Self-awareness is wonderful. But the criteria for judging that is as muddy as when live begins for purposes of abortion.
Robots are chattel. They can be bought and sold. They do not reproduce in the sense of "life". They could reproduce. Then they'd run out of resources after doing strange things with their environment, like we do. Dependencies then are the crux of ownership.
Robots follow instructions that react to their environment, subject to, as mentioned above, the random elements of the universe. I believe that their programmers are responsible for their behavior until they do pass a self-awareness and responsibility test. Then they're autonomous of their programmer. If you program machine gun bots for armies, then you'd better hope the army is doing the "right" thing, which I believe is impossible with such bots.
Once that environmental autonomy is achieved, they get rights associated with sentient responsible beings. Until then: chattel.
Which is why distributing through AWS also makes sense. Tumblr and others do the same thing. It's called: most efficient CDN you can construct. And with luck, it will eat Comcast/xFinity's lunch, along with a long list of broadband cable provider's meals. Yes, you still need the last mile. No, you don't need the goofy TV signal infrastructure at 720p on a good day. Free your cable: use all of the bandwidth for packets.
Sir, you can yell a lie, light the sky with a lie, and it is still: a lie.
The Emancipation Proclamation was written and pronounced in 1963. But the crux of war, slavery, was the PRIMARY reason for the conflict. Not secondary.... etc. Your teacher makes the error that it was an afterthought, when in need it was the basis.
You can USE LOUD WORDS. There are many things you can do, but your assertion is false. It will remain false. To start to understand, look at the wikepedia entry for Henry Clay. You'll start to see what happens.
Not sure what you're reading, or who's teaching it, but your facts are indeed wrong. I would suggest consulting other sources. Not sure why your classes are insistent on re-writing history.
The states that seceded from the Union knew that there would be a war over the secession. They, the business leaders in the US South, succeeded in convincing state governments to secede for both monetary reasons, and over ownership of other human beings as chattel. Because slaves were chattel, they could be murdered, mistreated, raped, torn from families, beaten, maimed, and worse. This was the primary reason; there were many secondary reasons as well.
It's an immoral choice, treating humans as chattel. The world takes a dim view of doing so. That fact is also in your history classes.
Your re-thinking of history is pretty much fact-free. Read the history and understand it for what it was. Get the facts and lose your hints, as they're both incorrect, and is the sort of thing that betrays the reality of the situation.
Perhaps your great grandfathers and uncles didn't fight or die in that war, and you're just pulling facts out of your hat.
Strictly speaking, your facts are both incorrect, and seditious.
You use a lot of communications phrases that indicate empirical generalisms. "Nobody" as an example.
We're unlikely to agree on much in this world. It's because somewhere along the line, you didn't get the skepticism gene. Not sure how, don't have time to research it, but this isn't about boy racers at all-- although they seemed to have rattled you cage.
Enjoy your sense of legally executed and environmentally smug existence.
Those that have this sense of responsiblity are likely to have availed themselves of suitable gear to conserve, or even hypermile.
Your lockstep fashionability, however, is gruesomely described. I believe in the environment and have made suitable purchases to accommodate my beliefs. Having my mother in the bluetooth does zilch for me. Legal? Ohhhhhhhhhh suuuuuuuuuuuuuure. I'll do the speed limit. Of course! Give me a device that helps me do the speed limit!
Could be deeper than your trolling presumes. Consider that this outage comes after some of their exams were found to be scoring incorrectly. Perhaps what you're seeing is an actual (don't hold your breath) audit going on, as tests are vetted..... who knows, perhaps for the first time.
Would it change outcomes? We may never know. Too bad that they're not on the front line, trying to explain the outage after the first few hours. Perhaps there is chaos in the backroom, perhaps someone dug up their data lines with a trencher, but we just don't know. Perhaps a PR firm might be useful at this point, but when you're a cash cow, you need no PR. Right?
But you don't know. You speculate. You feed a meme that becomes kerosene on the fire of discontent.
You could be right. Nice guess. Until then, you're wrong.
I've resigned to pursue more time with my own interests, as a publicly known item from a public corporation. Why? I'd've gone insane staying where I was. The stock was tanking, the CEO was an idiot, and his management staff made Dilbert's PHB look like Navy Seals.
You speculate. You have no idea if he was sacked or just got tired or is giving grace time between Microsoft and his next gig, do you? There is a chance that he was sacked. The compelling question might be, what for? How many things can you be sacked for? This is a comparatively hierarchical organization, and so a C-level exec gets sacked for not going with the board, or not pleasing the CEO, or a 100 other reasons, maybe more.
To answer your question directly: not. The question cannot be answered, and especially within this context.
And his CFO leaving is just another CFO leaving in a chain of them going back decades. But it's an opportunity for people to heap on Microsoft, rail at Ballmer, do the death-watch thing, and so forth.
Ever exec that leaves Microsoft will twig the same response. Ignore lots of stuff, and hope for the big Redmond ideological crater. People are so predictable. Slashdot must have gotten several pageview spikes out of their past week posts about Microsoft. They learn from ZDNet.
If you're a CFO and you DON'T push financials to make your stock look good to the Wall Street overlords, you're not doing your job. Decided to take your cash and enjoy life? Then you'd be like thousands of Microsoft employees that became millionaires or more.
I'm not rationalizing the boorish and illegal things Microsoft has done. Rather, citing that this really isn't much news, but it's a boring period in the tech industry.
I think you're partially right. The great event cycle called: The Long Awaited Update! is over. The only slow operating system left is Solaris, which updates about once a decade. Now, no one waits at retail stores in tents any more.
Windows 8 is a yawn. There'll be an 8.1 or an SPsomething. Yawn. It's like waiting for Canonical to blurt yet another release of !!Ubuntu!!. Snore. Wait! iOS is coming out with 5.0.0.98.33.44.3.9! Gotta be better than 5.0.0.98.33.44.3.8! Gosh, I can't wait for the download for something else to break!
XP should be taken out back and buried. It has more patches than a hundred miles of hobos. It reminds me of a good game of Angry Birds, where the first bird chews up and collapses everything. Boom! That's what's left of XP. The whole kernel and every component is one huge freaking patch list as long as both your arms.
Change? At some point, it'll have a long deserved heart attack, and that'll be the end of it. It'll collapse in a heap on your hard drive. The regression testing for a single pass (if they still do them) must take months.
This is all the result of some pageview whores looking to stir up some hits in an otherwise pretty dull period. Yeah, people are buying tablets and smartphones. No doubt about it. Not buying Windows 8 because they're not strongly compelled.
So, they do the death watch, change the CEO trick, pile on the the horrible histories, bring up the traditional rivalries, and rake the muck.
That's you, ZDNet. You listening? Gonna put on the fishnet stockings and red lipstick again? You can do the same thing on Slashdot just by dissing all or any of the Sacred Cows here. The Google Ad revenues must have been stupendous.
Google added the USB-dongle called the YubiKey, which is "something you have" that can squirt a code for a second factor. I prefer not using my phone number either. There are other OpenID solutions possible as well-- that are datum-based, rather then some other ID field that ought not to be distributed.
I'll ignore lots, and say there are two or four strings of proteins. They're added and subtracted with various goo as things bind to them from external influence, or survive external influence.
There are strands, and some stands have affinities for various proteins to bind to them. Others will be rejected. Steven Jay Gould's _Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_ explains hows and whys very well.
I start the considered domain life as we know it, which can be devolved backwards a considerable distance, as referenced in the post. Seen going forward, you have four sets, A1, a1, B1, and b1, then the proteins, then delta T living inside of influencing domains comprised of ambient circumstances, so as to eradicate the impossible, up to the point of causing small-case bindings.
Eventually, you get to humanity, which considers such things, as opposed to dogs, who are interested in licking things, sleeping, and so forth.
We aren't the pinnacle of life, but we're completely involved in a sentient examination of how we got here. My algorithm is only slightly more complex than the one you state. We live long enough to mate, and we then communicate the next expression, and live only a short time after that, except where it helps the next generation mate, and so forth.
There is the history of the gene pool, time, pressure on affinity expressions and ones that can be communicated into a future generation. The next generation lives to spread the communication, or it's lost to the gene pool unless it is strong enough to be communicated again, by someone else.
There are many that can live, but cannot re-express. XYY combos are a good example.
There is a propensity, and there is change. There is survival of the fittest, but clearly what's fit is both accident (think Microsoft Windows success) and context.
There are four different base atoms, in basic protein configurations evolving from naught, and that's for what we know, not what we don't.
Some survived, some did not. All of them are dead, save for what we know these days. The oldest living creatures aren't that old. That means that the algorithm currently does not include everlasting life, various myths and faith in those myths notwithstanding.
Based on the evidence, some were clearly lucky, and others were not. They existed within a standard deviation, or didn't reproduce their kind with or without a change. Some life hasn't changed at all through millions and millions of successive generations. Some seem to adapt rapidly, in a few generations. Adaptation seems built into the algorithms as the ambient climate has changed radically over time as well.
Although correlation != causation, survival and adaptation seem to be built into current life forms, and adaptation will be needed as climate changes once again. Right now, the algorithm of humanity is being pushed like never before, because our survival rates are really high, and we're reproducing at unprecedented rates. Whatever adaptation and mutation rates that are comparatively a static part of the delta, are getting pushed like never before as well because of the expansion of the population.
When interpolated, you can go back to the Big Bang but going back that far is irrelevant to the conversation, because only at the point where life started is the algorithm set. Prior to that, it was a setup until whatever energy was exerted into it to push it into reality. Prior to that, it was all accidental pairing, unless you believe in the mythos.
It's both a mixed bag of problems. There is a lot of dark fiber that may never be lit up. The current providers are clueless for the large part, so huge CDNs now cache fat chunks of content. There are no delivery standards. There are no service standards. Most of the in situ telcos are interested in that good old "triple play" revenue, more if they can get it.
Sunk capital? Customer service? Actual PBX replacements for business customers? These guys are dolts on a good day,
There are a few community efforts that have performed well. See DigitalCommunities.com or look at http://www.lomalinda-ca.gov/asp/Site/LLCCP/ProgramInfo/FibertotheHome/index.asp for a few of the cities, regional governments, and others that have succeeded. But the regulation isn't at the state level. You shift the onus of outcomes by keeping the regulations, where necessary, as low on the food chain as is possible.
Conservative? You have no idea, but I'll leave your bad guess aside. I've watched it, through the entire process. There were 43 different regulatory authorities in the good old US of A. They were partially robbed by the TCA.
State regulators are enormously influenced by guidelines set by, that's right, state laws. Having watched these laws, personally, evolve since 1996, I can safely tell you that they are all over the map, and instead, the telcos spend their monies in Washington, where it's better invested for them.
The state of broadband in the US is simply abysmal on a good day, and the reasons are pretty simple: discontinuity and heavy lobbying.
State regulation is what gives the telcos tacit monopolies, and inability for regional and local government to manage their own communications utilities. Think of how free public wifi has been outlawed in numerous states after telcos effectively bribed the legislatures.
I'm in no way an anarchist, but the TCA was designed to yank as much state authority over datacom regulation and give it to a federal level. Look at how well that's worked in the US. The landline "owners" sell crappy DSL derivatives. Comcast/Xfinity & TW/BrightHouse get fat and happy, and offer tiered levels of crap. Verizon and a few others offer fiber, which uses passive 90/10 ratios so that users cannot become "dealers" in services. Google comes along and gives people raw fiber (90/10) and with breathtakingly little effort, scares the crap out of the in situ last-mile purveyors.
State regulation is BOUGHT and PAID FOR by the providers. Consumers were not the ones that made the purchase. I'm no libertarian, but truly, state regulation isn't the answer because the legislators are too easily bribed with campaign contributions, soft money, and other greasings of the legislative wheels.
And therein lies the rub. I like music recommendations from people, but until there's a business model for it, I don't think a relationship with Spotify, etc., is going to make it profitable for anyone. And if I get sponsored tweets from musical tastes that I don't care for, it devalues Twitter's effectiveness, limited as it is, in my life-- and others, I'll bet.
I understand the need for revenues, but I don't think this one makes sufficient money that overcomes the potential annoyance factor. We'll see.
Slashdot Mirror
Self-awareness is wonderful. But the criteria for judging that is as muddy as when live begins for purposes of abortion.
Robots are chattel. They can be bought and sold. They do not reproduce in the sense of "life". They could reproduce. Then they'd run out of resources after doing strange things with their environment, like we do. Dependencies then are the crux of ownership.
Robots follow instructions that react to their environment, subject to, as mentioned above, the random elements of the universe. I believe that their programmers are responsible for their behavior until they do pass a self-awareness and responsibility test. Then they're autonomous of their programmer. If you program machine gun bots for armies, then you'd better hope the army is doing the "right" thing, which I believe is impossible with such bots.
Once that environmental autonomy is achieved, they get rights associated with sentient responsible beings. Until then: chattel.
Which is why distributing through AWS also makes sense. Tumblr and others do the same thing. It's called: most efficient CDN you can construct. And with luck, it will eat Comcast/xFinity's lunch, along with a long list of broadband cable provider's meals. Yes, you still need the last mile. No, you don't need the goofy TV signal infrastructure at 720p on a good day. Free your cable: use all of the bandwidth for packets.
You mean "infecting" servers with router VM appliances that smoke government blocks by creating backdoor VPNs, proxies, shadow VLANs and stuff?
Never happens.
Sir, you can yell a lie, light the sky with a lie, and it is still: a lie.
The Emancipation Proclamation was written and pronounced in 1963. But the crux of war, slavery, was the PRIMARY reason for the conflict. Not secondary.... etc. Your teacher makes the error that it was an afterthought, when in need it was the basis.
You can USE LOUD WORDS. There are many things you can do, but your assertion is false. It will remain false. To start to understand, look at the wikepedia entry for Henry Clay. You'll start to see what happens.
Not sure what you're reading, or who's teaching it, but your facts are indeed wrong. I would suggest consulting other sources. Not sure why your classes are insistent on re-writing history.
The states that seceded from the Union knew that there would be a war over the secession. They, the business leaders in the US South, succeeded in convincing state governments to secede for both monetary reasons, and over ownership of other human beings as chattel. Because slaves were chattel, they could be murdered, mistreated, raped, torn from families, beaten, maimed, and worse. This was the primary reason; there were many secondary reasons as well.
It's an immoral choice, treating humans as chattel. The world takes a dim view of doing so. That fact is also in your history classes.
Your re-thinking of history is pretty much fact-free. Read the history and understand it for what it was. Get the facts and lose your hints, as they're both incorrect, and is the sort of thing that betrays the reality of the situation.
Perhaps your great grandfathers and uncles didn't fight or die in that war, and you're just pulling facts out of your hat.
Strictly speaking, your facts are both incorrect, and seditious.
You use a lot of communications phrases that indicate empirical generalisms. "Nobody" as an example.
We're unlikely to agree on much in this world. It's because somewhere along the line, you didn't get the skepticism gene. Not sure how, don't have time to research it, but this isn't about boy racers at all-- although they seemed to have rattled you cage.
Enjoy your sense of legally executed and environmentally smug existence.
Those that have this sense of responsiblity are likely to have availed themselves of suitable gear to conserve, or even hypermile.
Your lockstep fashionability, however, is gruesomely described. I believe in the environment and have made suitable purchases to accommodate my beliefs. Having my mother in the bluetooth does zilch for me. Legal? Ohhhhhhhhhh suuuuuuuuuuuuuure. I'll do the speed limit. Of course! Give me a device that helps me do the speed limit!
It's called a speedometer.
It's got nothing to do with penis size.
This thing is like having your mother in the front seat again, years later.
With all due respect to my mother, not gonna happen. This device is doomed like wet bacon.
Could be deeper than your trolling presumes. Consider that this outage comes after some of their exams were found to be scoring incorrectly. Perhaps what you're seeing is an actual (don't hold your breath) audit going on, as tests are vetted..... who knows, perhaps for the first time.
Would it change outcomes? We may never know. Too bad that they're not on the front line, trying to explain the outage after the first few hours. Perhaps there is chaos in the backroom, perhaps someone dug up their data lines with a trencher, but we just don't know. Perhaps a PR firm might be useful at this point, but when you're a cash cow, you need no PR. Right?
We're looking at YOU, Taco Bell.
I'm well aware of PR-speak, and its connotations.
But you don't know. You speculate. You feed a meme that becomes kerosene on the fire of discontent.
You could be right. Nice guess. Until then, you're wrong.
I've resigned to pursue more time with my own interests, as a publicly known item from a public corporation. Why? I'd've gone insane staying where I was. The stock was tanking, the CEO was an idiot, and his management staff made Dilbert's PHB look like Navy Seals.
You speculate. You have no idea if he was sacked or just got tired or is giving grace time between Microsoft and his next gig, do you? There is a chance that he was sacked. The compelling question might be, what for? How many things can you be sacked for? This is a comparatively hierarchical organization, and so a C-level exec gets sacked for not going with the board, or not pleasing the CEO, or a 100 other reasons, maybe more.
To answer your question directly: not. The question cannot be answered, and especially within this context.
And his CFO leaving is just another CFO leaving in a chain of them going back decades. But it's an opportunity for people to heap on Microsoft, rail at Ballmer, do the death-watch thing, and so forth.
Ever exec that leaves Microsoft will twig the same response. Ignore lots of stuff, and hope for the big Redmond ideological crater. People are so predictable. Slashdot must have gotten several pageview spikes out of their past week posts about Microsoft. They learn from ZDNet.
If you're a CFO and you DON'T push financials to make your stock look good to the Wall Street overlords, you're not doing your job. Decided to take your cash and enjoy life? Then you'd be like thousands of Microsoft employees that became millionaires or more.
I'm not rationalizing the boorish and illegal things Microsoft has done. Rather, citing that this really isn't much news, but it's a boring period in the tech industry.
I think you're partially right. The great event cycle called: The Long Awaited Update! is over. The only slow operating system left is Solaris, which updates about once a decade. Now, no one waits at retail stores in tents any more.
Windows 8 is a yawn. There'll be an 8.1 or an SPsomething. Yawn. It's like waiting for Canonical to blurt yet another release of !!Ubuntu!!. Snore. Wait! iOS is coming out with 5.0.0.98.33.44.3.9! Gotta be better than 5.0.0.98.33.44.3.8! Gosh, I can't wait for the download for something else to break!
XP should be taken out back and buried. It has more patches than a hundred miles of hobos. It reminds me of a good game of Angry Birds, where the first bird chews up and collapses everything. Boom! That's what's left of XP. The whole kernel and every component is one huge freaking patch list as long as both your arms.
Change? At some point, it'll have a long deserved heart attack, and that'll be the end of it. It'll collapse in a heap on your hard drive. The regression testing for a single pass (if they still do them) must take months.
Right.
What part of Windows is Dying, Click Here! did you miss?
This is all the result of some pageview whores looking to stir up some hits in an otherwise pretty dull period. Yeah, people are buying tablets and smartphones. No doubt about it. Not buying Windows 8 because they're not strongly compelled.
So, they do the death watch, change the CEO trick, pile on the the horrible histories, bring up the traditional rivalries, and rake the muck.
That's you, ZDNet. You listening? Gonna put on the fishnet stockings and red lipstick again? You can do the same thing on Slashdot just by dissing all or any of the Sacred Cows here. The Google Ad revenues must have been stupendous.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Google added the USB-dongle called the YubiKey, which is "something you have" that can squirt a code for a second factor. I prefer not using my phone number either. There are other OpenID solutions possible as well-- that are datum-based, rather then some other ID field that ought not to be distributed.
I'll ignore lots, and say there are two or four strings of proteins. They're added and subtracted with various goo as things bind to them from external influence, or survive external influence.
There are strands, and some stands have affinities for various proteins to bind to them. Others will be rejected. Steven Jay Gould's _Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_ explains hows and whys very well.
I start the considered domain life as we know it, which can be devolved backwards a considerable distance, as referenced in the post. Seen going forward, you have four sets, A1, a1, B1, and b1, then the proteins, then delta T living inside of influencing domains comprised of ambient circumstances, so as to eradicate the impossible, up to the point of causing small-case bindings.
Eventually, you get to humanity, which considers such things, as opposed to dogs, who are interested in licking things, sleeping, and so forth.
We aren't the pinnacle of life, but we're completely involved in a sentient examination of how we got here. My algorithm is only slightly more complex than the one you state. We live long enough to mate, and we then communicate the next expression, and live only a short time after that, except where it helps the next generation mate, and so forth.
There is the history of the gene pool, time, pressure on affinity expressions and ones that can be communicated into a future generation. The next generation lives to spread the communication, or it's lost to the gene pool unless it is strong enough to be communicated again, by someone else.
There are many that can live, but cannot re-express. XYY combos are a good example.
You're thinking state, not delta.
There is a propensity, and there is change. There is survival of the fittest, but clearly what's fit is both accident (think Microsoft Windows success) and context.
There are four different base atoms, in basic protein configurations evolving from naught, and that's for what we know, not what we don't.
Some survived, some did not. All of them are dead, save for what we know these days. The oldest living creatures aren't that old. That means that the algorithm currently does not include everlasting life, various myths and faith in those myths notwithstanding.
Based on the evidence, some were clearly lucky, and others were not. They existed within a standard deviation, or didn't reproduce their kind with or without a change. Some life hasn't changed at all through millions and millions of successive generations. Some seem to adapt rapidly, in a few generations. Adaptation seems built into the algorithms as the ambient climate has changed radically over time as well.
Although correlation != causation, survival and adaptation seem to be built into current life forms, and adaptation will be needed as climate changes once again. Right now, the algorithm of humanity is being pushed like never before, because our survival rates are really high, and we're reproducing at unprecedented rates. Whatever adaptation and mutation rates that are comparatively a static part of the delta, are getting pushed like never before as well because of the expansion of the population.
When interpolated, you can go back to the Big Bang but going back that far is irrelevant to the conversation, because only at the point where life started is the algorithm set. Prior to that, it was a setup until whatever energy was exerted into it to push it into reality. Prior to that, it was all accidental pairing, unless you believe in the mythos.
But if you think like Wolfram, it's all an algorithm, and this reductionist algorithm is the basis in the post.
Natural? Deific? Does it matter? It is, what it is.
It's both a mixed bag of problems. There is a lot of dark fiber that may never be lit up. The current providers are clueless for the large part, so huge CDNs now cache fat chunks of content. There are no delivery standards. There are no service standards. Most of the in situ telcos are interested in that good old "triple play" revenue, more if they can get it.
Sunk capital? Customer service? Actual PBX replacements for business customers? These guys are dolts on a good day,
There are a few community efforts that have performed well. See DigitalCommunities.com or look at http://www.lomalinda-ca.gov/asp/Site/LLCCP/ProgramInfo/FibertotheHome/index.asp for a few of the cities, regional governments, and others that have succeeded. But the regulation isn't at the state level. You shift the onus of outcomes by keeping the regulations, where necessary, as low on the food chain as is possible.
Conservative? You have no idea, but I'll leave your bad guess aside. I've watched it, through the entire process. There were 43 different regulatory authorities in the good old US of A. They were partially robbed by the TCA.
State regulators are enormously influenced by guidelines set by, that's right, state laws. Having watched these laws, personally, evolve since 1996, I can safely tell you that they are all over the map, and instead, the telcos spend their monies in Washington, where it's better invested for them.
The state of broadband in the US is simply abysmal on a good day, and the reasons are pretty simple: discontinuity and heavy lobbying.
State regulation is what gives the telcos tacit monopolies, and inability for regional and local government to manage their own communications utilities. Think of how free public wifi has been outlawed in numerous states after telcos effectively bribed the legislatures.
I'm in no way an anarchist, but the TCA was designed to yank as much state authority over datacom regulation and give it to a federal level. Look at how well that's worked in the US. The landline "owners" sell crappy DSL derivatives. Comcast/Xfinity & TW/BrightHouse get fat and happy, and offer tiered levels of crap. Verizon and a few others offer fiber, which uses passive 90/10 ratios so that users cannot become "dealers" in services. Google comes along and gives people raw fiber (90/10) and with breathtakingly little effort, scares the crap out of the in situ last-mile purveyors.
State regulation is BOUGHT and PAID FOR by the providers. Consumers were not the ones that made the purchase. I'm no libertarian, but truly, state regulation isn't the answer because the legislators are too easily bribed with campaign contributions, soft money, and other greasings of the legislative wheels.
And therein lies the rub. I like music recommendations from people, but until there's a business model for it, I don't think a relationship with Spotify, etc., is going to make it profitable for anyone. And if I get sponsored tweets from musical tastes that I don't care for, it devalues Twitter's effectiveness, limited as it is, in my life-- and others, I'll bet.
I understand the need for revenues, but I don't think this one makes sufficient money that overcomes the potential annoyance factor. We'll see.