An assumption is that robots will not have sophisticated AI and will always need a human to manage it. What happens when the AI is able to manage it and has no need for human managers or a corporation?
Suppose the self driving car is able to act as a self contained corporation, earn it's own profit, pay for it's own repairs, hire or pay for it's own new designs based on data it and it's clones collected from passengers?
The problem is either going to be "who owns the robots" or "who pays the taxes". Human beings don't want to pay taxes but don't want robots to pay taxes because a very small group of humans expect to own in concentrated fashion the robots which they don't want taxes.
But there is no technical reason why robots require human owners. An autonomous agent which can take on all the functions of those humans need not even be very smart or sophisticated to have the ability to interact as a self contained business or individual economic unit.
This is what they are paid ot do. They should study stuff like this and find ways to prevent terrorism.
There are always going to be users of anything good whether it be Bitcoin or the Internet, who will try to exploit or abuse the tool.
There are cults and terrorists out there. There are sex traffickers out there. These sorts of tools may empower them so what is wrong with studying that?
I'm sure other governments are studying how to use Bitcoin for cyberwarfare or for state sponsored terrorism so of course the United States should be looking at how to defend itself.
So I agree that the US government along with many others should be studying exactly this sorta thing.
Studying it is better than banning it. They have a certain mission and their job is to deal with warfare. The rest of us don't have to be concerned with war and terrorism 24/7.
But let's not pretend like there wont someday be a gang of terrorists who try to use Bitcoin because that is bound to happen someday. The better it is studied the more likely terrorism can be stopped.
Bitcoin is already divisible so there are more Bitcoins than dollars. Mining will cause more to generate far into the future so what are you talking about?
All it would do is result in a new proof of work for Bitcoin which is probably a good thing anyway. The real question is whether or not it will effect Mastercoin?
Seems we need reminding of this classic by Ken Thompson.
Slip a backdoor into a RHEL 6.x (or any other major Linux distribution) version of GCC and make it do two major things: 1. Slip a backdoor into any Linux kernel it compiles. 2. Replicate itself in any version of GCC it compiles.
Choose some entry point which changes very rarely so the chances of incompatibility with new code is small.
This would probably keep RHEL with any kernel version tainted for generations of releases without very little chance of being spotted, because there are no changes in the distributed source code of either project
... can't tell the difference between humour and reality.
Torvalds said no while nodding his head yes is a JOKE people, not a fucking admission. Please, save the tinfoil paranoia for Reddit, and keep the serious tech discussions here.
Obviously it's a joke. It's not like anyone would admit something like that.
It's unlikely that such a backdoor, should it exist, would be coded so obviously, since the source is published. Instead, it would more likely be in the form of a subtle buffer overflow that results in previlige escalation or such, such that when found, it could simply be labeled as a bug rather than an backdoor... plausible deniability.
it depends on how it's coded. It's possible to code it in such a way that it's impossible to find by anyone but the person coding it. You gotta trust your programmer as much as you trust your doctor.
The US uses chemical weapons too. I don't see the big deal. We pepper sovereign nations with depleted uranium and bomb people with white phospher. I'd say that qualifies under the definition of chemical weapons. If not, then certainly under other horrifying definitions.
In any case, when comparing other humanitarian causes to that of Syria, the ones in Africa are far worse and simply go ignored. I am doubly amazed. I am amazed that the US government can offer the causes they do with a straight face and I am amazed that people seriously buy into it.
When the US uses chemical weapons on you, then its a big deal?
Treason is a very useful concept that has a very specific definition and applicability.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The quintessential US traitor, Benedict Arnold delivered troop strength and locations to the enemy during an actual war. I'd say that is a pretty clear example of treason.
If you use that example to draw your line, nothing Snowden has released to date gets anywhere near it. You could perhaps make a case for espionage, but this doesn't look like treason at all. If Snowden went to Afghanistan and started telling the enemy where US troops were, that would cross your line. Treason involves actually waging war against the US or conspiring with the enemy of the US. Exposing state secrets (of dubious legality, or that are simply embarrassing) is pretty hard to construe as "levying War against [the United States]," and only in the most vague and meaningless way, "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
.
I said that you were implying that he committed treason because your post reads as though you feel he's crossed that line long ago and you're wondering what it will take for his dim-witted supporters to finally reach that conclusion. It seems like "asking a question" in the way that talk radio guy (whose name I can't remember for the life of me right now) "only asks questions".
I'm no Snowden Supporter, but I do appreciate having this dirty laundry aired so that we can finally start making real steps toward having a less abusive government. If we make telling the US citizens what their government is doing treason, then it will take longer than decades for us to leash this beast.
I'm not implying anything by asking the question. Asking the question allows me to find out where everyone draws the line and where everyone is at. We all draw the line at a difference place. I never said Snowden was guilty of treason but some people think he is. I would say for certain he's guilty of espionage, and he looks like he's passing information to the Russians and Chinese because why else would he place himself in those countries?
That is my opinion. If what he did results in an end to the abuse of NSA power then I will admit that he was right to take the actions he decided to take. I'm skeptical that what he did will end the abuses of power because he hasn't really exposed anything clearly abusive or illegal. The best thing that can come from this is perhaps a deeper congressional and senate investigation which finds actual abuses and then greater oversight on the NSA and on all intelligence agencies around the world.
I will let the outcomes decide whether or not his actions were justified. To me it's not just about the NSA either, it's about all abusive intelligence agencies. They all seem to be allowed to abuse their power over citizens with complete impunity. At this time based on the current outcome I'm very skeptical of Snowdens motives, and he has released a lot of classified information which appears politically motivated which had nothing to do with abuses or crimes.
So at this moment I don't view his actions as justified and cannot consider myself a Snowden supporter. I'm not in a position to know what options he had working for the NSA to report abuses or crimes. It could have been a situation where he had no one to report it to, but even if that were the case he could have released it to congress and senate instead of the media, unless we are to believe that the NSA controls the congress and senate too?
My current conclusion on Snowden is that he's motivated by ideology and politics. It is unclear to me that any abuses have been uncovered and ended or that any civil liberties or rights have been protected by his actions. I don't understand what he is actually accomplishing, but it does not match up with what he claimed he was trying to accomplish to the p
I've seen federal contractors job postings for some positions that say, "Security Clearance Required, no experience necessary" with a giant starting salary because they really don't want to pay for clearances.
Yeah but that is for desperate out of work people who happen to have a clearance. In this economy there will always be people who are desperate for work.
This is what happens when there's a culture of not paying enough for your own techs, and paying really well to external contractors---usually on a term basis, so nobody has to live with the screw up beyond the life of the project.
Exactly. No one wants to be in bed with the government, it's just project by project and contract by contract because anything else would be too expensive. They don't have enough money to develop everything in house.
Government does not have the money or expertise to do it themselves.
Does not have the money? Are you daft? The US Government controls the supply of the world's reserve currency. You know, the stuff that everyone on the planet wants. If they want to create more money to pay for something they can simply promise the Fed that they will pay them back and the Fed will credit their bank account with however much they want to spend. For now at least, there's hardly a bank on Earth that wouldn't accept electronic wire from the Fed or through a US bank that will for payment or transfer.
What I mean is no one wants to be a government employee. People will accept contracting out to them but no one wants to be them.
So they have to hire contractors because it's the cheapest way. If they had to hire people they'd have to pay a lot more than if they pay a contractor and develop everything in house.
And that was the 1960s. How do you know you don't have a file? If you have skills and an education its a near certainty that they have a file on you. If you're politically active they definitely do.
How do you know the FBI doesn't already have a file on each of us going back 15 years? How do you know they don't just have it sitting in databases and decide to simply look it up when they are authorized?
Take the tinfoil hat off. This is the same US government that loses hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue annually because they don't even have a system to track your W-2 statements automatically for tax purposes. But you think they have a 15 year file with everything online about 300 million citizens? Why bother with that if you can't even make people pay taxes?
Yes, we all think modern government surveillance is creepy and illegal, but let's not give the government more credit for intelligence or reach than it is actually due. The government has neither unlimited money or unlimited access, despite what Slashthink tells you.
The FBI had a file on Martin Luther King and others involved with the civil rights movement going back for almost a decade in the 60s. They probably have files on anyone involved with any sort of movement today just as they did in the 60s.
If its large enough to warrant Amazon hiring people for a 'private' cloud, its damn sure large enough to do it yourself and cut out the half assed middle man better known as Amazon.
Their 'cloud' is by far the most expensive, poorest performing, highest downtime 'cloud' I've ever seen. You have to be a rather large moron to buy compute from Amazon. You want to serve files with S3, okay, its not 'the worst' so I can understand that choice, but as far as compute is concerned, they are the worst of the worst.
Government does not have the money or expertise to do it themselves.
Agreeing to take the polygraph is like agreeing to be tortured and to be subjected to the falsifciations of results by the "test" givers. Anyone who demands a polygraph as a requirement of employment is not a fit person to breathe, much less work for.
while CI looks at whether or not you'd be the type of guy (like Snowden) who'd sell US secrets to someone that wasn't an American.
Pretty sure Snowden could have honestly replied to any questions that made him sound like a spy.
Or is a standard question... "If you found out your the entire apparatus of your employer up to the very top was corrupt and conducting illegal acts, and then lying to Congress about it. Would you keep quiet and participate in those criminal acts in violation of the law and the constitution?
Lol... reminds me of those ethics tests they make people take for retail jobs. Where the "right" answers are to be a sociopath freak.
"Suppose there is a coworker you were friends with, lived through a kidnapping with, and who is the god parent to your children and the best man at your wedding, and is in your opinion an excellent employee. Now if they were in a car accident, and he's running a touch late. He calls you from the parking lot as he's rushing in and asks you to punch them in so they would not appear to be late... would you: a) clock him in early b) stay out of it c) promptly report that he asked you to clock him in on time to your manager, and testify for the company against him when we sue him for the attempt to commit fraud?
Company Answer sheet: a = wrong answer, automatic fail, and you are a worthless criminal b = wrong answer c = correct, this is the exactly the kind of people we want as employees. Just think, your new boss passed this test!! We bet you are looking to work with such ethical people!
My understanding of it is that Security Clearances are about war. There is a chain of command, and ethics usually come in second to winning the war because being dead and ethical isn't as good as being alive and unethical in the context of a war.
The other problem is the fog of war, if everything is compartmentalized then how can you know what is or isn't ethical in a situation when the information you have is incomplete and "need to know".
Slashdot Mirror
An assumption is that robots will not have sophisticated AI and will always need a human to manage it. What happens when the AI is able to manage it and has no need for human managers or a corporation?
Suppose the self driving car is able to act as a self contained corporation, earn it's own profit, pay for it's own repairs, hire or pay for it's own new designs based on data it and it's clones collected from passengers?
The problem is either going to be "who owns the robots" or "who pays the taxes". Human beings don't want to pay taxes but don't want robots to pay taxes because a very small group of humans expect to own in concentrated fashion the robots which they don't want taxes.
But there is no technical reason why robots require human owners. An autonomous agent which can take on all the functions of those humans need not even be very smart or sophisticated to have the ability to interact as a self contained business or individual economic unit.
They are investigating how Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies can be abused. Isn't that exactly what they should be investigating?
Bitcoin is not illegal, they aren't banning or criminalizing it. Terrorist finance doesn't benefit any of us.
This is what they are paid ot do. They should study stuff like this and find ways to prevent terrorism.
There are always going to be users of anything good whether it be Bitcoin or the Internet, who will try to exploit or abuse the tool.
There are cults and terrorists out there. There are sex traffickers out there. These sorts of tools may empower them so what is wrong with studying that?
I'm sure other governments are studying how to use Bitcoin for cyberwarfare or for state sponsored terrorism so of course the United States should be looking at how to defend itself.
So I agree that the US government along with many others should be studying exactly this sorta thing.
Studying it is better than banning it. They have a certain mission and their job is to deal with warfare. The rest of us don't have to be concerned with war and terrorism 24/7.
But let's not pretend like there wont someday be a gang of terrorists who try to use Bitcoin because that is bound to happen someday. The better it is studied the more likely terrorism can be stopped.
Because I can't see these kinds of shoes being the type we could wear on airplanes.
Bitcoin is already divisible so there are more Bitcoins than dollars. Mining will cause more to generate far into the future so what are you talking about?
The NSA puts too much trust in it's employees obviously.
And that will eventually replace everything else.
Well it could be BTC Guild anyway.
All it would do is result in a new proof of work for Bitcoin which is probably a good thing anyway.
The real question is whether or not it will effect Mastercoin?
Because that is what matters most.
Seems we need reminding of this classic by Ken Thompson.
Slip a backdoor into a RHEL 6.x (or any other major Linux distribution) version of GCC and make it do two major things:
1. Slip a backdoor into any Linux kernel it compiles.
2. Replicate itself in any version of GCC it compiles.
Choose some entry point which changes very rarely so the chances of incompatibility with new code is small.
This would probably keep RHEL with any kernel version tainted for generations of releases without very little chance of being spotted, because there are no changes in the distributed source code of either project
Or bugs in the random number generator.
... can't tell the difference between humour and reality.
Torvalds said no while nodding his head yes is a JOKE people, not a fucking admission. Please, save the tinfoil paranoia for Reddit, and keep the serious tech discussions here.
Obviously it's a joke. It's not like anyone would admit something like that.
It's unlikely that such a backdoor, should it exist, would be coded so obviously, since the source is published. Instead, it would more likely be in the form of a subtle buffer overflow that results in previlige escalation or such, such that when found, it could simply be labeled as a bug rather than an backdoor... plausible deniability.
Exactly.
it depends on how it's coded. It's possible to code it in such a way that it's impossible to find by anyone but the person coding it. You gotta trust your programmer as much as you trust your doctor.
The US uses chemical weapons too. I don't see the big deal. We pepper sovereign nations with depleted uranium and bomb people with white phospher. I'd say that qualifies under the definition of chemical weapons. If not, then certainly under other horrifying definitions.
In any case, when comparing other humanitarian causes to that of Syria, the ones in Africa are far worse and simply go ignored. I am doubly amazed. I am amazed that the US government can offer the causes they do with a straight face and I am amazed that people seriously buy into it.
When the US uses chemical weapons on you, then its a big deal?
Until we can donate with Bitcoins how serious should we take all these pro Bitcoin articles if the site itself doesn't trust the technology?
Treason is a very useful concept that has a very specific definition and applicability.
The quintessential US traitor, Benedict Arnold delivered troop strength and locations to the enemy during an actual war. I'd say that is a pretty clear example of treason.
If you use that example to draw your line, nothing Snowden has released to date gets anywhere near it. You could perhaps make a case for espionage, but this doesn't look like treason at all. If Snowden went to Afghanistan and started telling the enemy where US troops were, that would cross your line. Treason involves actually waging war against the US or conspiring with the enemy of the US. Exposing state secrets (of dubious legality, or that are simply embarrassing) is pretty hard to construe as "levying War against [the United States]," and only in the most vague and meaningless way, "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
.
I said that you were implying that he committed treason because your post reads as though you feel he's crossed that line long ago and you're wondering what it will take for his dim-witted supporters to finally reach that conclusion. It seems like "asking a question" in the way that talk radio guy (whose name I can't remember for the life of me right now) "only asks questions".
I'm no Snowden Supporter, but I do appreciate having this dirty laundry aired so that we can finally start making real steps toward having a less abusive government. If we make telling the US citizens what their government is doing treason, then it will take longer than decades for us to leash this beast.
I'm not implying anything by asking the question. Asking the question allows me to find out where everyone draws the line and where everyone is at. We all draw the line at a difference place. I never said Snowden was guilty of treason but some people think he is. I would say for certain he's guilty of espionage, and he looks like he's passing information to the Russians and Chinese because why else would he place himself in those countries?
That is my opinion. If what he did results in an end to the abuse of NSA power then I will admit that he was right to take the actions he decided to take. I'm skeptical that what he did will end the abuses of power because he hasn't really exposed anything clearly abusive or illegal. The best thing that can come from this is perhaps a deeper congressional and senate investigation which finds actual abuses and then greater oversight on the NSA and on all intelligence agencies around the world.
I will let the outcomes decide whether or not his actions were justified. To me it's not just about the NSA either, it's about all abusive intelligence agencies. They all seem to be allowed to abuse their power over citizens with complete impunity. At this time based on the current outcome I'm very skeptical of Snowdens motives, and he has released a lot of classified information which appears politically motivated which had nothing to do with abuses or crimes.
So at this moment I don't view his actions as justified and cannot consider myself a Snowden supporter. I'm not in a position to know what options he had working for the NSA to report abuses or crimes. It could have been a situation where he had no one to report it to, but even if that were the case he could have released it to congress and senate instead of the media, unless we are to believe that the NSA controls the congress and senate too?
My current conclusion on Snowden is that he's motivated by ideology and politics. It is unclear to me that any abuses have been uncovered and ended or that any civil liberties or rights have been protected by his actions. I don't understand what he is actually accomplishing, but it does not match up with what he claimed he was trying to accomplish to the p
I've seen federal contractors job postings for some positions that say, "Security Clearance Required, no experience necessary" with a giant starting salary because they really don't want to pay for clearances.
Yeah but that is for desperate out of work people who happen to have a clearance. In this economy there will always be people who are desperate for work.
This is what happens when there's a culture of not paying enough for your own techs, and paying really well to external contractors---usually on a term basis, so nobody has to live with the screw up beyond the life of the project.
Exactly. No one wants to be in bed with the government, it's just project by project and contract by contract because anything else would be too expensive. They don't have enough money to develop everything in house.
Government does not have the money or expertise to do it themselves.
Does not have the money? Are you daft? The US Government controls the supply of the world's reserve currency. You know, the stuff that everyone on the planet wants. If they want to create more money to pay for something they can simply promise the Fed that they will pay them back and the Fed will credit their bank account with however much they want to spend. For now at least, there's hardly a bank on Earth that wouldn't accept electronic wire from the Fed or through a US bank that will for payment or transfer.
What I mean is no one wants to be a government employee. People will accept contracting out to them but no one wants to be them.
So they have to hire contractors because it's the cheapest way. If they had to hire people they'd have to pay a lot more than if they pay a contractor and develop everything in house.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/j-edgar-hoover-war-martin-luther-king
And that was the 1960s. How do you know you don't have a file? If you have skills and an education its a near certainty that they have a file on you. If you're politically active they definitely do.
How do you know the FBI doesn't already have a file on each of us going back 15 years? How do you know they don't just have it sitting in databases and decide to simply look it up when they are authorized?
Take the tinfoil hat off. This is the same US government that loses hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue annually because they don't even have a system to track your W-2 statements automatically for tax purposes. But you think they have a 15 year file with everything online about 300 million citizens? Why bother with that if you can't even make people pay taxes?
Yes, we all think modern government surveillance is creepy and illegal, but let's not give the government more credit for intelligence or reach than it is actually due. The government has neither unlimited money or unlimited access, despite what Slashthink tells you.
The FBI had a file on Martin Luther King and others involved with the civil rights movement going back for almost a decade in the 60s. They probably have files on anyone involved with any sort of movement today just as they did in the 60s.
is utterly fucking retarded.
If its large enough to warrant Amazon hiring people for a 'private' cloud, its damn sure large enough to do it yourself and cut out the half assed middle man better known as Amazon.
Their 'cloud' is by far the most expensive, poorest performing, highest downtime 'cloud' I've ever seen. You have to be a rather large moron to buy compute from Amazon. You want to serve files with S3, okay, its not 'the worst' so I can understand that choice, but as far as compute is concerned, they are the worst of the worst.
Government does not have the money or expertise to do it themselves.
Agreeing to take the polygraph is like agreeing to be tortured and to be subjected to the falsifciations of results by the "test" givers. Anyone who demands a polygraph as a requirement of employment is not a fit person to breathe, much less work for.
So just don't apply for the job?
while CI looks at whether or not you'd be the type of guy (like Snowden) who'd sell US secrets to someone that wasn't an American.
Pretty sure Snowden could have honestly replied to any questions that made him sound like a spy.
Or is a standard question... "If you found out your the entire apparatus of your employer up to the very top was corrupt and conducting illegal acts, and then lying to Congress about it. Would you keep quiet and participate in those criminal acts in violation of the law and the constitution?
Lol... reminds me of those ethics tests they make people take for retail jobs. Where the "right" answers are to be a sociopath freak.
"Suppose there is a coworker you were friends with, lived through a kidnapping with, and who is the god parent to your children and the best man at your wedding, and is in your opinion an excellent employee. Now if they were in a car accident, and he's running a touch late. He calls you from the parking lot as he's rushing in and asks you to punch them in so they would not appear to be late... would you:
a) clock him in early
b) stay out of it
c) promptly report that he asked you to clock him in on time to your manager, and testify for the company against him when we sue him for the attempt to commit fraud?
Company Answer sheet:
a = wrong answer, automatic fail, and you are a worthless criminal
b = wrong answer
c = correct, this is the exactly the kind of people we want as employees. Just think, your new boss passed this test!! We bet you are looking to work with such ethical people!
My understanding of it is that Security Clearances are about war. There is a chain of command, and ethics usually come in second to winning the war because being dead and ethical isn't as good as being alive and unethical in the context of a war.
The other problem is the fog of war, if everything is compartmentalized then how can you know what is or isn't ethical in a situation when the information you have is incomplete and "need to know".