over the next decade. Maybe not a huge deal. Maybe not something else might angle into the same area better, but lots of people are trying to come up with a way to do something clever with drones.
Slashdot Mirror
We can already ID future republican babies at 1 year with like 80% accuracy. That's not a crazy leap to find a partial genetic basis.
And this is true, not made up: it's the easily scared babies. Babies that show a faster, stronger fear response to scary images are more likely to be republicans as adults by a pretty substantial margin.
That's measured in gigabytes. It'd actually take you 40 seconds.
And the bush administration, though not bush himself, was pushing the (clearly bogus) nuclear line pretty hard. "Aluminum tubes! Why else would they ever need to buy aluminum tubes?"
It's not even about the companies. It's about how hurting others for your own gain can't ever be profitable after the law has gotten involved. If it is, then the perverse incentives that leaves will poison every choice made.
Yeah, I don't really want to see Google or Apple or MS go bankrupt because of court fees, but if the economic benefits from forming a trust is the only thing keeping you in business, you've already failed and abusive behavior is just hiding that for a while.
And that is to make sure that the companies in question get at most zero dollars and zero cents net profit from their scummy decisions.
Forming an employer trust is really really really scummy, and can make a lot of money. Throwing the book at them isn't enough. You need to drop the entire 16 volume set on them from terminal velocity.
Ah the good old "arugment ad dictionarium" going exclusively to definition #2 to prove that your accusations of being narrow-minded are totes unreasonable.
The way ya'll keep equating humanness to intelligence, even as a joke, is a really stupid thing.
Our tests, we humans use on each other to determine intelligence like IQ or GI tests? They aren't testing our humanity, our empathy, our emotionality, our drive, our neuroticism. They're testing, get this, our pattern recognition.
The exact thing the OP was whining about being called AI.
Posting uninformed opinions on slashdot is not NI.
Okay, that's a bit hostile, but the point is that AI as a field refers to creating software solutions to problems without knowing the full details of what those problems entail. Solutions that can be easily applied to a completely different kind of problem without re-engineering.
That doesn't make it amazing, as good as a human(or even an insect), but the field isn't "Artificial Personhood" for a reason.
I think a general rule of thumb is that once you hit 5 digits of price, a test drive is never too much to ask.
Nothing represents our entire culture. A small(but not that small) but vocal group of whiners does reflect aspects of our culture.
On the other hand, if you can't trust OpenSSL for security, a major open source project whose entire purpose is security, who can you trust in the OS world?
Obviously, as a developer, I know that security flaws are just another way to make mistakes, but once you know about heartbleed, how can you assume nothing else of similar scale has been found by nefarious actors?
Well, sure. But there are worse abuses in more recent history. One only needs to turn their gaze on segregation and go "oh, yeah, half our country thought second-class citizens were a great idea".
And yet Germany, Italy, and Japan are all major economies. Germany and Japan are still science centers.
FYI, most people weren't even born in 1923 when it was overturned. Only about a half a percent of the population is above the age of 90.
It's amazingly symbolic of the progress we've made that there are just large numbers of people complaining about Islam and world religions being covered in social studies segments rather than being against the law, like German was.
America: We're not as xenophobic as we used to be!
America: From many come one, yeah, we're even tolerating those people now.
America: Our courts force us to obey the first amendment.
Yes. Absolutely. If you can't treat print as a regular old function, it causes problems. You can't pass it as a __call__able argument to methods, you can't wrap and replace it for special situations, you can't use any number of language features for function calls(like *args).
The language has powerful tools that are more obscure to fiddle with functions, and not nearly as many for statements. Unifying print with the rest of the language was absolutely a necessary, if painful, step.
And the stupid thing is that everything python 3 changed were things the language desperately needed.
Exactly one function parsed as a statement instead?
Exception handling syntax different from every other block format?
Defaulting strings to unicode?
I mean, you're right that 3 never truly recovered, but those were all things the language desperately needed.
"The law" tends to have attributes about what is valid that require some subjective assessment. Nominally these are ironed out through extremely legalistic language, and court precedents. In practice, it frequently includes those the law applies to making judgements.
Theft laws, for example, don't preclude my occasional unsolicited handling of your property within the bounds of common sense, like, say, me bringing you your umbrella you left behind by accident.
Huh? I'm just saying abuse will happen. I guess that does imply an attitude that it shouldn't be done.
And maybe some sort of plan to get around abusers. Not sure how though.
Social engineering, political pressure, and the fact that the worst people are most interested in covering up their past means this will be abused. Every sane and pragmatic consideration to prevent abuse will have workarounds well known to scummy specialists, who know who to ask, who to lie to, and how to submit requests.
Any living creatures are going to evolve from simpler species that needed to struggle with each other for resources to survive. Any species which has some way to maintain knowledge for advanced scientific study is going to have to evolve/learn to work together more recently in their past, or else knowledge dies with individuals.
The reality is that while morphological and chemical and genetic differences with extraterrestrials will doubtlessly be profound, the inevitable common backstory of evolution will give them some behavioral similarities. "Criminally insane" is our modern, cooperative brains examining our more competitive behavioral roots and seeing the innate conflict.
Well, "one day fish" is a bit silly. But larger populations of us humans do cause greater ecological harm.
In places where wastewater treatement isn't up to snuff, the fecal coliform bacteria causing complete ecosystem collapse. Which is more than a little worse than the stressors placed by estrogen.
No, they're pretty consistent that they just don't want people to affect animals. Which is impossible. But they insist on it anyways.
And they're not terrorists. Stupid, yes. ALF-like-terrorism, no.
It's not so much that they're scum, it's that they mistake "ethical" with "imaginary line-in-the-sand absolutist moral law based". Ethics are difficult and nuanced, and sometimes raise questions you don't have the answer to. Those sorts of things aren't especially convenient for large groups united for the sake of ad campaigns and political lobbying.
If you actually asked the question of "what does ethical corporate usage of beasts of burden look like?", you'd end up with a very complicated answer.
You'll see this symptom with every political group that's actually genuinely grassroots and purpose oriented.
Perhaps a mind to near-future practical applications. If you had proposed 10 years ago, that they focus on setting aside relevant code for linux on cell phones, people might have had similar concerns.
Small-scale quadrotor drone control software is likely going to be a big deal over the next decade. Maybe not a huge deal. Maybe not something else might angle into the same area better, but lots of people are trying to come up with a way to do something clever with drones.