Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:police are good (Score 1) 100

I actually disagree to a point with your comments.

Yes, police are there to enforce laws, but I would argue to differ on that they are there to protect you. They are there to protect society in general, not necessarily you, and the powers they have only allow them to really put you in jail (or taz you and put you in jail, or shoot you and put you in jail, or shoot you and put you in a grave). That is really the extent of their power.

If you don't believe me, go read the miranda rights. By talking and interacting with police, they only thing they can really do is put you in jail. It is not up to them to prove your innocence in a potential crime, they are there to prove you guilty, and anything you say or do can and will be used against you.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is the current reality that we live under. 50-70 years ago, this simply wasn't the case everywhere in the nation, but not anymore (sure there were sections, especially if you were a minority that this happened to even back then). You can't simply talk to police anymore, because you don't know the laws, and you don't know what other testimony that the police may have already been given before they come to talk to you. And since they don't have to tell you the truth, you can not even believe anything the police tell you, because it could simply be a tactic to get you to be arrested.

Comment: Re:Trust (Score 1) 100

by thedonger (#48448495) Attached to: Cops 101: NYC High School Teaches How To Behave During Stop-and-Frisk

It sounds like cops hate anyone who is not a cop.

Hate is probably the wrong word for most cops but it would be fair to say cops don't trust anyone who isn't a cop. Cops tend to (understandably) have an us versus them world view and see everyone's actions as those of a potential suspect. Apply a bit of low grade racism and you have a real problem with police distrusting a minority population and the minority population growing to distrust the police.

If computer repair technicians had even the remotest of chances that when they worked on certain types of machines that said machines would purposefully electrocute them, they would necessarily grow to not trust those machines or machines that looked just like them, and treat them differently than other machines.

Or, if you prefer, it is easy for us to sit back and judge when our job is never actively trying to kill us.

I'm not saying I agree with stop and frisk, nor am I saying that cops are above criticism. But the public seems to hop on the anti-cop bandwagon pretty quickly. Maybe they are victims, too; a product of how we have let society evolve?

Comment: Ahhh that explains it (Score 1) 308

by TheCarp (#48448283) Attached to: Blame America For Everything You Hate About "Internet Culture"

Buzzfeed is that site that I keep seeing people share links to, and every once in a while one of them does look interesting and I want to follow it, but when I do, it never actually works because the site just wont work unless you allow your browser to load content and run scripts from half the internet, and I consider that a bit like walking up to a table with 10 people who all rise and start unbuttoning their pants as I am being told "here we don't shake hands, instead we have unprotected anal sex"....

In any case, I have never actually cared enough to figure out which sites I need to let have its way with me to actually read one of their articles. Eventually I just started auto ignoring any link to buzzfeed.

Comment: Re:Microsoft Windows only (Score 1) 106

by Lumpy (#48448009) Attached to: Highly Advanced Backdoor Trojan Cased High-Profile Targets For Years

Dude, Windows admins are 1/5th the price of a good Unix admin. It is a lot cheaper. you can just hire anyone with a MSFT cert and be done with it at a bargain basement price.

No they will not be competent, not even have a clue about stability and security, but that does not matter.

Comment: No it isn't that we won't (Score 1) 268

But that we are so far from any kind of AI that worrying about what form it might take is stupid. Yes, there are lots of things that might happen in the far future. Until they are closer, worrying about them is silly. There have been stories from people who are all paranoid about AI and think we need to start making with the rules. No we don't, we are so far away we don't even know how far away we are. We also have no idea what form it'll take. May turn out that self awareness is a uniquely biological trait and we never make computers that are truly strong AI.

Also if you are betting your life (regardless of if this means an actual bet, singular investment of all assets, etc) on something far off, you are a moron. You have no idea when a technology will happen, if it'll even be possible, and if it is if it'll even be marketable. Want a great example? SED, surface-conduction electron-emitter display. Reasonably chance you've never even heard of it. Was a new tech from Canon, basically a flat, large, hig rez take on CRT. Offered extremely high refresh rates (and thus low blur) great contrast ratio, wide viewing angle, etc. Very exciting display technology lots of people looked forward to as an LCD alternative. Wouldn't displace LCD, but would be a better technology for many uses. It was real too, actual working sets were shown at CES in 2006.

What happened? Well as a result of litigation, the financial downturn, and the general market, they decided to pack it in and stop development. They shut down and liquidated that division in 2010, and there's been no further development. So despite it being real and doable, it didn't happen and almost certainly never will happen.

Now compare that to the concept of strong AI, which we have no idea if it even can exist, if it does what form it will take, and if so what technology will be required. Maybe not the best thing to be betting the farm on.

Comment: Agency isn't constrained to the physical (Score 1) 268

Hawking can't lift a finger without external, artificial assistance. Does that make him an idiot?

If I were able to cut your head from your body, but keep it running, so to speak, now that you can't speak to us (no lungs) and we see no interesting activity on your part, would that make you an idiot?

If I drug you so you are fully conscious, but cannot move, are you then an idiot?

Intelligence is not bound to the ability to do anything material. Intelligence is about manipulating information. Induction, association, that sort of thing. Agency with regard to conceptual matters. Consciousness... well, I have ideas about that, but they're just ideas at the moment.

Comment: Philosophy -- graveyard of fact (Score 1) 268

We evolved from single celled organisms, but we are not those now.

Science evolved from ignorance by determining the uselessness of, and then discarding, philosophical nonsense and replacing it with a very specific, non-soft, objective, rule-based behavior called "the scientific method." Which -- unlike the vast majority of philosophy -- produces useful results.

The claims philosophy have to science can be best likened to a leaky condom. We managed to get the scientific method in spite of it. Not because of it.

Comment: Re: In a Self-Driving Future--- (Score 1) 376

by russotto (#48446183) Attached to: In a Self-Driving Future, We May Not Even Want To Own Cars

The way to definitively solve the problem would have been eliminate all of the little Cities in Michigan that make up Metro Detroit.

And by "eliminate" you mean "merge them into Detroit", thus making Detroit's problem their problem. Which, since many of the residents of those cities moved there to get away from Detroit's problems, isn't going to fly. Detroit needs to solve its own problems, not figure out a way to suck tax money out of the suburbs which it can then waste while still not solving the problems (and eventually destroying the suburbs).

Unless, of course, you'd have the greater city governed from the former suburbs rather than old Detroit... can't see any racial tension there, no sir.

Comment: Not What I Guessed (Score 1) 105

by Bob9113 (#48446173) Attached to: 2014 Hour of Code: Do Ends Justify Disney Product Placement Means?

I can't believe I didn't guess that this was the particular flavor of corporate whoring that Gates and Zuckerberg were up to. Get into the educational pipeline with whatever education issue is hot (it started as just STEM, but then shifted to women in STEM when that started sizzling, if you'll remember). Get some big names to attach their reputations to its success. Then start selling ad space to Disney, who can't get much traction buying ad space inside the schools themselves. I should have guessed, but I didn't. I just thought they were after the data.

Comment: Marketspeak (Score 2) 105

by taustin (#48446021) Attached to: 2014 Hour of Code: Do Ends Justify Disney Product Placement Means?

"The purpose of product placement/product integration/branded entertainment," explains Disney in a job posting, "is to give a brand exposure outside of their traditional media buy."

Let me translate that in to normal English:

"The purpose of product placement ads is to shove advertising down people's throats until they choke to death on it so we can rifle through the corpse's pockets for loose change." Or, more realistically, "Our normal advertising is so annoying and offensive (because all advertising is, these days) that we have to find other ways to force it on to people because if advertising doesn't actually work, we'll all lose our jobs had have to actually work for a living."

Fuck Disney.

Recent research has tended to show that the Abominable No-Man is being replaced by the Prohibitive Procrastinator. -- C.N. Parkinson