|
PeejayAdams wrote: XBox, XBox 360, XBox 1
Xbox 1.11 for Workgroups, XBox ME, XBox XP 
|
|
|
|
|
More than 100 leading robotics experts are urging the United Nations to take action in order to prevent the development of "killer robots". "But there was one man who taught us to fight..."
|
|
|
|
|
Bah, that kid was no good, the Terminator did better, proof: he is now governor of California !
|
|
|
|
|
Was going to make a snarky remark, but then bothered to read the letter. I think they're essentially tilting at windmills, but at least they specifically said "Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems", not "AI", though it wasn't clear whether they were all running around waving their hands in the air.
When looking through the list of signatories, I was disappointed to not find someone who is the CEO of "Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, Inc."
|
|
|
|
|
incorporating now... 
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Woodbury wrote: "Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems"
Oh, now I understand what "LAWS" is intended to mean...
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: However, those who oppose their use believe they are a threat to humanity and any autonomous "kill functions" should be banned.
Then Elon Musk (one of them opposing) should start considering to drop his "autonomous car" since it might kill too if hacked and pointed to people
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Damn! Then where would we get the automated kill guns for Aliens?
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
Teams and organizations looking to get serious about (or to further improve) their software testing efforts can learn something from looking at how the "big boys" organize their testing and quality assurance activities. They test this stuff?
|
|
|
|
|
it simply accepts the flaws, since, as it says, "social media is nonessential." Also, focusing less on testing means that more resources are available to focus on other, more valuable things.
That got a  out of me. Now if only the rest of the world realized social media was nonessential.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
From experience and observation, the second biggest mistake companies and teams make is too much automated testing. The biggest mistake is thinking formal testing exists to prove a product works. Quite to the contrary; formal testing exists to prove the product doesn't work. (In short, I want my testers hell bent on showing that my compiled code doesn't work. It's best if done deliberately, with planning, rather that haphazardly like my Dad, who manages to break software in ways that boggle the mind.)
|
|
|
|
|
Booby-trapped touchscreens can log passwords, install malicious apps, and more. This is why you should never fix a phone, just get a new one (That has brand new parts that spy on you)
|
|
|
|
|
This is news?! I was always told that no system can be considered secure if the bad guys have physical access.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Red Hat Inc. today announced its product portfolio -- including developer tools -- will support the new .NET Core. 2.0 standard released last week by Microsoft. "Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!"
|
|
|
|
|
After memory safety, what do you think is the next big step for compiled languages to take? "The future's not ours to see"
I know - each variable runs within its own virtual machine! Total safety from buffer overruns!
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: After memory safety, what do you think is the next big step for compiled languages to take?
Compiled languages that let you write in scripted languages that are then compiled.
Oh wait...
Kent Sharkey wrote: I know - each variable runs within its own virtual machine! Total safety from buffer overruns!
Being safe from buffer overruns is like wearing a, ummm, oh, never mind. The damn thing can still break in other ways.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
The language doesn't matter as much as the implementation.
|
|
|
|
|
Bug safety. 
!false - It's funny, because it's true
|
|
|
|
|
Continue dreaming 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Direct-to-brain hardware links.
«While I complain of being able to see only a shadow of the past, I may be insensitive to reality as it is now, since I'm not at a stage of development where I'm capable of seeing it. A few hundred years later another traveler despairing as myself, may mourn the disappearance of what I may have seen, but failed to see.» Claude Levi-Strauss (Tristes Tropiques, 1955)
|
|
|
|
|
A new update for .NET Framework is now available for the AppContext class. The behavior of the AppContext class was recently regressed. The update returns the class to the correct behavior. "You put your right leg in, you take your right leg out..."
Just in case you're wondering why your code just broke without you touching it.
|
|
|
|
|
It's the Rodney Dangerfield of computer programming, but COBOL is still in use—and really does deserve respect. Then you'll really hate it
|
|
|
|
|
Reminds me of some C code I wrote ages ago that took a few hours to figure out why the loop executed only once:
for (int i=0; i<10; i++);
{
}
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I am still making that mistake. My brain just doesn't want to remember the correct order for some reason. 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
That loop executed 10 times, the following statement executed once.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
