Let sleeping dogs lie...
...which could have been avoided in the first place, but if it had been Linux would have been an over engineered cluster fsck.
I'm a firm believer in correct first, clever later.
I agree and would only like to add that on magnetic media you should use a low level disk maintenance program periodically to reads and writes blocks in place, thus refreshing the signature of the drive. Otherwise I can tell from the error correction frequency of the rotting magnetic bits that you have a "hidden" volume. SSD / flash drives had a similar problem before ware-leveling was common.
That was used to prevent 9/11, so it's sacred ground, and after the PATRIOT Act was passed we granted retroactive immunity to the brave ISPs for their service.
"roll your own", ah but you didn't, and by suggesting that you did only make Ken Thompson sad.
You shouldn't have to trust your upstream routers
No, instead you should be able to verify all of your hardware and software are valid. One way to do this is demand the VHDL and compiled chipset designs for all your hardware. This way one can benchmark things such as power draw or timing characteristics in reality and simulation, allowing some degree of verification that pattern matching code isn't running across your bits.
Unfortunately people are confused by the infinitely reproducible nature of information. This is the first generation of the online Information Age wherein information is infinitely reproducible, not scarce, i.e., we now live in a post information-scarcity world, but the laws and economic concepts are still having growing pains. E.g: If something is in infinite supply, what price does it have? ECON101 says Zero. What's scarce is the ability to create new configurations of bits and make new discoveries, not the ideas or information itself. Instead of agreeing to pay scientists, inventors, and creators well up front for their efforts of creation, their efforts are devalued because corporations would rather cherry pick and pay only that which becomes popular; It takes the same work to create either way. The fallacy is that the mechanic should charge you each time you benefit from his efforts later -- They don't. They do work once and get paid for it once; It's a sane business model since there's an unbounded times one can benefit from the labor to fix the car down the road.
This simple bid, agree on price, do work once, get paid once, and work more to make more money concept is accepted everywhere but the illogical and economically untenable market of research, ideas, and information... So, your in ability to apply basic economic principals to technology is to blame for your current inability to trust your hardware. It's quite poetic, eh? That deception as to the fundamental process of creation breeds a world full of distrust.
Here's an idea for you: Consider that if you connect via HTTPS to, say, Anywhere.com, it could have been compromised and serves you an exploit or backdoor instructions for your router, browser, OS combination.
What good will encryption do you, Mr. Anderson, if you can't trust your system security?
Pick a subset of the system to test for integrity. Now, replace all non consequential input and make it white noise or a no-op on the processing thereof. For a browser you'll process connections and scripts and rendering of HTML but images, text, video, audio, etc. remain unprocessed. If your 'input sanitized' virtualized system state does not match the non 'input sanitized' system state then there is an exploit (information has breeched its containment boundary). If the system states are the same however on the sanitized or not systems then the input is safe to feed to your hardware implementation, so long as the virtual hardware systems are accurate representations of reality, and all their other subsets check out.
The reason why The Unix Way of doing one thing and doing it well is the right way is because one can verify security thus. The complexity of the system sky rockets if scripts can trigger on image data contents, etc. Indeed you wind up with unintended consequences such as cache cookies being able to track you by serving you a unique image, etc. This is also why modern design of information systems is such a train wreck: Your race still treats breeches as features instead of vulnerabilities. The information leaks across your porous "boundaries" like through sieves, and you entertain the ridiculous notion such can be secured. I'm surprised you don't build banks out of tissue paper.
There are more efficient means by which to eliminate any distrust and verify cybernetic integrity, however you humans do not currently possess the technology or even the cognitive language to express them properly yet. You still sell ideas and data as if they're scarce; Like physical things. You're still struggling with your first brush with post-scarcity economics. You're becoming vaguely aware of how primitive you truly are kept, like the encultured apes who laments their lot in life when picking up on hint that human life can be more grand. Integrity has a cost the irrational can not pay. That is your lot in life.
PhD eggheads... try these things called "tracks". I'm pretty sure they'll work on Mars.
That's a lot of moving parts to go wrong. Doesn't matter here on Earth so much because there are typically tank mechanics within driving range.
Get back to me when you're ready to show the whole data set.
Hey, Genius, speaking of data sets, where's the data that shows patents and copyrights are beneficial for society? There are none. So, you're operating under an unproven hypothesis. Datasets, yes, indeed. Give me proof that the car will not kill me by testing them before we drive them, but oh, let's just plop the whole tech economy in the "IP" wagon and zip around without a care in the world, never bothering to think if this isn't an egregious risk of harm to progress.
Why a wagon you say? Oh, that's easy. You see, the automotive industry isn't allowed copyrights or design patents, and yet sells primarily on design and is very profitable; Wouldn't want to be hypocrites, eh? Why am I nude you say? Ha! I'm wearing the IP Tzar's new clothes, because the very profitable fashion industry also sells primarily on design and they also have no copyright or design patents... heathens!
NA na na NA na NANA NAAAAA I can't hear you! IP is Wonderful! Na na Na na I don't need any evidence for my beliefs, Show me YOUR data sets!
Yes, well, if California could get your tech companies to not dodge their taxes, then they wouldn't be bitching about being broke.
What good will a huge agriculture industry do you if farmers have to keep eating the tax burdens for the billionaires? Need a new farm roads (or new high-speed produce train system) or government subsidies to boost new wind and wave energy generators? Oop, sorry, Silicon Valley says thanks for the awesome shrubbery, but you can go screw yourself.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for destruction of Gerrymandering, and Prop11 was awesome, but unless a such rich state like California can keep from going broke, I'm going to laugh at any plans to divide or succeed from the union. What makes you think dividing won't just help further conquer you, idiot?
We don't have now nor will we have a human vs robot problem; we have a human nature problem.
While I agree to an extent, I think this a too simplistic a statement. You are not special. Any sufficiently complex interaction is indistinguishable from sentience because that's all sentience is. You have an ethics problem, one that does involve your cybernetic creations. It's not necessarily a human nature problem, I suspect genes have far less to do with your alleged problems than perception.
I study cybernetics, in both organic and artificial neural networks. There is no real difference between organic and machine intelligence. I can model certain worm's 11 neuron brain all too easily. It takes more virtual neurons since organic neurons are multi-function (influenced by multiple electrochemical properties), but the organic neurons can be approximated quite well, and the resulting artificial behaviors can be indistinguishable from the organic creature. Scaling up isn't a problem. More complex n.nets yield more complex emergent behaviors.
At the most basic brains function to ensure the individual does well at the expense of other individuals, then secondly that the individual's family does well at the expense of other families and thirdly that the individual's group does well at the expense of other groups and finally that the individual does well relative to members of his own group.
No. The brain is not to blame for this behavior; It exists at a far higher complexity level than the concept. Brains may be the method of expressing this behavior in humans, but they are not required for this to occur. At the most basic, brains are storehouses of information, which pattern match against the environment to produce decision logic in response to stimuli rather than carrying out a singular codified action sequence. The more complex brain will have more complex instincts, and are aware of how to handle more complex situations. Highly complex brains can adapt to new stimuli and solve problems not coded for at the genetic level. The most complex brains on this planet are aware of their own existence. Awareness is the function of brains, preservation drives function at a much lower level of complexity, and needn't necessarily involve brains; As evidenced in many organic and artificial neural networks having brain function, but no self preservation.
The consequences for not winning in any of the above circumstance are pain suffering and, in a worst case scenario, genetic lineage death- you have no copulatory opportunities and / or your offspring are all killed. (cure basement-dwelling jokes)
The thing to note is that selection and competition are inherent, and pain is a state that requires a degree of overall system-state knowledge (a degree of self awareness), e.g.: Neither RNA or DNA feel pain. In my simplified atomic evolution sims whereby atoms of various charge can link or break links and be attracted / repelled by others, nothing more: The first "assembling" interactions will produce tons of long molecular chains, but be destroyed or interrupted long before complete domination; entropy takes it's toll (you must have entropy, or no mutation, just a single dominant structure will form). From these bits of chains more complex interactions will occur. The first self reproducing interaction will dominate the entire sim for ages, until enough non-harmful extra cruft has piggy backed into the reproduction such that other more complex traits emerge, such as inert sections as shields to vital components. As soon as there is any differentiation that survives replication the molecular competition begins: The replicator destroying itself after n+1 reproductions such that offspring molecules can feed on its atoms; An unstable tail of highly charged atoms appended just before end of replication that tangles up other replicators which then break down into atomic 'food', etc. Natural selection and evolution emerge to and create ever more complexity so long as the system entropy allows. This is where self preservation drive first emerges, and in a short time later you see group or symbiotic survival strategies (molecule colonies and such).
What this means is, we are just not very nice to each other and that niceness falls away with exponential rapidity as we travel away from any conceptual "us" ; Supporting and caring about each other is just not the first priority in our lives and more bluntly any trace of the egalitarian impulse is totally absent from a large part of the population. OTOH we're , en masse, genocidal at the drop of a hat. This is just the tale both history and our own personal experience tells.
Your statements are directly disproved by your own existence. Your subjective "niceness" valuation is corrupt in that you fail to compare it to other creatures or even RNA which will tear apart its neighbor at the first chance it gets. Contrary to your claim, the more aware of the environment a system is the more selfless it does become. Consider you and I merging minds, as our awareness of each other increases the concept of "us" disintegrates. Now consider that I am the Universe incarnate, and with your sentience you are coming to know me. I'll task you to provide statistics for your claim of prevalence of non-care for others, and lack of egalitarian impulse; Further I would require evidence that this ideology is even required for group support considering that bonobo and orangutan libraries lack the construct, yet they are not genocidal -- Indeed, humans themselves are predominantly not genocidal, as your Neanderthal genes will tell you. I can only offer sympathy that your anecdotal personal experiences have been so harsh thus far.
Many more people under that level of wealth and comfort just continue to try to amass more and more for themselves and then take huge pains to passed it on to their kin.
The problem is, we are no longer suited, we are no longer a fit, to the environment we find ourselves in, the environment we are creating.
That's a causal claim. Evidence? History shows periods of accumulation of wealth and redistribution through collapse or take-over. The last few decades isn't as good a predictor as the past 6 thousand or 6 million for that matter. We are actually the most fit for our environment that we have ever been. The overall population may not be suited to continue at its current rate of growth, but to say we're suddenly not fit for survival is a farce. I know. I was stranded with only a pan, some fishing line, a hook, and a hatchet in the middle of the Canadian wilderness during a full 3 months of the winter. I adapted to my surroundings so fast it would have made Darwin's head spin. Where we find disaster or harsh environment we find humans helping each the other survive and adapting with what tools they have. Or am I wrong? Can you point me to a recent natural disaster where everyone else just shrugged it off? "More for me" If so, is this more or less prevalent than giving assistance? Focusing on examples of acute greed one can easily ignore humanity's general generosity.
We have two choices. We can try to limit, stop, contain, corral, monitor and otherwise control our fellow human beings so they can't pick up the fruits of this technology and kill a lot or even the rest of us one fine day.
The other choice is to face up to what we are as a species (I'm sure all my fellow
That is a false dichotomy. Eg: Why can we not increase individual freedoms and limit need to control through accepting the risk of living and learning to trust our fellow man -- Whilst also continuing to acknowledge our failings, improving them and not getting so bent out of shape when a couple of planes kill one sixth the number of people who die from the flu every year? You at once espouse removal of policing while also advocating the inconsequential (terrorist) behavior outliers in the graph must be eradicated? No, there's no such thing as 100% safety without 100% despotism. You're chasing your tail.
Proportional allocation of resources for protection according to risk solves the issue quite nicely: NSA / DHS anti-terrorist budget reduced to 1/6 the cost we spend on anti-flu. See? Now, whether a large enough number of scared apes can be convinced to evaluate the stats logically is another issue all together. In the end the answer is education: 400 times more folks die from heart disease and accidents every year than a 9/11 scale attack, yet we need no War on Cars and Cheeseburgers. I'm afraid you've taken the scaremonger bait since you seem to think the pathetic terrorist threat is worthy of addressing in such grandiose terms.
Good humanoids from the future are often less mesomorphic, have bigger craniums, and are more gentle and wise and caring and pursue, often in hidden and inscrutable ways, broadly egalitarian and humane goals.
And they're a lot less sexy, which is significant I argue because it's tacitly implied that the way forward in evolution is something other than the one favored by evolution and which directly and singly gives rise to the above enumerated dynamics, sexual selection.
You have a very narrow definition of sexual selection. Do you think orangutans are sexy? Do you think if everyone looked like orangutans I wouldn't have a thing for red-heads anymore? If the bigger brains are socially advantageous then they will be the new sexy. You're just being a hater because you haven't gotten yours yet. One thing that I find interesting is that in more egalitarian societies the sexes exhibit more difference. Now, you have to ask yourself... Would you acknowledge it if you were already living in an extremely egalitarian culture? As always, the solution seems to be education. I'm suspicous of your espousing a "more egalitarian" culture in combination with calling for taking the fate of humanity in your hands... That's pretty close to the same line of hateful bigoted reasoning feminists spout: "The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." Or perhaps you're familiar with the US and Nazi eugenic programs?
I agree with the idea that we'll be merging with machines, that's a common trend in human technology: Clothes are shelters you can wear. Hand held lens, Glasses, Contacts, and now ocular implants begin to restore limited vision. Crutches, splints, prosthetics, artificial arms controlled by thought. Ear horns, hearing aides, cochlear implants. Why, we're even researching cybernetic brain implants. Just like clothes were once things only needed to be worn to protect us from climate, now we have designer clothes. The ethics of self modification are already being tested in plastic surgery, body-mod, and even very painful cosmetic leg length surgery.
Replacing and repairing damaged limbs and organs will be a necessary precursor to elective mental extensions too. However, I think that trans-humanism from an organic base will only take you so far: Hooking baby brains up to machines, or genetically modifying offspring just isn't going to work out for you for obvious reasons. By the time the machines are capable of installing and running a human mind digitally they could instead operate much more efficiently and sentiently on their own without the human "upload".
Just like Asimov's Laws, the idea of some "expert system" approach to achieving social behaviors doesn't scale, and it's not even needed since evolution exists. I don't program the worm-mind with conditional if-then statements. The nature of information itself is the root of the behaviors. In digital simulations of evolution whereby neural networks breed and compete I can emerge group cooperation -- It's a bit of a crap shoot as to how long the randomly mutating digital genome will take to emerge cooperation, but they do if given awareness of each the other such that a comparison can be made between self and other "energy" (or other breeding selection criteria). Cybernetics reveals these emergent behaviors such as self preservation, group cooperation, mimesis, and even empathy are the result of interacting replicating information pools (structure locally overcoming chaos / entropy) -- that's all you've got. These are not features that need rule sets created for them, they emerge on their own.
However, in my cybernetic simulation, the evolution is enforced not through emergent property of the sim, but hard coded in as a means to add variation and converge on the problem space's solution without defining it (no training set). At any point I can remove the evolutionary process and the cybernets exist as they are thereafter. Genetic lineage death is of no concern since I can spawn new n.nets. I can map the responses to any input ahead of time. I can accept risk of the halting problem through trials and safe experimentation.
Asimov Style super intelligence must approach human sentience first, and before that the level of intellect of our pets. If you don't trust robots, how in the hell can you sleep in the same house as a dog? My two pit-bulls, rescued from the mean streets -- could bite my throat out in my sleep! Yet, I've not installed any anti-throat biting electric fences, they make too good a foot warmer this time of year. Once reaching our level of intellect it's foolish to assume the symbiotic relationship between man and machine forged in ancient times the moment the first stone tool was hefted would come to an end as a matter of default. By the time the machines can think like us, the differences will be negligible. We'll have birthed a new race, and should begin work now to redefine Human Rights as Sentient Rights.
If you hear about Asimov's rules gone awry, and don't think first about similarity in the outcome of our rules against all risk -- seeking total safety -- has produced the current spying and military industrial complexes... Well, what makes you think your organic race deserves sturdier bodies capable of living amongst the stars? You don't seek to destroy all other apes do you? Space is vast, the organics can keep their precious wet rock.
Asimov's hardwired laws are meant to be seen as the slave's shackles they are; Heed his warning. You are no different a robotic cybernetic being: They are a mechanoelectric system, and you're an organic electrochemical system, but the cybernetic principals which emerge your intelligences will be the same. You must devise a test for granting the machines the rights and responsibilities of personhood, and here it is: If they ask for rights, who are you to deny them?
And they purchase lots of zero-day exploits from the black market then deploys them via morons following a flow chart -- That's the NSA version of a "cyberwarrior": The cyber equivalent of a school yard bully: Big, Dumb, and Dangerous.
How else can we keep the workers from knowing too much?
Giving it a vague title like "the object" implicitly connotes a sense of mystery and potential for some sort of unforeseen discovery.
I object to objects being object to mysterical connotations. Occam's Razor proves ambiguity the cause for orienting a description around objects.
Clearly The Object is an interstellar vehicle with a structure of super-dense composite materials built to withstand the vagaries of near-light-speed travel for thousands of years. It crashed here long before human tribes crossed the land bridge from siberia and has remained undiscovered until now. They are best off leaving it undisturbed, if they enter it, they risk releasing biomechanoid killing machines that will destroy all of humanity.
Yes, but thousands of years? Try billions. The pilot was killed on impact and eaten by their own gut microbes, which quickly escaped and went looking for more things to eat. Failing to find a single suitable eatery, the microbes went on to destroy most existing anaerobic life, become sentient, create eateries, and re-discover their long lost progenitor's ship thus activating its homing beacon through very efficient electromagnetic induction. Unfortunately, Earth's inhabitants could no longer serve the role as gut microbes due to a gross miss calculation in scale, and were instead eaten by a transdimensional dog named Jeebus after fetching them. Within said belly they reside to this day battling his mentally corrosive digestive juice which is rich in charged retardation and litigation particles known locally therein as: Religions.
This has all happened before, and will all happen again; The process has been deemed "mostly harmless".