And by the way.... you saying "but, really, its not really even useful... just makes us feel good." is a fallacy.
Well no. It's not a fallacy at all. I think the word is, a statement of values. If you have the more continental European view of life that pleasure as an integral part of it, that's something, but you could also ascribe to the more traditionally ango-saxon view of life that what we feel is irrelevant and what matters is what we accomplish or try to accomplish. To some extent the 1960s and the counter culture revolution instilled a popular rejection of that view but popularity is not the same as universality. Some people still feel that way.
Emotions are ultimately the vehicle by which we learn. But, computers can learn by inserting logic directly, so they do not need emotion to accomplish a particular task.
Heh well. Try having a lump of silicone or whatever material it might be made of understand things like beauty, bravery, freedom or sympathy, or better still deception. This list could go on for the many emotional and philosophical phenomena we humans associate with our "intelligence".
We have only made that association for a few decades. Have a look at even up through the 1960s, and you would see that logic was considered the intelligent thing, and emotion was something for the common man. Once computers started solving math problems and winning at chess, we changed the rulebook.
We only say emotion is intelligent now because its hard for computers to do... but, really, its not really even useful... just makes us feel good.
But is it absolutely every Sith? To some extent too, if the Jedi did not have an absolute vow of not being attached, they might have been able to better sense the growing problems in Anakin and gotten professional help for him before it was too late. Probably would have made for a better Star Wars prequel if Palpatine had known about the affair with Amidala.. but the writing was choppy in those three, suffering from too much overwork.
I prefer Robert Lund's parody: "It doesn't really matter if my turkey meat is dark or white..."... but I'm not really sure how this relates to the topic. I think we're three or four metaphor-steps away from TFA's topic, by now.
Well, whatever kind of turkey you prefer to tends go with the gravy and the manner the turkey is cooked. If the turkey is baked, and there is no gravy, I tend to prefer the dark meat because the white is too dry. If the turkey is fried, or there is ample gravy, then I tend to like the white, because its better for sandwiches, either open faced or not.
Hmmm. not sure how that relates to politics, metaphorically... I kinda am lost now... but I could go for some turkey.
I'm no security buff, but could you use https as a way around some ad-blockers? I mean, if you jacketed up all your communications in a security blanket than no third party would be able to pick it apart and strip your ads, would they? And, if the browser allowed third party components to screw with your https stuff after it has been decrypted, isn't that like one hell of a security hole?
Putting a brain on a chip is hardly going to be the advance where we say, "geez, computers are smarter than we are." For the most part, they already are, and we've just changed our definition of intelligence to exclude things like algorithmic problem solving, memorization, that, maybe a few decades ago we would have associated with intelligence. Now intelligence is almost, to humans, a spiritual thing, a moving bar so we can say that we are still better than the machines we make, when any working stiff (whose long ago traded a strong back for a strong tool), will say, no, we're not as good as the machines. We can't outrun trucks. We can't jump higher than a jet. We can't hold our breath longer than a submarine, can't remember more trivia than a modern PC, can't fly arbitrary shapes like the F-117, can't compute ballistic trajectories, can't solve many matrix math problems by hand at all, can't brute force calculate more than a few multiplcations per minute... let's just face it, people are pretty weak and pretty stupid and that's the long and short of it.
Pretty soon, expert systems will eclipse academics in every field, and they should. the only problem there is a representation of knowledge. But I'd bet that as we move towards a new generation of declarative languages we'll be able to encode intelligence into things into software with better precision and reliability, and as imaging comes online, modern medicine will become an appliance. There's already some systems that can look at your blood and diagnose some diseases and that will continue. But the simple fact is that software can live forever, if it is economical, and we can just keep piling medical code onto medical code such that no single human could possibly absorb it all. Some day machines will tell doctors what to do, just like today they tell insurers what to insure, and so on...
All news is biased and always has been. The whole essence of journalism is not to convey a "true" picture of a situation as it is to use facts to create a story that entertains the readers. The thing about Fox is that they pick news based upon more center-right instincts and the traditional media is center-left. That America is a center-right country explains why so many right leaning outlets are gaining and so many left wing outlets are losing, and that, democrats winning isn't so much the democrats are great, but Republicans have been apallingly stupid.
Murdoch bought MySpace in 2005 for $580 million...I wouldn't put any money into Murdoch's internet instincts.
You, my friend, need to separate money from buzz. I'd be happy if my web site made what myspace makes today, and I'd bet you'd be happy if your web site made what myspace makes today too.
And the fact is, since Murdoch bought myspace in 2005 for about 600 million, he's gotten nearly a billion from Google for advertising, plus even this year he's still picking up about 500M in revenue. Myspace may not be as "hip" as facebook, but its still making a good chunk of change.
In that memory on the card is faster for the card GPU and memory on the CPU is faster than the CPU. Like, I know PC-Express speeds things up, but, is it that fast that you don't have to worry about the bottleneck of the system bus?
Who cares about how many hits you have, when the real key is profitability. The WSJ is pretty good online and its worth the subscription.
Obviously Fox News's site is a different animal but if you just had a Fox media site with reporting that was real, it could work. But for that to happen, you have to give people content they are willing to pay for, and that means that Murdoch has to invest in journalism if he wants people to pay for it.
Technologically, what the media needs is a micro-payments system setup so that you can have a single billing identity that lets you get all the stories... it would cover Fox, CBS, etc, and a bunch of news sites.
At the very least, n+1 more then failed wars with Iran or North Korea.
My point is that if the world will not let us police it adequately, then we should not be trying to police it at all. The world is content to let Iran and North Korea get and spread the bomb? Fine, but I don't want US soldiers having to defend to South Korea... Americans should not have to pay with their lives for the South Korean inability to confront their own security issues. And the same thing goes with other arab nations and Iran... or even Continental Europe for that matter.
...hat come with them the United States is a regional power without the ability to project power outside of the Western hemisphere and Pacific (our various island holdings give us basing rights there regardless of any allies)
I don't care if the USA is anything more than a regional power. I'd rather have the paycheck than the empire. Empires cost more than they are worth, especially these days. Look at all the trade concessions the USA has to give up to project power... its a bad deal, all around.
How about the fact that we have a security alliance [wikipedia.org] with Japan and that the mission of defending South Korea has a UN mandate [wikipedia.org]?
Read the text of the 1960 security treaty with Japan. Neither party is actually required to go to war to defend the other. It's a feel good treaty that gives the USA basing rights.
South Korea's defense being a UN Mandate, perhaps the UN could take up the matter in a security council meeting. Perhaps a stern letter to North Korea would work.
Do you also think that we have no obligation to defend Australia, New Zealand or our NATO allies?
Australia fought with the USA in World War II and most of its other wars in the Pacific. You can think of Australia as a key strategic ally in the Pacific, that anchors that ocean in the same way the UK is a key strategic ally in the Atlantic. The USA, UK and Australia have had a REAL military alliance and partnership and so of course the USA should defend Australia.
The eight army is a tripwire. Those guys are in South Korea to get killed or injured in a North Korean attack to motivate the American people towards war if North Korea should attack South Korea. If those guys weren't there, Americans would have the option of just blowing off the conflict, and they might.
I'm afraid you've missed the point. The point was that we wouldn't be able to destroy them with air power alone before the Army had to get involved.
It really depends on how much help North Korea has from China. That's the thing. In our last major ground engagement where we used airpower the right way - gulf war I, the amount of contact with the enemy by ground forces was kept to a minimum and Iraq took terrible casualties from tactical air. Iraq 1991 and North Korea today are roughly comparable, and if anything Iraq 1991 was a stronger foe because they have some money coming in from oil. The thing is, though, is how much aid North Korea might receive from China. If China supplies North Korea with advanced ground to air missiles, air defense, systems, etc, then, our air war would have a major problem because we would not achieve any real air dominance and that would allow north korean ground troops freedom of movement.
So, my argument, is really, yeah, we could probably kick North Korea's rear if we wanted too, but, the price of admission to that ring is a larger war with China, and that, my friend, does not seem worth it.
And we don't want to control the ground in South Korea?
That's what South Koreans are there for.
It's not that simple. See my other post [slashdot.org] and pay attention to the part about logistics.
You forgot about the Navy in your posts, and only included the Air Force. The Navy has a much better logistical train than the AF does because its designed for that. You park a bunch of carriers off of the coast of NK and bomb away. You rotate carriers in and out continuously as needed to keep up a constant number of flights. If we have to we can reactivate several older carriers and accelerate construction of new ones. We could even theoretically bring in a battleship out of mothballs (again), for close in support.
Unless you think we have some sort of technology that magically negates Mr. Kalashnikov's inventions.
It's called cluster munitions. Air burst bombs. The only reason we are on the ground fighting against guys with AK-47s is because we want to control the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. But against infantry formations of an opponent in their own country, well, we could just bomb the hell out of them.
First off, there's really no need for the USA to involve itself in another war with China to defend South Korea. South Korea is arguably simply not worth it. I've argued that previously on my own site.
Secondly, North Korea has the economy of Vermont. Every Satellite picture shows an army that is in shambles, a Navy that is barely afloat, massive prison camps, little electricity, not enough food, and that's North Korea. If it were just them, we could flatten them from the air with impunity, and probably shoot down all of the nukes as they were in the air. It's China that is the problem. North Korea is just a loony Chinese puppet and so you have to really view any action against North Korea as an act against China. That killed 50,000 Americans in the 1950s, and a replay would probably kill a lot more.
I just don't think South Korea is worth it. Samsung makes some good screens, but its not worth Chinese nukes coming down on my head.
I know it's been a long time since America has engaged in it, but it's called diplomacy, not recon
Yeah, how many decades of failed diplomacy with North Korea or Iran do you possibly need? I would say that at some point, when someone says they are going to blow you away, and that their God will destroy you, you just have to take them at face value.
With that said....
Frankly, I don't even think South Korea is worth America's defense. But, if you want to put American cities on the nuclear table to protect the independence of South Korea, thanks to the efforts of W, we are now closing in on technologies needed to intercept their missiles. I've even written about that previously Here.. And, from a conventional standpoint, North Korea has the economy of Vermont, in this little mashup here It's their northern ally, China, that is the problem.
Well, you're right about the Republican party leadership's failures and hypocrisies, but what makes you assume...
Because I run a right wing web site, and I subscribe to every right wing feed there is, and the overwhelming emphasis is on GM is getting a bailout... but, never a mention of farm bills. When I have discussed the issue with many other wingers, I find that they mentally separate food and farm price supports and protectionism from other other sorts of protectionism with a rather byzantine layer of rationalization.
It used to be that if you walked into a Radio Shack and saw a bunch of TRS-80 computers, a wall full of electronic parts, total geeks working behind the counter, you might get the impression that the TV's and Stereos that they carried were pretty good stuff, because the whole store screams geek.
By getting rid of the geeky electronics image, they've kinda undermined their consumer electronics brand... were I a consumer electronics retailer, I would carry a mix of hobbyist equipment and just let it sit on the shelves, and premium products, and I'd bet one could establish a brand.... I mean, if Home Depot can make 100B a year selling the idea that you build a deck yourself, why not have people put together their own PCs and LCD tvs...
Slashdot Mirror
And by the way.... you saying "but, really, its not really even useful... just makes us feel good." is a fallacy.
Well no. It's not a fallacy at all. I think the word is, a statement of values. If you have the more continental European view of life that pleasure as an integral part of it, that's something, but you could also ascribe to the more traditionally ango-saxon view of life that what we feel is irrelevant and what matters is what we accomplish or try to accomplish. To some extent the 1960s and the counter culture revolution instilled a popular rejection of that view but popularity is not the same as universality. Some people still feel that way.
Emotions are ultimately the vehicle by which we learn. But, computers can learn by inserting logic directly, so they do not need emotion to accomplish a particular task.
Heh well. Try having a lump of silicone or whatever material it might be made of understand things like beauty, bravery, freedom or sympathy, or better still deception. This list could go on for the many emotional and philosophical phenomena we humans associate with our "intelligence".
We have only made that association for a few decades. Have a look at even up through the 1960s, and you would see that logic was considered the intelligent thing, and emotion was something for the common man. Once computers started solving math problems and winning at chess, we changed the rulebook.
We only say emotion is intelligent now because its hard for computers to do... but, really, its not really even useful... just makes us feel good.
Only the Sith deal in absolutes
But is it absolutely every Sith? To some extent too, if the Jedi did not have an absolute vow of not being attached, they might have been able to better sense the growing problems in Anakin and gotten professional help for him before it was too late. Probably would have made for a better Star Wars prequel if Palpatine had known about the affair with Amidala.. but the writing was choppy in those three, suffering from too much overwork.
I prefer Robert Lund's parody: "It doesn't really matter if my turkey meat is dark or white..." ... but I'm not really sure how this relates to the topic. I think we're three or four metaphor-steps away from TFA's topic, by now.
Well, whatever kind of turkey you prefer to tends go with the gravy and the manner the turkey is cooked. If the turkey is baked, and there is no gravy, I tend to prefer the dark meat because the white is too dry. If the turkey is fried, or there is ample gravy, then I tend to like the white, because its better for sandwiches, either open faced or not.
Hmmm. not sure how that relates to politics, metaphorically... I kinda am lost now... but I could go for some turkey.
I'm no security buff, but could you use https as a way around some ad-blockers? I mean, if you jacketed up all your communications in a security blanket than no third party would be able to pick it apart and strip your ads, would they? And, if the browser allowed third party components to screw with your https stuff after it has been decrypted, isn't that like one hell of a security hole?
Putting a brain on a chip is hardly going to be the advance where we say, "geez, computers are smarter than we are." For the most part, they already are, and we've just changed our definition of intelligence to exclude things like algorithmic problem solving, memorization, that, maybe a few decades ago we would have associated with intelligence. Now intelligence is almost, to humans, a spiritual thing, a moving bar so we can say that we are still better than the machines we make, when any working stiff (whose long ago traded a strong back for a strong tool), will say, no, we're not as good as the machines. We can't outrun trucks. We can't jump higher than a jet. We can't hold our breath longer than a submarine, can't remember more trivia than a modern PC, can't fly arbitrary shapes like the F-117, can't compute ballistic trajectories, can't solve many matrix math problems by hand at all, can't brute force calculate more than a few multiplcations per minute... let's just face it, people are pretty weak and pretty stupid and that's the long and short of it.
Pretty soon, expert systems will eclipse academics in every field, and they should. the only problem there is a representation of knowledge. But I'd bet that as we move towards a new generation of declarative languages we'll be able to encode intelligence into things into software with better precision and reliability, and as imaging comes online, modern medicine will become an appliance. There's already some systems that can look at your blood and diagnose some diseases and that will continue. But the simple fact is that software can live forever, if it is economical, and we can just keep piling medical code onto medical code such that no single human could possibly absorb it all. Some day machines will tell doctors what to do, just like today they tell insurers what to insure, and so on...
Even fox news is pretty biased [youtube.com]
All news is biased and always has been. The whole essence of journalism is not to convey a "true" picture of a situation as it is to use facts to create a story that entertains the readers. The thing about Fox is that they pick news based upon more center-right instincts and the traditional media is center-left. That America is a center-right country explains why so many right leaning outlets are gaining and so many left wing outlets are losing, and that, democrats winning isn't so much the democrats are great, but Republicans have been apallingly stupid.
Murdoch bought MySpace in 2005 for $580 million...I wouldn't put any money into Murdoch's internet instincts.
You, my friend, need to separate money from buzz.
I'd be happy if my web site made what myspace makes today, and I'd bet you'd be happy if your web site made what myspace makes today too.
And the fact is, since Murdoch bought myspace in 2005 for about 600 million, he's gotten nearly a billion from Google for advertising, plus even this year he's still picking up about 500M in revenue. Myspace may not be as "hip" as facebook, but its still making a good chunk of change.
In that memory on the card is faster for the card GPU and memory on the CPU is faster than the CPU. Like, I know PC-Express speeds things up, but, is it that fast that you don't have to worry about the bottleneck of the system bus?
I'm going to predict that this will work.
Who cares about how many hits you have, when the real key is profitability. The WSJ is pretty good online and its worth the subscription.
Obviously Fox News's site is a different animal but if you just had a Fox media site with reporting that was real, it could work.
But for that to happen, you have to give people content they are willing to pay for, and that means that Murdoch has to invest in journalism if he wants people to pay for it.
Technologically, what the media needs is a micro-payments system setup so that you can have a single billing identity that lets you get all the stories... it would cover Fox, CBS, etc, and a bunch of news sites.
Left wingers are lemmings through and through.
At the very least, n+1 more then failed wars with Iran or North Korea.
My point is that if the world will not let us police it adequately, then we should not be trying to police it at all. The world is content to let Iran and North Korea get and spread the bomb? Fine, but I don't want US soldiers having to defend to South Korea... Americans should not have to pay with their lives for the South Korean inability to confront their own security issues. And the same thing goes with other arab nations and Iran... or even Continental Europe for that matter.
...hat come with them the United States is a regional power without the ability to project power outside of the Western hemisphere and Pacific (our various island holdings give us basing rights there regardless of any allies)
I don't care if the USA is anything more than a regional power. I'd rather have the paycheck than the empire. Empires cost more than they are worth, especially these days. Look at all the trade concessions the USA has to give up to project power... its a bad deal, all around.
How about the fact that we have a security alliance [wikipedia.org] with Japan and that the mission of defending South Korea has a UN mandate [wikipedia.org]?
Read the text of the 1960 security treaty with Japan. Neither party is actually required to go to war to defend the other. It's a feel good treaty that gives the USA basing rights.
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&a/ref/1.html
South Korea's defense being a UN Mandate, perhaps the UN could take up the matter in a security council meeting. Perhaps a stern letter to North Korea would work.
Do you also think that we have no obligation to defend Australia, New Zealand or our NATO allies?
Australia fought with the USA in World War II and most of its other wars in the Pacific. You can think of Australia as a key strategic ally in the Pacific, that anchors that ocean in the same way the UK is a key strategic ally in the Atlantic. The USA, UK and Australia have had a REAL military alliance and partnership and so of course the USA should defend Australia.
NATO expansion was a mistake.
But either way, no, the price of admission is not worth it. We should go to war with them if needed to protect the Japanese or South Koreans.
I do not see the reason for Americans to go to war to protect either the South Koreans or the Japanese.
I've never argued that we should go to war with North Korea, although I question that the Chinese would get involve
The Chinese got involved before. If that's not a clear statement, I don't know what is. How would the USA react if China invaded Mexico?
But either way, no, the price of admission is not worth it. We should go to war with them if needed to protect the Japanese or South Koreans.
I do not see the reason for Americans to go to war to protect either the South Koreans or the Japanese.
which is in many ways descended from VMS and many of its fundamentals stolen by David Cutler from DEC
If David Cutler stole Window NT from DEC, then Linus Torvalds stole Linux from Tannenbaum... or for that matter, SCO...
I just love how the FOSS community routinely rips someone else that borrows, but then has no problem supporting their own borrowing.....
So the eighth army is just window dressing?
The eight army is a tripwire. Those guys are in South Korea to get killed or injured in a North Korean attack to motivate the American people towards war if North Korea should attack South Korea. If those guys weren't there, Americans would have the option of just blowing off the conflict, and they might.
I'm afraid you've missed the point. The point was that we wouldn't be able to destroy them with air power alone before the Army had to get involved.
It really depends on how much help North Korea has from China. That's the thing. In our last major ground engagement where we used airpower the right way - gulf war I, the amount of contact with the enemy by ground forces was kept to a minimum and Iraq took terrible casualties from tactical air. Iraq 1991 and North Korea today are roughly comparable, and if anything Iraq 1991 was a stronger foe because they have some money coming in from oil. The thing is, though, is how much aid North Korea might receive from China. If China supplies North Korea with advanced ground to air missiles, air defense, systems, etc, then, our air war would have a major problem because we would not achieve any real air dominance and that would allow north korean ground troops freedom of movement.
So, my argument, is really, yeah, we could probably kick North Korea's rear if we wanted too, but, the price of admission to that ring is a larger war with China, and that, my friend, does not seem worth it.
And we don't want to control the ground in South Korea?
That's what South Koreans are there for.
It's not that simple. See my other post [slashdot.org] and pay attention to the part about logistics.
You forgot about the Navy in your posts, and only included the Air Force. The Navy has a much better logistical train than the AF does because its designed for that. You park a bunch of carriers off of the coast of NK and bomb away. You rotate carriers in and out continuously as needed to keep up a constant number of flights. If we have to we can reactivate several older carriers and accelerate construction of new ones. We could even theoretically bring in a battleship out of mothballs (again), for close in support.
Unless you think we have some sort of technology that magically negates Mr. Kalashnikov's inventions.
It's called cluster munitions. Air burst bombs. The only reason we are on the ground fighting against guys with AK-47s is because we want to control the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. But against infantry formations of an opponent in their own country, well, we could just bomb the hell out of them.
Please, check out what North Korea really is.
First off, there's really no need for the USA to involve itself in another war with China to defend South Korea. South Korea is arguably simply not worth it. I've argued that previously on my own site.
Secondly, North Korea has the economy of Vermont. Every Satellite picture shows an army that is in shambles, a Navy that is barely afloat, massive prison camps, little electricity, not enough food, and that's North Korea. If it were just them, we could flatten them from the air with impunity, and probably shoot down all of the nukes as they were in the air. It's China that is the problem. North Korea is just a loony Chinese puppet and so you have to really view any action against North Korea as an act against China. That killed 50,000 Americans in the 1950s, and a replay would probably kill a lot more.
I just don't think South Korea is worth it. Samsung makes some good screens, but its not worth Chinese nukes coming down on my head.
I know it's been a long time since America has engaged in it, but it's called diplomacy, not recon
Yeah, how many decades of failed diplomacy with North Korea or Iran do you possibly need? I would say that at some point, when someone says they are going to blow you away, and that their God will destroy you, you just have to take them at face value.
With that said....
Frankly, I don't even think South Korea is worth America's defense. But, if you want to put American cities on the nuclear table to protect the independence of South Korea, thanks to the efforts of W, we are now closing in on technologies needed to intercept their missiles. I've even written about that previously Here.. And, from a conventional standpoint, North Korea has the economy of Vermont, in this little mashup here It's their northern ally, China, that is the problem.
Somehow I missed that you (tjstork) were the author of that comment...is the right place for a condemnation of Republican hypocrisy.
Yeah, you are right on that one.... I shouldn't have jumped the gun on that. My bad...
Well, you're right about the Republican party leadership's failures and hypocrisies, but what makes you assume...
Because I run a right wing web site, and I subscribe to every right wing feed there is, and the overwhelming emphasis is on GM is getting a bailout... but, never a mention of farm bills. When I have discussed the issue with many other wingers, I find that they mentally separate food and farm price supports and protectionism from other other sorts of protectionism with a rather byzantine layer of rationalization.
It used to be that if you walked into a Radio Shack and saw a bunch of TRS-80 computers, a wall full of electronic parts, total geeks working behind the counter, you might get the impression that the TV's and Stereos that they carried were pretty good stuff, because the whole store screams geek.
By getting rid of the geeky electronics image, they've kinda undermined their consumer electronics brand... were I a consumer electronics retailer, I would carry a mix of hobbyist equipment and just let it sit on the shelves, and premium products, and I'd bet one could establish a brand.... I mean, if Home Depot can make 100B a year selling the idea that you build a deck yourself, why not have people put together their own PCs and LCD tvs...