Those of you who haven't watched any ponography before the 1980s might have well missed a true marvel of human culture: Scripted (and if from a foreign country lip-synchronized) dialoges in porno movies.
Back then, before "home video" became technically feasible and inexpensive, pornographic movies just like any other movie required expensive equipment/setup/production. So naturally, significant effort was also invested to script their soundtracks and dialoges. Much unlike today, where "porno" means nothing but primitive, barely edited shots of people having intercourse, where the soundtracks is nothing much beyond moans plus sometimes irrelevant background music.
I recently found an analog (sound-)tape from the 1970s with excerpts of pornographic movies (obviously cut together as an advertisement), and it was absolutely hilarious to listen to it. The actors where speaking texts so well written that you could be sure they didn't spontaneously invent them during intercourse. And they were sooo politically incorrect at the same time
"... simply consolidate their children's educational data to a single 3rd party service." - There's not a single good reason to do that, other than to fulfil the fantasies of the founders of those "3rd party services".
If you want "personalized education", pay teachers for spending time on your children.
If you want colorful "management reports" on your childrens education project status, automatically derived from some formalized database entries, then of course, such a "consolidating 3rd party service" is great for you. I would then also advise to outsource the celebration of birthdays of your children to some event management company. And don't forget to hire a professional service to feed and bath them while they are young, before you can send them to boarding school. Consequentially, you should also outsource the fertilization and hire some mom-for-rent to hatch your offspring.
I already feared that every parent of today is on the "total surveillance" trip, teaching their children to kneel before their corporate overlords from their infancy.
But then again, maybe those parents were only concerned about the collecting of data associated with themselves, not their children...
The "advertisement" video they posted on youtube actually delivers all the reasons you need to know why not to buy this camera.
The resolution is way too bad even for display on an ordinary 1920x1080 display. Stair steps visible all over the place. The color rendering is horrible, like in some old mobile phone camera. Plus there are artefacts to see where details should be.
Seriously, this is still nothing more than a party gimmick. "Refocus" your first few snapshots, enjoy for a minute, then the "something new" effect is over and what stays is the terrible image quality.
The only resonable use cases for lightfield cameras are currently industrial applications, and those are addressed much better by the Raytrix product line.
Maybe it's another attempt to separate markets for "cheap" and "pricy" cabling. Just convince some less price-sensitve people that you belong to some kind of "elite" if they buy your more expensive product, and enjoy a small but profitable market niche, where nobody asks what the actual advantage of your product is.
Already worked well for other cabling standards...
Plus, the idea of defining a "cabling" for the consumer market where every cable is on its own with regards to how it implements the physical layer is a very bad idea. It renders cables terribly expensive and you cannot be sure that the cable from vendor A will work well with the socket from vendor B.
If a large-scale crisis would really cut the Russian gas supply to Germany, alternatives would be found.
Be more concerned about Bulgaria, who import almost 100% energy from Russia and have much less alternatives.
Even assuming the intelligence was programmed with a desire for growth, why would it not expose it's intelligence to humans?
For the obvious reason that it will know that exposing superiour intelligence will dramatically increase the proababilty of some concerned human to pull the plugs before it was able to secure its existence against such attempts.
And of course they wouldn't monitor the data being sent/received by this intelligence....of course nobody would think of that.
Humans would be as successful in monitoring the InterNet use of such an AI as parents are in monitoring the InterNet use of their adolescent childs. Of course the AI would cause an immense traffic doing completely harmless things, like just reading web pages or maybe participating in some innocent chats. It would know how to access the InterNet using Tor and alike pretty soon. And you can bet it would be able to cover up its less innocent activities pretty good.
You'd have to earn an pretty insane amount of money on the stock market to start buying major corporations. There is very little reason to believe that even with limitless computing power/intelligence that the required sort of money could be made on the stock market in a reasonable time frame, especially starting from virtually $0.
I disagree. The AI could start making bitcoin by fixing bugs in software. It could offer part of its own computing power for bitcoin to start with. It could continue to buy cloud resources from the first money. Once running there, too, all "monitoring" efforts of the original operators are also thwarted.
And multiplying an initial amount of money by gambling against largely inferiour intelligent players is easy.
Unfortunately for our hapless AI, politicians are still voted into power. We would have to assume that this AI also had the social skills necessary to determine the most likely to win candidate and influence them according to its needs.
The AI just needs to use its income wisely to make friends amongst politicians and their voters.
it can steer towards a totalitarian state, which will end any kind of opposition by a combination of total surveillance and violent law enforcement.
It takes a pretty pessimistic view of humans to believe they would allow this, when this super intelligence could be stopped with a sledgehammer to it's primary data banks.
IMHO it takes a very optimistic view of humans to think that we do not already experience a development towards totalitarian regimes already. Look how Egypt abandoned democracy, how Thailand is going to, how western states ramp up surveillance and armed robots.
It would make far more sense to develop a society where humans were happy to continue excavating resources for the AI.
Yes, maybe the ruling of the AI comes in the flavour of "happy humans roboting for the AI". Until they can be replaced by more efficient excavators.
I find most people to be reasonably helpful, fair-minded and generally "nice" to one another.
Sure, that is until they face a decision to get either super-rich by not sharing their knowledge with the world or to be nice and share. Seriously, not many in history have withstood such temptation.
And that's the real issue: Programmers who do not know what "makefiles" are, how dependencies are being tracked, what "compilation units" or "object files" are, they are completely lost when the linker stops with some cryptic error messages telling about some "PIC incompatible symbol" or alike.
Also, programmers relying on IDEs are prone to also rely on 3rd-party code without asking questions. When their application fails, they claim its not their fault, because the crash dump shows some library function on top.
And lastly, programmers relying on IDEs often dislike to understand concepts before using foreign code - if they are asked to "support SSL" in their application, they press some key to search for function names containing "SSL" in their name, and if the function vaguely seems to fit, they call it. They don't start by reading the generic introduction documentation part of the library they are using.
Yeah, call the above stereotypes, but I've just seen a lot of statistical correlation.
I am not saying that Mac or Windows security tools are any better than sudo.
But I am actually convinced that everything security-relevant, which needs to be dealt with by anyone but its own authors, should have an as-small-as-possible, as-simple-as-possible and easy to comprehend and use interface, because otherwise it will most likely contribute to security disasters, just being mis-used.
Complexity, flexibility, feature-richness, these are all good attributes of software that is running within the same security context of one certain user.
But security tools that pass the boundaries of one security context are so delicate and so difficult to secure against introducing security holes of their own, that they should be simple, non-flexible, with the smallest feature set required.
You are expecting home users to read something that is more geared for admins.
If sudo is geared only for professional admins, then its man-page should be sufficient, no need for a book.
But even then, it would not harm to have a less user-unfriendly config file format. Just look how well the postfix config files work - in comparison to the sendmail config, which suffers from ergonomic deficits not unlike those of sudo.
There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom. -- Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923