Since RFK jr. promised "complete transparency", I'm sure he wouldn't mind sharing which prompts were used to generate the text. I know this because they definitely weren't asking for a specific outcome or any other type of predefined conclusion oriented report.
RFK jr. is clearly a fraud in every sense. This farce of a report is exactly the type of malfeasance that should land officials in jail.
This is a dependent on the context of the robot.
* For business (e.g. manufacturing), there is no utility of having a specific look.
* For personal use, there is a psychological benefit of appearing humanoid: we will treat and accept it more like a person rather than a scary and imposing machine. However, since if it is interactive then it will have the expectation of operating similarly to a human, performing basic tasks on par with a human.
Given the current status of mechatronics, it is premature to focus on presenting a humanoid form. In my estimation, a deeper application of machine learning will be needed in order to advance robotic movement to the point where it's movements are both appropriate for the situation (especially reacting to unexpected events) and efficient enough that it appears "natural" to a casual observer.
So it largely comes down to military might and intelligence gathering then?
Not all forces are physical, so instead of "military might,: I would say it's "influence" since a small nation with allies can have influence without military might. Consider Taiwan, not even officially a nation but their economic importance has made them highly influential. This is really the only reason they haven't already been invaded. When the world no longer depends on Taiwan's advanced microfabrication then they will be invaded.
If one country, say China, has no respect for intellectual property laws in America, there's really not anything stopping them from scraping up everything and ignoring all of the American laws then?
Legal disputes between nations are a different matter and there are multiple ways of being resolved, most of which backed by the threat of sanctions. This is why China seeks absolute autonomy.
So realistically it all just comes to money, connections, and power and with enough of it everything's legal (or illegal without money and power)?
It depends on the context. A corporation cannot violate US law in China and expect to sell goods in the US without the US government being "unhappy". However, if you were influential enough then yes, you could potentially get away with anything.
I guess that's largely what goes in some countries.
This is what goes in all nations because if you have the capability to bring a nation to it's knees by some means then that nation will do just about anything to avoid that.
previously, they existed in sort of a legal gray area
Not a terrible example after all because there is no legal gray area here.
IMHO, copyright lasts too long and it is badly in need of reform anyway.
It does. I should be about 14 years like it started out.
If the AI industry beats copyright law into submission, it can only be a net benefit to humanity.
No. The harms from AI can easily outweigh the harms of excessive copyright periods.
Everyone is subject to all laws of all countries at all times. It is only when a nation chooses to limit the bounds of it's power that you are not bound by their laws. Therefore, the only limitation of another nation to enforce it's laws upon you is your physical location. To this end, many countries have extradition treaties.
To answer your question, how and when the law is enforced (contradictory or not) is up to that nation. An example of this is China which regularly uses their legal authority (in China) to force Chinese nationals in other countries to break the law in that country. However, if they refused then they (and probably their family) would be "disappeared" only to end up "organ donors" on death row.
If your industry is unable to survive by following the law then isn't that the same as admitting the basis of your industry is violating the law?
See that flag next to the article title?
Actually, I didn't because of ublock.
It denotes that there is a whole category of articles on this site related to Japan.
Actually, the subdomain specifies the category while the icon is a filter.
I'd be willing to bet there are even people reading this website, who are in Japan.
I'm sure the lack of unicode support is a big draw.
Maybe you're not Slashdot-worthy.
I wouldn't be the first.
Per TFA:
Docomo emojis were still in use?
Surprisingly, yes, though only on specific devices within Japan.
This literally only impacts the remaining users in Japan.
Take some BSD code, shove it in some GPL code, and now that BSD code is GPL.
No, you cannot re-license BSD code as GPL code without express permission from the author.
However, some BSD licenses are compatible with the GPL.
Any changes to that BSD code can no longer be given back to the original BSD project as those changes are GPL.
In order to keep the changes made GPL, all modifications must be expressly identified/isolated (e.g. a diff file). Changes to any published file are reasonably assumed (even if you didn't intend it) to be under the original file license. Simply declaring "any changes from the original are GPL" is legally insufficient.
Nailed it.
Show me that this works differently than every other discovery type protocol currently used in Windows.
I'm going to chalk this up to miscommunication because MCP is not a discovery protocol, it's an client/server protocol which means it could be between your PC and something on the internet. How Microsoft will manage MCP connectivity has only been defined as "A proxy to mediate all MCP client-server interactions.". My point was that MCP clients would likely be interfacing with a server on the internet rather than an MCP server on one's LAN.
That's not how bounds work.
It depends on context. When someone speaks for a company, I it in the the context of the company speaking, not the individual speaking. By reducing the context to merely an individual then you provide a lot more room for them to deceive you in subtle ways.
I despise idiots who call other people liars because they brain can't logically process what is in front of them.
I understand, that it's difficult to relate to my position and I wish I a greater level communion with humankind. It is my understanding that in publicly traded businesses (like Microsoft), high-ranking corporate individuals exploit how people perceive what they are told. I tend to view actions on a larger scale which is why I find destructive behavior like subtle deceit so infuriating as it's harmful to humanity.
Ultimately, I think deceit may be the most destructive human behavior because the most terrible actions are only possible by deceiving others beforehand.
nailed it.
Duke Trebuchetem
Forget the spoiler games for the series and just play the real Duke Trebuchetem game, Duke Trebuchetem Forever! I've already preordered it and am cryogenically freezing myself so I can play it when it's released in 200 years.
You can bet your bottom dollar this will only work if you tick the network connection as a private network
Oh sweet summer child, that is clearly not what's happening.
Or more accurately security is his top priority, within the bounds given to him
Which means "top priority" is actually a lie since the bounds have a nigher priority.
and calling someone a piece of shit... well... give how you talk about others consider looking in the mirror.
I despise liars and if you lie for personal gain then you should not be allowed to be part of society.
UNIX was half a billion (500000000) seconds old on Tue Nov 5 00:53:20 1985 GMT (measuring since the time(2) epoch). -- Andy Tannenbaum
