As long as we're being humorless assholes: Jokes are defined by the intention of humor. Lots of things are funny that aren't jokes, like, say, if you died, it'd be hilarious. Lots of things are jokes that fail at being funny: see the complete works of Carlos Mencia.
Okay, so once again I have to be reminded that no one is allowed to joke about the Linux kernel, because the distros are responsible for packaging a sense of humor.
With this complex algorithm that takes a fuck-ton of image data and produces for you: something that is almost impossible to tell apart from applying the blur filter on the original image.
They wanted so badly to be Apple, taking a cut of every software sale by being the only vendor for their own system.
What they neglected is that people don't want brainless "apps" for true multipurpose computers. So their brainless store got filled with brainless garbage to take advantage of the brainless users who'd use it.
Of course, the brokenness isn't that it is two party. If that were truly what citizens wanted, it'd be natural and good. The problem is that the electoral mechanics that underlie it strongly incentive arbitrary long-term political alliances among groups with highly disparate beliefs.
I'd argue that in-turn promotes a disconnect between the actual voters and those they vote for, but now I'm comparing a hypothetical universe against the real one. And we all know that imaginary universes with the changes I want somehow end up perfect.
Yeah, I get you. Democratic governments give you, the citizen, no ability to influence affairs.
I know you're trying to reference the fact that your nation(almost certainly the US) has a broken democracy, but I still challenge that it doesn't result in complete disenfranchisement.
I'm pretty sure it's covered under the *nudge nudge* *wink wink* international protocol.
No, but really, I'm not entirely convinced of the US's dedication to smashing Snowden, myself, but I'm also familiar with the whole "international governance by fiat" that's been a favorite a favorite foreign policy of ours for at least a decade now.
This is your reminder that anyone with a post-highschool grounding in chemistry could make pipebombs with no difficulty. The ingredients for a self-oxidizing agent could be gotten at a hardware store. They aren't common in the US in spite of that.
There won't be an "epidemic" of automated bombings, because being a bomber takes a cause you personally see as being more important than not being a murderer. The right mixture of basically competent, ideologically dedicated, and morally flexible just isn't that common.
That's part of why suicide attacks are practically synonymous with terrorism: people have to be amazingly deep into an ideology to consider it.
You seem to think that a self-driving car is a self-aware, subjective, thinking thing.
Within this particular field, the application of "AI" algorithms gives fuzzy answers to difficult questions, but only as inputs to boring, more traditionally algorithmic processes. Laws, conveniently, are codified in much the same way as those traditional algorithms(though, again, with fuzzy inputs).
Any company even remotely trying to engage this would encode the laws at that level, not as something some AI tries to reason out.
Let's skip "car" because I can, in theory, attach enough explosives(and shrapnel) to kill a large number of people to a simple homemade quadrotor, run with open source software, give it a dead-reckoning path and fire and forget from a relatively inconspicuous location. Multiple simultaneously, if I have the amount of resources a car bomb would require.
Automation is here. Being paranoid about one particular application of it won't help anyone.
Because you're talking in pointless aphorisms, and non-export restrictions imposed on companies as a means of punishing a country for its actions is greatly preferable to war.
What an articulate and meaningful assertion about complex geopolitics, the role of corporations in supporting the political interests in the states they're invested in, law enforcement, and how the Internet influences peoples' ability to circumvent law.
Speaking having only emerged from ignorance about it myself on internet search ago, there were some sanctions on Turkish groups, which is a bit like an embargo on Turkey itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Did they have a problem with that? Or are they operating on the possibility, instead? Do you have a third source of information?
Because the summary isn't clear, and the article is a how-to.
As long as we're being humorless assholes:
Jokes are defined by the intention of humor. Lots of things are funny that aren't jokes, like, say, if you died, it'd be hilarious. Lots of things are jokes that fail at being funny: see the complete works of Carlos Mencia.
Okay, so once again I have to be reminded that no one is allowed to joke about the Linux kernel, because the distros are responsible for packaging a sense of humor.
Someone might commit code to our open source project. We can't have that.
With this complex algorithm that takes a fuck-ton of image data and produces for you: something that is almost impossible to tell apart from applying the blur filter on the original image.
That's easy.
Can you code on it?
Multipurpose.
So that raises a question then: is "not spying on/advertising at your users" a requirement?
What other possible criteria could there be?
Are they more concerned with, say, pornography, than actual user experience?
What are they worried about stopping?
They wanted so badly to be Apple, taking a cut of every software sale by being the only vendor for their own system.
What they neglected is that people don't want brainless "apps" for true multipurpose computers. So their brainless store got filled with brainless garbage to take advantage of the brainless users who'd use it.
Radiation? Radiation is almost, but not quite, a non concern.
Radioactivity? That's a potential problem.
Oh no. An attention whore? Involved in politics? How unprecedented.
Of course, the brokenness isn't that it is two party. If that were truly what citizens wanted, it'd be natural and good. The problem is that the electoral mechanics that underlie it strongly incentive arbitrary long-term political alliances among groups with highly disparate beliefs.
I'd argue that in-turn promotes a disconnect between the actual voters and those they vote for, but now I'm comparing a hypothetical universe against the real one. And we all know that imaginary universes with the changes I want somehow end up perfect.
Yeah, I get you. Democratic governments give you, the citizen, no ability to influence affairs.
I know you're trying to reference the fact that your nation(almost certainly the US) has a broken democracy, but I still challenge that it doesn't result in complete disenfranchisement.
I'm pretty sure it's covered under the *nudge nudge* *wink wink* international protocol.
No, but really, I'm not entirely convinced of the US's dedication to smashing Snowden, myself, but I'm also familiar with the whole "international governance by fiat" that's been a favorite a favorite foreign policy of ours for at least a decade now.
This is your reminder that anyone with a post-highschool grounding in chemistry could make pipebombs with no difficulty. The ingredients for a self-oxidizing agent could be gotten at a hardware store. They aren't common in the US in spite of that.
There won't be an "epidemic" of automated bombings, because being a bomber takes a cause you personally see as being more important than not being a murderer. The right mixture of basically competent, ideologically dedicated, and morally flexible just isn't that common.
That's part of why suicide attacks are practically synonymous with terrorism: people have to be amazingly deep into an ideology to consider it.
You seem to think that a self-driving car is a self-aware, subjective, thinking thing.
Within this particular field, the application of "AI" algorithms gives fuzzy answers to difficult questions, but only as inputs to boring, more traditionally algorithmic processes. Laws, conveniently, are codified in much the same way as those traditional algorithms(though, again, with fuzzy inputs).
Any company even remotely trying to engage this would encode the laws at that level, not as something some AI tries to reason out.
Let's skip "car" because I can, in theory, attach enough explosives(and shrapnel) to kill a large number of people to a simple homemade quadrotor, run with open source software, give it a dead-reckoning path and fire and forget from a relatively inconspicuous location. Multiple simultaneously, if I have the amount of resources a car bomb would require.
Automation is here. Being paranoid about one particular application of it won't help anyone.
Right, so let's cite the website perhaps second or third best known on the Internet for having lots of trolls as an example.
No, they're pretty much exactly as described. But thanks for making me waste time and suffer the posts of delusional idiots.
Because? Stop falling back on a mindless saying and justify yourself
Because you're talking in pointless aphorisms, and non-export restrictions imposed on companies as a means of punishing a country for its actions is greatly preferable to war.
And the principle is what, exactly? Refusing enforcement of an embargo? Why?
As large a corporation as it is, Oracle is not the US government.
Ok, from the damned summary.
"You are in a country on which there is embargo; you cannot download JAVA
I don't think you know what embargo means.
What an articulate and meaningful assertion about complex geopolitics, the role of corporations in supporting the political interests in the states they're invested in, law enforcement, and how the Internet influences peoples' ability to circumvent law.
No wait. It's just asinine.
Speaking having only emerged from ignorance about it myself on internet search ago, there were some sanctions on Turkish groups, which is a bit like an embargo on Turkey itself.
Uh, I'm pretty sure the article also addresses something the US is doing, and I directly condemned Putin. Stop writing false motivations onto me.