I like the idea and the effort, but the technology behind Microsoft's PhotoSynth platform already makes this, well, pretty much crackable in about 30 seconds. Think about it: Photosynth builds associations between similar images and gathers enough information to build a 3d map of subject(s) of said images. All a bot has to do is gather enough pictures of enough views of the different models, and it's going to be able to calculate that picture x is another view of the fork and picture 7 is another view of the toilet.
Behind ever corporate headquarters should be a well-equipped firing range and adjacent mass grave, in order to swiftly and appropriately rectify decisions as piss-poor and stupid as this one.
China is a country that had made an art form out of misinformation and manipulation. Couple that with the near-mafia that is the IOC, and this shouldn't be surprising in the least.
The novel idea is _usually_ appears obvious to the first person to see it in action. Which is pretty much why most inventors deserve whatever rewards they can get. It wasn't obvious until *after* the inventor invented it -- before the inventor invented it, it was _unknown_.
"However, they don't seem to be going for direct democracy."
You don't say.
Democracy = Tyranny of the Majority. It's why we're not a democracy, although the President keeps calling us one and wants to make the world safe for it. Go figger.
We can't drill for oil where there's oil, we can't put up windmills where there's wind, and now we can't put up solar panels where there's sunlight, apparently. "Environmental Impact." Ha!
What about the environmental impact of stupid decisions like these? I'll quote the Talking Heads:
"There was a factory/Now there are mountains and rivers" "We caught a rattlesnake/Now we got something for dinner" "There was a shopping mall/Now it's all covered with flowers" "And as things fell apart/Nobody paid much attention"
-- (nothing but) Flowers
(Scary to thing the Talking Heads as harbingers of our demise.)
This is idiocy. Absolute idiocy. You've got an populace -- not to mention an economy -- clamoring for energy independence and alternative energy sources, a glut (from the sound of it) of folks willing to provide the technology and the innovations --- and a bunch of bureaucrats who'd rather save the fucking fruit bats than the fucking country or fucking human race! How many time is it necessary to shoot oneself in the foot?
"Capitalism works on axiom 'there is infinite human needs and wants, in a world of finite resources' and it can't normally work in world where production (copying) and distribution is very cheep, so it must make resources scares artificially (DRM and such)."
Actually, Capitalism can work in the situation you describe, it's just that we've never tried it. What people refer to as "capitalism" in today's world isn't really Capitalism.
Yeeeeah. And now for something completely not useless and stupid.
Answered my own question, I think.
According to this document, Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, 1999, they are:
1. Identify the possible hypotheses to be considered. Use a group of analysts with different perspectives to brainstorm the possibilities.
2. Make a list of significant evidence and arguments for and against each hypothesis.
3. Prepare a matrix with hypotheses across the top and evidence down the side. Analyze the "diagnosticity" of the evidence and arguments--that is, identify which items are most helpful in judging the relative likelihood of the hypotheses.
4. Refine the matrix. Reconsider the hypotheses and delete evidence and arguments that have no diagnostic value.
5. Draw tentative conclusions about the relative likelihood of each hypothesis. Proceed by trying to disprove the hypotheses rather than prove them.
6. Analyze how sensitive your conclusion is to a few critical items of evidence. Consider the consequences for your analysis if that evidence were wrong, misleading, or subject to a different interpretation.
7. Report conclusions. Discuss the relative likelihood of all the hypotheses, not just the most likely one.
8. Identify milestones for future observation that may indicate events are taking a different course than expected.
I'm not entirely sure though. But it's the best result Google returned, and there are 8 of them.
Mind you, I think this is about the dumbest thing NASA could do, and I'm right to balk at it. Everyone else is right to balk at it -- NASA is expecting someone to devote at least $3 million in time and effort (and frankly, abuse) to their project for nothing. If NASA put a gun to your head and demanded $3 million, they'd be labelled a thief. If they can get $3 million out of you using a 'non-reimbursable Space Act Agreement', they're con men. If you fall for it, you're an idiot.
I'm expecting few arguments to the above. But consider the opposite -- there's hundreds if not thousands of "open source" and/or "free software" developers that basically have fallen for that same scenario, and day after day plug away on their own software on a daily basis -- for much lower-profile clientele, however: The thousands about thousands of users who demand feature after feature and then flame you if you don't deliver it two seconds later, or think you're a jerk for sticking to your own timeline and vision for your work, rather than theirs!
Granted, they choose to do so of their own free will, and that's fine. Stupid, but fine. At the heart of each, however is the expectation that you're providing something that ultimately you don't own or control (despite what the GPL says, lets face it, once you open source something and make that code freely distributable and modifiable (is that a word?), you no longer control it) in most if not all cases FOR NOTHING. Why is the situation evil and stupid if an entity comes right out and demands you to do some amount of work for them for no benefit for those doing the actual work, but if you choose to do it on your own, it's wise, revolutionary and noble?!Contradictions don't exist. One of the above must be the based on the wrong premise. From my perspective, it's the latter, and altruism is wrong whether you're forced to do it, or you choose to do it.
After all, it's how the government wants providers to provide health care, welfare, jobs, etc... Why not NASA information systems too? Simply sucker/guilt/coerce/manipulate folks into doing it for nothing.
The only bigger idiots will be the people that actually decide to do it.
And now, it's once again time for my favorite cliche catch phrase: "Ayn Rand, call your office."
The only real difference between Republicans and Democrats, or the Right and the Left, whatever you want to call them, is where they place their faith. The Right rules by faith in god, The left rules by faith in the greater good, the state, etc. Mysticism or Muscle.
Debating that point is so much red herring, however. We really don't need to spend all day debating and defining exactly what each side places its faith in -- we need only recognize that each side operates from a faithful premise, rather than a factual one. That's the real scary point that nearly everybody misses.
"Sadly, Hopkins is just complying with the law because they probably can't afford to have their federal funding pulled."
Such is life when you depend on others to support it. "The borrower is slave to the lender." "Beggars can't be choosers." "My house (or dollars), my rules."
The right and moral thing for JH to do would be, at the least to say, frankly, "we value the access to knowledge more than we do government crumbs. As of this momemt, we reject all government funding and will seek private funding through only through groups or individuals that share our values. Clearly, the government does not."
Granted it would be more right and moral for JH to publish it for a fee, and let those who actually value JH's work *pay* for it like they should, instead of simply claiming that they "neeeeeeeeed" it and/or taking it for granted. But as a nation we're far too embedded in the "neeeeeeeeed game" to expect someone to quit cold turkey. Ayn Rand, call your office.
Slashdot Mirror
I like the idea and the effort, but the technology behind Microsoft's PhotoSynth platform already makes this, well, pretty much crackable in about 30 seconds. Think about it: Photosynth builds associations between similar images and gathers enough information to build a 3d map of subject(s) of said images. All a bot has to do is gather enough pictures of enough views of the different models, and it's going to be able to calculate that picture x is another view of the fork and picture 7 is another view of the toilet.
Sweet Christ on a Sit-and-Spin, it's a frippin' tongue-in-cheek joke. Lighten up!
Behind ever corporate headquarters should be a well-equipped firing range and adjacent mass grave, in order to swiftly and appropriately rectify decisions as piss-poor and stupid as this one.
Oh yes, because wget comes preinstalled on windows, too.
I doubt it.
I see IE's bundling with Windows as a *boon* for browser competition.
I mean, without IE pre-installed on the box, how is Joe User going to go and download Firefox, Safari, Opera or Chrome?
Note the Care Bears on the monitor in the mobile command center in photo 8. Gives me the chuckles. :)
Hell, most voters aren't informed enough about Liberty to vote issues properly. Science is secondary.
China is a country that had made an art form out of misinformation and manipulation. Couple that with the near-mafia that is the IOC, and this shouldn't be surprising in the least.
The novel idea is _usually_ appears obvious to the first person to see it in action. Which is pretty much why most inventors deserve whatever rewards they can get. It wasn't obvious until *after* the inventor invented it -- before the inventor invented it, it was _unknown_.
The air in Pittsburgh isn't all that bad, seeing as how most of the mills closed *decades* ago. My, how the stereotypes and generalities persist.
"However, they don't seem to be going for direct democracy."
You don't say.
Democracy = Tyranny of the Majority. It's why we're not a democracy, although the President keeps calling us one and wants to make the world safe for it. Go figger.
...kill the bureacrats, and THEN the lawyers.
We can't drill for oil where there's oil, we can't put up windmills where there's wind, and now we can't put up solar panels where there's sunlight, apparently. "Environmental Impact." Ha!
What about the environmental impact of stupid decisions like these? I'll quote the Talking Heads:
"There was a factory/Now there are mountains and rivers"
"We caught a rattlesnake/Now we got something for dinner"
"There was a shopping mall/Now it's all covered with flowers"
"And as things fell apart/Nobody paid much attention"
-- (nothing but) Flowers
(Scary to thing the Talking Heads as harbingers of our demise.)
This is idiocy. Absolute idiocy. You've got an populace -- not to mention an economy -- clamoring for energy independence and alternative energy sources, a glut (from the sound of it) of folks willing to provide the technology and the innovations --- and a bunch of bureaucrats who'd rather save the fucking fruit bats than the fucking country or fucking human race! How many time is it necessary to shoot oneself in the foot?
Exploit the Earth or Die.
Sadly, our government and our bureaucracies are making a conscious choice for the latter.
Thank goodness we still have a 2nd Amendment. We might need to use it soon.
...if this isn't the hammer calling the sickle black.
Welp, I might as well call the people who thought this one up "Fucking Idiots" while it's still legal to do so.
"Capitalism works on axiom 'there is infinite human needs and wants, in a world of finite resources' and it can't normally work in world where production (copying) and distribution is very cheep, so it must make resources scares artificially (DRM and such)."
Actually, Capitalism can work in the situation you describe, it's just that we've never tried it. What people refer to as "capitalism" in today's world isn't really Capitalism.
It's like a Segway with training wheels!
I'm renaming China to "VaChina." Because it really is a pussy coward of a country. It really needs to grow a pair and embrace freedom.
Huh. I thought all those drinking songs were in the public domain.
Yeeeeah. And now for something completely not useless and stupid.
Answered my own question, I think.
According to this document, Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, 1999, they are:
1. Identify the possible hypotheses to be considered. Use a group of analysts with different perspectives to brainstorm the possibilities.
2. Make a list of significant evidence and arguments for and against each hypothesis.
3. Prepare a matrix with hypotheses across the top and evidence down the side. Analyze the "diagnosticity" of the evidence and arguments--that is, identify which items are most helpful in judging the relative likelihood of the hypotheses.
4. Refine the matrix. Reconsider the hypotheses and delete evidence and arguments that have no diagnostic value.
5. Draw tentative conclusions about the relative likelihood of each hypothesis. Proceed by trying to disprove the hypotheses rather than prove them.
6. Analyze how sensitive your conclusion is to a few critical items of evidence. Consider the consequences for your analysis if that evidence were wrong, misleading, or subject to a different interpretation.
7. Report conclusions. Discuss the relative likelihood of all the hypotheses, not just the most likely one.
8. Identify milestones for future observation that may indicate events are taking a different course than expected.
I'm not entirely sure though. But it's the best result Google returned, and there are 8 of them.
...what are the eight principles/questions of intelligence analysis, as mentioned in the article?
Mind you, I think this is about the dumbest thing NASA could do, and I'm right to balk at it. Everyone else is right to balk at it -- NASA is expecting someone to devote at least $3 million in time and effort (and frankly, abuse) to their project for nothing. If NASA put a gun to your head and demanded $3 million, they'd be labelled a thief. If they can get $3 million out of you using a 'non-reimbursable Space Act Agreement', they're con men. If you fall for it, you're an idiot.
I'm expecting few arguments to the above. But consider the opposite -- there's hundreds if not thousands of "open source" and/or "free software" developers that basically have fallen for that same scenario, and day after day plug away on their own software on a daily basis -- for much lower-profile clientele, however: The thousands about thousands of users who demand feature after feature and then flame you if you don't deliver it two seconds later, or think you're a jerk for sticking to your own timeline and vision for your work, rather than theirs!
Granted, they choose to do so of their own free will, and that's fine. Stupid, but fine. At the heart of each, however is the expectation that you're providing something that ultimately you don't own or control (despite what the GPL says, lets face it, once you open source something and make that code freely distributable and modifiable (is that a word?), you no longer control it) in most if not all cases FOR NOTHING. Why is the situation evil and stupid if an entity comes right out and demands you to do some amount of work for them for no benefit for those doing the actual work, but if you choose to do it on your own, it's wise, revolutionary and noble?!Contradictions don't exist. One of the above must be the based on the wrong premise. From my perspective, it's the latter, and altruism is wrong whether you're forced to do it, or you choose to do it.
After all, it's how the government wants providers to provide health care, welfare, jobs, etc... Why not NASA information systems too? Simply sucker/guilt/coerce/manipulate folks into doing it for nothing.
The only bigger idiots will be the people that actually decide to do it.
And now, it's once again time for my favorite cliche catch phrase: "Ayn Rand, call your office."
What does it take to foil a billion dollars worth of Joe Biden P2P security?
mv violentanalsodomyincestrapetorturekillkillkill.flv happykittens.flv
How the fuck does a moron like this get elected? Oh, yeah -- fucking morons like us vote for them.
Let's not let Joe Biden EVER design a maximum security prison.
The only real difference between Republicans and Democrats, or the Right and the Left, whatever you want to call them, is where they place their faith. The Right rules by faith in god, The left rules by faith in the greater good, the state, etc. Mysticism or Muscle.
Debating that point is so much red herring, however. We really don't need to spend all day debating and defining exactly what each side places its faith in -- we need only recognize that each side operates from a faithful premise, rather than a factual one. That's the real scary point that nearly everybody misses.
"Sadly, Hopkins is just complying with the law because they probably can't afford to have their federal funding pulled."
Such is life when you depend on others to support it. "The borrower is slave to the lender." "Beggars can't be choosers." "My house (or dollars), my rules."
The right and moral thing for JH to do would be, at the least to say, frankly, "we value the access to knowledge more than we do government crumbs. As of this momemt, we reject all government funding and will seek private funding through only through groups or individuals that share our values. Clearly, the government does not."
Granted it would be more right and moral for JH to publish it for a fee, and let those who actually value JH's work *pay* for it like they should, instead of simply claiming that they "neeeeeeeeed" it and/or taking it for granted. But as a nation we're far too embedded in the "neeeeeeeeed game" to expect someone to quit cold turkey. Ayn Rand, call your office.