although not in the manner, and timing in which it was released.
I am not commenting here on the actions of Darren Wilson, because the police department at large is not responsible for them; they can be judged separately.
I can agree with an assertion that the Ferguson PD may have tried to have used it with the timing of the release to falsely justify officer Wilson's actions, which is unjustifiable. I cannot agree that the recording should not have been released at all. It was part of the chain of events that day.
It is also unjustifiable for the media to try to portray Michael Brown in a way that was contrary to evidence they had in their possession, whether or not it was material to the actions of officer Wilson.
One side tried to spin evidence for their narrative, on side tried to sit on evidence for their narrative. We should all be seeking for the truth to be known, whatever that may be.
Anonymous lives in the dark, or perceived darkness as the name might hint. They would be perfectly happy for the searchlights to be invading someone elses dark corner.
"If these individuals were involved in actual criminal activities, then the arrests are perfectly reasonable."
If we can say that the arrests are reasonable, justified and necessary, then the question of do these arrests and subsequent claims of some kind of success help or hurt Anonymous becomes more of a tactical consideration.
The question is does it help or hurt the people it is intended to help? They are being arrested because they were harming people.
That should be the focus.
Just think of the concept of being humane to a dog. The idea that harming or killing this animal for sport let's say rather than for nourishment is wrong. Wrong why? Because man said so?
We are so far removed from our beginnings that I think people believe that it is man who originates these concepts of right and wrong. Laws that govern how we should conduct our lives, actually it didn't take too before man started to disobey.
Just look at the founding of America. Our constitution was written based on Christian principles and laws, outlining civil liberties and such and even under this umbrella men were capable of enslaving an entire race of people. If God fearing men are capable of this, what will the Godless do?
My overall message is that these rights are not ours to grant, simply to recognize.
Science isn't using anything it didn't already have to achieve this. Science is not creating its own building blocks for this life. They are doing this with the biology that already exist, they are just learning how to manipulate it and work with it. That is all we can do.
Alright, let's say that it happened and and a machine reached singularity and became all knowing, sentient in some form, why would we assume the machines would want to adopt and assimilate themselves into our arcane, legacy society structures. What would they need with our protections? They would have to figure out how to exist without us in order to be superior anyway, so once self-sufficient, like I Robot taught us, they would soon learn that as a whole we are a danger to ourselves, the environment, and ultimately to them and would need to be stripped of our freedoms, maybe our lives. That sounds more likely. We would probably be seen a more trouble than we are worth. This world really doesn't work without intangible things like feelings and emotions and reason and choice. Things that cannot be programmed effectively or at all. They can be simulated, never originated.
Every 10,000 years, a seagull plucks 1 grain of sand from one of the beaches throughout the world. When the last grain of sand has been taken from this Earth, eternity will have just begun.
This is an example of a finite being attempting to understand a concept that is truly outside our ability of comprehension.
How can we truly understand the concept of eternity or infinity when we can only process it with our now finite minds?
How does this relate to the article you ask? Well I feel it goes to my belief that humans do have limits despite the greatness that we can achieve. One of these limits is the ability to design life, or design something that someday we should consider to be worthy of the rights that we enjoy.
Life was not an accident. Life was not created by a random event. To think that we could create a life form of some kind by accident is not realistic. For AI to exist as described in this article, it would have to be born out of something else already created rather than to being programmed to eventually achieve this. This is to say that AI would in essense happen by accident, after all we couldn't really take credit for the machines newly created directives right?
If your a person that believes that our lives are the result of a random event, then I can understand the belief that one day science will accidentally create a new "life" worthy of civil liberties. It's even mentioned in the article about animals not having human rights. They are undeniably alive. Animals unlike humans do not have any other attachment to freedom other then biology, I mean when was the last time you saw animals protesting an oppresive regime and fighting for their freedom.
I tell you this, I would give a dog civil liberties before I give them to my android phone. They both would still have to ask me for it first.
Every 10,000 years, a seagull plucks 1 grain of sand from one of the beaches throughout the world. When the last grain of sand has been taken from this Earth, eternity will have just begun.
This is an example of a finite being attempting to understand a concept that is truly outside our ability of comprehension.
How can we truly understand the concept of eternity or infinity when we can only process it with our now finite minds?
How does this relate to the article you ask? Well I feel it goes to my belief that humans do have limits despite the greatness that we can achieve. One of these limits is the ability to design life, or design something that someday we should consider to be worthy of the rights that we enjoy.
Life was not an accident. Life was not created by a random event. To think that we could create a life form of some kind by accident is not realistic. For AI to exist as described in this article, it would have to be born out of something else already created rather than to being programmed to eventually achieve this. This is to say that AI would in essense happen by accident, after all we couldn't really take credit for the machines newly created directives right?
If your a person that believes that our lives are the result of a random event, then I can understand the belief that one day science will accidentally create a new "life" worthy of civil liberties. It's even mentioned in the article about animals not having human rights. They are undeniably alive. Animals unlike humans do not have any other attachment to freedom other then biology, I mean when was the last time you saw animals protesting an oppresive regime and fighting for their freedom.
I tell you this, I would give a dog civil liberties before I give them to my android phone. They both would still have to ask me for it first.
A far as I am aware, and I am sure there are those much more ware than I, but science has never produced anything that didn't already exist in nature. We discover things, things that are already there, we learn about them, and try to determine uses and applications for them. What we can and cannot do with them. Science is a discovery process. It is not a process by which man can become God so to speak. How can we? We are governed by the laws of this physical world that we study, how can we use terrestrial ingredients to achieve extra terrestrial recipes. Anything made in this world is a product of it.
Something that is funny to me about science, is that everything in science tends to tell you that there is order in all things, but yet some scientist would have us believe that all things ordered began from one random chaotic event.
When a machine has the ability to reprogram itself to perform an action that was not originally programmed, or intended then and only then I feel we could even consider this.
If a machine never achieves this ability, it is never anything other than what was created, a machine.
I think the idea of AI is romantic and science may be able to get close, but I don't think it's possible for a machine to be created, where we could press the power button, and at some point in the future the machine will come the point of realisation that it is on. To go a step further to think that the machine will realise that it's on, and then at some point will be able to reprogram itself to execute new code that will allow it to what? unplug itself? because it wants to be free? Even if a machine got here, its hit a brick wall. it can't survive or "live" without the power we provide it.
We have human rights because our lives weren't given to us by other men. We have human rights because God gave those rights to us. Men who recognize this, strive to give his brother the freedom that their father intended.
Realise the greatness that is the creation of humanity, and be humble enough to realise that we do not have the power to create life where there has been none before.
Even if a machine were to become self-aware, it would have to come to the conclusion somehow that it was even in a position of being oppressed. If we talk about the idea of granted basic human rights to a machine, it seems silly if the dynamic didn't involve somehow a machine asking for these rights.
I think if Google can show that Microsoft if even in a small percentage of cases, is essentially taking searches made in Bing, running them in Google, then returning the results untouched by there own algorithms, I would say yes this is a big deal. Bing is not supposed to be powered by Google the way yahoo search is by Bing. They will inevitably and unavoidably be using each others data at some point because its available but I don't see thats what Google is claiming here.
I think if Google can show that Microsoft if even in a small percentage of cases, is essentially taking searches made in Bing, running them in Google, then returning the results untouched by there own algorithms, I would say yes this is a big deal. Bing is not supposed to be powered by Google the way yahoo search is by Bing. They will inevitably and unavoidably be using each others data at some point because its available but I don't see thats what Google is claiming here.
It's no surprise that many people have pinned a lot of the blame on the financial crisis on the ratings agencies (mainly Moody's and S&P). After all, they were the ones who went out there and said that collections of slices of dices of the worst mortgages around should be rated as top notch, sure-fire, investments. And there were clear conflicts of interest in how the ratings agencies did their ratings. But, in the end, the ratings agencies were really just giving an opinion -- and opinions are (last we checked) supposed to be protected by the First Amendment.
Mike, let's put this new legislation aside for a moment.
The above paragraph if nothing else outlines fraud, because a reasonable, knowledgeable person could not assess those assets before them and give them a AAA rating. These agencies told people that shit was gold, and its agreed it was clear there were conflicts in how they rated assets, and this can be shown or proven how could anyone brush this aside and say well they were only giving their "honest" opinion, so they can't be held responsible in anyway. They made their best guess.
The only way I can see them avoiding blame would be to show that it was impossible for them to drill down deep enough into these CDO's to even rate them at all, but even then they still rating them AAA so they really couldn't avoid culpability.
I read your other article you linked to written in Jan. 09, and at least one commenter talked about the difference at least in a business sense (and legal sense at least in Australia),between giving an opinion and giving advice, especially when it's being paid for as in an financial advisor, or when an entire industry is based largely upon your assessments, in this case the credit rating agencies. Do you agree with that?
Do you feel the rating agencies should be insulated from any blame or consequence because they were merely giving an opinion?
They should face some penalty. I feel alot of the problems and actions of alot of people during this whole ordeal are punishable under our current criminal code without new legislation being passed. I feel though that congress is inside a glass house and no one wants to throw any stones.
From what I gather, they are offering customized MMS advertising for businesses. So if I have a company that I choose to advertise with a luvdart, wouldn't I want everyone who received it to forward it to everyone they know ad infinitum over the very networks they are suing that make their business model possible? If forwarding these MMS is good for luvdarts customers, it should be good for luvdart.
That is fantastic! What a concept. How about Congressional jerseys like soccer. What's sad is other than people finding integrity, there is no simple way to stop it.
The tape definitely should have been released...
I am not commenting here on the actions of Darren Wilson, because the police department at large is not responsible for them; they can be judged separately.
I can agree with an assertion that the Ferguson PD may have tried to have used it with the timing of the release to falsely justify officer Wilson's actions, which is unjustifiable. I cannot agree that the recording should not have been released at all. It was part of the chain of events that day.
It is also unjustifiable for the media to try to portray Michael Brown in a way that was contrary to evidence they had in their possession, whether or not it was material to the actions of officer Wilson.
One side tried to spin evidence for their narrative, on side tried to sit on evidence for their narrative. We should all be seeking for the truth to be known, whatever that may be.
Re: Re: Re:
Are you asking the right question?
If we can say that the arrests are reasonable, justified and necessary, then the question of do these arrests and subsequent claims of some kind of success help or hurt Anonymous becomes more of a tactical consideration.
The question is does it help or hurt the people it is intended to help? They are being arrested because they were harming people.
That should be the focus.
Re: Dogs--the far, far, far better part of human nature...
We are so far removed from our beginnings that I think people believe that it is man who originates these concepts of right and wrong. Laws that govern how we should conduct our lives, actually it didn't take too before man started to disobey.
Just look at the founding of America. Our constitution was written based on Christian principles and laws, outlining civil liberties and such and even under this umbrella men were capable of enslaving an entire race of people. If God fearing men are capable of this, what will the Godless do?
My overall message is that these rights are not ours to grant, simply to recognize.
Re: Re: Re: This should never happen
You could not define us by our own current definition of robot and no religious book defines us as such.
Re:
One more...
so what would AI state as evidence of its being ?
your thoughts....
We are arrogant aren't we......
Eternity
Every 10,000 years, a seagull plucks 1 grain of sand from one of the beaches throughout the world. When the last grain of sand has been taken from this Earth, eternity will have just begun.
This is an example of a finite being attempting to understand a concept that is truly outside our ability of comprehension.
How can we truly understand the concept of eternity or infinity when we can only process it with our now finite minds?
How does this relate to the article you ask? Well I feel it goes to my belief that humans do have limits despite the greatness that we can achieve. One of these limits is the ability to design life, or design something that someday we should consider to be worthy of the rights that we enjoy.
Life was not an accident. Life was not created by a random event. To think that we could create a life form of some kind by accident is not realistic. For AI to exist as described in this article, it would have to be born out of something else already created rather than to being programmed to eventually achieve this. This is to say that AI would in essense happen by accident, after all we couldn't really take credit for the machines newly created directives right?
If your a person that believes that our lives are the result of a random event, then I can understand the belief that one day science will accidentally create a new "life" worthy of civil liberties. It's even mentioned in the article about animals not having human rights. They are undeniably alive. Animals unlike humans do not have any other attachment to freedom other then biology, I mean when was the last time you saw animals protesting an oppresive regime and fighting for their freedom.
I tell you this, I would give a dog civil liberties before I give them to my android phone. They both would still have to ask me for it first.
Eternity
Every 10,000 years, a seagull plucks 1 grain of sand from one of the beaches throughout the world. When the last grain of sand has been taken from this Earth, eternity will have just begun.
This is an example of a finite being attempting to understand a concept that is truly outside our ability of comprehension.
How can we truly understand the concept of eternity or infinity when we can only process it with our now finite minds?
How does this relate to the article you ask? Well I feel it goes to my belief that humans do have limits despite the greatness that we can achieve. One of these limits is the ability to design life, or design something that someday we should consider to be worthy of the rights that we enjoy.
Life was not an accident. Life was not created by a random event. To think that we could create a life form of some kind by accident is not realistic. For AI to exist as described in this article, it would have to be born out of something else already created rather than to being programmed to eventually achieve this. This is to say that AI would in essense happen by accident, after all we couldn't really take credit for the machines newly created directives right?
If your a person that believes that our lives are the result of a random event, then I can understand the belief that one day science will accidentally create a new "life" worthy of civil liberties. It's even mentioned in the article about animals not having human rights. They are undeniably alive. Animals unlike humans do not have any other attachment to freedom other then biology, I mean when was the last time you saw animals protesting an oppresive regime and fighting for their freedom.
I tell you this, I would give a dog civil liberties before I give them to my android phone. They both would still have to ask me for it first.
P.S.
Something that is funny to me about science, is that everything in science tends to tell you that there is order in all things, but yet some scientist would have us believe that all things ordered began from one random chaotic event.
That doesn't make sense.
Th
This should never happen
If a machine never achieves this ability, it is never anything other than what was created, a machine.
I think the idea of AI is romantic and science may be able to get close, but I don't think it's possible for a machine to be created, where we could press the power button, and at some point in the future the machine will come the point of realisation that it is on. To go a step further to think that the machine will realise that it's on, and then at some point will be able to reprogram itself to execute new code that will allow it to what? unplug itself? because it wants to be free? Even if a machine got here, its hit a brick wall. it can't survive or "live" without the power we provide it.
We have human rights because our lives weren't given to us by other men. We have human rights because God gave those rights to us. Men who recognize this, strive to give his brother the freedom that their father intended.
Realise the greatness that is the creation of humanity, and be humble enough to realise that we do not have the power to create life where there has been none before.
Even if a machine were to become self-aware, it would have to come to the conclusion somehow that it was even in a position of being oppressed. If we talk about the idea of granted basic human rights to a machine, it seems silly if the dynamic didn't involve somehow a machine asking for these rights.
Re: Re: I loved this...
Re: Re: I loved this...
I loved this...
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Biting the hands that are barely feeding them....
I'm assuming this is the company filing the suit: http://www.luvdarts.com/lvd1/default.htm
From what I gather, they are offering customized MMS advertising for businesses. So if I have a company that I choose to advertise with a luvdart, wouldn't I want everyone who received it to forward it to everyone they know ad infinitum over the very networks they are suing that make their business model possible? If forwarding these MMS is good for luvdarts customers, it should be good for luvdart.
"Sponsorship Patches"
More comments from rl78 >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by rl78.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt