When we have full strong AI... people will be very different than those of today. We'll likely be highly augmented machine-human amalgams. Perhaps even it will be that humans will transform into these super intelligent computers as we decide to swap out parts until there are no human bits left.
It sounds like a 1980s post apocalyptic movie yet it doesn't really bug me, personally I'd be the first in line to sign up to get a harddrive installed.
Yep, the idea of automatons existed in the 1950s (and back to the time of Aristotle btw)... all in the pre-computerized era. Some of the language and grammar of AI was developed back then. A noble start. And a goal was roughed out.
I now interact with several hundred automatons a day within the box on which I type alone. Going from theoretical to, impossible to avoid for even the majority of people in 3rd world countries on a daily basis. Seems decently good.
In the last 20 years alone there have been big jumps. The shift to AI that learns is pretty big. Think about crysis AI vs AI in NES. In that time period we also developed human beating chess computers. Furbies and search engines and web spiders came to be. Speech recognition starts, sucks and is now actually pretty usable with the ever shortening training session. Windows 7 even comes with voice recognition (its ok...).
And for the last 10 years. How about image recognition and spatial awareness? Non-existent 10years ago and now mostly solved. Think of all the tech that goes into data mining and using it. Hell, people are nervous about Google becoming skynet less and less jokingly each year. We have vastly improved autonomous cars, last week we read of one running PP, a mountainous race. Asimo is created and vastly improved, and there is the Bigdog robot as well (dealing with balance and walking). All of the AI going into marketing (Google et al) is pretty impressive.
So I'd say there have been many improvements over the last 50 years pushing us towards AI. After a few more years of improvement the major thing needed will be for a company to buy all these techs and tie them together. Vision, coordination, balance, emotion, problem solving, speech, all of these things are separate at the moment which is an issue for building a C3P0 type robot (what most people think of ai).
The point was that subs move fast than fish but they don't swim. Similarly computer do tons and tons of things faster than people but don't think. (That's how I read it anyways)
Actually, computer vision systems in the last 5 years have gotten pretty fucking awesome. Tracking people, object recognition. Finding people amongst millions of cameras. Figuring out depth to get a 3d approximation of things and places. Massive improvements, none of it thought feasible 10yrs ago.
Err... summary paints it that way but if you look at the graph in the article 4 of em think we won't reach any of the milestones listed. A bunch think we'll have it all in the 30s. But opinion seems very much divided.
100mbps with any RELIABILITY would be pretty industry shifting for North America. I'd prefer they focus on that rather than burst speeds... I suppose if they get it high enough the slow speeds will be enough assuming it doesn't drop much... But that is quite a big statement, even for Google. 1gbps for 500k ppl and cost competitive? No company in the world has lines to homes like this... World's fastest have been hovering around 60Mbps for quite a while now. Entering a new market and completely dominating everything in comparison on a global scale.... that'd be impressive. Even for Google.
Uhm.... people pay them money to use the internets... Man... not everything is data mining. Shouldn't be that confusing how a ISP can make money, they aren't giving it away (that I know of....).
Heh, well you are certainly going above and beyond for your clientele and I respect that. I doubt you could legally uphold people to such standards mind you.
And I do hope you are right about ontario law *hamiltonian*.
Agreed, and I think that is probably how it should be from a legal pov... but goooood luck trying to find a politician... other than ron paul to admit that. (Disclaimer: I'm not a paulite, I think the man would destroy the country in weeks. But he has the stones to say w/e he believes in without hesitation.
I can't imagine investigators would do something as underhande.... "Little is from California but was tried in Tampa after investigators here ordered his videos through the mail and downloaded them over the Internet."
Public nudity is an obscenity law in most places... kinda sad that apparently human bodies are obscene. And public sex is illegal pretty much everywhere.
Seriously though gay sex was illegal in many states (15years!) until 2003. Be glad the federal government seeems to be working on getting the hell out of controlling what you do with your body. I'm sure watching w/e kind of 'obscene' porn you want will be made legal in other states when it is made federal law (as with the gay sex thing which forced a lot of countries to legalize it). They'll just need a good way to phrase it.
"The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau 1967 (shortly before Canada legalized such things)
"Its also Unconstitutional, just like censorship."
But but if censorship is unconstitutional then how is banning childporn ok? (Seriously here) This state views obscene acts as... bad. So they not only banned them but banned the filmed material (to reduce the market apparently). Exact same as childporn. So... what's the difference?
I use my laptop more than a flashlight though... And I think in 3rd world countries they'd use something that costs likely 90% of their net-worth quite a lot.
"We take privacy seriously" If you work for facebook, in the interest of full disclosure you should say so:/
"They certainly have a right to expect me NEVER to share their personal information. " Good. And as it should be. But if you got a warrant thrown at you it could be an issue. I think there needs to be laws made protecting issues involving confidentiality. Perhaps model it after doctor/lawyer confidentiality. Change it to 'professional confidentiality' and be done with it. But it hurts abilities to track criminals so it'd be realllllly hard to pass. (Pretty much anything used to catch criminals hurts everyone's privacy).
http://www.privacylawyer.ca/blog/2009/10/new-decision-on-warrantless-access-to.html Is a Canadian law that is interestingly worded. I'd check your ISP's wording if I were you. I'm sure many of them will not look good. Also I'm not sure WHAT agreement Bell signed with it's resellers so Bell could fuck things up for everyone (like they have repeatedly).
Also, Eric Schmidt's comments about having to follow the law do not make them legally susceptible to anything. So... [citation needed] for the following:
"'we release information if we have a reasonable expectation that the requesting party has made an enforceable request' - which is google's way of saying 'If we think they COULD get a warrant, we'll roll over on you.'"
From like ONE fucking line lower: "If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."
Clearly referring to the legal aspects. Stating that Google is subject to certain laws. So I suspect you are just being a troll/douche at this point.
"Every password, every encryption key can be brute-forced, given enough time. "
Not true, plenty of keys will take longer to crack (if you try brute)than it'll take for heat death to destroy the universe. Keys are selected in a manner that is sufficiently safe normally, IE 150yrs w/ current tech (Change the key every year). Sooo......
Bad form to double reply but you do realize they are competing against Facebook here! They sure as fuck are worse about privacy than Google has ever been. And twitter is purely about announcing things publicly to the universe. Not reallllly an issue here. And if you needed a reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoWKGBloMsU.. he basically says that privacy isn't what people want so we aren't giving it to them...
"as their CEO puts it - you don't want someone to know about you doing something, don't do it." He said that while referring to people committing crimes. Having proof of it online. Then being shocked when police with warrants get it. Which btw is standard and LAW for all companies to comply with. Didn't even say anything about google itself. I could say that about computing generally and no one would disagree. Hell it applies beyond computing.
'If you don't want to get busted by cops it is probably a good idea to not leave a traceable trail. BTW, cops can get warrants to search your shit.' -- pretty fucking obvious.
You can get AA form li-ion batteries. The advantages are many though. AA batteries are easily replaceable being everywhere. They are a very common standard so if you want so li-ion ones you can. Since they are so common they are cheap! And available in poor countries. This is not something that is so useful for you or me.
But I think this type of design could eventually/soon get laptops under 100~150$ and that would be a very good thing for poor countries. By type of design I mean using as many common and flexible parts as humanly possible, and simplifying the design as much as possible. This allows people to repair it themselves for some parts. Replace broken parts with whatever they can find if compatibility is high (also good for upgrading). And people can more easily learn to do it. Look at poor countries and you'll see amazingly ingenious kluges. Jury-rigging whatever they have available to suit their purposes. Carts built from bits of fence, bicycle, table and an old motorcycle motor for example. Assuming this is going to continue, designing a computer that embraces it as much as possible will be successful.
Side note: I think they should have dropped the SD card completely and had another USB slot instead. This allows for greater flexibility and simplicity. Stick a drive or USB stick in there, done. Probably more common than SD cards, more or equally portable as well. As well, the screen could be plugged into a VGA plug, might add 40c~1$ to the cost but if the screen breaks people could find a monitor in a dump w/e and get it working. (Keyboard has this functionality through USB already, plus KBs rarely break.) You could probably have the thing charge through USB as well. Technically you could probably design the CPU to use a USB stick as ram but that might be a little shitty (like 1/8th the speed lol). Either way I see the power of standards being underused here.
BTW, everything I listed is the opposite of apple. So your suggestion was pretty friggen idiotic. An irremovable untouchable unmodifiable non-standard expensive ass machine is fucking retarded for this use.
Actually when you think about it AA batteries do kinda suck... At least non-rechargeable ones are a bad idea. It is a nice way to needlessly fill landfills with horrible chemicals. We should probably put some sorta tax on them tbh (like shitty incandescents), people would switch to liions or rechargeables without any issues.
And yes I do realize there is some sort of rule about disposing batteries that is completely ignored in north america. My japanese prof actually asked the class one year wth we were supposed to do with them since she'd had a bag in her house filling for like 3years. Clearly it isn't effective.
Slashdot Mirror
When we have full strong AI... people will be very different than those of today. We'll likely be highly augmented machine-human amalgams. Perhaps even it will be that humans will transform into these super intelligent computers as we decide to swap out parts until there are no human bits left.
It sounds like a 1980s post apocalyptic movie yet it doesn't really bug me, personally I'd be the first in line to sign up to get a harddrive installed.
Yep, the idea of automatons existed in the 1950s (and back to the time of Aristotle btw)... all in the pre-computerized era. Some of the language and grammar of AI was developed back then. A noble start. And a goal was roughed out.
I now interact with several hundred automatons a day within the box on which I type alone. Going from theoretical to, impossible to avoid for even the majority of people in 3rd world countries on a daily basis. Seems decently good.
In the last 20 years alone there have been big jumps. The shift to AI that learns is pretty big. Think about crysis AI vs AI in NES. In that time period we also developed human beating chess computers. Furbies and search engines and web spiders came to be. Speech recognition starts, sucks and is now actually pretty usable with the ever shortening training session. Windows 7 even comes with voice recognition (its ok...).
And for the last 10 years. How about image recognition and spatial awareness? Non-existent 10years ago and now mostly solved. Think of all the tech that goes into data mining and using it. Hell, people are nervous about Google becoming skynet less and less jokingly each year. We have vastly improved autonomous cars, last week we read of one running PP, a mountainous race. Asimo is created and vastly improved, and there is the Bigdog robot as well (dealing with balance and walking). All of the AI going into marketing (Google et al) is pretty impressive.
So I'd say there have been many improvements over the last 50 years pushing us towards AI. After a few more years of improvement the major thing needed will be for a company to buy all these techs and tie them together. Vision, coordination, balance, emotion, problem solving, speech, all of these things are separate at the moment which is an issue for building a C3P0 type robot (what most people think of ai).
The point was that subs move fast than fish but they don't swim. Similarly computer do tons and tons of things faster than people but don't think. (That's how I read it anyways)
Hey, it didn't say AI had to improve that much. It just said when will AI surpass humans. I believe we will meet halfway in about 100years.
Actually, computer vision systems in the last 5 years have gotten pretty fucking awesome. Tracking people, object recognition. Finding people amongst millions of cameras. Figuring out depth to get a 3d approximation of things and places. Massive improvements, none of it thought feasible 10yrs ago.
Err... summary paints it that way but if you look at the graph in the article 4 of em think we won't reach any of the milestones listed. A bunch think we'll have it all in the 30s. But opinion seems very much divided.
100mbps with any RELIABILITY would be pretty industry shifting for North America. I'd prefer they focus on that rather than burst speeds... I suppose if they get it high enough the slow speeds will be enough assuming it doesn't drop much... But that is quite a big statement, even for Google. 1gbps for 500k ppl and cost competitive? No company in the world has lines to homes like this... World's fastest have been hovering around 60Mbps for quite a while now. Entering a new market and completely dominating everything in comparison on a global scale.... that'd be impressive. Even for Google.
Uhm.... people pay them money to use the internets... Man... not everything is data mining. Shouldn't be that confusing how a ISP can make money, they aren't giving it away (that I know of....).
Heh, well you are certainly going above and beyond for your clientele and I respect that. I doubt you could legally uphold people to such standards mind you.
And I do hope you are right about ontario law *hamiltonian*.
Agreed, and I think that is probably how it should be from a legal pov... but goooood luck trying to find a politician ... other than ron paul to admit that. (Disclaimer: I'm not a paulite, I think the man would destroy the country in weeks. But he has the stones to say w/e he believes in without hesitation.
I can't imagine investigators would do something as underhande....
"Little is from California but was tried in Tampa after investigators here ordered his videos through the mail and downloaded them over the Internet."
Good point.
Public nudity is an obscenity law in most places... kinda sad that apparently human bodies are obscene. And public sex is illegal pretty much everywhere.
Seriously though gay sex was illegal in many states (15years!) until 2003. Be glad the federal government seeems to be working on getting the hell out of controlling what you do with your body. I'm sure watching w/e kind of 'obscene' porn you want will be made legal in other states when it is made federal law (as with the gay sex thing which forced a lot of countries to legalize it). They'll just need a good way to phrase it.
"The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau 1967 (shortly before Canada legalized such things)
Don't say that, politicians and judges will take it as a challenge!
Common sense is a misnomer; If the current rulings don't show it, how could you expect them to suddenly use it because you want them to?
"Its also Unconstitutional, just like censorship."
But but if censorship is unconstitutional then how is banning childporn ok? (Seriously here) This state views obscene acts as... bad. So they not only banned them but banned the filmed material (to reduce the market apparently). Exact same as childporn. So... what's the difference?
You've never had a bank lose your money on you have you?
I use my laptop more than a flashlight though... And I think in 3rd world countries they'd use something that costs likely 90% of their net-worth quite a lot.
"We take privacy seriously" :/
If you work for facebook, in the interest of full disclosure you should say so
"They certainly have a right to expect me NEVER to share their personal information. "
Good. And as it should be. But if you got a warrant thrown at you it could be an issue. I think there needs to be laws made protecting issues involving confidentiality. Perhaps model it after doctor/lawyer confidentiality. Change it to 'professional confidentiality' and be done with it. But it hurts abilities to track criminals so it'd be realllllly hard to pass. (Pretty much anything used to catch criminals hurts everyone's privacy).
http://www.privacylawyer.ca/blog/2009/10/new-decision-on-warrantless-access-to.html
Is a Canadian law that is interestingly worded. I'd check your ISP's wording if I were you. I'm sure many of them will not look good. Also I'm not sure WHAT agreement Bell signed with it's resellers so Bell could fuck things up for everyone (like they have repeatedly).
Also, Eric Schmidt's comments about having to follow the law do not make them legally susceptible to anything. So... [citation needed] for the following:
"'we release information if we have a reasonable expectation that the requesting party has made an enforceable request' - which is google's way of saying 'If we think they COULD get a warrant, we'll roll over on you.'"
From like ONE fucking line lower:
"If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."
Clearly referring to the legal aspects. Stating that Google is subject to certain laws. So I suspect you are just being a troll/douche at this point.
"Every password, every encryption key can be brute-forced, given enough time. "
Not true, plenty of keys will take longer to crack (if you try brute)than it'll take for heat death to destroy the universe. Keys are selected in a manner that is sufficiently safe normally, IE 150yrs w/ current tech (Change the key every year). Sooo......
Bad form to double reply but you do realize they are competing against Facebook here! They sure as fuck are worse about privacy than Google has ever been. And twitter is purely about announcing things publicly to the universe. Not reallllly an issue here. And if you needed a reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoWKGBloMsU .. he basically says that privacy isn't what people want so we aren't giving it to them...
The whoring the new product thing will fade pretty quick after word gets out about it.
"as their CEO puts it - you don't want someone to know about you doing something, don't do it."
He said that while referring to people committing crimes. Having proof of it online. Then being shocked when police with warrants get it. Which btw is standard and LAW for all companies to comply with. Didn't even say anything about google itself. I could say that about computing generally and no one would disagree. Hell it applies beyond computing.
'If you don't want to get busted by cops it is probably a good idea to not leave a traceable trail. BTW, cops can get warrants to search your shit.' -- pretty fucking obvious.
You can get AA form li-ion batteries. The advantages are many though. AA batteries are easily replaceable being everywhere. They are a very common standard so if you want so li-ion ones you can. Since they are so common they are cheap! And available in poor countries. This is not something that is so useful for you or me.
But I think this type of design could eventually/soon get laptops under 100~150$ and that would be a very good thing for poor countries. By type of design I mean using as many common and flexible parts as humanly possible, and simplifying the design as much as possible. This allows people to repair it themselves for some parts. Replace broken parts with whatever they can find if compatibility is high (also good for upgrading). And people can more easily learn to do it. Look at poor countries and you'll see amazingly ingenious kluges. Jury-rigging whatever they have available to suit their purposes. Carts built from bits of fence, bicycle, table and an old motorcycle motor for example. Assuming this is going to continue, designing a computer that embraces it as much as possible will be successful.
Side note: I think they should have dropped the SD card completely and had another USB slot instead. This allows for greater flexibility and simplicity. Stick a drive or USB stick in there, done. Probably more common than SD cards, more or equally portable as well. As well, the screen could be plugged into a VGA plug, might add 40c~1$ to the cost but if the screen breaks people could find a monitor in a dump w/e and get it working. (Keyboard has this functionality through USB already, plus KBs rarely break.) You could probably have the thing charge through USB as well. Technically you could probably design the CPU to use a USB stick as ram but that might be a little shitty (like 1/8th the speed lol). Either way I see the power of standards being underused here.
BTW, everything I listed is the opposite of apple. So your suggestion was pretty friggen idiotic. An irremovable untouchable unmodifiable non-standard expensive ass machine is fucking retarded for this use.
Actually when you think about it AA batteries do kinda suck... At least non-rechargeable ones are a bad idea. It is a nice way to needlessly fill landfills with horrible chemicals. We should probably put some sorta tax on them tbh (like shitty incandescents), people would switch to liions or rechargeables without any issues.
And yes I do realize there is some sort of rule about disposing batteries that is completely ignored in north america. My japanese prof actually asked the class one year wth we were supposed to do with them since she'd had a bag in her house filling for like 3years. Clearly it isn't effective.