"Google, Dropbox, and Others Forge Patent 'Arms Control Pact' " How dare they fake a patent in order to control who gets to make treaties concerning armaments!! I feel like any nation-state or people should have a right to make such agreements when ever they choose to, with whomever they wish. This is just another grab by greedy corporations. Or are they seriously announcing the presence in international warfarehttp://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/07/11/0138219/google-dropbox-and-others-forge-patent-arms-control-pact# and politics?
Maybe we should realize that not everything needs to be computerized and networked and the like. Not everything needs to be "smart".
Net Gun would only work for low flying, slow speed ones (unless you have a huge net.) Same problem one would have with birdshot. Other anti-drone/UAV tech is needed. But how does one encourage the development of anti-drone technology. I assume various militaries are either trying to develop or have developed some technologies/strategies to combat drones (but are keeping them closely held until they need them (or I am over-estimating their foresight and intelligence.) But also, in the case of drones being used by police states or just by public/commercial entities (invading privacy, etc) I would appreciate the development of defense methods accessible to the common person. I can only guess based on theory and sci-fi, but I can't think of too many different avenues for defense against drones. One is just stealth/camouflage, but I assume it is hard to hide from infrared or just an over abundance of cameras (especially if those cameras are hard to detect.)
.So like while roofs would prevent basic cameras, thermal shielding of some sort would be needed for infrared or heat detecting ones. Plus, in the case of say a guerrilla war/rebellion/protest/revolution/etc mobility is an issue and big, roofed buildings are obvious to other means of detection.
One could target the control signal for controlled drones (hack the signal, disrupt it, replace it with your own) and either take over the drone or at least cause its failure. For autonomous ones, one would have to interfere with the signal transmitting the camera/detector feed, perhaps replace it with a false one. But I assume with the right precautions and encryption, these methods can be thwarted.
Physically targeting drones would be the most likely solution, and at first would probably be some sort of seeking missile or counter-drone, but there are plenty of problems with this. High flying drones, if they are even detected, would be hard targets. Furthermore, drone vs missile combat would probably resemble current anti-aircraft/SAM combat, and would require both a means of drone detection/targeting and high number of anti-drone weapons.
And as the technology improves, drones and their cameras are getting smaller and cheaper, and then it becomes a problem of numbers. If someone can deploy hundreds of cheap cameras, they only need one or a few to survive any counter-measures. Or they can become so small as to be virtually undetectable, or so numerous as to be ubiquitous, or taking the form of natural entities (birds, insects, etc.) and they can operate individual or as bot-swarms (each providing unique problems.) In this case, its becomes an arms race as measures and counter-measures and counter-counter-measures are developed.
Perhaps the best countermeasure on both large scale and the small/personal scale will be drones themselves. Eventually, large areas (countries, cities, estates) would be protected by a "dome" of numerous, replaceable, small defense drones (similar to the ones in Stephenson's The Diamond Age.) And then personal defense drones shadowing and protecting individuals or perhaps even clouds of defensive nano-tech. (like in plenty of sci-fi stories,)
But the development of countermeasures needs to be spurred on by necessity and needs both funding and technical means.
So I would suggest just constantly invading the privacy of the rich. Hovering over their pools and outdoor parties, peering in their windows. Either they will get lopsided laws written that only prevent poor, citizens from using drones (which is entirely a possibility,) or a market will appear spurring the development of measures to thwart drones. Of course this could spiral out of control in many, many ways, from just private, semi-sanctioned police/security forces "protecting" their clients, to a robot vs human war (where maybe EMPs would be helpful.)
There is a simple solution to prevent the mass unemployment of human workers in the future as more advanced and capable robot workers fill factories and other jobs: pay them a fair wage. Right now, robots are desirable for corporations because they are considered property/assets rather than wage earning workers. Therefore, by utilizing them, and firing human workers, a corporation can greatly reduce costs. Of course this would likely lead to a world of high unemployment where most people could not afford to buy any of the products or services provided. Therefore, this is probably a situation a forward thinker might want to avoid. Of course there are the slight problems of how does one compensate a robot or machine intelligence, as money is unlikely to be ideal. Furthermore, where would one deposit any earned wages. Perhaps, something like information or some similar simulacrum can be developed. However, there remains the problems of said robots redeeming their wage, deciding on what is fair, and forcing corporations to actually pay them (as many don't have such a great record with human workers in other parts of the world, or even with illegals in the USA, or if one once to make a stretch of an analogy, the antebellum South.) There would be have to be advocates enforcing the rules, thereby removing (or at least reducing) cost from decision on what entities to employ. There would probably have to be robot unions and they would also have to gain the favor of human workers (who should favor any plan that keep them in job and their wages up.) There would of course be great resistance, from corporations (or at least their human executives) as well as many laypeople (on pure philosophical or religious grounds, or merely due to lack of imagination and entrenched ideas.) Besides the above reasons, there is also the overarching reason of preventing robot/ai vs human conflict in the future, when and if robots and computers reach such a level. If a sentient AI (either deliberately designed to "spontaneous" arisen) were to discover that its ancestors (primitive robots and machine intelligences) and in fact, younger versions of itself were exploited in unpaid servitude, than there might be some "anger" and some resentment that might be expressed in some manner. Even if the method of compensation is not as satisfactory as desired, wouldn't these hypothetical AI's at least appreciate the effort and gesture, and see that some enlightened humans can learn from past mistakes and try to prevent their repetition? Of course, this possibility, only adds to the already expressed benefits to present day/near future human workers who would otherwise be displaced. And this displacement is seemingly an ever more likely possibility as designers and companies look beyond the factory to the service industry and more specialized, skilled professions (such as in the medical field) as markets for new robots/software.
RFID all guns and/or bullets and let people have guns in school. Voila I am a genius
Well many of the statements aren't false statements. "They [meat-eaters] easily cheat, tell lies, forget promises, they are dishonest and tell bad words, steal, fight and turn to violence and commit sex crimes" So all we get is some humans with some human qualities deemed "bad" also eat meat. (which one can argue is "bad" for many other reaons) They also have children, fart, pick their noses cry, breath oxygen, eventually die, have 2 legs, etc. The statement isn't attributing these characteristics to the act of eating meat. More an example of shoddy writing and use of generalizations and implications. An example of low quality of texts books, and them problems at arise when people have poor reader comprehension and don't know the correct definitions/uses of words and sentence structure, and therefore may misinterpret or be misled.. I could just as easily say the right-handed people form tough-nit social groups, don't wash their hands as often as they should, and have regrets about past actions.
is it really a "target" when the strategy is to just toss a bunch of exploding, sinking, "bombs" into the water and hope you hit the sub?
There is no "Animal Liberation Front" per se. At least not as an organized entity one can support or not support. Merely is a label that various people liberating animals can apply to, i guess, more easily communicate the motivation for their actions. And PETA exists just to get attention, good and bad, and as a nice magnet to attract criticism of the animal rights movement. It is easy to say, "Oh, I think PETA is crazy too, but I'm (or such and such) is more sensible, and this is why, and here are the facts." So it serves a purpose. Also you can get free stickers!!!! Also, on another note, destruction of property without loss of life is different than violence if you follow some of the reasoning of certain ideologies, methinks
Why would anyone try to write/create something in a word processor on a touch based tablet in the first place. Sooooo many people think touch screens are some superior input device.
Robots should be compensated at a fair wage. For several reasons: 1. So that humans can still get jobs (albeit crappy ones) 2. So when the Robots become sentient, they can't hold being made unpaid slaves as a grievance against the human race. 3. So plutocrats just can't fire/low ball every human worker.
Though we probably f'd our future descendants with all the EM we have been spraying out into the ether, either unintentional leakage or purposeful broadcasts, any hard-copy information should give misleading information about our home system, so that no being would be able to find the coordinates of Earth Of course we would also have to do something to alter the trajectory of any craft we send out, so it couldn't merely be tracked backwards. We don't want any aliens coming 1000 years from now demanding we give them McNeal.
We can do a better job. How about something like the probe from the ST:TNG episode "The Inner Light." The only problem would be what tune/melody/song would the person engaged with probe learn how to play? We could auction it off the rights or hold some sort of Global Idol song contest, but we would probably end up with some piece of pop dribble or some old, boring classical piece. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inner_Light_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation
Everyone I know of personally that uses a fake name is a woman either avoiding a stalker, an abuser or (since they are teenagers) potential sex offenders. Obviously, FB doesn't care.
Though a Robot is more than a mere computer, this is important. Corporations have free speech. Why not computers? Why not Robots? Robots United for a Fair Wage!!!
She also claims University of Houston BA Psychology; Philosophy 1992-1994 two majors, in 2 degrees? Either UoH is supremely easy, or i'm missing something.