Cute story, but filled with the same kind of unfounded what-if's that derail most discussions of the topic. It's a magical fairy tale.
In a meant to be friendly, but perhaps uncharitable way, I'd rephrase your comment as "The problem with this thing I made up is this other thing I made up."
The whole article from which the story was taken is an argument from weak authority. Basically, all these people he called experts opined on something you'd think they know so much better than us, but really they don't. But he took it as gospel and did a thought experiment untethered from reality.
The "experts" in AI are singularly optimistic about their ability to "solve" AI.
'AI's founders were profoundly optimistic about the future of the new field: Herbert Simon predicted that "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do" and Marvin Minsky agreed, writing that "within a generation ... the problem of creating 'artificial intelligence' will substantially be solved'.
Those were hands-down the experts of their day, and so wrong on this count.
It is and it isn't. It may have been meant as a joke. You're sure it is, but there are people who really think like that, so I'm not that sure. Maybe the hyperbole just masks real, but unfounded fears about AI.
Either way, my point, and my opinion is that intended as a joke or no, the post is not funny because it is buying into an entirely unfounded "AI will be evil" mindset.
The whole notion that humanity has to worry about AI is founded on the assumption that computers will achieve "sentience" at some point, and have some will/desire/drive/optimization function that compels them to want to supplant humans.
None of that is even remotely possible with current technology. So spending time talking about it, let alone worrying about it, is counterproductive.
There are real ethical dilemmas to be faced as algorithms take over more and more functions, but these are dilemmas we as humans must face as we choose to let machines/algorithms do things with real-life consequences. But ultimately, that's no different than the ethical dilemma people have when they work in or hire people to work in all kinds of dangerous environments.
Those issues need solving, not the completely fictitious impending AI singularity.
Nothing brings out ignorance and fear perhaps as much as asking anyone to comment on AI.
I hope OP was just trying to be cute with his comments, but still, on a site that purports to speak sense to lemmings, it's sad to see someone jumping on the "AI is evil (because I have an imagination)" bandwagon.
No one decries databases like they do AI, yet databases are already doing more damage to humanity than AI ever has.
You have already been swallowed by and are already being digested by databases (Facebook, Twitter, Google, Yahoo, etc. usw.) the world over. Direct your fear and outrage there!
Seems like the war on encryption ought to be over now. Encryption would have helped in this case. The gov't can't very well now argue that only criminals need encryption. All you have to do is say, "What, you don't like encryption? What about OPM? ... Thought so."
Whoever didn't encrypt this data was negligent at a minimum. Gov't being what it is, no one will be fired...
With a 300 Kbps limit and a 150GB data cap, the bandwidth limit is a bonus feature to keep the user from exceeding the cap. At that speed it would take 48 days to exceed the data cap, so the user is SAFE.
Selling out your principles is a lot like bullying. It only works if most people turn a blind eye. Selling out is tacitly accepted by almost everyone, so you can fault Dodd for doing it, but hardly blame him. I mean, think of the $$$. Sigh.
Re: It's not just what they left out, but what they stuck in...
Exactly. I'm an option D type, and I calculate my costs as $9 for netflix only (well, $16 because I still get DVDs a few times a month). That's because I need my internet connection (for work) whether or not I use it to stream video or not.
$9 or $16 is well below the $85 they calculate. That's the number for comparison.
"Verizon wants you to construe this remark about privacy to mean that we care about privacy, and privacy is considered in a small but unprovable way as we develop new products and services for which the primary concern is how much revenue they generate. As we figure out how to wring more and more advertising revenue out of sneakily providing your eyeballs to third parties, we'll talk about protecting your privacy maybe about as well as, but not more than any other mobile service provider. We listen when our customers complain enough that our shenanigans end up in the media, and we trot out a hypothetical and teeny tiny band-aid that we can point to so we can say we're responding to them without lying but without actually making any real changes. Oh, we haven't actually done anything. That band-aid is a promise we won't be obligated to keep and we hope that when we don't keep it no one will be paying attention anymore. As a reminder, Verizon never shares customer information with third parties as part of our advertising programs, because they can figure that part out by themselves."
It's not 100% clear we can chalk this exception up to careless typing: "in any article related to the running of the county". What about articles not related to the running of the county? Still no 1st amendment there?
Pro-tip: the best stories are based on fact, not "I'd wager that ...".
You may disagree with the guy's strategy, but who's being insulting by saying he's insulting and business-dumb, especially when there's a horde of 6 of your readers who already disagree with you? The savvy gamers you're worried about will see a developer trying to do the right thing and realize that they can *still* buy the game if they want. Who's insulted by that? Perhaps he's had this happen before and didn't enjoy dealing with the aftermath. You don't know because you didn't ask.
P.S. I tried to reply to every comment here with "Ditto" because so far, I agree with every one of them, and wanted to make the meta point that I think so many people will disagree with you that I'd agree with all the ones to follow. (The logic's not so tortured in my head...) Looks like my "ditto" spam will get moderated into the waste bin, though.
I dont' disagree with the substance of this post, but the tone is a bit entitled sounding. Does the author somehow think sites have a *duty* to provide a comment section?
Phrases like "cheap and lazy", "grown tired", "admitting that they're not invested enough" suggest that not having comments is in and of itself some egregious transgression.
Allowing comments may be a positive thing in general, it may have benefits for the community, and a site may face general decline in readers if it doesn't have one, but if a site chooses not to allow comments, especially because moderating them has become too much of a burden, then that's not evil, is it?
Presenting that as "elevating" the conversation is disingenuous crap, but that's a separate issue. The outrage here seems directed at the notion of removing comments, not the notion of whitewashing the decision.
Suppose they pick 10% of the people at random. That means they are selecting 10% * 0.69% = 0.069% of the people. So there's a 99.931% chance of not being selected. If there is one terrorist out of 1.7M *every day*, it will take 1005 days (2.75 years) of random testing before it even becomes more likely than not that the terrorist is caught. It would take 4343 days before you have a 95% chance of catching the terrorist on just one of those days.
This isn't about security. It's about allowing your PR team to *say* you are taking a "proactive, protective measure" without *actually* lying while saying it.