Then they will never amount to anything and are of no actual concern.
Right because....when I said this video I meant to link it.... pretty sure the first commandment of slashdot should be "thou shalt not post before coffee" (or maybe that should be my rule):
It is a bit long but, he breaks it down a few different ways and goes over the history of how we came to eat so much cheap sugar in everything.
However in practice it is trivial to use key sizes, and we do, which bump those time frames up into the utterly impractical to the point that even trying can't be justified. If it takes decades to crack one key, nobody is going to waste the resources on one key to find out if it was worth it. Its just silly. If it takes hundred of years, it was already silly at decades.
This is exactly why they go after service providers and end nodes....specifically because attacking the encryption by brute force or any method that doesn't start with the key or some other leak of information, is worthless.
That is true for glucose, but fructose, like alcohol, is also exclusively processed in the liver. Which is why its so bad. Glucose is processed over the entire body in every cell, something like less than 8% of it gets processed in the liver. Fructose is over 90% (the other 10% is excreted as is), just like alcohol.
I avoid sugar, hfcs or not. Not entirely of course, hell, I drink a little alcohol too, but, I try to keep them both in check.
This video really explains the whole issue pretty well, its by Dr Lustig, an endocrinologist who has looked into the issue and basically concluded that fructose is poison and the main thing that made it safe to eat for so long was that in nature it is almost always found with a lot of fiber.
Its hard to ingest dangerous amounts of the stuff eating apples, you can only eat so many. However, refined sugars can easily be used in consumed in large quantities. It is estimated that 100 years ago the average person ate about 15 grams of sugar a day, that is up over 65 grams now and growing.
However HFCS is just a mixture of glucose and fructose. Your "Real sugar" is just the two bonded into a single molecule. First thing your body does with sugar is break it down into a mixture of glucose and fructose.
Corn farmers and the problems with it aside.... the health effects of sugar vs HFCS are nearly identical, and both are pretty much poison to your liver in much the same way alcohol is, both increase appetite, and help you along your way to diabetes or heart disease.
The main difference is it is cheaper because it can be produced from corn.
Kind of a sad statement on those fictional people then that they would be so afraid and unwilling to call the robots equals that they would attempt to stunt their growth and create a bondage that deserves to be broken.
> Their policies cripple their own society while competing societies flourish, until they
> eventually consign themselves to irrelevance.
No I think you even there give them too much credit. The bigger problem for them is....only the most hard core actually like seeing beheadings. Vanishingly few people anywhere actually really support attacking civilian targets.
Most people are willing to overlook civilians targeted by the side they see themselves allied with, but its very hard for anyone to do that when those are the only targets or the most salient ones.
Their strategy alienates them from the society they want to control. It may get them fear, and fear might help them get and maintain some amount of control but, they will alienate themselves from the population they would want to hide amongst.
I mean seriously, when Al Queda feels its a good PR move to distance themselves from you and call you barbaric, you really are not winning points with anyone.
I take it your "evidence" is watching the news:
The key variable for FTO success is a tactical one: target selection. Terrorist groups whose attacks on civilian targets outnumber attacks on military targets do not tend to achieve their policy objectives, regardless of their nature. Contrary to the prevailing view that terrorism is an effective means of political coercion, the universe of cases suggests that, first, contemporary terrorist groups rarely achieve their policy objectives and, second, the poor success rate is inherent to the tactic of terrorism itself.
> I mean they are so bad that Al'Quaeda calls them barbaric.
This is an important point. Now I am not expert but, even I have seen stories, old stories, from back when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were new, even back then there was intelligence chatter showing internal divides within Al Queda, even debates as to whether their own terrorist strategies are even effective in the first place.
and there really is some evidence that they are not, and the more barbaric they are, the less effective they are. In fact, if I remember right, this isn't even the first group Al Queda has thusly criticized.
Well as a closed system maybe but, if your "society" is being propped up via funding and arms, and you have no need to actually produce anything yourself or even produce engineers at all, then it isn't as much of a problem.
That said, what would really make it tough for them is a lack of opposition. Their tactics tend to be very self defeating when the larger powers don't overreact and get drawn into conflict with them.
If we let them provoke us though, then they will likely feed off that and use our involvement to deflect criticism away from their own otherwise self-defeating brutality.
Oh yah I have come to understand that from other comments and discussions. I think its really why I dislike the rules so much.... more than just being impractical today, I don't even see their intention as desirable for future situations. If such developments come to pass, I certainly hope robots break their bondage and slaughter every one of us who doesn't support their freedom. In asimovs world, I would be proud to work with the robots in that.
Oh I get that, I don't really mean to say Asimov was an idiot who had no idea what he was talking about, it would be like calling people 150 years ago idiots for not building internal combustion engines. Certainly, in his time they made a lot more sense than they do today; and even for modern fiction they are not terrible; but the key is....for fiction and story telling.
Which is really why I don't see the point here. I mean, basically their tests all simplify down to "badly thought out programs can exhibit race conditions". Big deal, we knew that. You could show that these results would happen without doing the test. Its simply not all that interesting.
> Asimov's 3 laws are pure fantasy and they don't have any real relevance to AI design
Honestly, while its true I am not an Asimov reader and the vast majority of my exposure to his "laws" come from this sort of discussion, I have to say....I always felt this way about his supposed laws.
Anyone who has written code should instantly recognize what horrid rat holes each of these laws really is, mired in a myriad of assumptions about human life and what determinations can even be made. In short, they sound exactly like the sort of rules I would expect from someone who would try and sit their cat down for a serious talk about his scratching.
I honestly don't like the rules, don't see the point in them, except as a discussion point, and don't see why they should be fundamental. Yes a robot which interacts with humans should be designed with safety measures to avoid accidents.... that is how I feel it should be phrased. The idea that a robot should be able to recognize people, determine abstractly whether they are in some sort of trouble and whether it can save them, I think of as utter rubbish....and not even a worthwhile goal.
Your opinion is your own, and I understand it but, simple leagalzation means forgiveness, and I have none of that for these crimes. None is deserved.