Ah, yes......and when confronted with two candidates, the one who promises the world, and the other who says you can't have it both ways,......who do we vote for?
I look at this as an opportunity to figure out how we want organization to work out.
If I hear any more god damned grandstanding from the winners, I'm going to puke. Win with dignity, or this country is going to polarize it self so much further, only bloodshed will solve it.
I agree.
I voted Democrat, and I'm glad that the house is blue, but I don't think (unless we were sweating, while running campaigns) that we should be particularly proud.
I've been doing a lot of thinking, and I have come up with:
The environment is crucial and necessarily a global issue.
Same for the military.
National Health Care isn't really necessary, and if even 40% of people don't want it, we shouldn't have it.
Gay marriages should be a state's issue: What "marriage" means is really, I think, in the end, a thing for communities to decide for themselves. We can't dictate ideals to people, and we shouldn't. I believe in gay marriage, but I believe states who don't want that should be able to decide for themselves.
Abortion: The states.
Schools: The states.
In all, if anything screams out "Culture War!", it should be a state's issue.
The Democrats have become, to me, a party of fiscal responsibility.
What I want is for the Democrats to become the party of respect for others, and different ways of thinking, including those we disagree with.
I know that a lot of the people who voted Democrat around here (Seattle) have been putting a lot of effort into dialog, outreach, and listening, and I think this is exactly the way to go.
Wow, I didn't realize that public school was such a blatant attempt at controlling the populations thoughts. I mean, I knew that was what it was for; I just didn't realize that public discorse now accepted that- I thought you had to know the secret handshake, in order to hear people talk like that.
If we're now at this stage, where the nasty secrets are all now public discourse, then I suspect theres very little time left for the public schools as they are.
Yeah, but I have to go to work, otherwise I starve, too.
If women were told that they couldn't work any job, but porn, then you'd have a better argument.
The next time you see a guy breaking his back working shit labor, ask yourself if he's sure he wants to be there. This is, essentially, the trafficking of human beings.
Watch everything you buy. You don't know where it came from.
We should make buying shoes illegal; I hear that the people who are forced to make them don't have any alternatives. It's essentially slavery.
261: this mean your backdoor password is "hxdef-rulez", backdoor will copy system
shell file (usually cmd.exe) to "hxdefá$.exe" to temp. Name of shared memory
will be "_.-=[Hacker Defender]=-._". Name of a service is "HackerDefender100",
...but then you actually look at the thing, and it's part of an example.
And then there's another, and I look it up, and it turns out to be a response to a reverse engineering challenge. It makes sense that they include the password of the computer that they're intentionally compromising, in the program.
Another resolves the backdoor password to "BACK_DOOR_PASSWORD," which, searching the rest of the code for, has no definition. It's likely defined with a compile-time macro definition.
There was one or two I saw where I think concern is legitimate, but it was by no means as impressive as the first impression leaves.
I think the "firsthand" is referring to the immediacy of interactive experience.
Instead of telling you how a story plays out, you actually get to play in the role.
Now, granted, it is a story, and a fiction.
But fictions basically move the world and cause interesting things to happen.
That's my understanding, at least.
Re:What about SimEarth, also by Will Wright?
on
Why Spore Is Special
·
· Score: 1
It's hard to know, when you're dealing with something like this, to guage the effects.
But I have a hunch (based in my own experience) that SimEarth "worked," and I have a hunch that Spore will work, as well.
I've been exploring a model of the "mass mind" called "Causal Layered Analysis." It makes sense to me. Spore would rest somewhere between "Worldview / Discourse Analysis," and "Myth / Metaphore Analysis," since it largely works unconsciously.
I wouldn't be so fast to say all futurology is bunk. Science fiction authors often intentionally abuse the single-advancement problem, because stories must make sense to readers: Hence we have GATACA, taking place in a 1950's rockets-to-space vision, just with a single change: genetic selection.
Possibility to a certain degree of working at home through the use of TV-telephones, telefaxes, etc. (forecast: 1998)
Acquisition of observation data from unmanned probes around Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and outside the solar system. (1999)
Development of optical communication technology that can realize substantial savings in the use of copper. (1999)
Possibility of external fertilization or artificial womb. (2001)
Widespread use of heart transplant from human being by resolving problems such as transplant immunity, rejection and donor. (2001)
Practical use of rapid-transit railway using iron rail and iron wheel, which can run at 300 km/h. (2006)
Development of artificial ear. (2007)
"So what," I hear you say. Well, "so," these figures are from 1971, 1976 and 1981: We're looking at 20-30 year technical forcasts. The forcasts were specific, useful, and relatively accurate. They included confidence levels. They were 60-70% accurate.
Just because there some notoriously bad futurists that are very good at getting the press on the line, it doesn't mean the whole field is bunk.
Personally, I'm just very glad that people have stopped thinking robots are bunk. If you asked anybody in 2000, "Will there be robots?"...they'd almost universally say, "Not for HUNDREDS of years, if ever!" But there were many futurists who were paying attention, and who knew the answer.
The general public envisioned the flying cars, not the people over at NISTEP. When NISTEP reports were published, who knew about them?
As for your computerized brains: You might want to check out Blue Column and Blue Brain.
Also, I haven't looked into this too deeply, but from what I've seen, the AI community has recently been flowering again. I have read in many places that they are making renewed progress, getting past the religious wars of the past: They are combining connectionist systems, rule-based systems, genetic systems, and so on. I don't see a good reason to be so pessimistic about it: Brain simulation on the one side, with a clear plan to 2020, and these traditional AI systems continuing to get better results, in a way that makes sense. Ray Kurzweil wrote a good overview piece, Why We Can Be Confident of Turing Test Capability Within a Quarter Century, and there are some very good (though very expensive) books on AI at the bookstore.
Bruce Sterling has written many amazing stories. ("Maneki Neko.") But that was just horrible.
It's like reading a 60's icon critiquing the year 2006, complaining it's not "hippie" enough, and pretending to take the role of a teenager in 2006, an adult in teenage clothing. "Hey, why isn't everybody listening to really great works of music, like Pink Floyd, or reading truely great works of literature, like, Allen Ginsberg and Timothy Leary?"
All the kids getting up to cheer in high school, against technology? Can I see a trend line that even hints in this direction?
"Okay, sure: I know I sound pretty depressed. Us teenage poets depress easily." -- Apparently!
Hm; This seems to be mainly metaphysical calculation in your head: "Center: Good, Off-Center: Bad."
"Of course, it didn't happen. And it's about as likely to happen this time."
One is spoken of in terms of a certainty, the other in terms of a probability.
Nary a shred of evidence, not even an argument.
Just: "Probably not." "I don't think so." "I don't know, and it's not worth checking."
Fascinating.
You can get away with anything, when people think like this.
I think it's good that you can cast off concerns about the world for a time, hole up in yourself, and so on. But I wouldn't go around encouraging others to do so.
What we don't have, are arbitrary limits, just for the sake of limits.
Structure, discipline, and guidance are not actually required. I mean this really, earnestly, sincerely, factually, observably, empirically.
You can confirm this for yourself by investigating your local Sudbury school. You will observe kids who do not have those three things, and yet are doing very well for themselves. They aren't censored, at school, and yet, they come out just fine. They all know how to read, after a certain age. They all teach themselves how to do it, and they aren't particularly special. I have read (but don't have first-hand figures) that the majority bring themselves to college.
To my observations, none rebel, because there's nothing to rebel against, save sensible rules: Don't stick your fingers in a light socket.
There is guidance throughout our society. Every movie offers guidance. Every story. One of the main reasons movies are interesting to us, is because they answer our questions, and so on.
Now, it happens that in your culture, you champion those things you listed: Structure, discipline, guidance. But don't say that they are necessary, or else the child is damaged. Know very well, that there are tons of children, every day, doing just fine without those things. And I challenge you to observe it for yourself.
Looking further down the line: I'd like to be so visible, it's almost impossible to steal my identity.
What I mean by that, is the ability to say: "Look, here's all these sensors and automated systems that say: This guy is the guy in front of you, talking with you, etc.,."
I'd like to be notified within 20 seconds of my credit card being used for anything. I'd like to be notified within seconds of a credit check is performed. (And so on, and so forth.)
I think Internet Bonding will solve many of the problems we face today.
I have my calendar marked "Public" on Google, and there's no way that this silly article is changing my mind.
This is, to me, akin to the old scare about putting your phone number online.
Do any of you remember? The attitude of the 1990's was: Oh My God Jesus Christ, That Man Has His Phone Number Online! Somebody stop that man, he's a menace to himself, and to Society!
Then I read something Philip Greenspun wrote, where he said: (A) I have X,000,000 gajillion hits on my site per day. (B) My cell phone number is featured prominantly on my website. (C) I have only once received a phone call that was unwelcome, but I have far more many times received phone calls that I wanted (due to the posting.)
Personally, I have never received the unwanted phone call.
In the event (it has to actually happen several times!) that people start using Google Calendars to raid homes, and in the event that it's statistically significant as far as threats go, I will simply wire up my apartment with cams, hard drives, and redundant offsite storage.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, yes... ...and when confronted with two candidates, ... ...who do we vote for?
the one who promises the world,
and the other who says you can't have it both ways,
I look at this as an opportunity to figure out how we want organization to work out.
I agree.
I voted Democrat, and I'm glad that the house is blue, but I don't think (unless we were sweating, while running campaigns) that we should be particularly proud.
I've been doing a lot of thinking, and I have come up with:
In all, if anything screams out "Culture War!", it should be a state's issue.
The Democrats have become, to me, a party of fiscal responsibility.
What I want is for the Democrats to become the party of respect for others, and different ways of thinking, including those we disagree with.
I know that a lot of the people who voted Democrat around here (Seattle) have been putting a lot of effort into dialog, outreach, and listening, and I think this is exactly the way to go.
This is what I want us to do.
"I'm a scientist. I like Al Gore. I donate to the Sierra club, I bicycle everywhere and I eat granola."
We've just read about Republicans pretending to be Democrats; You understand the precautions, I'm sure.
The thing is, the terrorists don't have those capabilities.
...well, you can scare people, and provoke massive reaction from the Government.
What the terrorists are trying to do is cause maximal effect, with their extremely limited resources.
They cannot bomb every plane in the world, no matter how much they strive.
What can they do?..
The US response that it is playing through, right now, is exactly the response that the terrorists requested.
Let me repeat: Your president is doing exactly what the terrorists planned.
You are supporting the terrorists as well.
Bruce Schneier is the only one here actually combating Terror.
You can complain a lot and get very minor changes.
But you aren't going to change the structure of the system.
Everyone wants to raise their kids in radically different ways.
My daughter thrives at ClearWater. What's the chance of making my local public school work like that? Basically, 0.
Wow, I didn't realize that public school was such a blatant attempt at controlling the populations thoughts. I mean, I knew that was what it was for; I just didn't realize that public discorse now accepted that- I thought you had to know the secret handshake, in order to hear people talk like that.
If we're now at this stage, where the nasty secrets are all now public discourse, then I suspect theres very little time left for the public schools as they are.
This is a serious question.
I have read that PAX is not, cannot, be a replacement for E3.
I can accept this; I just wonder aloud: "What is the purpose of E3?" What essential role did it play?
I would think you need both AI and the materials science.
Yeah, but I have to go to work, otherwise I starve, too.
If women were told that they couldn't work any job, but porn, then you'd have a better argument.
The next time you see a guy breaking his back working shit labor, ask yourself if he's sure he wants to be there. This is, essentially, the trafficking of human beings.
Watch everything you buy. You don't know where it came from.
We should make buying shoes illegal; I hear that the people who are forced to make them don't have any alternatives. It's essentially slavery.
I was in a metro bus and wanted to take a picture of some trees outside. The bus driver told me, "Hey, you can't take pictures in here."
I asked, "Why not?!"
He said, "I'm actually supposed to report you to the police, if you do. Terrorism."
"What are they going to do, reverse engineer the bus timetables from photographic evidence? This can't possibly make us any safer."
He replied, "Well, who's to say."
Who's to say indeed.
Absolutely absurd.
Note that busview will give you the location of all Metro busses in real time.
And then there's another, and I look it up, and it turns out to be a response to a reverse engineering challenge. It makes sense that they include the password of the computer that they're intentionally compromising, in the program.
Another resolves the backdoor password to "BACK_DOOR_PASSWORD," which, searching the rest of the code for, has no definition. It's likely defined with a compile-time macro definition.
There was one or two I saw where I think concern is legitimate, but it was by no means as impressive as the first impression leaves.
I think the "firsthand" is referring to the immediacy of interactive experience.
Instead of telling you how a story plays out, you actually get to play in the role.
Now, granted, it is a story, and a fiction.
But fictions basically move the world and cause interesting things to happen.
That's my understanding, at least.
It's hard to know, when you're dealing with something like this, to guage the effects.
But I have a hunch (based in my own experience) that SimEarth "worked," and I have a hunch that Spore will work, as well.
I've been exploring a model of the "mass mind" called "Causal Layered Analysis." It makes sense to me. Spore would rest somewhere between "Worldview / Discourse Analysis," and "Myth / Metaphore Analysis," since it largely works unconsciously.
The I-Tech VKB reacts exactly like a real keyboard.
I hoped so, wished so, but the videos I've seen defy this.
You can see that you have to type slowly, and, it'll miss some keypresses.
Still, it's really cool, and portable: You don't have to carry a keyboard around with you.
But not writing fiction:
NISTEP used the delphi method to great effect.
Some examples:
"So what," I hear you say. Well, "so," these figures are from 1971, 1976 and 1981: We're looking at 20-30 year technical forcasts. The forcasts were specific, useful, and relatively accurate. They included confidence levels. They were 60-70% accurate.
Just because there some notoriously bad futurists that are very good at getting the press on the line, it doesn't mean the whole field is bunk.
Personally, I'm just very glad that people have stopped thinking robots are bunk. If you asked anybody in 2000, "Will there be robots?"
The general public envisioned the flying cars, not the people over at NISTEP. When NISTEP reports were published, who knew about them?
As for your computerized brains: You might want to check out Blue Column and Blue Brain.
Also, I haven't looked into this too deeply, but from what I've seen, the AI community has recently been flowering again. I have read in many places that they are making renewed progress, getting past the religious wars of the past: They are combining connectionist systems, rule-based systems, genetic systems, and so on. I don't see a good reason to be so pessimistic about it: Brain simulation on the one side, with a clear plan to 2020, and these traditional AI systems continuing to get better results, in a way that makes sense. Ray Kurzweil wrote a good overview piece, Why We Can Be Confident of Turing Test Capability Within a Quarter Century, and there are some very good (though very expensive) books on AI at the bookstore.
Bruce Sterling has written many amazing stories. ("Maneki Neko.") But that was just horrible.
It's like reading a 60's icon critiquing the year 2006, complaining it's not "hippie" enough, and pretending to take the role of a teenager in 2006, an adult in teenage clothing. "Hey, why isn't everybody listening to really great works of music, like Pink Floyd, or reading truely great works of literature, like, Allen Ginsberg and Timothy Leary?"
All the kids getting up to cheer in high school, against technology? Can I see a trend line that even hints in this direction?
"Okay, sure: I know I sound pretty depressed. Us teenage poets depress easily." -- Apparently!
I'll stick with Synthetic Serendipity.
Nature made people who want to live longer, and then gave them minds to set about it.
Some context, to help understand this: Earth's Atmosphere, as per WikiPedia.
You can see that weather balloons are in the 18-50 km range, which is what we expect, because that's what they're using, and they got to 32 km.
I may have misunderstood; I thought we were talking about stealing elections, not suspension of elections. Sorry.
Hm; This seems to be mainly metaphysical calculation in your head: "Center: Good, Off-Center: Bad."
"Of course, it didn't happen. And it's about as likely to happen this time."
One is spoken of in terms of a certainty, the other in terms of a probability.
Nary a shred of evidence, not even an argument.
Just: "Probably not." "I don't think so." "I don't know, and it's not worth checking."
Fascinating.
You can get away with anything, when people think like this.
I think it's good that you can cast off concerns about the world for a time, hole up in yourself, and so on. But I wouldn't go around encouraging others to do so.
What we don't have, are arbitrary limits, just for the sake of limits.
Structure, discipline, and guidance are not actually required. I mean this really, earnestly, sincerely, factually, observably, empirically.
You can confirm this for yourself by investigating your local Sudbury school. You will observe kids who do not have those three things, and yet are doing very well for themselves. They aren't censored, at school, and yet, they come out just fine. They all know how to read, after a certain age. They all teach themselves how to do it, and they aren't particularly special. I have read (but don't have first-hand figures) that the majority bring themselves to college.
To my observations, none rebel, because there's nothing to rebel against, save sensible rules: Don't stick your fingers in a light socket.
There is guidance throughout our society. Every movie offers guidance. Every story. One of the main reasons movies are interesting to us, is because they answer our questions, and so on.
Now, it happens that in your culture, you champion those things you listed: Structure, discipline, guidance. But don't say that they are necessary, or else the child is damaged. Know very well, that there are tons of children, every day, doing just fine without those things. And I challenge you to observe it for yourself.
Looking further down the line: I'd like to be so visible, it's almost impossible to steal my identity.
What I mean by that, is the ability to say: "Look, here's all these sensors and automated systems that say: This guy is the guy in front of you, talking with you, etc.,."
I'd like to be notified within 20 seconds of my credit card being used for anything. I'd like to be notified within seconds of a credit check is performed. (And so on, and so forth.)
I think Internet Bonding will solve many of the problems we face today.
I have my calendar marked "Public" on Google, and there's no way that this silly article is changing my mind.
This is, to me, akin to the old scare about putting your phone number online.
Do any of you remember? The attitude of the 1990's was: Oh My God Jesus Christ, That Man Has His Phone Number Online! Somebody stop that man, he's a menace to himself, and to Society!
Then I read something Philip Greenspun wrote, where he said: (A) I have X,000,000 gajillion hits on my site per day. (B) My cell phone number is featured prominantly on my website. (C) I have only once received a phone call that was unwelcome, but I have far more many times received phone calls that I wanted (due to the posting.)
Personally, I have never received the unwanted phone call.
I think people have a way of inflating plausible threats to themselves, regardless of the actual risks.
In the event (it has to actually happen several times!) that people start using Google Calendars to raid homes, and in the event that it's statistically significant as far as threats go, I will simply wire up my apartment with cams, hard drives, and redundant offsite storage.
Yep, a necessary condition.
I still don't see the negative connotations.
Everybody belongs to several cliques. Everybody.
(Save the hermit.)