Waiting for some fun m4w Its a beautiful friday and i wanna have a bit of kinky fun. I may not find what I am waiting for. Somebody who knows how to fuck a girl like a real man Woman want nsa East Thetford take what he wants hmu for some fun. Always wanted to be with I am 22, athletic, a very busy college student and waiting for someone attractive to put me in my place.
|Relation Type:||Need Some Real Pussy|
Idon't know why the witch has it out for me. Lets have Cool times despite the heat. Looking for cool cute sexy chicks Hey ladies I have this big huge party coming up and looking for a couple Exst to attend with me.
As you may have deduced this is not a regular post, but a shot of light to illuminate a special person me, lets write and decide if we are on the same together. AI have a big nice round boobies. Age and looks do not matter, as long as you love sex and are serious about meeting. Beautiful couples waiting casual sex messagetanooga Extensive ORAL, Selfishness encouraged, 50-60 yrs old desired All about you enjoying yourself. I'm looking for sexy friends; not a relationship.
This is the text of my keynote speech at the 34th Chaos Communication Congress in Leipzig, December As a working science fiction novelist, I take a professional interest in how we get predictions about the future wrong, and why, so that I can avoid repeating the same mistakes. Science fiction is written by people embedded within a society with expectations and political assumptions that bias us towards looking at the shiny surface of new technologies rather than asking how human beings will use them, and to taking narratives of progress at face value rather than asking what hidden agenda they serve.
In this talk, author Charles Stross will give a rambling, discursive, and angry tour of what went wrong with the 21st century, why we didn't see it coming, where we can expect it to go next, and a few suggestions for what to do about it if we don't like it. I'm Charlie Stross, and it's my job to tell lies for money.
Or rather, I write science fiction, much of it about our near future, which has in recent years become ridiculously hard to predict. Our species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, is roughly three hundred thousand years old. Recent discoveries pushed back the date of our earliest remains that far, we may be even older. For all but the last three centuries of that span, predicting the future was easy: Let that sink in for a moment: Then something happened, and the future began to change, increasingly rapidly, until we get to the present day when things are moving so fast that it's barely possible to anticipate trends from month to month.
As an eminent computer scientist once remarked, computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about building telescopes. The same can be said of my field of work, written science fiction. Scifi is seldom about science—and even more rarely about predicting the future.
But sometimes we dabble in futurism, and lately it's gotten very difficult. When I write a near-future work of fiction, one set, say, a decade hence, there used to be a recipe that worked eerily well. Buildings are designed to last many years. Automobiles have a design life of about a decade, so half the cars on the road will probably still be around in You look at trends dictated by physical limits, such as Moore's Law, and you look at Intel's road map, and you use a bit of creative extrapolation, and you won't go too far wrong.
If I predict that in LTE cellular phones will be everywhere, 5G will be available for high bandwidth applications, and fallback to satellite data service will be available at a price, you won't laugh at me.
It's not like I'm predicting that airliners will fly slower and Nazis will take over the United States, is it? And therein lies the problem: As it happens, airliners today are slower than they were in the s, and don't get me started about Nazis. Nobody in was expecting a Nazi revival in , right? Only this time round Germans get to be the good guys. But unfortunately the ratios have changed.
Some of you might assume that, as the author of books like "Singularity Sky" and "Accelerando", I attribute this to an impending technological singularity, to our development of self-improving artificial intelligence and mind uploading and the whole wish-list of transhumanist aspirations promoted by the likes of Ray Kurzweil. Unfortunately this isn't the case. I think transhumanism is a warmed-over Christian heresy. While its adherents tend to be vehement atheists, they can't quite escape from the history that gave rise to our current western civilization.
Many of you are familiar with design patterns, an approach to software engineering that focusses on abstraction and simplification in order to promote reusable code.
When you look at the AI singularity as a narrative, and identify the numerous places in the story where the phrase " Indeed, the wellsprings of today's transhumanists draw on a long, rich history of Russian Cosmist philosophy exemplified by the Russian Orthodox theologian Nikolai Fyodorvitch Federov , by way of his disciple Konstantin Tsiolkovsky , whose derivation of the rocket equation makes him essentially the father of modern spaceflight.
And once you start probing the nether regions of transhumanist thought and run into concepts like Roko's Basilisk —by the way, any of you who didn't know about the Basilisk before are now doomed to an eternity in AI hell—you realize they've mangled it to match some of the nastiest ideas in Presybterian Protestantism. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
And if it looks like a religion it's probably a religion. I don't see much evidence for human-like, self-directed artificial intelligences coming along any time now, and a fair bit of evidence that nobody except some freaks in university cognitive science departments even want it. What we're getting, instead, is self-optimizing tools that defy human comprehension but are not, in fact, any more like our kind of intelligence than a Boeing is like a seagull.
So I'm going to wash my hands of the singularity as an explanatory model without further ado—I'm one of those vehement atheists too—and try and come up with a better model for what's happening to us. History, loosely speaking, is the written record of what and how people did things in past times—times that have slipped out of our personal memories. We science fiction writers tend to treat history as a giant toy chest to raid whenever we feel like telling a story.
With a little bit of history it's really easy to whip up an entertaining yarn about a galactic empire that mirrors the development and decline of the Hapsburg Empire, or to re-spin the October Revolution as a tale of how Mars got its independence.
It turns out that our personal memories don't span very much time at all. I'm 53, and I barely remember the s. I only remember the s with the eyes of a year old. My father, who died last year aged 93, just about remembered the s. But westerners tend to pay little attention to cautionary tales told by ninety-somethings. We modern, change-obsessed humans tend to repeat our biggest social mistakes when they slip out of living memory, which means they recur on a time scale of seventy to a hundred years.
History gives us the perspective to see what went wrong in the past, and to look for patterns, and check whether those patterns apply to the present and near future. And looking in particular at the history of the past years—the age of increasingly rapid change—one glaringly obvious deviation from the norm of the preceding three thousand centuries—is the development of Artificial Intelligence, which happened no earlier than and no later than I'm talking about the very old, very slow AIs we call corporations, of course.
What lessons from the history of the company can we draw that tell us about the likely behaviour of the type of artificial intelligence we are all interested in today? In the late 18th century, Stewart Kyd , the author of the first treatise on corporate law in English, defined a corporation as:. In , the British government passed the Joint Stock Companies Act, which created a register of companies and allowed any legal person, for a fee, to register a company, which existed as a separate legal person.
Subsequently, the law was extended to limit the liability of individual shareholders in event of business failure, and both Germany and the United States added their own unique extensions to what we see today as the doctrine of corporate personhood. Of course, there were plenty of other things happening between the sixteenth and twenty-first centuries that changed the shape of the world we live in. I've skipped changes in agricultural productivity due to energy economics, which finally broke the Malthusian trap our predecessors lived in.
This in turn broke the long term cap on economic growth of around 0. I've skipped the germ theory of diseases, and the development of trade empires in the age of sail and gunpowder that were made possible by advances in accurate time-measurement. I've skipped the rise and—hopefully—decline of the pernicious theory of scientific racism that underpinned western colonialism and the slave trade. I've skipped the rise of feminism, the ideological position that women are human beings rather than property, and the decline of patriarchy.
I've skipped the whole of the Enlightenment and the age of revolutions! But this is a technocentric congress, so I want to frame this talk in terms of AI, which we all like to think we understand. Here's the thing about corporations: They have goals, and operate in pursuit of these goals. And they have a natural life cycle. Corporations are cannibals; they consume one another. They are also hive superorganisms, like bees or ants. For their first century and a half they relied entirely on human employees for their internal operation, although they are automating their business processes increasingly rapidly this century.
Each human is only retained so long as they can perform their assigned tasks, and can be replaced with another human, much as the cells in our own bodies are functionally interchangeable and a group of cells can, in extremis, often be replaced by a prosthesis. To some extent corporations can be trained to service the personal desires of their chief executives, but even CEOs can be dispensed with if their activities damage the corporation, as Harvey Weinstein found out a couple of months ago.
Finally, our legal environment today has been tailored for the convenience of corporate persons, rather than human persons, to the point where our governments now mimic corporations in many of their internal structures. Elon Musk—who I believe you have all heard of—has an obsessive fear of one particular hazard of artificial intelligence—which he conceives of as being a piece of software that functions like a brain-in-a-box —namely, the paperclip maximizer.
A paperclip maximizer is a term of art for a goal-seeking AI that has a single priority, for example maximizing the number of paperclips in the universe. The paperclip maximizer is able to improve itself in pursuit of that goal but has no ability to vary its goal, so it will ultimately attempt to convert all the metallic elements in the solar system into paperclips, even if this is obviously detrimental to the wellbeing of the humans who designed it.
Unfortunately, Musk isn't paying enough attention. Consider his own companies. Tesla is a battery maximizer —an electric car is a battery with wheels and seats.
SpaceX is an orbital payload maximizer, driving down the cost of space launches in order to encourage more sales for the service it provides. Solar City is a photovoltaic panel maximizer.
All three of Musk's very own slow AIs are based on an architecture that is designed to maximize return on shareholder investment, even if by doing so they cook the planet the shareholders have to live on.
But if you're Elon Musk, that's okay: The problem with corporations is that despite their overt goals—whether they make electric vehicles or beer or sell life insurance policies—they are all subject to instrumental convergence insofar as they all have a common implicit paperclip-maximizer goal: If they don't make money, they are eaten by a bigger predator or they go bust.
Making money is an instrumental goal —it's as vital to them as breathing is for us mammals, and without pursuing it they will fail to achieve their final goal, whatever it may be.
Corporations generally pursue their instrumental goals—notably maximizing revenue—as a side-effect of the pursuit of their overt goal. But sometimes they try instead to manipulate the regulatory environment they operate in, to ensure that money flows towards them regardless. Human tool-making culture has become increasingly complicated over time. New technologies always come with an implicit political agenda that seeks to extend its use, governments react by legislating to control the technologies, and sometimes we end up with industries indulging in legal duels.
For example, consider the automobile. You can't have mass automobile transport without gas stations and fuel distribution pipelines. These in turn require access to whoever owns the land the oil is extracted from—and before you know it, you end up with a permanent occupation force in Iraq and a client dictatorship in Saudi Arabia. Closer to home, automobiles imply jaywalking laws and drink-driving laws.
They affect town planning regulations and encourage suburban sprawl, the construction of human infrastructure on the scale required by automobiles, not pedestrians. This in turn is bad for competing transport technologies like buses or trams which work best in cities with a high population density.
To get these laws in place, providing an environment conducive to doing business, corporations spend money on political lobbyists—and, when they can get away with it, on bribes. Bribery need not be blatant, of course. For example, the reforms of the British railway network in the s dismembered many branch services and coincided with a surge in road building and automobile sales. These reforms were orchestrated by Transport Minister Ernest Marples , who was purely a politician./p>
NEW IN TOWN m4w I AM NEW IN TOWN seeking TO SEE WHAT MINNESOTA HAS TO OFFER. Prefer someone close to midtown. Today is such a gorgeous day, wouldn't it be grand to spend it with a gorgeous lady.
Politique de confidentialité FILMube. Cette politique de confidentialité s'applique aux informations que nous collectons à votre sujet sur kitchener-waterloo-chiropractor.com (le «Site Web») et les applications FILMube et comment nous utilisons ces informations. Clutch Head Screw Originated by United Screw and Bolt. The recess in clutch heads looks like a bowtie. In a pinch, a clutch head screw can be driven by a slotted screwdriver. is and in to a was not you i of it the be he his but for are this that by on at they with which she or from had we will have an what been one if would who has her.