This is a limit-argument in the sense of a mathematical limit for time towards infinity. There is no reason to believe it is accurate in physical reality. It additionally assumes that if you simulate a human being perfectly, you get the same human being as an earlier copy, and that such a simulation is possible in the first place. It is only if you assume physicalism as ground truth, yet there is no valid scientific reason to do so. In fact, there are a number of unsolved problems with physicalism.
Note that I do not see the variant where religion has hijacked dualism as an alternative: That is a pure result of human shortcomings. Dualism does not need religious ideas in any way. But assuming physicalism is true is not science, but belief, and as such a fundamentally religious thing to do. The current scientific state of the dualism vs. physicalism problem is simple "we do not know", with some indicators pointing to dualism, but nothing solid.
Hence, while it is decidedly possible that the physical universe is a simulation, things are much, much murkier when you add human beings as objects of that simulation and the argument made by Mr. Tyson is actually not a good one at all.
In the EU, they have relatively low maximum noise levels, required by law. You can set many of them to US though, and then are able to deafen yourself again. I know, because sometimes I hear music over sound-dampening earplugs (-35dB) if some environmental noise really annoys me. With EU settings, not a chance. US settings will happily deliver something that is loud even in this situation.
Indeed. It is a bit like people that self-prescribe contact-lenses. That is not a good idea at all and can have very serious negative consequences, as the regular checks you should do are there to catch problems before the patient notices. AFAIK, the results were generally so bad that you cannot get lenses without a prescription in the US.
But remember the electrodes have only 15-20 years lifetime and then need replacement. As soon as they become permanent, things get more interesting. But that could be a while, considering that they have been at it for nearly 50 years.
They do solve this problem, even if they currently still need a driver. The problem is that most cities without a well-working public transit system are lacking vision and/or money. But there really is no need for "self driving buses" to implement working, efficient and reliable public transportation.
Ah, no. The primary purpose what obviously to get a gigantic pile of money to certain companies and people and that goal has been accomplished. Or do you think they will have to take back their defective product?
I fully agree, in particular to your last paragraph. But I think it is even worse: Many of those people destroy productivity by hindering the few that are still productive, e.g. by establishing bureaucracies. My personal estimate is that we have now something like 1 in 8 people actually having positive productivity and the rest "work" at reducing that and destroying that productivity partially. Just make sure the seven incapable ones never "work", and _everybody_ is better off!
From experience at my job, 90% of people getting the f*** out of the way and stop preventing me from being efficient by endless meetings, bureaucracy, pushing stupid agendas, needing obvious things explained to them, preventing me from using the best tools for a job, etc. would increase my efficiency massively. I would pay extra to have these people stop "working", because all they do is destroy the productivity of the few that are actually solving problems and building things. With a basic income, they would lose the excuses to do that.
This stops working when you do not need the workers anymore, or, worse, cannot afford them because the competition has moved to all-automation. At that time, getting money to the people anyhow will become a question of survival for capitalism (and society as a whole): If people cannot buy stuff, then nobody can sell stuff and everything collapses.
Long-term there is no alternative anyways. Many people cannot be productive these days and the jobs wasting productivity by others (bureaucracy), serving fast-food without actually creating value, etc. are limited. This will get much, much worse as automation and productivity per competent worker increases even further.
In the end, it is either some form of basic income that is enough to live reasonably or collapse of society. And the earlier the right parameters are determined, the less risky the switch-over will be.
The real problem is that as soon as they get away with such underhanded techniques against CP, they will apply them to other things, and eventually to political dissenters and people they simply do not like. This is not about protecting children at all or they would invest all that effort into finding the people that actually made the material in question, instead of going for the easy targets. Law enforcement must be regularly and strongly reminded that the law applies to them as well and they must be limited in what they can do.
Of course, an alternative here would be to allow the evidence and to send the FBI agents in question to prison for, say, 2-3 years each for the misuse of the warrant.
This is a person with no connection to reality, an over-active fantasy and, unfortunately, a gift for convincing others. Would probably have had a great career as politician, priest, marketeer or con-man. This way, he just looks stupid.
The claim was "security researcher", not "crypto researcher". And no, there are applied cryptographic researchers as well and they are not usually mathematicians. Incidentally, you get theoretical CS folks in theoretical crypto research as well. Your world-view is a little more black-and-white than the actual thing is.
You seem to have no idea what you are talking about. Sure, he is not a researcher into mathematical cryptography these days (and no, he is not a "crypto math" guy at all, he is a journalist by training), but security is a far, far wider field and he is doing research in that wider field.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a limit-argument in the sense of a mathematical limit for time towards infinity. There is no reason to believe it is accurate in physical reality. It additionally assumes that if you simulate a human being perfectly, you get the same human being as an earlier copy, and that such a simulation is possible in the first place. It is only if you assume physicalism as ground truth, yet there is no valid scientific reason to do so. In fact, there are a number of unsolved problems with physicalism.
Note that I do not see the variant where religion has hijacked dualism as an alternative: That is a pure result of human shortcomings. Dualism does not need religious ideas in any way. But assuming physicalism is true is not science, but belief, and as such a fundamentally religious thing to do. The current scientific state of the dualism vs. physicalism problem is simple "we do not know", with some indicators pointing to dualism, but nothing solid.
Hence, while it is decidedly possible that the physical universe is a simulation, things are much, much murkier when you add human beings as objects of that simulation and the argument made by Mr. Tyson is actually not a good one at all.
For example, in the recent original /. story...
R&D, testing of the patient's problem, adjustment, etc. are what drives cost. Remember that an iPhone has parts for something like $150.
In the EU, they have relatively low maximum noise levels, required by law. You can set many of them to US though, and then are able to deafen yourself again. I know, because sometimes I hear music over sound-dampening earplugs (-35dB) if some environmental noise really annoys me. With EU settings, not a chance. US settings will happily deliver something that is loud even in this situation.
Indeed. It is a bit like people that self-prescribe contact-lenses. That is not a good idea at all and can have very serious negative consequences, as the regular checks you should do are there to catch problems before the patient notices. AFAIK, the results were generally so bad that you cannot get lenses without a prescription in the US.
Life expectancy at 80 is about 8 years in the US.
But remember the electrodes have only 15-20 years lifetime and then need replacement. As soon as they become permanent, things get more interesting. But that could be a while, considering that they have been at it for nearly 50 years.
They do solve this problem, even if they currently still need a driver. The problem is that most cities without a well-working public transit system are lacking vision and/or money. But there really is no need for "self driving buses" to implement working, efficient and reliable public transportation.
In the area of government waste of taxpayer money, 1 million is not even a small blip...
Ah, no. The primary purpose what obviously to get a gigantic pile of money to certain companies and people and that goal has been accomplished. Or do you think they will have to take back their defective product?
Most data-center operators in Switzerland do _not_ operate internationally.
Indeed. And don't forget that you have the useless 90% in every new generation, as automation and efficiency always gets better.
I fully agree, in particular to your last paragraph. But I think it is even worse: Many of those people destroy productivity by hindering the few that are still productive, e.g. by establishing bureaucracies. My personal estimate is that we have now something like 1 in 8 people actually having positive productivity and the rest "work" at reducing that and destroying that productivity partially. Just make sure the seven incapable ones never "work", and _everybody_ is better off!
From experience at my job, 90% of people getting the f*** out of the way and stop preventing me from being efficient by endless meetings, bureaucracy, pushing stupid agendas, needing obvious things explained to them, preventing me from using the best tools for a job, etc. would increase my efficiency massively. I would pay extra to have these people stop "working", because all they do is destroy the productivity of the few that are actually solving problems and building things. With a basic income, they would lose the excuses to do that.
Facts will not sway the deniers and haters. They think this is stealing from _them_ and they cannot have that. Greed and stupidity at its finest.
This stops working when you do not need the workers anymore, or, worse, cannot afford them because the competition has moved to all-automation. At that time, getting money to the people anyhow will become a question of survival for capitalism (and society as a whole): If people cannot buy stuff, then nobody can sell stuff and everything collapses.
Long-term there is no alternative anyways. Many people cannot be productive these days and the jobs wasting productivity by others (bureaucracy), serving fast-food without actually creating value, etc. are limited. This will get much, much worse as automation and productivity per competent worker increases even further.
In the end, it is either some form of basic income that is enough to live reasonably or collapse of society. And the earlier the right parameters are determined, the less risky the switch-over will be.
The real problem is that as soon as they get away with such underhanded techniques against CP, they will apply them to other things, and eventually to political dissenters and people they simply do not like. This is not about protecting children at all or they would invest all that effort into finding the people that actually made the material in question, instead of going for the easy targets. Law enforcement must be regularly and strongly reminded that the law applies to them as well and they must be limited in what they can do.
Of course, an alternative here would be to allow the evidence and to send the FBI agents in question to prison for, say, 2-3 years each for the misuse of the warrant.
Nice!
Probably he knows deep down that he is a moron and has wasted this life.
With a bit of luck he will have some miscalculations in his mega-load of pills and he will die a lot sooner.
This is a person with no connection to reality, an over-active fantasy and, unfortunately, a gift for convincing others. Would probably have had a great career as politician, priest, marketeer or con-man. This way, he just looks stupid.
I have not noticed anything more than "mildly annoying". Hyperbole much?
The claim was "security researcher", not "crypto researcher". And no, there are applied cryptographic researchers as well and they are not usually mathematicians. Incidentally, you get theoretical CS folks in theoretical crypto research as well. Your world-view is a little more black-and-white than the actual thing is.
You seem to have no idea what you are talking about. Sure, he is not a researcher into mathematical cryptography these days (and no, he is not a "crypto math" guy at all, he is a journalist by training), but security is a far, far wider field and he is doing research in that wider field.