I've been toold that's what those little felons did. The police first printed a jail and put them inside. But the felons printed a file - well, not an iron file - and a getaway car and escaped.
He could have come up with a better example(he could have taken your example), but it's not bad and I explained why. If you imagine a kind of tree structure(or a directional web) with edges indicating a relationship "is kind of a.. story", then the rat farming story is a story where incentives act counterproductively because they shift the motivation away from the original intent . This is a good node, the analogy is good.
There is also a more detailed node "incentives leading to a situation where people actually create more undesirable items in order to get more rewards for removing them". This node is not a good match. It fits the rat farmer but has a weak fit with the bug reporting story. This is what people react to ( often motivated by a desire to criticize).
"Incentive scheme with unexpected outcome" is a much more general node. The fit is good but the node is not much use because it's too general..
If Dubner's book is about "unexpected outcomes due to skewed incentives" then I think that's a good theme. But it would be even better without the word "skewed".
That's a very inflexible interpretation. Here's how to coax the analogy into making sense. The general theme is how rewards can be counterproductive by shifting the aim of those being rewarded. I'll take an old story about chimpansees, art and bananas. The chimpansees were given paint and paper to play with, and they had a lot of fun, making nice things. Then rewards were introduced: make a painting, get a banana. This changed the character of the game for the chimpansees. Paintings became just a means for getting the banana and the paintings weren't interesting anymore - not interesting to make and not interesting to look at.
This is a well known problem in organisations. I recall a big manager( 3M Germany) who was acutely aware of this problem, and who illustrated how powerful it was with another story. There was an old man in his street who was always being harassed by a group of youngsters. The manager decided to give the group of youngsters a reward of some euros for harassing the old man - which they readily accepted. He gave them this reward again and again, but he soon started to decrease the reward, and he decreased it more and more. Very soon the youngsters lost all motivation for harassing the old man and that solved the problem.
Now apply this model to finding bugs and it will make sense. Not necessarily the crude case of creating bugs, but for example, lots of minor bugs will be reported that cause a lot of overhead , ergo, they're counterproductive.
I heard about the rat farming story as a kid - and that is many years ago. The idea of relocating the story from 19th century US to South Africa strikes me as odd. But who knows, maybe the SA story has been verified.
There's a plain logic in PETA's plan: where do we get the most exposure (woops)? What's the bulk of internet traffic about? Does sex sell?
The thing about radicals is, while they're associated with madness, delusions and confused thinking, they just rely more on logic. You take a train of thought and follow it to the logical conclusion. Of course the critics won't see it, since all silly conclusions can only be caused by bad logic.
Maybe it could work too. Depends on how they infuse their message in the entertainment part. Do it wrong and you attract very weird people.
"People feel protected by anonymity and the true nature of people comes to the fore,"
That will be true in some cases but I think it overestimated. I think those who bully on the web also will do it in the real world when they feel they can get away with it. And the other way round, many people want their virtual identities on web communities to be respected the way they are respected in real communities. A virtual identity is a parallel identity, and to some extent you treat it in the same manner. Slashdot may be a bit large for a community so smaller fora would be better examples.
well the key would be the ability to rationalize the responses of the computer, allowing you to be fooled into believing it's not a computer. Hence the fact that you're easily fooled helps you pass the test, and means you should not have a vote in it.
But I don't really agree with this. More form than content I'm afraid.
I suppose it's a bad idea then to make it mandatory for traffic cops. I suppose the part where they have to be naked also wouldn't go down well though.
Nice. But hey this is even better. You can use the 'fluorescence virus' separately. When is it coming up for sale? Next time you see a cow glowing in the night, it wasn't me. Probably.
What this does is turning radioactive waste into living radioactive waste... It's better than that. While the value of the bacteria generating energy seems utterly irrelevant, the bacteria do provide opportunities to concentrate the nuclear material , in other words, to remove it from the environment, and that's valuable. And maybe there is some minor value in the energy part, it could be a measure of activity.
But identifying a problem is not identical to finding the correct solution. There's a lot in that. One pattern Marx identified was a parasitical relationship of rich people to poor people. Now one can distinguish between the mechanism being possible, whether it's important, whether it's actually happening, or what to do about it. People keep lumping those all together though.
I've read Popper's demolition of Marx (The Open Society) and I appreciated it, but later on Popper thought Milton Friedman was great, and Milton Friedman stood for ambitious neoliberalism that never could be disproved by facts. Financial disasters never are indications the wrong track is being followed, they're only opportunities to press through more neoliberal reforms. So is Popper that bad? The Open Society is still a good work
Really, they do want to make it harder to hit the tank, although that doesn't mean they want the tank to just sit there for half an hour without being noticed. It can be a matter of gaining seconds. Whether cold war era armies make sense in Afghanistan is indeed a completely different question. More important, and obviously less fun.
I think there are two approaches. One is to redesign so that there are less visible hot surfaces. To compare two extreme cases: compare the whole tank heating up fairly evenly, with the tank staying cold and all the heat coming out of the exhaust. Or even, take a tank with a hot back and a cold front so that the front doesn't show much heat. And the front usually is what you're showing the enemy. The infrared panels add a second approach. They create false heat images that can confuse detection systems and maybe humans. Example: show a moving image.
An M1 has 1500hp, that's a thousand cooking plates when going full throttle. The head has to go somewhere and you can't hide it by generating more heat. Infrared panels are not going to hide a heatsource better than any other panel. So far I agree. On the other hand, the infrared panels are able to sow confusion, to make it harder to aim right. Just imagine that your panels are showing a moving pattern, whether the tank is moving or not. That could upset many heatseeking missiles enough that they end up right next to the tank.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been toold that's what those little felons did. The police first printed a jail and put them inside. But the felons printed a file - well, not an iron file - and a getaway car and escaped.
The word is, with the hightech drones they hope one day to get a better ratio of collaterals/enemies than with landmines.
Actually, there is a variable in the stories which is the amount of cheating. I think I'd prefer a story with a minimal sense of cheating.
He could have come up with a better example(he could have taken your example), but it's not bad and I explained why. If you imagine a kind of tree structure(or a directional web) with edges indicating a relationship "is kind of a .. story", then the rat farming story is a story where incentives act counterproductively because they shift the motivation away from the original intent .
This is a good node, the analogy is good.
There is also a more detailed node "incentives leading to a situation where people actually create more undesirable items in order to get more rewards for removing them". This node is not a good match. It fits the rat farmer but has a weak fit with the bug reporting story. This is what people react to ( often motivated by a desire to criticize).
"Incentive scheme with unexpected outcome" is a much more general node. The fit is good but the node is not much use because it's too general..
If Dubner's book is about "unexpected outcomes due to skewed incentives" then I think that's a good theme. But it would be even better without the word "skewed".
That's a very inflexible interpretation. Here's how to coax the analogy into making sense. The general theme is how rewards can be counterproductive by shifting the aim of those being rewarded. I'll take an old story about chimpansees, art and bananas. The chimpansees were given paint and paper to play with, and they had a lot of fun, making nice things. Then rewards were introduced: make a painting, get a banana. This changed the character of the game for the chimpansees. Paintings became just a means for getting the banana and the paintings weren't interesting anymore - not interesting to make and not interesting to look at.
This is a well known problem in organisations. I recall a big manager( 3M Germany) who was acutely aware of this problem, and who illustrated how powerful it was with another story. There was an old man in his street who was always being harassed by a group of youngsters. The manager decided to give the group of youngsters a reward of some euros for harassing the old man - which they readily accepted. He gave them this reward again and again, but he soon started to decrease the reward, and he decreased it more and more. Very soon the youngsters lost all motivation for harassing the old man and that solved the problem.
Now apply this model to finding bugs and it will make sense. Not necessarily the crude case of creating bugs, but for example, lots of minor bugs will be reported that cause a lot of overhead , ergo, they're counterproductive.
I heard about the rat farming story as a kid - and that is many years ago. The idea of relocating the story from 19th century US to South Africa strikes me as odd. But who knows, maybe the SA story has been verified.
There's a plain logic in PETA's plan: where do we get the most exposure (woops)? What's the bulk of internet traffic about? Does sex sell?
The thing about radicals is, while they're associated with madness, delusions and confused thinking, they just rely more on logic. You take a train of thought and follow it to the logical conclusion. Of course the critics won't see it, since all silly conclusions can only be caused by bad logic.
Maybe it could work too. Depends on how they infuse their message in the entertainment part. Do it wrong and you attract very weird people.
I roughly agree. I didn't put it very well.
Good. That got me worried for a moment.
"People feel protected by anonymity and the true nature of people comes to the fore,"
That will be true in some cases but I think it overestimated. I think those who bully on the web also will do it in the real world when they feel they can get away with it. And the other way round, many people want their virtual identities on web communities to be respected the way they are respected in real communities. A virtual identity is a parallel identity, and to some extent you treat it in the same manner. Slashdot may be a bit large for a community so smaller fora would be better examples.
It was fiction? And the Hulk then, what about the Hulk?
well the key would be the ability to rationalize the responses of the computer, allowing you to be fooled into believing it's not a computer. Hence the fact that you're easily fooled helps you pass the test, and means you should not have a vote in it.
But I don't really agree with this. More form than content I'm afraid.
I suppose it's a bad idea then to make it mandatory for traffic cops. I suppose the part where they have to be naked also wouldn't go down well though.
Nice. But hey this is even better. You can use the 'fluorescence virus' separately. When is it coming up for sale? Next time you see a cow glowing in the night, it wasn't me. Probably.
Passing a Turing test should disqualify participants from judging in a Turing test.
Oh, and part of a Turing test should consist of judging in another Turing test.
They take this large magnet and hit you over the head with it until you talk.
It was a ridiculous idea.
What this does is turning radioactive waste into living radioactive waste...
It's better than that. While the value of the bacteria generating energy seems utterly irrelevant, the bacteria do provide opportunities to concentrate the nuclear material , in other words, to remove it from the environment, and that's valuable. And maybe there is some minor value in the energy part, it could be a measure of activity.
To maximize the irony please post as much as you can in this subthread.
But identifying a problem is not identical to finding the correct solution.
There's a lot in that. One pattern Marx identified was a parasitical relationship of rich people to poor people. Now one can distinguish between the mechanism being possible, whether it's important, whether it's actually happening, or what to do about it. People keep lumping those all together though.
I've read Popper's demolition of Marx (The Open Society) and I appreciated it, but later on Popper thought Milton Friedman was great, and Milton Friedman stood for ambitious neoliberalism that never could be disproved by facts. Financial disasters never are indications the wrong track is being followed, they're only opportunities to press through more neoliberal reforms. So is Popper that bad? The Open Society is still a good work
Well have I ever, you're right! I hadn't read the article. In that case your argument is valid.
I don't think there's any intent to do such a thing.
Really, they do want to make it harder to hit the tank, although that doesn't mean they want the tank to just sit there for half an hour without being noticed. It can be a matter of gaining seconds. Whether cold war era armies make sense in Afghanistan is indeed a completely different question. More important, and obviously less fun.
I think there are two approaches. One is to redesign so that there are less visible hot surfaces. To compare two extreme cases: compare the whole tank heating up fairly evenly, with the tank staying cold and all the heat coming out of the exhaust. Or even, take a tank with a hot back and a cold front so that the front doesn't show much heat. And the front usually is what you're showing the enemy.
The infrared panels add a second approach. They create false heat images that can confuse detection systems and maybe humans. Example: show a moving image.
An M1 has 1500hp, that's a thousand cooking plates when going full throttle. The head has to go somewhere and you can't hide it by generating more heat. Infrared panels are not going to hide a heatsource better than any other panel. So far I agree. On the other hand, the infrared panels are able to sow confusion, to make it harder to aim right. Just imagine that your panels are showing a moving pattern, whether the tank is moving or not. That could upset many heatseeking missiles enough that they end up right next to the tank.