Slashdot Mirror

You're comparing apples and oranges.

So...

Comparing apples and oranges is perfectly valid...

http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volum e1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html

http://www.darwinmag.com/read/0502/apples.html

Your subject, comparing apples and oranges, is invalid:

http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volum e1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html

http://www.darwinmag.com/read/0502/apples.html

I've seen the link but can't find it right now. Here's an old article on it.

Or have you forgotten the 1976 Lockheed bribery scandal?

An example of utilitarian, or consequentialist, thinking is the famous Lockheed Aircraft Corporation and All Nippon Airways (ANA) bribery scandal of the 1970s. Lockheed paid $12.5 million in "commissions" or "fees" to ANA and Japanese government officials to obtain the sale of 21 Tristar aircraft. Carl Kochian, Lockheed president at the time, defended his actions by invoking the consequences. For example, the $12.5 million was a negligible cost to Lockheed and the revenue dollars were desperately needed to stabilize Lockheed's shaky financial situation. Kochian argued that he saved thousands of jobs for Lockheed workers and thousands of dollars for Lockheed stockholders.

Here's an interesting nuance to consider: Bribery was common and expected in Japan in the '70s. Kochian didn't offer the bribe; he was asked to pay it. Does that make his actions any more justifiable? If Lockheed didn't pay the bribe, some other aircraft company probably would. Yet, once you pay a bribe, you're trapped, as Kochian soon recognized. (For more on this case, read Ethics and the Conduct of Business.)

Soon after the Lockheed bribery scandal broke, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) was put into place, prohibiting bribery of foreign government officials by American companies.

Same thing for child sex, etc.

When you make an error you eliminate a possibility out of the equation thus bringing you closer to a solution. You can't learn without making mistakes. Lots of AI is based on computers making mistakes.

http://www.darwinmag.com/learn/curve/column.html?A rticleID=44 Explains: "A computer using AI to play chess, for example, has the ability to "learn" millions of possible moves, process them and make a choice. Witness Gary Kasparov's stunning defeat by IBM Corp.'s Deep Blue. The computer did not just mimic a memorized set of moves; it altered its strategy based on the results of the mistakes it made in previous games."

Of course you could argue that humans wrote the code, that caused the computer to intentionally make a mistake therefore it is the human's fault, Wait? Do you call an intestinal mistake an error? Now I'm confused!

Wait? Errors can be used to make a funny too! Did I make an error typing above or was it intentialy funny? Because farts are funny!

Hey man, I agree with you about all of this, and there have been days recently with all of the malarky passing into law where I almost felt the urge to chuck it all - and live like it was 1975 - paper and all. But by the time they manage to get this huge bureacratic behometh to do this type of dirty work we could very likely see a massive decentralized ad-hoc and an emerging phenomona called Smart Mobs and anonymous surfing provided by Hacktivismo, censorship-free and anonymous information via Freenet, open spectrum and finally perhaps anonymous digital cash from Yodel Bank.

Planet P - Liberation With Technology.