search through a massive database of code snippets
Does it also search through a database of software patents to make sure that it doesn't infringe?
A better use of the AI in today's world would be to review all existing software patents, then generate as many non-patented concepts as possible and file for software patents on them.
My concern with giving advantages is exasperating the resource divide between the rich and poor by adding a capability divide, such that the rich get enhancements that help them get more rich whilst the poor pool up dysfunction and mediocracy.
I suspect at first it will only be available to the rich, but later it will become mandatory for the poor. They will be edited to be more docile, compliant, submissive, obedient.
Maybe, the changes are "dangerous" from the point of view of Biology and population health. But dragging Ethics into it is utter nonsense.
Ethics does come into play, particularly since we are beginners at this technology. Is it ethical to go ahead and create a human being designed to be smarter and stronger, and it ends up with unintended consequences because we are amateurs? Maybe the child lives in constant pain? Has missing limbs? Three eyes? And all we can say is "Whoops! You were just supposed to be smart."
I'm pretty excited by the technology, and don't wish to stop it (I'm sure we couldn't if we wanted). I think we need to be careful, and we need to remember that our mistakes could lead to a great deal of suffering to the innocent humans we create.
Will it be available to everyone? Or just the 0.1%? Or the military supersoldiers? Or some other country creating a "master-race"? There is a lot that could go wrong, not only with the technology itself, but also with how we use it.Certainly lots to consider. Ethics is only one small part of it.
this wouldn't be a search; it would be a compulsion to divulge information, which would then be used to assist in searching for something which isn't at the border.
Agreed. Also if one were to extend their logic, if you have a phone at the border, it is capable of connecting to any other phone in the USA, and potentially many other countries. So would this then give border agents the ability to call anyone and interrogate them? Or have someone go seize their phone and search it simply because your phone can connect to it? Makes about as much sense as what they are doing now.
I know it is only anecdotal, but I have mostly WD drives (all mechanical), as I have had the best experience with them, and had bad luck with Seagate in particular.
I have a 320GB and a 500GB(ish?) external WD. Both have been hauled around in a laptop bag on airplanes and helicopters for years. Still work great. Have much newer 1.5TG and 2TB WD externals which have done the same, but not as long. I have (desktop external) 320GB, 750GB, 2TB and 4TB WD models (you can kind of guess the ages by the sizes) all still working away.
I had picked up a Seagate external (1 TB or 1.5TB I think) and it died in less than a year.
Wife's laptop internal (Seagate) drive just failed in less than a year (warranty still good, yay!).
My laptop internal failed recently as well (Toshiba), about 2 months past the 3 year warranty.
At work we had a desktop external Seagate drive also last less than a year.
So I am a small sample size, but anecdotally, my experience is:
- Eight WD drives working fine
- Experience with 3 seagate drives lasting less than a year (2 owned, 1 at work)
- One Toshiba drive lasting 3 years
The only good and somewhat permanent solution to this would be for Google, Microsoft, etc to encrypt the e-mails end-to-end and in storage as well, so that nobody, not even them, can see what they contain. Unfortunately, doing so would remove their ability to data mine and monetize the contents of the e-mails and so they will never do this. Hence the ultimate answer will come from another direction, someone who takes over their roles as major e-mail providers but is not interested in mining the contents of the e-mails. This likely will have to be some form of non-profit entity or at least a non-free e-mail service.
It is not the only solution. Likely the best solution, but since they won't do it, it is not really a solution at all in this case.
So another possibility is, sort of like frequency hopping spread spectrum, don't put the email all in one place. Break it up into fragments and spread it all over. There are data centers all over. Spread the contents between them, all in different countries, scrambled, so that you can't read them unless you have them all. If any one country forbids the transfer of the portion in their country, then it is a no-go. Put as much as possible in countries with strong privacy laws.
I hate being around people who have smoked (I think they grow insensitive to the smell and don't realize how it permeates everything they own).
I had a friend who never smoked, but his parents did, and his wife did. I grumbled a bit about the awful smell. He always got mad about it. Then he divorced, and lived in a smoke-free home for awhile. Then he told me he hated the smell of smoke and smoke on people's clothes, and said he couldn't believe he smelled like that all the time.
As a kid, I picked up a donut at a Tim Horton's, and when I got home with it, I couldn't believe how bad it smelled of smoke. I tossed it out without taking a single bite.
Sounds more like they're catching up - https://www.ontario.ca/page/sm...
Too bad it wasn't "script-free Ontario"! All I got to see was a list of scripts it had to run to show me anything. Just closed it.
But there has been pressure on fast-food businesses to offer healthier options at the same price.
Unhealthy food is certainly an issue. There has been some improvement from the fast food outlets, but the grocery store is still bad for it. Good quality food is expensive. The cheapest is crappy hormone and chemical laden junk.
And if they don't throw their fucking butts on the ground in my neighborhood, out the car window to and from work.
When I was growing up, nobody in our family smoked. Yet once a week on trash day, I always found myself cleaning up about 50 cigarette butts along the front of our property.
If there is no victim (other than a fully informed-consented individual doing it to him/herself) why try stopping it?
The problem is, the industry has worked for years to increase the nicotine content to ensure that customers are more likely to be unable to stop using the product to ensure revenue. Many simply cannot quit. So the consent is a little shaky. If you are unable to revoke consent, is it really consent any more?
Also, there can be other victims. The people who care about these people who die sooner than they otherwise likely would. The people who have to pay for the extended healthcare for these individuals. Tobacco companies should have to foot the bill.
"We shall reach greater and greater platitudes of achievement." -- Richard J. Daley