I have a first edition of Samurai Squirrel (1986), it definitely leaves me wondering, "What if they're fighting for the enemy?!" We'd be totally screwed.
The more damning part is that they claim to have spent more than they received on the project, before simply forgetting about it. How do you go into the red and be so far into the red that you can't make a profit on the product, and then also forget about it? It seems unlikely compared to simply having chosen to drop the project and not having told anybody.
I mean, you're spending money working on it, you have some part of your R&D area set up with whatever you're spending that money on, at some point you have to have decided to shelve the project and put the stuff away. That isn't an accident or an oversight at the time it is happening. If they forgot they did it, that would have been weeks or months after they decided not to deliver, and decided not to communicate that.
Right, you simply missed the point and don't understand what indirect transfer means. Try harder, you might eventually understand what you're disagreeing with.
All you're doing is missing the point.
Is the theory that there was only one person who worked for Boeing that could have picked up titanium "shards"[sic]? No, no, that was not the theory they floated. You simply didn't understand it, and didn't understand that it doesn't narrow it down really very far; and that's why they're asking for people who would have more insights to step forwards!
Shit isn't considered universally profane, it is only profane in certain contexts. Obviously they would allow uses of "shit" that are similar to how Data used it in the story.
Obviously, "partial nudity" of the same equivalent rating-level as has been featured in Star Trek would be acceptable. "Nudity" and "partial nudity" are not actually the same thing, and those "bum" shots are probably not even shots of naked actors. You would have to understand the American English meaning of these words, and American standards of what is acceptable in various types of media sources. Nudity is not allowed on broadcast American television, and everything ever show on Star Trek is acceptable for broadcast on American television; Star Trek has never shown nudity. They have at times implied nudity and shown lots of skin, but that is something different.
The only ones in the list that actually make an appearance on Star Trek are alcohol and illegal activities, and there is clear that they don't want the full possible range of those activities to be featured; they approve some uses of alcohol, but others would never have been shown. Same for illegal activities; they handle those stories with a certain type of sensitivity. Obviously, if you really wanted to do it and were going to handle it in the way that they would approve of, you'd have to talk to them and convince them to give you a waiver.
They are very harmed if they wanted to make a mediocre movie about that part of the story, and there is already some higher-quality "fan" movie that uses their copyrighted material that they would have to compete with.
It isn't hard to find a way that it harms them. I agree that fan fiction usually helps, but that isn't a guarantee, it isn't a law of the Universe that fan fiction can only help the company who owns the copyrights.
It is a weak argument. There is no proof one way or the other what the effect will be, and will vary on a case-by-case basis. To even do the analysis you'd have to know what stories CBS/Paramount plan to tell in the future, and that will always be confidential, so you can't even do an analysis of it directly steps on their toes.
Also, fans complain when new canon material contradicts popular fan material, and fans complain that if they didn't shut something down it is as if they had approved it for canon. It isn't obvious that encouraging or even passively allowing it doesn't change canon in the minds of viewers.
I totally agree. As a lifelong Star Trek fan I have to point out that William Shatner sincerely advised the obsessed people you talk about to "get a life" long ago. Perhaps anybody with an excessive attachment that they could "abandon" should finally now take his advice to heart?
My advice, choose what is on the screens you look at, and never ever ever make what somebody else put on a screen into part of your personal identity.
Star Trek's financial value of course won't change, but if twelve people stop buying Klingon prosthetics, all twelve of them will have more pennies. So their side of the financial effect is exactly the same. And by no longer obsessing about Star Trek, it will be almost as if it stopped existing for them. Create your reality by choosing what you spend your money on, and choosing what is on the screens you look at!
If the writers are any good it will get a more Blake's 7 type treatment where it is up to the viewer to understand that it is a different view on the same "Federation" as in Star Trek, but with totally different names and iconography.
If they can't do that, then it was going to be weak anyways. They still get to make a movie, they still get to tell whatever parts of the story were original. Rather than being downgraded, this should actually improve the art; else they shouldn't have been doing it anyways.
This may be bad news for Trekkies and Trekkers, but it is good news for science fiction fans!
Well, if they've admitted to the labels that they lied to the media, then that might be true, though it also might be an unfair business practice that their competitors could challenge.
But if they made a public claim of 3m and then simply only paid for 1m, then the labels can at least force them to prove they're not withholding license fees. They might have to give the labels full access to their books in order to resolve this, they might even have to pay for an outside auditor to avoid being on the hook for 3m subscriptions.
If they disclosed the discrepancy to the labels at the time, then they're probably fine on that side. But keep in mind that the labels are also competitors. These are frenemies as much as partners.
For when you absolutely, positively want your email to be stored by the NSA to await improvements in decryption technology.;)
If you have no secrets, then you can encrypt safely. If you have actual secrets, then it is very dangerous to encrypt and transmit them because you're guaranteeing that your communication will be archived. If it is unencrypted then somebody might read it, but if they don't it will at least be archived in less places and perhaps eventually purged.
A more sure way to keep a secret secret is to not write it down, not encrypt it, and not transmit it.
Most legal things that people want to keep private are not actually secrets but merely confidential information, and then encryption works great; even if the government needs to review it, they will keep that as confidential as they can for both legal and operational security reasons.
Secrecy is not a viable online goal, nor is perfect privacy, but significant confidentiality can be achieved.
Whistleblowers though basically need to be willing to stand up and "face the music" of their whistle. Otherwise, they're not blowing hard enough to matter anyways.
"All of a sudden?" Look how much time they've had to find his weaknesses.
That's the tricky thing about trust on the internet; you can't trust. That is the only correct answer. If you have trust in technology, that trust is misplaced. If you have trust in people, that is probably misplaced too; and even if it isn't, you can't know for sure!
I highly recommend adopting technology strategies that do not rely on trust. When I click on some perverted anime video with cat women, I have to accept that somebody might find out. If such perversions were illegal in my location, I'd have to assume I might get in trouble. If I ever ran for office, some jerk is going to pull out an old access log that proves I'm either a pervert or a prevert. That is just the nature of technology! Increased communication provides more information, not less. As some have said, "information wants to be free!" Information technology can't reduce information, it can only add to the available information.
gmail doesn't sell data, why do people still not understand this? Google only sells targeted advertising services, they do NOT sell data about users like most internet companies do.
If you don't even know what the different threat vectors are, how can you decide which ones to avoid, or succeed at avoiding whatever you decided to avoid?
so even if 100% of the service is hosted overseas, the gestapo errr FBI and NSA, will still put pressure on him to compromise the service.
Any more, you want fed proof email, 100% of the solution has to be fed proof.
The problem has to be 100% fed-proof, too. For example as an American no such solution can exist because I am not physically "fed-proof" myself!
If the sender and recipient are both not in the US, they can probably avoid this problem by other means, assuming they can prevent unauthorized access.
I'm still not sure what a legit use case even is; it seems like it would be more effective to just use an email provider that hires a staff attorney and promises to defend customers if their email speech is illegally encroached upon by the government. Keep in mind that lavabit was shut down because he didn't want to assist what was a legit investigation, not any sort of government abuse.
No, she was tired of running it and grabbed a convenient political reason to rage-quit.
The site is still up, you can re-read the quit letter anytime; she says she was rage-quitting the internet, not just quitting the site.
As somebody who was "online" on BBSes before the internet was made public, my take is that we always knew that the internet wasn't private... and that it never claimed to be! That is what private networks are for, after all. Just like, of course the sysop of a BBS can read your email! Some of them do, some of them don't; the ones who say they might often don't they were just warning you, and the ones who say they don't can't prove it or deny capability!
Any time you're using a small non-mainstream email host you have to expect to get spam and to have to handle the filtering client-side, with all the imperfections involved.
However, if you're using secure email you can probably just trash anything that isn't encrypted anyways. And if spammers encrypt, just start adding their public keys to a filter. People paranoid enough to use this type of service, and non-technical enough to trust a service that purports to have these features, probably also have a "normal" email address for regular use if they actually accept normal email.
Nor can a baseball player understand all the complex quantum effects that are required for a baseball to bounce off the bat instead of just mixing together with it! That doesn't keep them from knowing how to hit the ball, though.
Waving your hands at complexity doesn't keep intent from being simple; an engineer intends to create a complex system, and didn't even intend it to be one that required calculation of all the details. It doesn't really mean they didn't understand what they were doing, it just means that humans have limits and the concept of knowledge can be taken in a way that exceeds human capability. But that is not any more or less true when building a neural net than when hitting a baseball; both are rather simple things to the person doing them, and they only need to understands that steps taken, not the whole Universe.
It seems to me that this residue could have come from the plane he hijacked.
No, it could not.
Yes it could! Notice how that goes in circle? If you want to just say, "Nuh-uh" you should follow it with some reasons.
And yeah, it really could. You can't say it couldn't, because you won't have information that supports that. You won't know. You can't say "no" here, the best you can do is to answer the natural corollary to "could have" which is "could have not." Which I would totally agree with, as proven by my use of the word "could" in the first place.
If you think about how material transfer that ends up on a tie happens, then you should be able to understand that we're talking about indirect transfer in all cases. The tie would not have been a tool that had direct contact with the substances found; they would have been transferred indirectly. And so you can't really reasonably say that indirect transfer couldn't happen in more than one way. Especially when there is a known nexus between the craft and the supposed factory; they're both Boeing, and would have lots of people and equipment that could have touched both.
In the context of the rest of my comment, it is also obvious that I wasn't talking about an x86 instruction set either!
The trick is to understand what was said first, before you decide it was wrong.;)
And for the record, we are using English here.
You don't even attempt to prove that it is objective. My point was that it is subjective, and that is why a claim that the answer is this or that are both wrong and hand-wavy. Anything subjective, if you claim that it is __[opinion]__ then that is hand-wavy. For me to be wrong, it takes more than to present an opposing subjective answer.
Also, Substance Dualism was not discussed. You might have added that in yourself. People are only using named philosophical concepts when they name them, otherwise you have to go with just the parts that they actually said. Luckily, actually saying specific things has more value than just naming philosophical concepts!
And BTW, the context was in the present tense, you might be the only one talking about "potentially future human-level AI."
Interestingly both spellings, computer and computor, mean either an electronic computational device, or a human who does computations.
I was taught in CS that for most algorithms it is useful to picture the pseudocode being implemented by humans passing around slips of paper and doing the computations by hand, because it helps to visualize scale, organization, communication, etc. So if humans were implementing the same predictive algorithm by hand, would it still be accused of being artificial, or intelligent?
IME the Chinese parts suppliers are very happy to update firmware and push out an update in just a few hours with little or no testing, and the only reason westerners have trouble getting the updates is that we don't read Chinese.
Japanese can read the Chinese well enough to send the right email to get the updates.
Plus, they might really be able to get them standardized in the main tourist areas for the sporting events. They don't have to update the whole country to get a noticeable improvement.
Here in the US all sinks have labeled handles, and they might be backwards because we have a lot of Homers and a blue collar work culture of just pointing the new guy at a task and saying, "figure it out." Even chances the labels are wrong, or the hot and cold are really swapped.
If you stay in the cattle sections you only get one temperature anyways so no problem.
Exactly! If somebody wants to be healthy, they want to do it already. If they're in the doctor's office with those problems, most likely they already don't value their health. These are usually easy decisions for everybody; people already know if they value themselves more or less than fried foods!
Slashdot Mirror
I have a first edition of Samurai Squirrel (1986), it definitely leaves me wondering, "What if they're fighting for the enemy?!" We'd be totally screwed.
That explains why the squirrels were chewing on the line, they were just trying to get some cyber' action!
The more damning part is that they claim to have spent more than they received on the project, before simply forgetting about it. How do you go into the red and be so far into the red that you can't make a profit on the product, and then also forget about it? It seems unlikely compared to simply having chosen to drop the project and not having told anybody.
I mean, you're spending money working on it, you have some part of your R&D area set up with whatever you're spending that money on, at some point you have to have decided to shelve the project and put the stuff away. That isn't an accident or an oversight at the time it is happening. If they forgot they did it, that would have been weeks or months after they decided not to deliver, and decided not to communicate that.
Right, you simply missed the point and don't understand what indirect transfer means. Try harder, you might eventually understand what you're disagreeing with.
All you're doing is missing the point.
Is the theory that there was only one person who worked for Boeing that could have picked up titanium "shards"[sic]? No, no, that was not the theory they floated. You simply didn't understand it, and didn't understand that it doesn't narrow it down really very far; and that's why they're asking for people who would have more insights to step forwards!
Shit isn't considered universally profane, it is only profane in certain contexts. Obviously they would allow uses of "shit" that are similar to how Data used it in the story.
Obviously, "partial nudity" of the same equivalent rating-level as has been featured in Star Trek would be acceptable. "Nudity" and "partial nudity" are not actually the same thing, and those "bum" shots are probably not even shots of naked actors. You would have to understand the American English meaning of these words, and American standards of what is acceptable in various types of media sources. Nudity is not allowed on broadcast American television, and everything ever show on Star Trek is acceptable for broadcast on American television; Star Trek has never shown nudity. They have at times implied nudity and shown lots of skin, but that is something different.
The only ones in the list that actually make an appearance on Star Trek are alcohol and illegal activities, and there is clear that they don't want the full possible range of those activities to be featured; they approve some uses of alcohol, but others would never have been shown. Same for illegal activities; they handle those stories with a certain type of sensitivity. Obviously, if you really wanted to do it and were going to handle it in the way that they would approve of, you'd have to talk to them and convince them to give you a waiver.
They are very harmed if they wanted to make a mediocre movie about that part of the story, and there is already some higher-quality "fan" movie that uses their copyrighted material that they would have to compete with.
It isn't hard to find a way that it harms them. I agree that fan fiction usually helps, but that isn't a guarantee, it isn't a law of the Universe that fan fiction can only help the company who owns the copyrights.
It is a weak argument. There is no proof one way or the other what the effect will be, and will vary on a case-by-case basis. To even do the analysis you'd have to know what stories CBS/Paramount plan to tell in the future, and that will always be confidential, so you can't even do an analysis of it directly steps on their toes.
Also, fans complain when new canon material contradicts popular fan material, and fans complain that if they didn't shut something down it is as if they had approved it for canon. It isn't obvious that encouraging or even passively allowing it doesn't change canon in the minds of viewers.
I totally agree. As a lifelong Star Trek fan I have to point out that William Shatner sincerely advised the obsessed people you talk about to "get a life" long ago. Perhaps anybody with an excessive attachment that they could "abandon" should finally now take his advice to heart?
My advice, choose what is on the screens you look at, and never ever ever make what somebody else put on a screen into part of your personal identity.
Star Trek's financial value of course won't change, but if twelve people stop buying Klingon prosthetics, all twelve of them will have more pennies. So their side of the financial effect is exactly the same. And by no longer obsessing about Star Trek, it will be almost as if it stopped existing for them. Create your reality by choosing what you spend your money on, and choosing what is on the screens you look at!
If the writers are any good it will get a more Blake's 7 type treatment where it is up to the viewer to understand that it is a different view on the same "Federation" as in Star Trek, but with totally different names and iconography.
If they can't do that, then it was going to be weak anyways. They still get to make a movie, they still get to tell whatever parts of the story were original. Rather than being downgraded, this should actually improve the art; else they shouldn't have been doing it anyways.
This may be bad news for Trekkies and Trekkers, but it is good news for science fiction fans!
I predict a Beowulf Cluster of lawsuits will quickly scale things up until hot grits pour out all over the skyrocketing popcorn stocks.
That's the thing about FRAND patents and standards; it is only supposed to go one way, for everybody.
Otherwise, something else would be the standard.
Well, if they've admitted to the labels that they lied to the media, then that might be true, though it also might be an unfair business practice that their competitors could challenge.
But if they made a public claim of 3m and then simply only paid for 1m, then the labels can at least force them to prove they're not withholding license fees. They might have to give the labels full access to their books in order to resolve this, they might even have to pay for an outside auditor to avoid being on the hook for 3m subscriptions.
If they disclosed the discrepancy to the labels at the time, then they're probably fine on that side. But keep in mind that the labels are also competitors. These are frenemies as much as partners.
For when you absolutely, positively want your email to be stored by the NSA to await improvements in decryption technology. ;)
If you have no secrets, then you can encrypt safely. If you have actual secrets, then it is very dangerous to encrypt and transmit them because you're guaranteeing that your communication will be archived. If it is unencrypted then somebody might read it, but if they don't it will at least be archived in less places and perhaps eventually purged.
A more sure way to keep a secret secret is to not write it down, not encrypt it, and not transmit it.
Most legal things that people want to keep private are not actually secrets but merely confidential information, and then encryption works great; even if the government needs to review it, they will keep that as confidential as they can for both legal and operational security reasons.
Secrecy is not a viable online goal, nor is perfect privacy, but significant confidentiality can be achieved.
Whistleblowers though basically need to be willing to stand up and "face the music" of their whistle. Otherwise, they're not blowing hard enough to matter anyways.
"All of a sudden?" Look how much time they've had to find his weaknesses.
That's the tricky thing about trust on the internet; you can't trust. That is the only correct answer. If you have trust in technology, that trust is misplaced. If you have trust in people, that is probably misplaced too; and even if it isn't, you can't know for sure!
I highly recommend adopting technology strategies that do not rely on trust. When I click on some perverted anime video with cat women, I have to accept that somebody might find out. If such perversions were illegal in my location, I'd have to assume I might get in trouble. If I ever ran for office, some jerk is going to pull out an old access log that proves I'm either a pervert or a prevert. That is just the nature of technology! Increased communication provides more information, not less. As some have said, "information wants to be free!" Information technology can't reduce information, it can only add to the available information.
gmail doesn't sell data, why do people still not understand this? Google only sells targeted advertising services, they do NOT sell data about users like most internet companies do.
If you don't even know what the different threat vectors are, how can you decide which ones to avoid, or succeed at avoiding whatever you decided to avoid?
so even if 100% of the service is hosted overseas, the gestapo errr FBI and NSA, will still put pressure on him to compromise the service.
Any more, you want fed proof email, 100% of the solution has to be fed proof.
The problem has to be 100% fed-proof, too. For example as an American no such solution can exist because I am not physically "fed-proof" myself!
If the sender and recipient are both not in the US, they can probably avoid this problem by other means, assuming they can prevent unauthorized access.
I'm still not sure what a legit use case even is; it seems like it would be more effective to just use an email provider that hires a staff attorney and promises to defend customers if their email speech is illegally encroached upon by the government. Keep in mind that lavabit was shut down because he didn't want to assist what was a legit investigation, not any sort of government abuse.
No, she was tired of running it and grabbed a convenient political reason to rage-quit.
The site is still up, you can re-read the quit letter anytime; she says she was rage-quitting the internet, not just quitting the site.
As somebody who was "online" on BBSes before the internet was made public, my take is that we always knew that the internet wasn't private... and that it never claimed to be! That is what private networks are for, after all. Just like, of course the sysop of a BBS can read your email! Some of them do, some of them don't; the ones who say they might often don't they were just warning you, and the ones who say they don't can't prove it or deny capability!
Any time you're using a small non-mainstream email host you have to expect to get spam and to have to handle the filtering client-side, with all the imperfections involved.
However, if you're using secure email you can probably just trash anything that isn't encrypted anyways. And if spammers encrypt, just start adding their public keys to a filter. People paranoid enough to use this type of service, and non-technical enough to trust a service that purports to have these features, probably also have a "normal" email address for regular use if they actually accept normal email.
Nor can a baseball player understand all the complex quantum effects that are required for a baseball to bounce off the bat instead of just mixing together with it! That doesn't keep them from knowing how to hit the ball, though.
Waving your hands at complexity doesn't keep intent from being simple; an engineer intends to create a complex system, and didn't even intend it to be one that required calculation of all the details. It doesn't really mean they didn't understand what they were doing, it just means that humans have limits and the concept of knowledge can be taken in a way that exceeds human capability. But that is not any more or less true when building a neural net than when hitting a baseball; both are rather simple things to the person doing them, and they only need to understands that steps taken, not the whole Universe.
It seems to me that this residue could have come from the plane he hijacked.
No, it could not.
Yes it could! Notice how that goes in circle? If you want to just say, "Nuh-uh" you should follow it with some reasons.
And yeah, it really could. You can't say it couldn't, because you won't have information that supports that. You won't know. You can't say "no" here, the best you can do is to answer the natural corollary to "could have" which is "could have not." Which I would totally agree with, as proven by my use of the word "could" in the first place.
If you think about how material transfer that ends up on a tie happens, then you should be able to understand that we're talking about indirect transfer in all cases. The tie would not have been a tool that had direct contact with the substances found; they would have been transferred indirectly. And so you can't really reasonably say that indirect transfer couldn't happen in more than one way. Especially when there is a known nexus between the craft and the supposed factory; they're both Boeing, and would have lots of people and equipment that could have touched both.
In the context of the rest of my comment, it is also obvious that I wasn't talking about an x86 instruction set either!
The trick is to understand what was said first, before you decide it was wrong. ;)
And for the record, we are using English here.
You don't even attempt to prove that it is objective. My point was that it is subjective, and that is why a claim that the answer is this or that are both wrong and hand-wavy. Anything subjective, if you claim that it is __[opinion]__ then that is hand-wavy. For me to be wrong, it takes more than to present an opposing subjective answer.
Also, Substance Dualism was not discussed. You might have added that in yourself. People are only using named philosophical concepts when they name them, otherwise you have to go with just the parts that they actually said. Luckily, actually saying specific things has more value than just naming philosophical concepts!
And BTW, the context was in the present tense, you might be the only one talking about "potentially future human-level AI."
Interestingly both spellings, computer and computor, mean either an electronic computational device, or a human who does computations.
I was taught in CS that for most algorithms it is useful to picture the pseudocode being implemented by humans passing around slips of paper and doing the computations by hand, because it helps to visualize scale, organization, communication, etc. So if humans were implementing the same predictive algorithm by hand, would it still be accused of being artificial, or intelligent?
IME the Chinese parts suppliers are very happy to update firmware and push out an update in just a few hours with little or no testing, and the only reason westerners have trouble getting the updates is that we don't read Chinese.
Japanese can read the Chinese well enough to send the right email to get the updates.
Plus, they might really be able to get them standardized in the main tourist areas for the sporting events. They don't have to update the whole country to get a noticeable improvement.
Japan turned toilets into rocket science. Let's hope they don't turn rockets into toilet science.
Hey now, toilet science is half the space program!
Here in the US all sinks have labeled handles, and they might be backwards because we have a lot of Homers and a blue collar work culture of just pointing the new guy at a task and saying, "figure it out." Even chances the labels are wrong, or the hot and cold are really swapped.
If you stay in the cattle sections you only get one temperature anyways so no problem.
Exactly! If somebody wants to be healthy, they want to do it already. If they're in the doctor's office with those problems, most likely they already don't value their health. These are usually easy decisions for everybody; people already know if they value themselves more or less than fried foods!