My problem with this statement is the word "the." It is true that each definition of robot is simple, but that tells us nothing about how easy it is to reduce them to the definition since we know that different published offerings are contradictory.
If I were to theorize 2352 potential shipwreck locations based on satellite imagery and publish it, am I the "first finder"?
Yeah, that can be handled with existing analysis. A belief is not the same as an action. Knowing where the wreck was never granted salvage rights; getting there and verifying it on-site always was. Sonar pings do not tell you what is actually there, it just gives you a theory. If it was clear water and a shallow wreck, you could just look at it and be the first finder.
It is a complicated problem, but lets not over-think how complicated it is; robots do not add to the complexity when you already have to consider sonar.
There generally is no mention of robots in US law, and the operator of a device is fully responsible for its actions. If it breaks and hurts somebody, it depends if the responsible party should have known it would happen; the same as any non-robotic machine that breaks.
It is almost entirely a non-issue, except in edge cases where a party offers a novel legal theory based on robots being different; as in the salvage case example.
It is the same as for a pet dog, so that makes it easier to understand that better AI will not change this. A robot will still be the same as a machine, which is also the same as a pet or work animal. If you know it is broken (or bites) and you bring it around people and it hurts them, then the human is more completely responsible; if it is a pure accident, the human is still at least financially responsible.
You missed the dates, and the discussion of the time frame where our teeth changed to near-modern form compared to when we started using fire.
That is the whole point... we've only been using fire for a tiny bit of time, and our teeth changed shape towards the modern shape hundreds of thousands of years before that, and in the opposite direction than would normally be the case for an animal with the diet that we had. We know at least some dietary information from the fossil record. So it is pretty clear that some sort of tool use was involved. This work tests the most obvious potential answers, and included cooked meat as a comparison.
Stop reading mumbo-jumbo that tells you anything is *the* cause, solution, question, answer, or whatever to anything. Close the tab and find better information sources.
You go astray when you just wave your hands and presume that it is not normal for some people to have good eyes, and some not to.
When you let accidental assumptions sneak in like that, you build a house of cards instead of a solid idea. The theory you claim at the start would actually be proof that is both normal and beneficial.
Actually, being married and yet worried about the sexual identity of other people is not "normal" at all. It is indeed proof of being psychologically compromised. Negative emotions about things that don't relate to your life are harmful, abnormal, an aberration that is socially harmful to yourself, your family, and your community.
Also, believing that income of level n implies that you are not reducing your horizons is illogical and implies further dysfunction relating to your work life. If it is true that you're an engineer, you seem pretty narrow minded and uninterested in potentially superior thought patterns. That is disappointing if you truly work in an important industry.
When I took a Civil War History class in middle school, we made some and ate it with chicory coffee substitute. You just soak it in the hot beverage and every few minutes you can get another couple nibbles off the end.
If I didn't have any hot water, I'd probably need a large flat rock and a smaller rock. In a survival situation, add some fresh grubs after it is mostly broken up, mix them in with the last few smashes.
Meanwhile, in my Universe they've existed since the 90s and now even my local University has a few qubits. When I was a kid, all we had was a few q*berts.
Giving more air time to people who are well known and have very high unfavorable ratings should not be expected to be helpful to them. It rallies people against him; he eventually gets around to offending almost everybody. Turnout will be high.
It helps the Trump brand for whatever TV project he's doing after the election, but nobody is trying to stop him from that.
If they know they're going to lose the general, they might want to preserve their party delegate system and just distance themselves from the candidate, like they did with Goldwater.
That is a lot of words for hand-waving and assertion.
The idea that it is a COMMUNITY[sic] standard is an opinion. That is one known view. Another, more common view is that it is based on society's standards. You just wave your hands about things that are subjective, and use a lot of words to look word-y. But your words don't even accurately distinguish between the subjective and objective.
In the end you agree that the position you argue against is perfectly reasonable; that was 100% of my point. I wasn't taking a position. See above. If you had comprehended my statement, you could have simply come in and helped defend Breyer for having an actual opinion that is reasonable. Who cares if you disagree? We're not debating a Constitutional Amendment, and the thing you're going on about is off topic; off the topic of the story, but also off the topic you responded to.
And shouting just causes me to only skim your words. It doesn't cause me to believe you're extra knowledgeable because you shouted the keywords. Just assume that everybody on slashdot can identify keywords. You're new, but you're not new enough not to know that.
That is absurd. "Somebody contradicted you, therefore you're misleading" is a pretty lame argument. No, it is not misleading for people to hold different views.
And his comment is a lot of flappy blah-blah. He goes into some points in a tiny bit of depth, and he makes no attempt to present the arguments for both sides. So it is just a detailed position piece to be set next to some quick, general observations about the debate. Note that you, and the idiot you applaud, both seem to just presume I took a secret opinion about the subject. Actually, I was refuting the attack on Justice Breyer that was clearly and plainly misrepresenting his views.
Having a detailed set of views about the international aspect of common law and the concept of a punishment being "unusual" does not automatically make anybody who spent less time wrong.;)
I'll say this straight: you're a liar for calling what I said misleading. If you want to defend yourself, defend the actual accusation: you have identified no thing that is misleading in my statement, and yet you accused me of having done so. Defend yourself; identify the misleading thing I said. You won't come up with anything other that, "I disagree, therefore you're misleading readers by presenting a view other than mine, waaaaaaaaaa"
If you accurately represented his opinion, it would indeed be shocking.
Since you didn't, it is called a "straw man."
There is nothing at all fringe about the idea that European law is connected to American law; indeed, English Common Law was adopted from the start. The earliest legal document that gets cited in US law is the Magna Carta; look it up if you think that was an American document.;) The reality is that the Constitution bans "cruel and unusual" punishment, which is and always was based on the current culture. It is perfectly reasonable to look to what is considered "cruel" and "unusual" by our formal allies, especially those ones who share certain parts of common law with us. If you read the Declaration of Independence, you know that the Framers of the Constitution did indeed care about European recognition of the United States as being a valid legal entity.
You extract his position on a specific and detailed debate, and convert it to a poorly generalized argument that is easily attacked. That is one floppy straw man.
Maybe someday you'll care about the things you choose to talk about enough to actually read his book for yourself.
They're currently asking for this help on over a dozen iPhones, it is only one phone per case but it is not and never was about a single phone, even before any new precedent. Indeed, this weeks ruling from NY went into that and the inaccuracy of the claim that it only involves one phone.
Should he know better? I'm not sure. On one hand, Shamir is really good at math. But math has almost nothing to do with Constitutional law...
This involves primarily two things; philosophical identity, and equals/not equals. Both of those are taught to mathematicians. Identity is simply the concept that a thing exists. We're talking about an abstract thing, specifically a set of actions that together are the "help" that the FBI wants from Apple. Then, we have equals/not equals. How many times has "help" that the FBI asks for been done? None.
It is exactly counting that he no longer comprehends. I recommend that he get a brain scan to check for tumors. A formerly great mathematician can no longer tell the difference between "zero" and "countless." That implies a potential medical emergency.
Slashdot Mirror
The definition of a robot is simple.
My problem with this statement is the word "the." It is true that each definition of robot is simple, but that tells us nothing about how easy it is to reduce them to the definition since we know that different published offerings are contradictory.
If I were to theorize 2352 potential shipwreck locations based on satellite imagery and publish it, am I the "first finder"?
Yeah, that can be handled with existing analysis. A belief is not the same as an action. Knowing where the wreck was never granted salvage rights; getting there and verifying it on-site always was. Sonar pings do not tell you what is actually there, it just gives you a theory. If it was clear water and a shallow wreck, you could just look at it and be the first finder.
It is a complicated problem, but lets not over-think how complicated it is; robots do not add to the complexity when you already have to consider sonar.
There generally is no mention of robots in US law, and the operator of a device is fully responsible for its actions. If it breaks and hurts somebody, it depends if the responsible party should have known it would happen; the same as any non-robotic machine that breaks.
It is almost entirely a non-issue, except in edge cases where a party offers a novel legal theory based on robots being different; as in the salvage case example.
It is the same as for a pet dog, so that makes it easier to understand that better AI will not change this. A robot will still be the same as a machine, which is also the same as a pet or work animal. If you know it is broken (or bites) and you bring it around people and it hurts them, then the human is more completely responsible; if it is a pure accident, the human is still at least financially responsible.
Primates only went up into the trees to eat the bugs, silly.
We "naturally" have eaten many things. For long periods it has been mostly meat. We're evolved to eat a wide variety of things "naturally."
I don't even eat mammal, and this is obvious stuff. Stop letting your moral decisions confuse your factual understanding of nature.
When we were cynodonts, we ate lots of meat.
If you read the article, you might discover that sliced meat is technology, and luddites are stuck eating leaves and berries.
Can your app slice meat, or do you not know how to app with a rock? I can rock your apps with a rock, and rock doing it.
The feast of a thousand unchewable raw goat flanks!
We're going to need a lot of meat slicers to prove how far our tools have evolved.
No, this is where slicing a dead horse came from.
The part about beating stuff was about root vegetables.
We didn't start beating dead horses until we acquired abstract language.
That explains why storks are used for delivery; they are also designed not to chew with their mouths open!
Almost makes me want to be a religious writer.
I've read much mumbo-jumbo about how fire is ...
You missed the dates, and the discussion of the time frame where our teeth changed to near-modern form compared to when we started using fire.
That is the whole point... we've only been using fire for a tiny bit of time, and our teeth changed shape towards the modern shape hundreds of thousands of years before that, and in the opposite direction than would normally be the case for an animal with the diet that we had. We know at least some dietary information from the fossil record. So it is pretty clear that some sort of tool use was involved. This work tests the most obvious potential answers, and included cooked meat as a comparison.
Stop reading mumbo-jumbo that tells you anything is *the* cause, solution, question, answer, or whatever to anything. Close the tab and find better information sources.
You go astray when you just wave your hands and presume that it is not normal for some people to have good eyes, and some not to.
When you let accidental assumptions sneak in like that, you build a house of cards instead of a solid idea. The theory you claim at the start would actually be proof that is both normal and beneficial.
Actually, being married and yet worried about the sexual identity of other people is not "normal" at all. It is indeed proof of being psychologically compromised. Negative emotions about things that don't relate to your life are harmful, abnormal, an aberration that is socially harmful to yourself, your family, and your community.
Also, believing that income of level n implies that you are not reducing your horizons is illogical and implies further dysfunction relating to your work life. If it is true that you're an engineer, you seem pretty narrow minded and uninterested in potentially superior thought patterns. That is disappointing if you truly work in an important industry.
When I took a Civil War History class in middle school, we made some and ate it with chicory coffee substitute. You just soak it in the hot beverage and every few minutes you can get another couple nibbles off the end.
If I didn't have any hot water, I'd probably need a large flat rock and a smaller rock. In a survival situation, add some fresh grubs after it is mostly broken up, mix them in with the last few smashes.
Alchemy is the new alchemy, too.
http://www.scientificamerican....
Meanwhile, in my Universe they've existed since the 90s and now even my local University has a few qubits. When I was a kid, all we had was a few q*berts.
I guess you can just run right up to the outer wall and touch it, too. "haha, tag you're it"
I doubt the water storage lagoon has anything worth blowing up. You could try to damage the water, but good luck...
Usually it is just strings and percussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... was the biggest hit. There is also a country version that is a year older that was 4 guitars and a drummer.
That makes sense, he's a center-right "conservative democrat" here in the US.
Giving more air time to people who are well known and have very high unfavorable ratings should not be expected to be helpful to them. It rallies people against him; he eventually gets around to offending almost everybody. Turnout will be high.
It helps the Trump brand for whatever TV project he's doing after the election, but nobody is trying to stop him from that.
If they know they're going to lose the general, they might want to preserve their party delegate system and just distance themselves from the candidate, like they did with Goldwater.
That is a lot of words for hand-waving and assertion.
The idea that it is a COMMUNITY[sic] standard is an opinion. That is one known view. Another, more common view is that it is based on society's standards. You just wave your hands about things that are subjective, and use a lot of words to look word-y. But your words don't even accurately distinguish between the subjective and objective.
In the end you agree that the position you argue against is perfectly reasonable; that was 100% of my point. I wasn't taking a position. See above. If you had comprehended my statement, you could have simply come in and helped defend Breyer for having an actual opinion that is reasonable. Who cares if you disagree? We're not debating a Constitutional Amendment, and the thing you're going on about is off topic; off the topic of the story, but also off the topic you responded to.
And shouting just causes me to only skim your words. It doesn't cause me to believe you're extra knowledgeable because you shouted the keywords. Just assume that everybody on slashdot can identify keywords. You're new, but you're not new enough not to know that.
That is absurd. "Somebody contradicted you, therefore you're misleading" is a pretty lame argument. No, it is not misleading for people to hold different views.
And his comment is a lot of flappy blah-blah. He goes into some points in a tiny bit of depth, and he makes no attempt to present the arguments for both sides. So it is just a detailed position piece to be set next to some quick, general observations about the debate. Note that you, and the idiot you applaud, both seem to just presume I took a secret opinion about the subject. Actually, I was refuting the attack on Justice Breyer that was clearly and plainly misrepresenting his views.
Having a detailed set of views about the international aspect of common law and the concept of a punishment being "unusual" does not automatically make anybody who spent less time wrong. ;)
I'll say this straight: you're a liar for calling what I said misleading. If you want to defend yourself, defend the actual accusation: you have identified no thing that is misleading in my statement, and yet you accused me of having done so. Defend yourself; identify the misleading thing I said. You won't come up with anything other that, "I disagree, therefore you're misleading readers by presenting a view other than mine, waaaaaaaaaa"
If you accurately represented his opinion, it would indeed be shocking.
Since you didn't, it is called a "straw man."
There is nothing at all fringe about the idea that European law is connected to American law; indeed, English Common Law was adopted from the start. The earliest legal document that gets cited in US law is the Magna Carta; look it up if you think that was an American document. ;) The reality is that the Constitution bans "cruel and unusual" punishment, which is and always was based on the current culture. It is perfectly reasonable to look to what is considered "cruel" and "unusual" by our formal allies, especially those ones who share certain parts of common law with us. If you read the Declaration of Independence, you know that the Framers of the Constitution did indeed care about European recognition of the United States as being a valid legal entity.
You extract his position on a specific and detailed debate, and convert it to a poorly generalized argument that is easily attacked. That is one floppy straw man.
Maybe someday you'll care about the things you choose to talk about enough to actually read his book for yourself.
I'm just waiting for the long line of snooty Europeans to tell me that this proves that Europe cares about privacy, and Americans have no rights.
They're currently asking for this help on over a dozen iPhones, it is only one phone per case but it is not and never was about a single phone, even before any new precedent. Indeed, this weeks ruling from NY went into that and the inaccuracy of the claim that it only involves one phone.
Should he know better? I'm not sure. On one hand, Shamir is really good at math. But math has almost nothing to do with Constitutional law...
This involves primarily two things; philosophical identity, and equals/not equals. Both of those are taught to mathematicians. Identity is simply the concept that a thing exists. We're talking about an abstract thing, specifically a set of actions that together are the "help" that the FBI wants from Apple. Then, we have equals/not equals. How many times has "help" that the FBI asks for been done? None.
It is exactly counting that he no longer comprehends. I recommend that he get a brain scan to check for tumors. A formerly great mathematician can no longer tell the difference between "zero" and "countless." That implies a potential medical emergency.