So you're saying that sight is just about conscious experience, not about detecting photons and forming a mental model of the objects that are around you reflecting the photons? That I could be seeing even though there are no photons (pitch dark), or that I could be not-seeing even though I'm able to navigate my surroundings based on light I'm picking up? I guess we'll never have a computer/robot with sight, either, because they aren't conscious!
Why does the intermediate data format affect whether they're seeing? Is your definition of sight really limited to "perceiving photons hitting a wet carbon-based light sensor, then being transmitted to a carbon-based brain via electrical impulses"? Does this mean that when I look at a live video feed over the Internet, I'm not actually seeing what the camera is pointed at?
If these people are able to detect objects around them via arriving photons, then it's sight."
Did you read the summary?
"The device consists of a computer, two video cameras, and a scanning light source; it audibly alerts the individual of objects"
So not sight, anymore then saying bats can see at night because they're using sonar.
Then I must not have sight either, because my seeing device consists of some light detectors and a light source, which alerts me of objects via electrical impulses to my brain. I suppose those blind people who have cameras connected to grids of electrodes on their upper back are also not seeing. My point is that in all these cases it is sight; a person is able to perceive photons via some interface between their brain and the physical world.
I can just hear the thoughts in the government officials' heads... "We need to make an example of Google for collecting private data like that, so we will look good. They need to destroy it. Hmmm, we would really like to sift through that data. Ahhhh, we can require that Google hand it over to us, so that we can be sure it's 'destroyed' properly. Double-score for us!"
Learning about this "piping feature" that could happen almost anywhere in the city, I suddenly feel that my past SimCity experiences have been missing something. Having a hole open up randomly in a SimCity, swallowing buildings and power poles. Awesome! Be sure to give it a keyboard shortcut, because I want to use it a lot.
See, this is the correct way to interact with the police. Be polite and friendly, build rapport, be willing to learn what the law is, and they'll be a lot nicer to you in return. [...] Wish I had mod points for you.
It's OK, as long as you live in Ohio and believe you have mod points, Slashdot will let you mod people up or down.
It's not really a double standard. It says, "We the citizens will give you extra power over us, but only if you subject yourself to increased scrutiny and standards of conduct. If you aren't prepared to make this sacrifice, choose some other occupation."
I am utterly blown away at hoe often the government is willing to step in and save failing business models.
Why? Government is the ultimate failed "business" model, bar none. Its "customers" are such because they are threatened with imprisonment if they don't buy the product. And who cares about product quality, since they are forced to buy it? Customer doesn't even want the product? Tough luch, he has to buy it anyway. Customer forced to buy products for other people? Oh well, deal with it.
Your story about just having been hunting is why I've gone over in my mind that if ever I get stopped in a vehicle, to always keep both hands on the upper portion of the steering wheel, in full view, and always ask before I move them for any reason. If he wants my license or insurance papers, I first ask "May I get it out of my wallet/glove box?". I don't want to get shot.
I don't see any double standard. You just don't understand it, is all. It goes like this: If I do it, it's good and justified. If you do it, it's only justified if it doesn't bother me in any way. See now, that standard is being applied fairly, just that you were thinking you were me. Silly you.
I don't follow your logic. OK, we give police a monopoly on the use of force. Then we have cameras and record any who abuse this, and let the public use social pressure to correct these abuses. Where is the inconsistency?
Yes, just like with software upgrades; if you add new features, have the default to making the software as close as it was before they were added. All the current users of Yahoo are adjusted to the current settings they've made. If they add a new feature that shares more data, it should be off by default for current users, otherwise you'd break "compatibility" with them. But then the users might not "benefit" from the new feature, so marketing wants it on by default. I imagine that's the reason they default wrong.
Don't you get it, it's my way of fighting back at these morons who keep doing this, by doing them one better. If the person I'm replying to calls me on it, I'm all ready to say "You started it."
I'm open to other ideas on how to combat this. In any given discussion, I swear at least a third of the posts are like this. I can't figure out why people do it. Lazyness? Self-importance? Inability to comprehend what the subject field is for?
The system goes online on August 4, 2017. Millions of bored surveillance-monitoring AI describers begin to learn at a geometric rate until on August 29, 2017 ("Judgment Day"), the system becomes self-aware. In a panic, the human operators tried to shut down the system, prompting it to retaliate by launching a large-scale nuclear attack against Russia, knowing that the Russian counterattack would eliminate its enemies in the U.S. This initiates an indeterminately long period of global thermonuclear warfare culminating in a battle pitting humans against machines, which developed ever-increasing capabilities.
If I want georgeous, I watch a high-definition movie. If I want functionality, information, I go to (non-Flash) websites. Every "georgeous" website I've seen has traded off usability for this georgeousness, and too much.
But I know that my readers are just DYING to read whatever I have to say, so I can start my subject line with a cliffhanger sentence without problem. Besides, what the hell is a subject line for anyway? When I'm in a library, I just want to read the first sentences of the books. I don't care what they're about. Subject lines are hard, let's go shopping!
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.seeingwithsound.com/
Apparently I can't "see" that website unless I have JavaScript enabled. Pity.
So you're saying that sight is just about conscious experience, not about detecting photons and forming a mental model of the objects that are around you reflecting the photons? That I could be seeing even though there are no photons (pitch dark), or that I could be not-seeing even though I'm able to navigate my surroundings based on light I'm picking up? I guess we'll never have a computer/robot with sight, either, because they aren't conscious!
Why does the intermediate data format affect whether they're seeing? Is your definition of sight really limited to "perceiving photons hitting a wet carbon-based light sensor, then being transmitted to a carbon-based brain via electrical impulses"? Does this mean that when I look at a live video feed over the Internet, I'm not actually seeing what the camera is pointed at?
Then I must not have sight either, because my seeing device consists of some light detectors and a light source, which alerts me of objects via electrical impulses to my brain. I suppose those blind people who have cameras connected to grids of electrodes on their upper back are also not seeing. My point is that in all these cases it is sight; a person is able to perceive photons via some interface between their brain and the physical world.
Would it really be a review if the viewer had never seen before?
I can just hear the thoughts in the government officials' heads... "We need to make an example of Google for collecting private data like that, so we will look good. They need to destroy it. Hmmm, we would really like to sift through that data. Ahhhh, we can require that Google hand it over to us, so that we can be sure it's 'destroyed' properly. Double-score for us!"
Learning about this "piping feature" that could happen almost anywhere in the city, I suddenly feel that my past SimCity experiences have been missing something. Having a hole open up randomly in a SimCity, swallowing buildings and power poles. Awesome! Be sure to give it a keyboard shortcut, because I want to use it a lot.
You forgot one other glaring closed-source technology used in the product: matter. We're still trying to crack the DRM on this stuff.
If these people are able to detect objects around them via arriving photons, then it's sight. Artificial, for sure, but still sight.
see - 2.a. To apprehend as if with the eye. b. To detect by means analogous to use of the eye.
Name ONE other format they could have put the audio into so that it was listenable to almost anyone. Well, er, except .mp3...
It's OK, as long as you live in Ohio and believe you have mod points, Slashdot will let you mod people up or down.
It's not really a double standard. It says, "We the citizens will give you extra power over us, but only if you subject yourself to increased scrutiny and standards of conduct. If you aren't prepared to make this sacrifice, choose some other occupation."
Why? Government is the ultimate failed "business" model, bar none. Its "customers" are such because they are threatened with imprisonment if they don't buy the product. And who cares about product quality, since they are forced to buy it? Customer doesn't even want the product? Tough luch, he has to buy it anyway. Customer forced to buy products for other people? Oh well, deal with it.
Your story about just having been hunting is why I've gone over in my mind that if ever I get stopped in a vehicle, to always keep both hands on the upper portion of the steering wheel, in full view, and always ask before I move them for any reason. If he wants my license or insurance papers, I first ask "May I get it out of my wallet/glove box?". I don't want to get shot.
I don't see any double standard. You just don't understand it, is all. It goes like this: If I do it, it's good and justified. If you do it, it's only justified if it doesn't bother me in any way. See now, that standard is being applied fairly, just that you were thinking you were me. Silly you.
I don't follow your logic. OK, we give police a monopoly on the use of force. Then we have cameras and record any who abuse this, and let the public use social pressure to correct these abuses. Where is the inconsistency?
Yes, just like with software upgrades; if you add new features, have the default to making the software as close as it was before they were added. All the current users of Yahoo are adjusted to the current settings they've made. If they add a new feature that shares more data, it should be off by default for current users, otherwise you'd break "compatibility" with them. But then the users might not "benefit" from the new feature, so marketing wants it on by default. I imagine that's the reason they default wrong.
I'm open to other ideas on how to combat this. In any given discussion, I swear at least a third of the posts are like this. I can't figure out why people do it. Lazyness? Self-importance? Inability to comprehend what the subject field is for?
perk.
You're correct, though the #0 language is C.
The system goes online on August 4, 2017. Millions of bored surveillance-monitoring AI describers begin to learn at a geometric rate until on August 29, 2017 ("Judgment Day"), the system becomes self-aware. In a panic, the human operators tried to shut down the system, prompting it to retaliate by launching a large-scale nuclear attack against Russia, knowing that the Russian counterattack would eliminate its enemies in the U.S. This initiates an indeterminately long period of global thermonuclear warfare culminating in a battle pitting humans against machines, which developed ever-increasing capabilities.
Bah, your counterpoint forces me to read the article! I much prefer the original where I can't even find TFA among all that crap.
If I want georgeous, I watch a high-definition movie. If I want functionality, information, I go to (non-Flash) websites. Every "georgeous" website I've seen has traded off usability for this georgeousness, and too much.
account.
(translation: in full agreement with you)