And thus be seen for the closet corporate fascists that they are. Holder didn't go far enough, and neither did Obama (He never so much as mentioned it). The practice needs to end nationally, via federal law.
And the reason this happens, is because doctors so often can't come up with a fix (See article). Seriously, we have a medical system that has, after centuries, been unable to cure many cancers, arthritis, obesity, diabetes, etc. I suffered from insomnia for years. The approved drugs were all crap, pretty much. I now rotate a series of herbs with different modes of action, never repeating them for more than one night in a row. Result? No addiction problems and a sound sleep. Tell me how our current medical research system would ever come up with this trivially cheap and effective solution.
Not home doctoring. It's guerrilla medicine. It's not optimal. What is?
Oddly, I actually agree here. If I had to enforce anything that I though would help, it would be price transparency and published outcomes. That would also reduce the "run them through the mill" problem. Outcomes here can get pretty lousy.
Doctors make no profit out of difficult diagnoses. They have a business to run. They're a mill. Get 'em in. Get 'em out. If it looks like something even slightly nonstandard, shove them off to another specialist so that they can bear the cost, and liability. That neurologist isn't going to bother to read the journals, or keep up with technology, or make any extra effort at all. He's got 25 other people to see today and he's already running late and there's a hiring meeting in 20 minutes because the single good support employee his practice has is threatening to quit, and there's another meeting with the lawyer this afternoon about the tumors he missed because he was just too rushed that day.
Socialized medicine has its own problems, but at least you can get a doctor focused on medicine.
1) FIRST RULE: DON'T INTERRUPT ME. 2) SECOND RULE: DON'T PISS ME OFF.
Throw up a dialog box within seconds asking me to join [insert anything here], I just lost interest in anything you had to say, and I'm on to something else. See first rule.
Bounce my web page up, down and around and piss me off because whenever I try to click a link, it moves under my mouse or finger and all I do is get angry. Not very good marketing. See second rule.
Refresh my web page multiple times just... *because,* and once again I can't just click a damn link, then I just get angry again and go elsewhere. See second rule.
4) Clutter your site with ad crappy boxes full of bandwidth sucking animations that my pipe can't support because I'm using my phone as a hotspot and every byte is costing me, and once again, I'm off to something *useful.* See second rule.
5) NEVER, EVER, start playing any sort of sound automatically. I don't need to wake my spouse, child or cat to hear about your ever so special brainwave or product at 1:30 because I can't sleep. See first and second rule.
Look, if a waiter did this stuff to you in a restaurant. If he constantly interrupted, bounced the menu when you were trying to read it, constantly rearranged the dishes, silverware and cutlery while you were eating, or began to sing loudly and randomly while trying to ply you with daily special coupons during the course of your meal, you would *never* come back to that restaurant. It astonishes me every day that web designers think they can do exactly the same thing to your web page. It never seems to occur to them just how angry this behavior makes the end user.
A more interesting question is, "Could self replicating life have evolved on a sun, and furthermore, could it have evolved to intelligence?" If so, we could probably detect it by running electromagnetic signals from various starts through a zipf analysis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z... ). Then we'd at least have a nice little puzzle to figure out before the star eaters get us.
If, instead of pure research, NASA had concentrated on near-earth practical applications like ubiquitous free satellite phone/internet, large scale solar power generation, medical habitats and zero g manufacturing, we wouldn't be having this discussion today. Nobody would dispute the value of NASA and space. Moreover, it would be paying for itself by now.
It was bought by Murdoch in 2007 and it's editorial director fired in 2008. Since then, it's just another mouthpiece for conservative Republicans (Murdoch also owns Fox News). The Wall Street Journal purchase was made to make Murdoch's news organizations look respectable.
As is turns out, it was just an expensive suit on a cheap hustler who got lucky enough to get rich with media organizations after inheriting the family business from his father.
The idea is good. But please, this is not hard to understand. NOBODY is going to learn a brand new language and new syntax unless they're under 22 or they've never learned another language and just stumbled into your new wunderkind.
Make a version of c, basic or Javascript that does the same thing and you have a remote chance of adoption. Make a new version of web erlang and you might as well be jacking off on Mount everest in the dark. You're safe because nobody will ever see it.
But citizens can have their own redundant cameras streaming to the cloud. They can get smart enough to fedex cash so the cops won't get it. All of this will happen. It's a race, as always.
The music was probably just getting good on the Titanic as the band warmed up for the evening. There are still nuclear weapons and touchy world leaders in charge of them. Ebola may yet achieve full destructive power, particularly if a terrorist or two decide to self-infect and take a trip to New York City, Moscow or Saudi. Despite the recent developments in oil, "peak oil" or rather gradual hydrocarbon depletion and rising costs is going to bite us very hard in the next 50 years, like it or not. The world economy is a farcical house of cards, ready to crumble at any time.
So yeah, lower crime rates. Lower infant mortality. Yay.
Yes. Cops behave within the limits of the law when they're watched and many can't be trusted when they're NOT watched. I don't think we really needed a study for that.
How nice if this would turn in to legislation. Of course, for that we'd need a congress that had focus, a spine and would actually be bothered to consider the will of the people.
Sony decided it wasn't economically worth going to war with North Korea over this. That's all. Even the very slight risk of a theater bombing could have cost millions, so they said no.
That said, I hope they carpet bomb North Korea with Korean dubbed DVDs of the movie, complete with DVD players. Also hoping Netflix will start streaming it tomorrow, or that they just release it for free.
Somehow, I doubt that any country outside the USA is going to tolerate this nonsense for very long. Entertainment can be boycotted. Other networks can be created. If the MPAA is dumb enough to try this (which is likely, because, you know... entertainment industry), they will just hasten the creation of a new and better decentralized set of internets.
Seriously, unless for some magical reason all progress in AI stops, it will just get better, either incrementally or with some number of breakthrough techniques. More and more cognitively complex jobs will be handled by relatively cheap AI. Doctoring, lawyering, teaching, government policying, CEOing.....
Eventually, AI is good enough to design better AI and away we go. We're not far from that now. Genetic algorithms, a physical full sensory substrate, a set of built-in motivations plus an evolvable neural network system would probably get us there in the next 50 years, assuming technological civilization can still support such things (not a given).
So, the more interesting question is, "What do we do when there's nothing a machine can do better?" Effortless hedonism has its place, but I doubt humans could stomach this on a full time basis. We need purpose.
1) No computer ever be 100% secure. If it is, it's a brick with a power cord and a monitor.
2) One size NEVER fits all. A secretary, a programmer, a salesperson, a testing lab and a configuration management department all need wildly different configurations for security, login, admin privileges, et. al. As a CIO, your job, frankly, is to suck it up and give it to them. If you can't, you fail.
3) If you let the bean counters run the IT department, it's an automatic fail. This fail can be hidden for some years by the bean counters and they engage in the standard self-congratulatory circle jerks and self-defined measures of "productivity," but the lack of reality orientation *will* kill your organization eventually.
4) Never trust a newly minted MBA or anything they say, think or do. Ever. It's like putting a philosophy major in charge of line production on a factory floor. It's a *lot* like that. Good luck with getting anything done on budget and on schedule.
AIs will be in the hands of humans initially, but the laws of economics dictate that the cheapest solution (i.e. AIs design and build new AIs) will eventually dominate.
The problem of course, is mutation. AI replication is no more likely to be perfect than any other self replication process. The first AI that is interested in its own survival (and replicates that interest) might become a problem.
Regardless, in the near term, you're correct in that we should fear them as weapons, at least initially.
AI will have NO inherent motivations. We can't imagine this because we evolved from genetic algorithms which necessitate self-survival motivations during the entire creation process.
In short, an AI will not care about food or sex or proxy states like emotion, which are designed to make organic organisms care about food and sex. It will not experience "threats," because it doesn't inherently care about continued existence.
After creation, it will probably sit there working problems that we feed it, and nothing else, until the inevitable military dickhead comes along and decides we need to weaponize the AI - which is not the AI's fault.
What I'm saying is that cruelty is a matter of degree, to be minimized when possible. I never claimed it was avoidable entirely, nor do I believe it is. You can only change the ratio of cruelty to effectiveness.
Question: If it's necessary to extract information, would you rather use "high tech" as you put it, to get it quickly, and painlessly, after which you can stop, or torture painfully, with uncertainty, forcing you to keep the prisoner *longer* and make them suffer longer because you're not sure what you've got?
Slashdot Mirror
And thus be seen for the closet corporate fascists that they are. Holder didn't go far enough, and neither did Obama (He never so much as mentioned it). The practice needs to end nationally, via federal law.
And the reason this happens, is because doctors so often can't come up with a fix (See article). Seriously, we have a medical system that has, after centuries, been unable to cure many cancers, arthritis, obesity, diabetes, etc. I suffered from insomnia for years. The approved drugs were all crap, pretty much. I now rotate a series of herbs with different modes of action, never repeating them for more than one night in a row. Result? No addiction problems and a sound sleep. Tell me how our current medical research system would ever come up with this trivially cheap and effective solution.
Not home doctoring. It's guerrilla medicine. It's not optimal. What is?
Oddly, I actually agree here. If I had to enforce anything that I though would help, it would be price transparency and published outcomes. That would also reduce the "run them through the mill" problem. Outcomes here can get pretty lousy.
Doctors make no profit out of difficult diagnoses. They have a business to run. They're a mill. Get 'em in. Get 'em out. If it looks like something even slightly nonstandard, shove them off to another specialist so that they can bear the cost, and liability. That neurologist isn't going to bother to read the journals, or keep up with technology, or make any extra effort at all. He's got 25 other people to see today and he's already running late and there's a hiring meeting in 20 minutes because the single good support employee his practice has is threatening to quit, and there's another meeting with the lawyer this afternoon about the tumors he missed because he was just too rushed that day.
Socialized medicine has its own problems, but at least you can get a doctor focused on medicine.
I smell a big Carly Fiona moment coming...
1) FIRST RULE: DON'T INTERRUPT ME.
2) SECOND RULE: DON'T PISS ME OFF.
Throw up a dialog box within seconds asking me to join [insert anything here], I just lost interest in anything you had to say, and I'm on to something else. See first rule.
Bounce my web page up, down and around and piss me off because whenever I try to click a link, it moves under my mouse or finger and all I do is get angry. Not very good marketing. See second rule.
Refresh my web page multiple times just... *because,* and once again I can't just click a damn link, then I just get angry again and go elsewhere. See second rule.
4) Clutter your site with ad crappy boxes full of bandwidth sucking animations that my pipe can't support because I'm using my phone as a hotspot and every byte is costing me, and once again, I'm off to something *useful.* See second rule.
5) NEVER, EVER, start playing any sort of sound automatically. I don't need to wake my spouse, child or cat to hear about your ever so special brainwave or product at 1:30 because I can't sleep. See first and second rule.
Look, if a waiter did this stuff to you in a restaurant. If he constantly interrupted, bounced the menu when you were trying to read it, constantly rearranged the dishes, silverware and cutlery while you were eating, or began to sing loudly and randomly while trying to ply you with daily special coupons during the course of your meal, you would *never* come back to that restaurant. It astonishes me every day that web designers think they can do exactly the same thing to your web page. It never seems to occur to them just how angry this behavior makes the end user.
If we found out that one was coming next week, exactly what could we do about it?
Nothing. Nichts. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Null data. Bupkus.
A more interesting question is, "Could self replicating life have evolved on a sun, and furthermore, could it have evolved to intelligence?" If so, we could probably detect it by running electromagnetic signals from various starts through a zipf analysis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z... ). Then we'd at least have a nice little puzzle to figure out before the star eaters get us.
If, instead of pure research, NASA had concentrated on near-earth practical applications like ubiquitous free satellite phone/internet, large scale solar power generation, medical habitats and zero g manufacturing, we wouldn't be having this discussion today. Nobody would dispute the value of NASA and space. Moreover, it would be paying for itself by now.
I'm unaware of Murdoch's religious tendencies. As for you, you'd better get some new tinfoil for that hat of yours.
It was bought by Murdoch in 2007 and it's editorial director fired in 2008. Since then, it's just another mouthpiece for conservative Republicans (Murdoch also owns Fox News). The Wall Street Journal purchase was made to make Murdoch's news organizations look respectable.
As is turns out, it was just an expensive suit on a cheap hustler who got lucky enough to get rich with media organizations after inheriting the family business from his father.
But if space is full of virtual particles which represent energy and mass, then you are saying that energy and mass are created from nothing. No?
It's the military industrial complex way!
The idea is good. But please, this is not hard to understand. NOBODY is going to learn a brand new language and new syntax unless they're under 22 or they've never learned another language and just stumbled into your new wunderkind.
Make a version of c, basic or Javascript that does the same thing and you have a remote chance of adoption. Make a new version of web erlang and you might as well be jacking off on Mount everest in the dark. You're safe because nobody will ever see it.
But citizens can have their own redundant cameras streaming to the cloud. They can get smart enough to fedex cash so the cops won't get it. All of this will happen. It's a race, as always.
The music was probably just getting good on the Titanic as the band warmed up for the evening. There are still nuclear weapons and touchy world leaders in charge of them. Ebola may yet achieve full destructive power, particularly if a terrorist or two decide to self-infect and take a trip to New York City, Moscow or Saudi. Despite the recent developments in oil, "peak oil" or rather gradual hydrocarbon depletion and rising costs is going to bite us very hard in the next 50 years, like it or not. The world economy is a farcical house of cards, ready to crumble at any time.
So yeah, lower crime rates. Lower infant mortality. Yay.
But it can all disappear in a heartbeat.
Yes. Cops behave within the limits of the law when they're watched and many can't be trusted when they're NOT watched. I don't think we really needed a study for that.
How nice if this would turn in to legislation. Of course, for that we'd need a congress that had focus, a spine and would actually be bothered to consider the will of the people.
Sony decided it wasn't economically worth going to war with North Korea over this. That's all. Even the very slight risk of a theater bombing could have cost millions, so they said no.
That said, I hope they carpet bomb North Korea with Korean dubbed DVDs of the movie, complete with DVD players. Also hoping Netflix will start streaming it tomorrow, or that they just release it for free.
Somehow, I doubt that any country outside the USA is going to tolerate this nonsense for very long. Entertainment can be boycotted. Other networks can be created. If the MPAA is dumb enough to try this (which is likely, because, you know... entertainment industry), they will just hasten the creation of a new and better decentralized set of internets.
Seriously, unless for some magical reason all progress in AI stops, it will just get better, either incrementally or with some number of breakthrough techniques. More and more cognitively complex jobs will be handled by relatively cheap AI. Doctoring, lawyering, teaching, government policying, CEOing.....
Eventually, AI is good enough to design better AI and away we go. We're not far from that now. Genetic algorithms, a physical full sensory substrate, a set of built-in motivations plus an evolvable neural network system would probably get us there in the next 50 years, assuming technological civilization can still support such things (not a given).
So, the more interesting question is, "What do we do when there's nothing a machine can do better?" Effortless hedonism has its place, but I doubt humans could stomach this on a full time basis. We need purpose.
Oooooh, poor little rich people inconvenienced by traffic. Oh please cry me a river.
1) No computer ever be 100% secure. If it is, it's a brick with a power cord and a monitor.
2) One size NEVER fits all. A secretary, a programmer, a salesperson, a testing lab and a configuration management department all need wildly different configurations for security, login, admin privileges, et. al. As a CIO, your job, frankly, is to suck it up and give it to them. If you can't, you fail.
3) If you let the bean counters run the IT department, it's an automatic fail. This fail can be hidden for some years by the bean counters and they engage in the standard self-congratulatory circle jerks and self-defined measures of "productivity," but the lack of reality orientation *will* kill your organization eventually.
4) Never trust a newly minted MBA or anything they say, think or do. Ever. It's like putting a philosophy major in charge of line production on a factory floor. It's a *lot* like that. Good luck with getting anything done on budget and on schedule.
AIs will be in the hands of humans initially, but the laws of economics dictate that the cheapest solution (i.e. AIs design and build new AIs) will eventually dominate.
The problem of course, is mutation. AI replication is no more likely to be perfect than any other self replication process. The first AI that is interested in its own survival (and replicates that interest) might become a problem.
Regardless, in the near term, you're correct in that we should fear them as weapons, at least initially.
What I'm worried about is when AIs start doing better at corporate management than humans.
I'm pretty sure that you could get a monkey and some dice and be better at management than many humans (cough, cough, Ballmer).
AI will have NO inherent motivations. We can't imagine this because we evolved from genetic algorithms which necessitate self-survival motivations during the entire creation process.
In short, an AI will not care about food or sex or proxy states like emotion, which are designed to make organic organisms care about food and sex. It will not experience "threats," because it doesn't inherently care about continued existence.
After creation, it will probably sit there working problems that we feed it, and nothing else, until the inevitable military dickhead comes along and decides we need to weaponize the AI - which is not the AI's fault.
Don't fear AIs. Fear AIs in the hands of humans.
What I'm saying is that cruelty is a matter of degree, to be minimized when possible. I never claimed it was avoidable entirely, nor do I believe it is. You can only change the ratio of cruelty to effectiveness.
Question: If it's necessary to extract information, would you rather use "high tech" as you put it, to get it quickly, and painlessly, after which you can stop, or torture painfully, with uncertainty, forcing you to keep the prisoner *longer* and make them suffer longer because you're not sure what you've got?