These 'things' add up. I have no need for a expresso machine that is internet-contected, but I'm sure some marketing boy can sell it to my significant other. And I'm sure it will use most of it's packets to send data back to the marketing boy.
But to anwser your question. I am not in favour of Hamas. I am against the slaughter and displacement of innocent people. I don't even ask if those people are jews, muslims, atheists or whatever. And it's hard to keep an open eye with all the propaganda the IDF and Israel-friendly media are feeding us.
Actually, we haven't seen the slightest proof of Hamas doing that. We do however know that Israel does precisely that. Not only do they force their teenagers to take up arms in the army and frontlines, they also force them to kill babies. But sometimes they just do it for real like here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... And there is lot more of those videos where there is zero evidence of Hamas doing this, except from the word of professional liar (ak, spokesperson) for the IDF. Keep thinking critical people. Hamas might do this, but there is zero proof. Israel does do it and there is proof enough. Most of their IDF are teens who are forced to take service. Talk about human shields.
The situation in Palestina (gaza+israel) is much more complex than that. But not complex enough to not understand that murdering innocent unarmed babies and women by Israel is morally wrong and frankly, a really big warcrime.
Yeah they changed that after the outrage.... Here is a screenie from before because I had a feeling that the word army would be gone soon when I noticed it. http://tinypic.com/view.php?pi... Needless to say that the first version was correct and this is just really bad damage control.
The research is (partly at least) army funded. That does explain why every academic ethic rule is ignored. Cornell has co-authored this research, so they can know. Check the last couples of lines to see for yourself. That part makes this even more disturbing. The media should include this 'small' detail. http://www.news.cornell.edu/st...
I guess we have different social environments.
You don't get it. Humans can have mercy, can see that this guy in the wrong uniform just was helping a buddy of you etc... AI can't. And won't be able to do that in the near future. They do can recognize uniforms though and faces
The biggest difference lies in mercy and for the shorter term, recognition. But on the longer term, mercy, At the end of WW2 germany had mosty kids left. You could shoot them or just threaten them and they would give up. That is something technology won;t be able to do for the foreseeable future.
Hi, this is 2014, ai, agents, selfteaching systems, neural networks - have made great progress.
And because someone is using them. But yes. We probably agree on this.
I tried, honestly, but it's all bullshit. Assumptions. Without caring for reality. We now have robots that can decide to kill. Do we really want those? See what happened when you had drones shoot missiles at people? A lot of weddings got bombed. That is what happens when you take emotion out by relinking b&w video to an 'operator ' that pulls the trigger. Now imagine to take emotion out completely, because that is the direction we are heading. Especially, but not alone, the US. And the all other nations will have to follow. And as of now these systems exist and are being used in the field, as tests. Robots that decide who gets shot. Great fucking idea. Not.
It's the combination of that and the simple fact that when I have allready paid you, I am not going to pirate it. I just bought the right to see it. I gave you money for it, while I could have just downloaded it instead. The combination of first letting me pay, do extra stuff I wouldn't need to do for a torrent etc etc. They got me to pay for a lesser experience. The reason I am still paying is because I find the price very reasonable for what they offer (I do use hola though to also access US-version and UK-version). So why bother with it. I am already a paying customer. Yet netflix really does use your browsers useragent to determine if you can get the stream. I mean, that is not really a security, it's easily spoofed. All in all, these decisions don't compute for me.
The install isn't that interesting, it's what it does that is interesting and that part will not that differ on ubuntu. Wether you apt-get on debian based systems or use pacman or yaourt on arch based systems. It's the fact that I am technical able to simply watch netflix in html5, but they won't let us. So now we need multilib support for netflix. I agree, it works, but it still is a hack and a pretty dirty one. (no offence to the coders of pipelight btw, they did an excellent job nonetheless.)
You actually have a good point there. I forgot all about netflix own productions. Some of which are hot and good. I can imagine they want netflix to be the only way to get to those series.