See? The etc etc in your reply are the plentiful details where we'll continue to disagree.
There are many things that Obama can't do without the cooperation of Congress, which is deadlocked in "nyet" mode. For these I don't blame him. He does, however, have power he's not exercising to bring about needed change, and pressure the interests money out of DC, if only for a short time until it creeps back in.
It proves that he's out of his league. Might be a great constitutional lawyer, but the moves I've seen say: very establishment.
I disagree with the comment WRT Obama's corruption. I'll have to admit I don't like him, but don't believe him to be corrupt. Thread devolution was inevitable. My apologies.
Although I do as you describe, the world is more polluted, climate change more severe and rapid, and fear continues to permeate the political landscape, much to the gain of a chosen few with weapons.
I'll agree that it sure seems that way. Yeah, we've stanched the flow of troops and money towards Iraq and Afghanistan. But we have a new mercenary army called Wall Street + religious taliban that war from within, and use their motives to influence monetary and international policy that's contrary to the interests of the populace.
Obama replaced Ryan, an Illinois senatorial scumbag. Illinois is a hotbed of political chicanery.
I can recall probably 120 reps, half the senate and each and every president and VP. My faculties are different than most Americans. I voted for Obama in both presidential elections based on hope, the hope that there might be some political change away from the corruption we now face in the US. I wanted to see the vacuous wars stanched to all parties satisfaction. I hoped for regulation that was gleefully stanched during the Bush and Clinton administrations. I wanted to see people come together, not be compartmentalized and marginalized. Didn't happen. We're barely holding it together, but it's been both been better and worse during my long life.
All the altrusitic things I was taught in grade school and high school civics classes have been stanched by the motives of greed and fear. Once in a long while, common sense takes hold, but only for brief moments. Then something else happens. I fear for my grandchildren.
I fear Snowden will be a martyr. Plentiful people in power don't like it when their secretive ops and motives are exposed for the world to see. The sausage of politics is ugly enough. Snowden is a modern-day Sinclair Lewis in that regard.
Obama's premature prize baffles me, save that in his own country, there are plentiful people in power that didn't want an individual outside of their control to take power. Given Obama's unfulfilled promises, they needn't have bothered in their worry.
Statistically, peanuts are strangely deadly. Rapid onset reaction, have an epi pen nearby or perform a ballpoint tracheal breathing way, or suffocate, more or less within 2min.
There are other combos that can do this as well, but this is one of the fastest. Raw nicotine can kill you pretty quickly, too. The list is endless. Think of keyword chemicals that your friends at the NSA would dock you with. Play a bit with captive subjects.
Go ahead and test the histamine reactions. Stand by with your epi pen. This isn't the only possibility, either. There are any number of easily made aromatic chemical combos with crazy reactions.
Yet Cisco hasn't litigated ANY of that, to my knowledge, at all! Huawei has offered source code, and time and again refutes that their product violates any of Cisco's IP. Your argument is a red herring. The crux of the US Congressional hearings focus on alleged backdoors, and spying.
See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/29/cisco_huawei_case_ends/ for more information. Please check your facts before making assertions that aren't true. Cisco is a leaking ship, not that Huawei did the world any favors by emulating Cisco. This is about stock prices and protectionism and an aging product line and a CEO with no vision that should have walked the plank eons ago.
Umm, I don't think so. Whose propaganda are you reading that cites this? Do you have any clue how much business is transacted between the US and China? This is nothing. Ignore the bruised egos and weaseling astroturfing corporate PR people trying to distract you. These are corporations that are scared to death to report a bad quarter to their Wall Street overlords. They live in a separate reality.
Not gonna happen. There is too much investment on both sides. And if it cleans up the misdeeds of both side's spooks-- so much the better.
Does the dark side of intelligence need a spanking? Oh.Yeah. Will this do it? No.
This was the Chinese press calling for the action, not the government. Our press did the same stupid thing regarding Huawei. Did it have an effect? Not really.
So the boycott surrounding Huawei is ok then? Who fired the first shot?
Cisco either stands on its own, or doesn't. If Cisco can't prove that it's not sending backdoor info to the NSA, then is China justified in its concern? Let the Chinese boycott whomever they want. There is no right to sell something anywhere. There is value or there is not.
The war with hackers has been going on for a decade. We do stuff (from the USA) and they do stuff (from mainland China). You're surprised?
There is a war. Huaewei is dragged through the mud by witless/gutless/dimwits in the US Congress. Turnabout is fair play.
The silly thing is, that all of the cell phones across the planets are like little location devices, revealing your location, your contacts, your texts, and your conversations.
Cisco is on the slide anyway, and this won't really have a dramatic effect on the US economy. The problem, you see, is that the warriors aren't making enough money right now, and with moderate Middle East peace, there's no good money to be made from that.
Trade war? Insignificant. Sorry. Just not gonna happen.
Self awareness is only a fraction of the equation. Nodal AI can be startlingly effective, and in manifestations such as Watson have made mincemeat of calculative strengths heretofore unknown. Doesn't mean that I'm going to trust Watson to drive my car.
Human brains have massive parallelism, and the state machine theorems of Von Neumann have been the crux of development since before Turing. We've only scratched the surface of parallelism that mimes what brains do-- the non-dysfunctional ones.
We do have an idea of what the secret sauce you speak of is, but self-recognition, again, is just the upper right corner of a chaulkboard filled with dynamic equations. Recognition capabilities have become acute in optical recognition. Insane servo motors can mimic motions with stunning torque. These combinations are evolutions and that's what we are.
If you look at the DSM-IV, with all its potential dysfunction, frailties, and effects, humanity itself isn't very uniform at all. But the concepts of civility, responsibility, and morality are reasonably defined-- with ethics as a side problem. We watch TV and forget that a scant milennium ago, we were essentially warring tribes of barbarians, some better behaved than others. Little has changed in that regard, some say, but civility and mutual understanding has helped dissolve barriers between cultures that were walls to conquer and surmount not long ago.
You can argue that Walmart creates fiefdoms of serfs, and make all sorts of fairly accurate assessments of the malaise of the modern world. Extrapolating that into constructed intelligences, and finding where the boundaries must be, is for generations in the future.
I'm reminded of Mickey Mouse in Fantasia, orchestrating a janitorial job gone wrong, when I think of how we're interacting with computing devices today. Distributed intelligences may spawn entities that aren't in a discrete physical location, but the summation of distributed intelligences accessed by core functionality within constructed objects. How they might manifest themselves could take many forms. Participation, active participation becomes the crux of dependence, reliance, and trust. Homicidal psychotics also function quietly until their misdeeds are done, as you infer. People can be incited to do uncivil acts, especially those that promise a future-life reward. A worm/virus/malware object could do a lot of damage, and so the discrete boundary of a constructed object seems mandatory, so as to be able to have either resistance or containment to motivations that are uncivil or irresponsible.
Goddammnit, we can't even get the IETF and the IEEE to embed mandated security measures in common protrocols. We are babes in the effing woods. It's going to take radical changes before we can embue trust into even a seemingly sentient created device/object. It's not going to happen soon. Too many boats must be lifted.
I don't need to anthropomorphize what any particular object needs to be before it can have the described attributes. You're talking about sentience, and simple sentience is not enough, as mentioned.
The mind's capacity as human or non-human is irrelevant, except that civility, so that we're not now defensive with this object, and trustworthyness, which defines predictability and embues trust, are mandatory. Otherwise, for purposes of survival (me et al) lack of trust as demonstrated through the chain of observation means that this hypothetical being is untrustworthy and must be treated as potentially hostile. This defensive posture is how we live today. Trust, and our sense of extending personal tribal membership, is how we vet the context of membership of an unknown into our set of "trusted" vs "untrusted" entities. Until trust is established, the membership is in the set of utrusted/unknown and potentially hostile.
If you eat raw lima beans, you'll find out just how hostile they can be. Cook them, and they're delicious. Many inert elements can kill you, or with the right bindings, make you live a long life despite ugly choices.
Choices, in turn, are made by beings. Primitive, sophisticated, there are choices. When the choices aren't hostile and aren't draining and can be trusted, we start to obtain evidence of how to treat a non-traditional "being". Not gonna happen for a while, so for today, it's the crux of speculation.
As a sensory device, pain is an evolutionary component of many forms of life. It's still a response to a potentially negative consequence. We try to assuage pain, it's part of our humanity, but animals do this, too.
I believe that there is insufficient consciousness in plants to cause me worry or guilt about eating plentiful amounts. Where is the drawing line for me? Acknowledged response to pain-- within the animal kingdom. Do the commonalities with plants have measure here? Yes and no. Yes because they're DNA and 4-principal material objects like I am. Without them, I am dead. With them, I live.
Rudimentary awareness is just that. One day, I'll be rose bush fodder. Long long after, it's all dust. Where did it come from? Likely several similar sources. There is an algorithm for life that works on this planet and I'm a branch of it. Being a member of that branch allows me to use other parts of the limbs. Causing pain or being brutal to animals is a conscious choice. Plants produce more poisons during daylight than at night to prevent the largest amount of potential eaters/disturbers away. It's self-defense. I acknowledge the most primitive beings have self-defense. Otherwise, they're assimilated and taken from the gene pool, perhaps for eternity as we know it.
Respect and courtesy are wonderful devices. But as the topic is robotry, mimicking/parroting human emotions is one thing, but demonstrable civility and responsibility is quite a climb. Even humans have problems with this, and mercurially.
Capabilities are another concept beyond simple sentience.
Suggested reading: The Sociopath Next Door
Simple awareness is insufficient for trusting membership within the constraints of a civil society, especially when the potential for damage can be large if trust is misplaced. Yes, I might be speaking about bad politicians, too, but we don't answer that question in polite society, preferring to ignore the awful results.
I have no compassion for tools. I respect the capabilities of tools. I have a lineman's pliers, ancient, that fit my hand like a glove. I like to use them. They are highly effective. I will be sad if I lose them, but I cannot love them, I have no empathy for the tool. I have these for people and the animal kingdom, along with concerns for the rest of this planet in general and the living beings on it. Robots aren't living beings in so many senses. I have fabulously sophisticated systems infrastructure that on command, can do incredible things. But they are tools. We're the humans.
Slashdot Mirror
See? The etc etc in your reply are the plentiful details where we'll continue to disagree.
There are many things that Obama can't do without the cooperation of Congress, which is deadlocked in "nyet" mode. For these I don't blame him. He does, however, have power he's not exercising to bring about needed change, and pressure the interests money out of DC, if only for a short time until it creeps back in.
It proves that he's out of his league. Might be a great constitutional lawyer, but the moves I've seen say: very establishment.
We must disagree. There are so many differences between Obama and Romney that it's plainly silly to list them here.
Obama had power for real change. IMHO, he blew it. Romney was the SOS-DD and worse.
The net of it for me: Obama wimped out.
I disagree with the comment WRT Obama's corruption. I'll have to admit I don't like him, but don't believe him to be corrupt. Thread devolution was inevitable. My apologies.
We must disagree.
This wasn't a vote on my part to win, it was of principles, and not apparently, yours.
Although I do as you describe, the world is more polluted, climate change more severe and rapid, and fear continues to permeate the political landscape, much to the gain of a chosen few with weapons.
So I teach them something else, too: diligence.
We must profoundly disagree.
I expected more, and got less. That's my primary problem with him and his administration.
I, too, voted my goals. I wouldn't vote for Romney for dog-catcher.
I'll agree that it sure seems that way. Yeah, we've stanched the flow of troops and money towards Iraq and Afghanistan. But we have a new mercenary army called Wall Street + religious taliban that war from within, and use their motives to influence monetary and international policy that's contrary to the interests of the populace.
Odd that you should cite this.
Obama replaced Ryan, an Illinois senatorial scumbag. Illinois is a hotbed of political chicanery.
I can recall probably 120 reps, half the senate and each and every president and VP. My faculties are different than most Americans. I voted for Obama in both presidential elections based on hope, the hope that there might be some political change away from the corruption we now face in the US. I wanted to see the vacuous wars stanched to all parties satisfaction. I hoped for regulation that was gleefully stanched during the Bush and Clinton administrations. I wanted to see people come together, not be compartmentalized and marginalized. Didn't happen. We're barely holding it together, but it's been both been better and worse during my long life.
All the altrusitic things I was taught in grade school and high school civics classes have been stanched by the motives of greed and fear. Once in a long while, common sense takes hold, but only for brief moments. Then something else happens. I fear for my grandchildren.
I fear Snowden will be a martyr. Plentiful people in power don't like it when their secretive ops and motives are exposed for the world to see. The sausage of politics is ugly enough. Snowden is a modern-day Sinclair Lewis in that regard.
Obama's premature prize baffles me, save that in his own country, there are plentiful people in power that didn't want an individual outside of their control to take power. Given Obama's unfulfilled promises, they needn't have bothered in their worry.
You mean: Tennessee.
Certainly.
But a good hack is potential death (intended or otherwise) to a scent generator. We won't go to castor beans, etc.
Statistically, peanuts are strangely deadly. Rapid onset reaction, have an epi pen nearby or perform a ballpoint tracheal breathing way, or suffocate, more or less within 2min.
There are other combos that can do this as well, but this is one of the fastest. Raw nicotine can kill you pretty quickly, too. The list is endless. Think of keyword chemicals that your friends at the NSA would dock you with.
Play a bit with captive subjects.
Death by scent-o-gram
!
Go ahead and test the histamine reactions. Stand by with your epi pen. This isn't the only possibility, either. There are any number of easily made aromatic chemical combos with crazy reactions.
One person's scent of smashed peanut powder is another person's death. Hacking a scent generator seems both easy, and protections dubious at best.
This link was corroborated by Democracy Now this morning.
The post is therefore moot, but the mudslinging will continue unabated.
Yet Cisco hasn't litigated ANY of that, to my knowledge, at all! Huawei has offered source code, and time and again refutes that their product violates any of Cisco's IP. Your argument is a red herring. The crux of the US Congressional hearings focus on alleged backdoors, and spying.
See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/29/cisco_huawei_case_ends/ for more information. Please check your facts before making assertions that aren't true. Cisco is a leaking ship, not that Huawei did the world any favors by emulating Cisco. This is about stock prices and protectionism and an aging product line and a CEO with no vision that should have walked the plank eons ago.
Umm, I don't think so. Whose propaganda are you reading that cites this? Do you have any clue how much business is transacted between the US and China? This is nothing. Ignore the bruised egos and weaseling astroturfing corporate PR people trying to distract you. These are corporations that are scared to death to report a bad quarter to their Wall Street overlords. They live in a separate reality.
Not gonna happen. There is too much investment on both sides. And if it cleans up the misdeeds of both side's spooks-- so much the better.
Does the dark side of intelligence need a spanking? Oh.Yeah. Will this do it? No.
This was the Chinese press calling for the action, not the government. Our press did the same stupid thing regarding Huawei. Did it have an effect? Not really.
So the boycott surrounding Huawei is ok then? Who fired the first shot?
Cisco either stands on its own, or doesn't. If Cisco can't prove that it's not sending backdoor info to the NSA, then is China justified in its concern? Let the Chinese boycott whomever they want. There is no right to sell something anywhere. There is value or there is not.
The war with hackers has been going on for a decade. We do stuff (from the USA) and they do stuff (from mainland China). You're surprised?
There is a war. Huaewei is dragged through the mud by witless/gutless/dimwits in the US Congress. Turnabout is fair play.
The silly thing is, that all of the cell phones across the planets are like little location devices, revealing your location, your contacts, your texts, and your conversations.
Cisco is on the slide anyway, and this won't really have a dramatic effect on the US economy. The problem, you see, is that the warriors aren't making enough money right now, and with moderate Middle East peace, there's no good money to be made from that.
Trade war? Insignificant. Sorry. Just not gonna happen.
Self awareness is only a fraction of the equation. Nodal AI can be startlingly effective, and in manifestations such as Watson have made mincemeat of calculative strengths heretofore unknown. Doesn't mean that I'm going to trust Watson to drive my car.
Human brains have massive parallelism, and the state machine theorems of Von Neumann have been the crux of development since before Turing. We've only scratched the surface of parallelism that mimes what brains do-- the non-dysfunctional ones.
We do have an idea of what the secret sauce you speak of is, but self-recognition, again, is just the upper right corner of a chaulkboard filled with dynamic equations. Recognition capabilities have become acute in optical recognition. Insane servo motors can mimic motions with stunning torque. These combinations are evolutions and that's what we are.
If you look at the DSM-IV, with all its potential dysfunction, frailties, and effects, humanity itself isn't very uniform at all. But the concepts of civility, responsibility, and morality are reasonably defined-- with ethics as a side problem. We watch TV and forget that a scant milennium ago, we were essentially warring tribes of barbarians, some better behaved than others. Little has changed in that regard, some say, but civility and mutual understanding has helped dissolve barriers between cultures that were walls to conquer and surmount not long ago.
You can argue that Walmart creates fiefdoms of serfs, and make all sorts of fairly accurate assessments of the malaise of the modern world. Extrapolating that into constructed intelligences, and finding where the boundaries must be, is for generations in the future.
I'm reminded of Mickey Mouse in Fantasia, orchestrating a janitorial job gone wrong, when I think of how we're interacting with computing devices today. Distributed intelligences may spawn entities that aren't in a discrete physical location, but the summation of distributed intelligences accessed by core functionality within constructed objects. How they might manifest themselves could take many forms. Participation, active participation becomes the crux of dependence, reliance, and trust. Homicidal psychotics also function quietly until their misdeeds are done, as you infer. People can be incited to do uncivil acts, especially those that promise a future-life reward. A worm/virus/malware object could do a lot of damage, and so the discrete boundary of a constructed object seems mandatory, so as to be able to have either resistance or containment to motivations that are uncivil or irresponsible.
Goddammnit, we can't even get the IETF and the IEEE to embed mandated security measures in common protrocols. We are babes in the effing woods. It's going to take radical changes before we can embue trust into even a seemingly sentient created device/object. It's not going to happen soon. Too many boats must be lifted.
I don't need to anthropomorphize what any particular object needs to be before it can have the described attributes. You're talking about sentience, and simple sentience is not enough, as mentioned.
The mind's capacity as human or non-human is irrelevant, except that civility, so that we're not now defensive with this object, and trustworthyness, which defines predictability and embues trust, are mandatory. Otherwise, for purposes of survival (me et al) lack of trust as demonstrated through the chain of observation means that this hypothetical being is untrustworthy and must be treated as potentially hostile. This defensive posture is how we live today. Trust, and our sense of extending personal tribal membership, is how we vet the context of membership of an unknown into our set of "trusted" vs "untrusted" entities. Until trust is established, the membership is in the set of utrusted/unknown and potentially hostile.
If you eat raw lima beans, you'll find out just how hostile they can be. Cook them, and they're delicious. Many inert elements can kill you, or with the right bindings, make you live a long life despite ugly choices.
Choices, in turn, are made by beings. Primitive, sophisticated, there are choices. When the choices aren't hostile and aren't draining and can be trusted, we start to obtain evidence of how to treat a non-traditional "being". Not gonna happen for a while, so for today, it's the crux of speculation.
As a sensory device, pain is an evolutionary component of many forms of life. It's still a response to a potentially negative consequence. We try to assuage pain, it's part of our humanity, but animals do this, too.
I believe that there is insufficient consciousness in plants to cause me worry or guilt about eating plentiful amounts. Where is the drawing line for me? Acknowledged response to pain-- within the animal kingdom. Do the commonalities with plants have measure here? Yes and no. Yes because they're DNA and 4-principal material objects like I am. Without them, I am dead. With them, I live.
Rudimentary awareness is just that. One day, I'll be rose bush fodder. Long long after, it's all dust. Where did it come from? Likely several similar sources. There is an algorithm for life that works on this planet and I'm a branch of it. Being a member of that branch allows me to use other parts of the limbs. Causing pain or being brutal to animals is a conscious choice. Plants produce more poisons during daylight than at night to prevent the largest amount of potential eaters/disturbers away. It's self-defense. I acknowledge the most primitive beings have self-defense. Otherwise, they're assimilated and taken from the gene pool, perhaps for eternity as we know it.
Respect and courtesy are wonderful devices. But as the topic is robotry, mimicking/parroting human emotions is one thing, but demonstrable civility and responsibility is quite a climb. Even humans have problems with this, and mercurially.
Capabilities are another concept beyond simple sentience.
Suggested reading: The Sociopath Next Door
Simple awareness is insufficient for trusting membership within the constraints of a civil society, especially when the potential for damage can be large if trust is misplaced. Yes, I might be speaking about bad politicians, too, but we don't answer that question in polite society, preferring to ignore the awful results.
I have no compassion for tools. I respect the capabilities of tools. I have a lineman's pliers, ancient, that fit my hand like a glove. I like to use them. They are highly effective. I will be sad if I lose them, but I cannot love them, I have no empathy for the tool. I have these for people and the animal kingdom, along with concerns for the rest of this planet in general and the living beings on it. Robots aren't living beings in so many senses. I have fabulously sophisticated systems infrastructure that on command, can do incredible things. But they are tools. We're the humans.