Any sort of securista ploy to invade private property like this that starts with "think of the children" should be automatically subject to Reductio ad Hitlerum.
If I weren't at war with the Islamofascists, I'd change my sig block to this bit of brilliance!
Maybe having to learn odd measures is a good introduction to units analysis and the need to pay attention. As a discipline not a set of facts. Just sayin', there may be more going on here than just imperialistic rhetoric.
Yes, The Day After is a very good movie as it embedded some very real conversations we used to have while sitting alert (Minuteman I (Mod) in 1970's).
I also watch "United 93" the way Israelis visit Masada and vow, "Masada shall not fall again!". Not for the heroics at the end, but for the many presentations of people struggling to understand what was going on. A fight we all are waging all the time, nowadays.
Bootable, non-writable CD, schedule computer to shut off every night at 2AM, forcing a daily reboot from said hardened safe CD OS. Leave one or two copies outside the computer where you can tell them to look if they phone and say they had to throw out the one they had been using.
Yeah, a lack of (internal) opposition has really helped the N Koreans, the Somalies and a few others, do freemen owe freedom and protections to societies and tribes who's oppressed are unable or unwilling to fight back? That is what we should decide first, then the rest is just strategy and tactics. But modern democratic institutions just do not do that discussion well in the presence of radical pacifists and war-hawks, who tend to see the world in black and white (sort of like the old TRS-80s did, due to its similarly limited capacity).
Only in the USofA is gun ownership specifically guaranteed because it is in our charter that the people need to be able to overthrow their government. All the rest of this discussion is just chaff.
The statistics presented are part of the PRICE of that guarantee, and it is a fair use to use those statistics to ask if that protection (against the government) is worth the price, and given the way governments tend to evolve, one can ask if the USofA is really immune to the sort of evolution the Constitution was trying to protect against. And it is fair to ask whether the guns we are allowed to own are capable of protecting us against drones, black helicopters and the NSA.
But I must say that if I were confronted with a government that suddenly decided that atheists were amoral gits who deserved beheading (to mix metaphors), then at least I would be able to take one or two with me.
As a mathematician I find that I am struck by the boundary between what mathematics and research tell me and what ethicists (religious and otherwise) tell me. The best example of the conundrum we rationalists face is how to claim that a behavior is moral when the underlying systems model tells us it is not. Consider the classic question of which is "better", the old testament (admittedly an arbitrary source, but bear with me) rule of "an eye for an eye" compared with the new testament rule to "turn the other cheek". Extensive exploration of the long term consequences of these two strategies for life are conducted under the guise of game theory, most specifically, the extensive simulations of the prisoner's dilemma (made famous by the book of the same name). The massive hoops and artificial framing necessary to make simulated evolution favor turning the other cheek are strong indications of the strength of the simpler, eye for an eye strategy. Perhaps what makes us most human (whatever that is) is when we embrace, for our own illogical reasons, turning the other cheek in the face of the systems models that tell us to exact an eye for an eye. But the price we pay is the price of the person who leaps from a bridge hoping to fly like a bird when the systems analysis says it won't work. Because evolution operating on memes will punish the society that follows the gentler turn the other cheek in the face of a society that exacts the eye for an eye. Is extinction the price we pay for the more "moral" and gentler turning the other cheek? I hope not, but keep the eye I have left wide open just in case.
Wish I could moderate this up. Nice point about the psychology of racists, which is that they fear "the others" because deep in their hearts they are afraid the others are superior (in the genetic, "breeding success==superior" evolutionary sense of the word).
Well, obviously one of these two stories is science and the other is political correctness. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to determine which is which.
This tape already self-destructed.
Does anyone remember when there were plans to inject water into faults to make them slip before the strains reached epic proportions? Fracking and drought are now running those sorts of experiments for us.
If the genetic sequence "ACGTTGTA" is correlated with a differential ability to do some cognitive task and the genetic sequence "GATACCA" is associated with the ability to grow good long hair, and the two sequences are linked (a mathematical/statistical term in this usage), then it is possible to use hair as a visible predictor of the cognitive task ("playing thrash metal", for example). Correlation may not be causation, but it can be an indicator variable.
As a mathematician working on data mining where we still see lots of false positives, and with the proliferation of easy tools for fools to do data mining, I wonder how long till we see panics starting days or weeks before the government is willing to announce problems. Imagine New Orleans trying to evacuate itself while the NOAA folks think that the weather that is coming is going to be a standard low level rain event. Imagine then if it turns out that NOAA was right to be calm, FEMA was right to sleep through it, but hundreds of thousands of Wx-refugees are now sitting on freeways trying to find gas. The movie Contagion was a good preview.
What does a physically limited human in a helmet in the cockpit bring to the battle that a physically remote human in a helmet cannot do? Is the extra "situation awareness" brought about by the kinesthetic sense and the millisecond lag caused by speed-of-signal issues worth the extra cost of making an expensive toy for pilots over making a slightly less expensive toy for armchair warriors? Do we really expect the on-site human to be able to whip that $600K helmet off, squint Dirty Harry style and squeeze of a few thousand well placed rounds into a target that cannot be seen without the enhancements of that helmet? When I was AF, I'd have raised these issues and probably been told what I was told then, the remote sensing and control technology just is not up to the task.
I am a member of two planning commissions in Minnesota and I find it very ironic that here in the Land of 10,000 lakes (or, in the spring, one really big lake), we are having to block ethanol plants and agricultural irrigation because of ground water and deep water concerns. Similarly we are finding that the ground water we do have is slowly being destroyed by run-in from fields covered with chemicals. It does make me an outlier in the Republican party (social liberal wing thereof) when I pose these "tragedies of the commons" arguments to the died-in-the-wool free-market libertarian types. I can show them the specific assumptions in their models that cause them to FAIL (mode critical) and as a mathematician I am often surprised that they do not see how those failures force an external, non-free market solution. But I soldier on.
I went with both eyes good for distance vision because I wanted to be able to see well if I fell off my sailboat and lost my glasses (since they would be off-the-shelf sunglasses or reading glasses). I have been quite happy with the results and represent a sample size of 1. On the other hand, I DO need reading glasses, but they are cheap enough that my house looks like an explosion in a glasses factory.
When I was teaching at the Air Force Institute of Technology, on the topic of the the math behind IFF systems, I used this example (Vincennes incident) as an example of how human factors enter into battlefield decisions in a way that can nullify the best planned algorithms. Now I am using those examples in the hospital decision making environment.
FWIW, the example problem I presented was of an airplane heading towards a base, flying with no IFF transponder, flying low and erratically. The question was whether it was a damaged friendly (no IFF, no radio) and returning to base or an enemy spoofing to look like a damaged friendly. The Army troops were unanimous, "Shoot it down; sort it out on the ground". The flyboys were not so sanguine.
The first thing you have to ask is whether a computer that passes the test has some rights that other machines don't. The test we are looking for is one that, if a program passes the test then legal protections would intervene if you wanted to shut it off and scramble the memory. Any other test is just semantics and tomfoolery, like arguing over what color is the sky. Without the actionable component (a blue sky means I don't need my umbrella to get across the parking lot to my car) the question of "best test for AI..." is a form of mental self-abuse, without the happy ending.
The incentive is NOT to make the most money. It is to charge just enough that there is very little room for a competitor to slip in a lower premium for the same protections. Thus, if you are deemed to be an expected cost is $1K/year driver then your premium should be about $1.1K a year to leave them some protection against the high-side risks (protection they usually get through re-insurance, but that's another concept and we don't want to overload the wet-ware circuits). Conversely, if you are deemed to be an expected cost is $10K/year driver then your premium should be $11K a year and I bet they just hope someone else comes along and offers you a better deal.
But "increasing the total sum they get from premiums" is not even a first order approximation of the TWTWW (the way the world works).
I guarantee that if more than some (insert your guess here)% of the economy went into barter then the IRS would start enforcing EXISTING laws that make barter transactions taxable as income. So, calling brownies money (as barter) does not make them untaxable, just (currently) untaxed. As for non-profits getting a special tax break, why not (1) eliminate all corporate taxes, (2) remove free speech from corporations and unions, (3) tax wealth more (level that entitlement cliff), (4) tax consumption more (carbon tax, anyone?), (5) tax income less (but progressively).
This list is not supportable by either party, which makes me think it could be the best set of trade-offs ever. The only improvement would be if estates of everyone who died were taxed at a rate that paid off their (proportional) share of the national debt that they let get run up on their watch (without regard to which party incurred it). Might make those 20-somethings think a little bit about how much debt they wanted their cohort to put on the books.
Slashdot Mirror
Any sort of securista ploy to invade private property like this that starts with "think of the children" should be automatically subject to Reductio ad Hitlerum.
If I weren't at war with the Islamofascists, I'd change my sig block to this bit of brilliance!
Maybe having to learn odd measures is a good introduction to units analysis and the need to pay attention. As a discipline not a set of facts. Just sayin', there may be more going on here than just imperialistic rhetoric.
Yes, The Day After is a very good movie as it embedded some very real conversations we used to have while sitting alert (Minuteman I (Mod) in 1970's).
I also watch "United 93" the way Israelis visit Masada and vow, "Masada shall not fall again!". Not for the heroics at the end, but for the many presentations of people struggling to understand what was going on. A fight we all are waging all the time, nowadays.
A call to arms for the anhedonists of the World!!!!
... oh, why bother?
Bootable, non-writable CD, schedule computer to shut off every night at 2AM, forcing a daily reboot from said hardened safe CD OS. Leave one or two copies outside the computer where you can tell them to look if they phone and say they had to throw out the one they had been using.
Yeah, a lack of (internal) opposition has really helped the N Koreans, the Somalies and a few others, do freemen owe freedom and protections to societies and tribes who's oppressed are unable or unwilling to fight back? That is what we should decide first, then the rest is just strategy and tactics. But modern democratic institutions just do not do that discussion well in the presence of radical pacifists and war-hawks, who tend to see the world in black and white (sort of like the old TRS-80s did, due to its similarly limited capacity).
Only in the USofA is gun ownership specifically guaranteed because it is in our charter that the people need to be able to overthrow their government. All the rest of this discussion is just chaff.
The statistics presented are part of the PRICE of that guarantee, and it is a fair use to use those statistics to ask if that protection (against the government) is worth the price, and given the way governments tend to evolve, one can ask if the USofA is really immune to the sort of evolution the Constitution was trying to protect against. And it is fair to ask whether the guns we are allowed to own are capable of protecting us against drones, black helicopters and the NSA.
But I must say that if I were confronted with a government that suddenly decided that atheists were amoral gits who deserved beheading (to mix metaphors), then at least I would be able to take one or two with me.
As a mathematician I find that I am struck by the boundary between what mathematics and research tell me and what ethicists (religious and otherwise) tell me. The best example of the conundrum we rationalists face is how to claim that a behavior is moral when the underlying systems model tells us it is not. Consider the classic question of which is "better", the old testament (admittedly an arbitrary source, but bear with me) rule of "an eye for an eye" compared with the new testament rule to "turn the other cheek". Extensive exploration of the long term consequences of these two strategies for life are conducted under the guise of game theory, most specifically, the extensive simulations of the prisoner's dilemma (made famous by the book of the same name). The massive hoops and artificial framing necessary to make simulated evolution favor turning the other cheek are strong indications of the strength of the simpler, eye for an eye strategy. Perhaps what makes us most human (whatever that is) is when we embrace, for our own illogical reasons, turning the other cheek in the face of the systems models that tell us to exact an eye for an eye. But the price we pay is the price of the person who leaps from a bridge hoping to fly like a bird when the systems analysis says it won't work. Because evolution operating on memes will punish the society that follows the gentler turn the other cheek in the face of a society that exacts the eye for an eye. Is extinction the price we pay for the more "moral" and gentler turning the other cheek? I hope not, but keep the eye I have left wide open just in case.
Wish I could moderate this up. Nice point about the psychology of racists, which is that they fear "the others" because deep in their hearts they are afraid the others are superior (in the genetic, "breeding success==superior" evolutionary sense of the word).
You're a christian, what do you care about karma (it's from a competing meme)
Well, obviously one of these two stories is science and the other is political correctness. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to determine which is which. This tape already self-destructed.
Nuf said. but fMRI and the like are working on making them science.
If you have not watched "Continuum" you should. Then figure out how to avoid that situation, because evolution is working towards that ugliness.
Does anyone remember when there were plans to inject water into faults to make them slip before the strains reached epic proportions? Fracking and drought are now running those sorts of experiments for us.
If the genetic sequence "ACGTTGTA" is correlated with a differential ability to do some cognitive task and the genetic sequence "GATACCA" is associated with the ability to grow good long hair, and the two sequences are linked (a mathematical/statistical term in this usage), then it is possible to use hair as a visible predictor of the cognitive task ("playing thrash metal", for example). Correlation may not be causation, but it can be an indicator variable.
As a mathematician working on data mining where we still see lots of false positives, and with the proliferation of easy tools for fools to do data mining, I wonder how long till we see panics starting days or weeks before the government is willing to announce problems. Imagine New Orleans trying to evacuate itself while the NOAA folks think that the weather that is coming is going to be a standard low level rain event. Imagine then if it turns out that NOAA was right to be calm, FEMA was right to sleep through it, but hundreds of thousands of Wx-refugees are now sitting on freeways trying to find gas. The movie Contagion was a good preview.
fuck the 1% and their war shit.. and fuck religion fanatics too...
Another dreamer wishing in one hand and shitting in the other, I wonder which hand fills up first.
What does a physically limited human in a helmet in the cockpit bring to the battle that a physically remote human in a helmet cannot do? Is the extra "situation awareness" brought about by the kinesthetic sense and the millisecond lag caused by speed-of-signal issues worth the extra cost of making an expensive toy for pilots over making a slightly less expensive toy for armchair warriors? Do we really expect the on-site human to be able to whip that $600K helmet off, squint Dirty Harry style and squeeze of a few thousand well placed rounds into a target that cannot be seen without the enhancements of that helmet? When I was AF, I'd have raised these issues and probably been told what I was told then, the remote sensing and control technology just is not up to the task.
"Prove it" says I, and I would invoke the post WWI demonstration bombing that got Billy Mitchell in trouble.
I am a member of two planning commissions in Minnesota and I find it very ironic that here in the Land of 10,000 lakes (or, in the spring, one really big lake), we are having to block ethanol plants and agricultural irrigation because of ground water and deep water concerns. Similarly we are finding that the ground water we do have is slowly being destroyed by run-in from fields covered with chemicals. It does make me an outlier in the Republican party (social liberal wing thereof) when I pose these "tragedies of the commons" arguments to the died-in-the-wool free-market libertarian types. I can show them the specific assumptions in their models that cause them to FAIL (mode critical) and as a mathematician I am often surprised that they do not see how those failures force an external, non-free market solution. But I soldier on.
I went with both eyes good for distance vision because I wanted to be able to see well if I fell off my sailboat and lost my glasses (since they would be off-the-shelf sunglasses or reading glasses). I have been quite happy with the results and represent a sample size of 1. On the other hand, I DO need reading glasses, but they are cheap enough that my house looks like an explosion in a glasses factory.
When I was teaching at the Air Force Institute of Technology, on the topic of the the math behind IFF systems, I used this example (Vincennes incident) as an example of how human factors enter into battlefield decisions in a way that can nullify the best planned algorithms. Now I am using those examples in the hospital decision making environment.
FWIW, the example problem I presented was of an airplane heading towards a base, flying with no IFF transponder, flying low and erratically. The question was whether it was a damaged friendly (no IFF, no radio) and returning to base or an enemy spoofing to look like a damaged friendly. The Army troops were unanimous, "Shoot it down; sort it out on the ground". The flyboys were not so sanguine.
The first thing you have to ask is whether a computer that passes the test has some rights that other machines don't. The test we are looking for is one that, if a program passes the test then legal protections would intervene if you wanted to shut it off and scramble the memory. Any other test is just semantics and tomfoolery, like arguing over what color is the sky. Without the actionable component (a blue sky means I don't need my umbrella to get across the parking lot to my car) the question of "best test for AI ..." is a form of mental self-abuse, without the happy ending.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
The incentive is NOT to make the most money. It is to charge just enough that there is very little room for a competitor to slip in a lower premium for the same protections. Thus, if you are deemed to be an expected cost is $1K/year driver then your premium should be about $1.1K a year to leave them some protection against the high-side risks (protection they usually get through re-insurance, but that's another concept and we don't want to overload the wet-ware circuits). Conversely, if you are deemed to be an expected cost is $10K/year driver then your premium should be $11K a year and I bet they just hope someone else comes along and offers you a better deal.
But "increasing the total sum they get from premiums" is not even a first order approximation of the TWTWW (the way the world works).
The underground and grey economies are showing that the rich are the only ones who NEED what they get, the rest of us are just droning on ...
This list is not supportable by either party, which makes me think it could be the best set of trade-offs ever. The only improvement would be if estates of everyone who died were taxed at a rate that paid off their (proportional) share of the national debt that they let get run up on their watch (without regard to which party incurred it). Might make those 20-somethings think a little bit about how much debt they wanted their cohort to put on the books.