(1) Conspiracy is a "state of mind" crime. If they can "prove" that you meant what you were saying, that you were really planning to do illeagal thing X together with someone else, you have consipired to do X. Typically, proving that you were really planning on committing the offense requires...doing more than just talking about doing it.
(2) I don't think you are splitting hairs when you talk about yelling fire. The yelling of fire should be perfectly legal and you should be responsible for the consequences. Thus, if there is no fire, you have incited panic, maybe people were hurt, and the first responders time was wasted. If, however, there was a fire, I would think that yelling fire in that theatre was a very GOOD thing.
Actually, having more processing power to control the thermostat than a simple timer. Being able to program exceptions to the "weekday/weekend" programming (after all, Easter Monday is a holiday at the local school so the boy and I will be home rather than at our respective schools so the thermostat should use holiday/weekend settings that keep it comfortable for humans all day). The idea of ganging lights is actually pretty cool: one switch sets all the lights on the first floor to "cocktail party" or "watching TV" levels. Also, the ability to change the processing of a single switch without opening up the wall could be very useful.
Appliances turning on just before I come downstairs (say a coffee maker that is ganged to my alarm clock or "alarm" stereo) is also interesting. It would be nice to be able to see if the basement lights were left on when someone last went down to check the furnace; an unfinished basement means it doesn't get visited that often.
Interesting take on this can be found in http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~dpw/popl/06/Tim-POPL. ppt, slides from a POPL talk by Epic's Tim Sweeny. He is talking about what should be found in the next mainstream programming language but in doing so he brings some useful analysis of the Unreal codebase and discussing the kinds of programming errors that they find that sap productivity.
That is one of the problems with the "it must be infinitely reliable": programmers have to make progress. Earlier someone suggested test-driven development. That is a really, really big deal. Then assume you are going to have to have a QA department that is bigger than the programming team.
No, you will not need to anticipate all the possible questions. The idea of "living" the lie or having "lived" the lie is that you are creating a memory of an event that did not happen. I do that all of the time when I roleplay (actually, there I create two memories, one of the gaming session and one of the "events" in my character's life) or when I read a good story (reading a bad story I often make things up but they seldom have anything to do with the text).
If I "remember" being at home watching TV, I will actually have visualized some part of the shows. Could I tell you the plot of the shows? Probably not because I don't really remember the plot of TV shows I really watched. What is important is not guessing whether the questioner will ask what color lint is under the chair but knowing that that is not something I would know in any case and only "remember" the "actual" detail. In fact, one thing that trips up some liars who visualize is having too many details at the ready recall. If they talk about some obscure song playing on the Muzak or how they noticed spinach stuck in their teeth (and these aren't things they remember about every single day), then their total recall begins to trip them up.
To recap: When lying, it is a good idea to visualize/live the whole lie. Then make sure you think about what the "you" in the lie would have seen and make sure that is the part you impress upon your memory.
Not saying this machine won't help catch liars, but given time to rehearse, there are a lot of people who can really apply the Method and become the person to whom the lie happened. As someone said, it is like switch selectable delusion.
Re:Why... -or- Good Bad Reviews
on
Wicked Cool Java
·
· Score: 3, Informative
In the old Perl Journal there was a review of Perl for Dummies. It was two pages long and it must have ripped every single chapter in the book (oddly enough I never picked up a copy of the book to check). It was one of the best book reviews I have ever read because it meshed so well with everything I think is wrong with most popular press computer books (too much cognitive overhead too early in introductory texts and too much recycling of on-line documentation in all of the books).
Not sure what it did to ad revenue to publish such a scathing review but it made me swear udying loyalty to the Perl Journal.
Also known as "telling it to the teddy bear". The story is apocryphal (to me) but as I heard it a group of student computer consultants (read helpers) at (insert school of your choosing) had a teddy bear on a chair outside their office. Students wanting help were required to tell their problem to the teddy bear before a consultant would help them with it. Half of the students went away without talking to the consultants, having solved their own problem by telling it to the teddy bear.
Of course it is possible that the teddy bear actually learned something about common programming problems and was giving out advice but I don't think so.
Hardest thing in the world is to write the paper after the research is finished. _I_ can see how that works, now it is time to start on something interesting. (Just ask my dissertation advisor how hard it was for me to do that.)
Slashdot Mirror
(1) Conspiracy is a "state of mind" crime. If they can "prove" that you meant what you were saying, that you were really planning to do illeagal thing X together with someone else, you have consipired to do X. Typically, proving that you were really planning on committing the offense requires...doing more than just talking about doing it.
(2) I don't think you are splitting hairs when you talk about yelling fire. The yelling of fire should be perfectly legal and you should be responsible for the consequences. Thus, if there is no fire, you have incited panic, maybe people were hurt, and the first responders time was wasted. If, however, there was a fire, I would think that yelling fire in that theatre was a very GOOD thing.
He made my baby fall in love with me.
Actually, having more processing power to control the thermostat than a simple timer. Being able to program exceptions to the "weekday/weekend" programming (after all, Easter Monday is a holiday at the local school so the boy and I will be home rather than at our respective schools so the thermostat should use holiday/weekend settings that keep it comfortable for humans all day). The idea of ganging lights is actually pretty cool: one switch sets all the lights on the first floor to "cocktail party" or "watching TV" levels. Also, the ability to change the processing of a single switch without opening up the wall could be very useful.
Appliances turning on just before I come downstairs (say a coffee maker that is ganged to my alarm clock or "alarm" stereo) is also interesting. It would be nice to be able to see if the basement lights were left on when someone last went down to check the furnace; an unfinished basement means it doesn't get visited that often.
Interesting take on this can be found in http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~dpw/popl/06/Tim-POPL. ppt, slides from a POPL talk by Epic's Tim Sweeny. He is talking about what should be found in the next mainstream programming language but in doing so he brings some useful analysis of the Unreal codebase and discussing the kinds of programming errors that they find that sap productivity.
That is one of the problems with the "it must be infinitely reliable": programmers have to make progress. Earlier someone suggested test-driven development. That is a really, really big deal. Then assume you are going to have to have a QA department that is bigger than the programming team.
No, you will not need to anticipate all the possible questions. The idea of "living" the lie or having "lived" the lie is that you are creating a memory of an event that did not happen. I do that all of the time when I roleplay (actually, there I create two memories, one of the gaming session and one of the "events" in my character's life) or when I read a good story (reading a bad story I often make things up but they seldom have anything to do with the text).
If I "remember" being at home watching TV, I will actually have visualized some part of the shows. Could I tell you the plot of the shows? Probably not because I don't really remember the plot of TV shows I really watched. What is important is not guessing whether the questioner will ask what color lint is under the chair but knowing that that is not something I would know in any case and only "remember" the "actual" detail. In fact, one thing that trips up some liars who visualize is having too many details at the ready recall. If they talk about some obscure song playing on the Muzak or how they noticed spinach stuck in their teeth (and these aren't things they remember about every single day), then their total recall begins to trip them up.
To recap: When lying, it is a good idea to visualize/live the whole lie. Then make sure you think about what the "you" in the lie would have seen and make sure that is the part you impress upon your memory.
Not saying this machine won't help catch liars, but given time to rehearse, there are a lot of people who can really apply the Method and become the person to whom the lie happened. As someone said, it is like switch selectable delusion.
In the old Perl Journal there was a review of Perl for Dummies. It was two pages long and it must have ripped every single chapter in the book (oddly enough I never picked up a copy of the book to check). It was one of the best book reviews I have ever read because it meshed so well with everything I think is wrong with most popular press computer books (too much cognitive overhead too early in introductory texts and too much recycling of on-line documentation in all of the books). Not sure what it did to ad revenue to publish such a scathing review but it made me swear udying loyalty to the Perl Journal.
Also known as "telling it to the teddy bear". The story is apocryphal (to me) but as I heard it a group of student computer consultants (read helpers) at (insert school of your choosing) had a teddy bear on a chair outside their office. Students wanting help were required to tell their problem to the teddy bear before a consultant would help them with it. Half of the students went away without talking to the consultants, having solved their own problem by telling it to the teddy bear.
Of course it is possible that the teddy bear actually learned something about common programming problems and was giving out advice but I don't think so.
Real Genius (imdb). One of my favorite scenes from the movie is the room full of recorders. That and Michelle Meyrink.
Hardest thing in the world is to write the paper after the research is finished. _I_ can see how that works, now it is time to start on something interesting. (Just ask my dissertation advisor how hard it was for me to do that.)