It should show us sentences to say to the girl in front of us and analyzing her response and microfacial expressions and adapt the responses accordingly.
Yes, but I can see plenty of scenarios where, say, you're on a ladder with a two-handed tool inside an airplane wing, and you want to double check a diagram. Instead of climbing back down the ladder, finding the right page, etc, you could just look at the diagram of a part while you're simultaneously looking at the actual part. With the tool still in your hand. Increases efficiency. Possibly reduces errors. (less need for memory to store information as you switch from a paper manual back to the task, since you can look at the task and the manual at almost the same time (just switching focus).
I don't see why a government should be in business of helping media companies sell their wares.
The U.S. government has a pretty good history of implementing massive infrastructure that's the envy of the modern world and creates a very fertile ground for innovation by U.S. industry.
The railways, back in the day.
Then the U.S. interstate freeway system. (with all its negative characteristics, but it's undeniably great for business).
The U.S. energy infrastructure (getting a bit outdated, but for the most part is cheap and reliable).
The original Al Gore Internet. Google et al, could rapidly deploy innovative stuff to most of the U.S. (and world) population without worrying much about infrastructure (until recently, as demand for throughput has started to outstrip supply in many ways).
Not all of those are pure Government products, obviously, but the the Government was deeply involved in the rollout and regulation of all of them. And it's certainly not clear that any of them could have been produced as quickly of efficiently without Government involvement.
I get the libertarian arguments, which are all-too-often valid. But dogmatically applying libertarian theory to every act of Government, is, in my opinion myopic and irrational.
Imagine all the athletes disappeared...not really a problem.
Don't discount the value of sports on a culture. Athletic achievement has been celebrated for pretty much the history of humanity, and has been the focus of much economic investment. Eliminate that at your own peril. There may actually be something important going on .
But to your point, I think the issue is that the benefits to an end-consumer of a football game are direct, timely, and transparent. The benefits to an end-consumer from scientific achivement are generally highly indirect, often delayed by years or generations from the initial discovery, and opaque. It's generally the engineers/businessmen who ultimately make the direct connection to the consumer. Just the way it is.
If the results of celebrity scientists are making cool posters for dorm rooms and/or being eye candy, then yeah, they probably aren't doing much for it.
Don't discount the indirect effects of culture. Cool posters that place cultural value upon educational or scientific achivement may have value in guiding the pursuits of younger generations.
I remember a section from one of Feynman's books where he visited the home of someone, and a woman in the household exlaimed she was thrilled to have been visited by a general *and* a professor both in one day. I'd argue that that's a household that places a premium on education relative to other cultural influences. (maybe also a premium on the military, but that's another thread).
James hasnt pulled his star wars head out of his NCIS ass and given any pertanent information like how hackers breeched sony, what attack vectors were used, what exploits were performed (if any) and what if any IDS or firewall technology was complicit in the breech.
The FBI is under no obligation to release any information whatsoever about this.
, happens to care enough to make a retaliatory strike against what for all intents and purposes is a nonthreat. What IS however quite possible is a disgruntled employee simply decided to dump the mail server to the pirate bay, and because you can as a business affect an insurance claim against hackers, its convenient to do so in the face of a movie that will in all likelyhood barely break even.
Nice speculation. But that has even less technical backing then what you just reemed "James" over.
"I wonder just how much the price of groceries would jump if illegal farm labor was shut down. And the absolute bottom line is that reproduction as well as immigration degrades the quality of life for all of us."
Those two sentences are contradictory. Because low-cost consumer staples are certainly included a part of the quality of life that the U.S. enjoys. In terms of economic benefit to effectively the entire population. And there are also indirect benefits in having large economic sectors (agriculture being one) remaining competitive in global markets - that almost certainly provides economic beneifts beyond just the low-wage illegal jobs. (e.g. there's a whole chain of empoyment from domestic agriculture - finance, construction, transportation, research, etc.)
Blue Cross, implemented for public school teachers as an employment perk, existed before WWII. Just saying that someone had the idea before your "bright boy."
>But the government is taking any wiggle room they can find and just ignoring the law, court orders and the constitution
The courts are part of the government. Just saying. People increasingly use the term "the government" as some sort of vague, hand-waving pejorative term when referring to some aspect of governance they don't like. Which is kind of sad. In this case we're seeing an example of natural tension between executive power and statutory limitation on that power, as interpreted by the courts. And the court limited the power, in this instance, in no uncertain terms.
> The automated system can identify targets, track them, pursue them, prioritize targets, do basically everything but pull the trigger, but it has to request permission >to fire from a human operator
I believe the Phalanx CIWS has a mode where it'll basically go to town on anything in the air that doesn't have IFF. The response time required is too short for human operator confirmation. I believe the AEGIS defense system has similar capabilities, though maybe more human operator oversight on that one. I'm not sure.
. Doesn't human dignity require that we treat travellers as people and not the same way that we treat convicts?
Of course. But use of hyberbole doesn't help. Convicts are treated very, very differently than people going through airport security. There are any number of prison documentaries you can view if you don't believe me.
2. Don't these security measures do more harm than good by forcing people to accept a microcosm of "police state" for no discernable benefit?
"Microcosm" is more like it. Yes, a cost-benefit analysis taking into account both monetary and social cost would be valuable. But not easy. The security procedures are a deterrent against rare, catastrophic events, and it's very difficult to prove the effectiveness of a deterrent. Through some combination of intelligence, security, and incompetence, we haven't seen another 9/11, which is good. Where do we draw the line that indicates the reasonable combination of security vs. risk is? I'm not sure. I'm ambivalent on whether these scanners are "overreach."
But, then again, I'm a technocrat. I wouldn't mind getting rid of 90% of TSA personnel altogether and having a fully automated line you could just walk through at normal speed, with no waiting (unless you trigger something, in which case a glass cylinder descends around you, and you're whisked off to Stage 2.
>I know I could run at 300 lines of C a day
Someone call security. We have a mid-level manager masquerading as a coder.
I've never met a competent coder who considers lines-of-code/day to be an even remotely useful metric of productivity.
Coders who eat through requirements like a shark through chum with tight, transparent patterns...those are the good ones.
From the linked article: "Somewhat surprisingly, even for individuals aged 60, the distribution of their friends’ ages is sharply peaked at exactly 60."
Really bad explanation of the accompanying graph. The distribution for people aged 60 is wildly different than the distribution for age 20. And it's unsurprising that people have friends of the same age.
Fair enough. But there is no market for deep space travel (I don't think celebrity passengers is a viable long-term business plan), therefore there is no way that the market will pay for it. There is just really no point in sending people into extra-orbital space other than research without much tangible return-on-investment.
If the only goal is to make "monumental, iconic achievements" then I don't see much happening without heavy, heavy government subsidy. And you're just arguing for new, different subsidy in place of tired, old subsidy.
>except that NASA has pretty definitively proven over a period of decades that it's too bureaucratic, too sclerotic, and too much organized as a patronage/jobs >organization to do anything big in manned space flight.
Your criticisms may be valid, but you're conclusion is absurd. The state-sponsored behemoths of the USA, Russia, and China are the *only* organizations that have definitely proven it can do big things in manned space flight. I don't count flying a rocket-powered plane really high as being "big things."
Name the only organization to have sent a man on an extra-orbital space flight.
Slashdot Mirror
When 70% of trade is in illegal drugs and kiddie porn that'd be like a...erm Dicksian dystopia?
It should show us sentences to say to the girl in front of us and analyzing her response and microfacial expressions and adapt the responses accordingly.
Otherwise the nerds will never get laid.
Google: Probability: 0.0%
Nerd: Sumbitch! Not again.
Tablets and paper already do this.
Yes, but I can see plenty of scenarios where, say, you're on a ladder with a two-handed tool inside an airplane wing, and you want to double check a diagram. Instead of climbing back down the ladder, finding the right page, etc, you could just look at the diagram of a part while you're simultaneously looking at the actual part. With the tool still in your hand. Increases efficiency. Possibly reduces errors. (less need for memory to store information as you switch from a paper manual back to the task, since you can look at the task and the manual at almost the same time (just switching focus).
That could be useful.
I don't see why a government should be in business of helping media companies sell their wares.
The U.S. government has a pretty good history of implementing massive infrastructure that's the envy of the modern world and creates a very fertile ground for innovation by U.S. industry.
The railways, back in the day.
Then the U.S. interstate freeway system. (with all its negative characteristics, but it's undeniably great for business).
The U.S. energy infrastructure (getting a bit outdated, but for the most part is cheap and reliable).
The original Al Gore Internet. Google et al, could rapidly deploy innovative stuff to most of the U.S. (and world) population without worrying much about infrastructure (until recently, as demand for throughput has started to outstrip supply in many ways).
Not all of those are pure Government products, obviously, but the the Government was deeply involved in the rollout and regulation of all of them. And it's certainly not clear that any of them could have been produced as quickly of efficiently without Government involvement.
I get the libertarian arguments, which are all-too-often valid. But dogmatically applying libertarian theory to every act of Government, is, in my opinion myopic and irrational.
Imagine all the athletes disappeared...not really a problem.
Don't discount the value of sports on a culture. Athletic achievement has been celebrated for pretty much the history of humanity, and has been the focus of much economic investment. Eliminate that at your own peril. There may actually be something important going on .
But to your point, I think the issue is that the benefits to an end-consumer of a football game are direct, timely, and transparent. The benefits to an end-consumer from scientific achivement are generally highly indirect, often delayed by years or generations from the initial discovery, and opaque. It's generally the engineers/businessmen who ultimately make the direct connection to the consumer. Just the way it is.
If the results of celebrity scientists are making cool posters for dorm rooms and/or being eye candy, then yeah, they probably aren't doing much for it.
Don't discount the indirect effects of culture. Cool posters that place cultural value upon educational or scientific achivement may have value in guiding the pursuits of younger generations.
I remember a section from one of Feynman's books where he visited the home of someone, and a woman in the household exlaimed she was thrilled to have been visited by a general *and* a professor both in one day. I'd argue that that's a household that places a premium on education relative to other cultural influences. (maybe also a premium on the military, but that's another thread).
No, this is James Comey.
James hasnt pulled his star wars head out of his NCIS ass and given any pertanent information like how hackers breeched sony, what attack vectors were used, what exploits were performed (if any) and what if any IDS or firewall technology was complicit in the breech.
The FBI is under no obligation to release any information whatsoever about this.
, happens to care enough to make a retaliatory strike against what for all intents and purposes is a nonthreat. What IS however quite possible is a disgruntled employee simply decided to dump the mail server to the pirate bay, and because you can as a business affect an insurance claim against hackers, its convenient to do so in the face of a movie that will in all likelyhood barely break even.
Nice speculation. But that has even less technical backing then what you just reemed "James" over.
"NOTHING has happened to Clapper for committing PERJURY."
You mean he hasn't been charged with suspected perjury yet. He hasn't officially committed perjury until due process has taken place.
Apparently they didn't have much on Feinstein.
I just wanted to get mad at you. I can't stand fatous, pre-emptive commands like, "Don't get mad at me."
Troll accomplished. Carry on.
>Don't get mad at me. I didn't do anything one way or the other.
Yes, you did. You made a variety of assumptions that you expect everyone to accept.
The pure libertarian argument against NPR has nothing to do with "taking sides," but with the principle of state-funded media period.
The DOE had another mandate when it was created.
"I wonder just how much the price of groceries would jump if illegal farm labor was shut down. And the absolute bottom line is that reproduction as well as immigration degrades the quality of life for all of us."
Those two sentences are contradictory. Because low-cost consumer staples are certainly included a part of the quality of life that the U.S. enjoys. In terms of economic benefit to effectively the entire population. And there are also indirect benefits in having large economic sectors (agriculture being one) remaining competitive in global markets - that almost certainly provides economic beneifts beyond just the low-wage illegal jobs. (e.g. there's a whole chain of empoyment from domestic agriculture - finance, construction, transportation, research, etc.)
"Only time will tell."
Maybe not. Because when you effectively deter a very low-probability event, you may not ever "know" you've deterred it.
This is why the TSA has a difficult PR task. We spend billions on them, and as far as we can tell they do nothing except annoy us.
But maybe they detered the great Shoe Bomb Epidemic of 2010? Who knows.
Blue Cross, implemented for public school teachers as an employment perk, existed before WWII. Just saying that someone had the idea before your "bright boy."
>But the government is taking any wiggle room they can find and just ignoring the law, court orders and the constitution The courts are part of the government. Just saying. People increasingly use the term "the government" as some sort of vague, hand-waving pejorative term when referring to some aspect of governance they don't like. Which is kind of sad. In this case we're seeing an example of natural tension between executive power and statutory limitation on that power, as interpreted by the courts. And the court limited the power, in this instance, in no uncertain terms.
> The automated system can identify targets, track them, pursue them, prioritize targets, do basically everything but pull the trigger, but it has to request permission >to fire from a human operator I believe the Phalanx CIWS has a mode where it'll basically go to town on anything in the air that doesn't have IFF. The response time required is too short for human operator confirmation. I believe the AEGIS defense system has similar capabilities, though maybe more human operator oversight on that one. I'm not sure.
. Doesn't human dignity require that we treat travellers as people and not the same way that we treat convicts?
Of course. But use of hyberbole doesn't help. Convicts are treated very, very differently than people going through airport security. There are any number of prison documentaries you can view if you don't believe me.
2. Don't these security measures do more harm than good by forcing people to accept a microcosm of "police state" for no discernable benefit?
"Microcosm" is more like it. Yes, a cost-benefit analysis taking into account both monetary and social cost would be valuable. But not easy. The security procedures are a deterrent against rare, catastrophic events, and it's very difficult to prove the effectiveness of a deterrent. Through some combination of intelligence, security, and incompetence, we haven't seen another 9/11, which is good. Where do we draw the line that indicates the reasonable combination of security vs. risk is? I'm not sure. I'm ambivalent on whether these scanners are "overreach." But, then again, I'm a technocrat. I wouldn't mind getting rid of 90% of TSA personnel altogether and having a fully automated line you could just walk through at normal speed, with no waiting (unless you trigger something, in which case a glass cylinder descends around you, and you're whisked off to Stage 2.
>I know I could run at 300 lines of C a day Someone call security. We have a mid-level manager masquerading as a coder. I've never met a competent coder who considers lines-of-code/day to be an even remotely useful metric of productivity. Coders who eat through requirements like a shark through chum with tight, transparent patterns...those are the good ones.
From the linked article: "Somewhat surprisingly, even for individuals aged 60, the distribution of their friends’ ages is sharply peaked at exactly 60." Really bad explanation of the accompanying graph. The distribution for people aged 60 is wildly different than the distribution for age 20. And it's unsurprising that people have friends of the same age.
Can a 4-year-long series with established talent be considered "cult?"
Fair enough. But there is no market for deep space travel (I don't think celebrity passengers is a viable long-term business plan), therefore there is no way that the market will pay for it. There is just really no point in sending people into extra-orbital space other than research without much tangible return-on-investment. If the only goal is to make "monumental, iconic achievements" then I don't see much happening without heavy, heavy government subsidy. And you're just arguing for new, different subsidy in place of tired, old subsidy.
>except that NASA has pretty definitively proven over a period of decades that it's too bureaucratic, too sclerotic, and too much organized as a patronage/jobs >organization to do anything big in manned space flight. Your criticisms may be valid, but you're conclusion is absurd. The state-sponsored behemoths of the USA, Russia, and China are the *only* organizations that have definitely proven it can do big things in manned space flight. I don't count flying a rocket-powered plane really high as being "big things." Name the only organization to have sent a man on an extra-orbital space flight.