How does technology influence ideas like "freedom of speech", "freedom from unlawful search and seizure," and other supposedly inalienable rights? An example: If a government writes a virus that infects a computer, looks for illegal material, sends a warning back if it finds anything, and then deletes itself after infecting a few more computers, have you been illegally searched? Remember that (ideally) only those who actually possessed said material would get any notice from the authorities.
The question is often asked, "Can a robot have a soul?" Being an atheist, I would rephrase it to ask whether a robot could have those qualities which we value in ourselves and other human beings. Creativity, flashes of inspiration, hopes, fears, emotions, and dreams. Further reading: anything by Daniel C. Dennett.
A lot of questions you could formulate simply take a classical ethical dilemma and uses technology to highlight some aspect of the problem. For example, say that we created an artificial intelligence. Now, say that the intelligence took a staff of fifty people and half the electricity from a hydroelectric dam, but was only about as intelligent as a normal human being. Assume further that it has passed the Turing test.
Question 1) Is this machine as valuable as a human life? Why or why not?
Question 2) Given the vast resources that the machine consumes, are its creators obligated to keep it running once its scientific value has been exhausted?
The second question is basically a reformulation of the well-explored question, "When do the needs of the many justify the taking of a life?"
"What do other people have a right to know about you? What information do you have a right to keep private, and from whom? Technology gives the people around you unprecedented abilities to keep track of your history, your likes, your dislikes, your behavior patterns, and your associations. If a government develops a technology that can take this information and use it to determine which people are likely to commit serious offenses, where does the government's obligations lie? In protecting the potential victims, or in respecting the rights of the suspects (who haven't actually done anything). How well do current laws fit both the current and future problem space?
Doomsday tech: With every advance in science, things get easier. Advances in chip manufacturing happen, and suddenly you have game consoles that cannot be shipped to hostile nations. Advances in materials technologies suddenly make it possible to build 400-story skyscrapers. So what happens when a technology suddenly pops up that makes it very easy to do serious, unspeakable damage to those around you?
For example, a new chemical process suddenly makes it possible for someone to enrich uranium in his basement? Or, in a worst-case scenario, imagine that someone figures out how to create a device that would destroy the world, and knows that it could be built without leaving your local Radio Shack?
The ethical thing would be to not build the device. That's simple enough. But what if such powers were a natural result of a discovery in physics? Would it be appropriate to outlaw entire branches of scientific inquiry to avoid the things we could inflict upon ourselves if we had the knowledge?
There's a lot of science fiction that could be used to illustrate ethical dilemmas. For example, The Measure of a Man is probably my favorite Star Trek episode of all time. I also remember an excellent story by Isaac Asimov, where an archaeologist builds an illegal device that can be used to see into the past. He simply wanted to do some research on the worshippers of Moloch, and ends up distributing plans for the ultimate privacy intrusion device known to man. Does anyone remember the name of the story?
Not a perfect analogy. With an organ transplant, you can expect that the person you're explaining it to will have some idea what your heart, lungs, and kidneys are. So all you need to do is tell them, "We're taking out the old heart, and swapping in the new one." With quite a few computer users, they understand screen, keyboard, mouse, and "magic box".
"I'm just going to repartition your hard drive."
"Repermission my what?"
"It's a little disk in your computer that stores all your files. I'm just going to divide it into two sections so that you can install two separate operating systems."
"Couldn't we just use a second disk? I have a blank one in my desk drawer."
"No, that's a different type of disk. You can't fit an operating system on one, except maybe tomsrtbt..."
They hate us because we respect individual freedoms, including the right of individuals to speak criticism of their government without fear of the secret police dragging them out of their beds in the middle of the night.
So if we just flush all our freedoms down the toilet, they'll leave us alone, right?
I'm glad we're getting some results from all this.:)
Mock the technique all you want, but it can be surprisingly effective.
Here's how a friend explained it to me. "When you find something funny, it's often funny a second time. So do it again. Now, by the third time, it gets a little irritating, but it's still kind of funny. By the fourth time, people are going to start rolling their eyes, and that's when a lesser comedian than myself might lose their nerve and stop. Don't do it. Just keep hammering away at it, and you'll be surprised how often it blows right across that 'not funny' line and starts being funny from the other direction."
That's nothing. Moderators on April 1 can do no wrong. What about meta-moderation?
I clicked the "unwilling to moderate" checkbox last April 1, after being faced with the conundrum of metamoderating a "fr15t p0st" that had been modded +5, informative. I couldn't decide if the moderators were just being morons, staging a coup against the fake story overload, or just doing an April Fools joke of their own.
Yep, that was the moment when I realized, no matter how long I spent on/., I would never really get it.
This is an attempt by the beleaguered BSD community to consolidate, postponing BSD's inevitable death.
I think this is an excellent idea. Consolidation will reduce re-invention and focus developers. Other projects/programs I'd like to see consolidated:
MacOSX and YellowDog Linux Linux and WheatoniX bash and ksh Gnome and KDE KnomeDE and Enlightenment 1.0 Windows 2003 Server and BackOrifice Metal Gear, Tomb Raider, and Tetris GIMP and MSPaint Slashdot and The Onion... oh, wait. Never mind.
And erm, proving that there's an infinite number of them? How will you know when you're done?
I know you're just trolling, with your "wake me up when I can buy one at Comp-U-Hut" attitude. Honestly, you can go back to Mothers Against Boomerangs for all I care. But regardless of the sincerity of the question, you've posed a fun one.
The key words here are "mathematical proofs." To look at a much simpler example, how do we know that there are an infinite number of prime numbers? The proof was actually discovered by (dead Greek dude) Euclid himself.
First, assume that there are only a finite number of prime numbers, and that you have a complete list of them. To disprove your original assumption and prove that another prime number exists, multiply all the numbers on the list together into one gargantuan number. This number is divisible by every number on the original list.
Now, add 1 to that number. Suddenly, the new number cannot be divided by any number on the list but 1. So the new number is either prime itself, or a composite number made up of at least two primes not on the original list.
Step 5 : Add new prime(s) to list, and start from step 1. Step 6 : ??? Step 7 : Profit!
If the "twin primes" conjecture is ever proven, it will be done through a proof, not by checking every number between zero and infinity.
Unfortunately, I'm just getting started on discrete mathematics, so I can't point to any non-encrypting applications for prime number theory. It may be useful in helping prove the Reimann Hypothesis, which I've heard would be helpful in physics and telecommunications. But that exhausts the sum of my knowledge on the subject.
I caught myself agreeing with you, then thought, "What about the term 'lawyer'?" I've been told that when I argue, I sound like a lawyer. Now, if the term were to come into common use as "a person who argues in a legalistic manner," I would still have to say that it would be inappropriate, possibly even fraudulent, to claim "lawyer" as your profession, unless you've passed the bar.
Therefore, I believe that it is in the interests of the government, and society as a whole, to not allow such terms to evolve. Otherwise, we open entire professions up to a dangerous sort of abuse.
Personally, I think the fastest way to solve this particular dilemma is to let go of the term "engineer," and instead lay hold of certain, specific titles. For example, if the Texas Board of Professional Engineers has a certification program for civil engineering, then allow them to decide who calls themselves "Civil Engineers." Same goes for chemical, software, genetic, and automotive engineering.
Of course, that solution flies in the face of my former "I disagree with you" stance. Can't be helped.
As two objects orbit each other, they give off "gravity waves," which slowly suck energy out of the system. They're difficult to detect, even in extreme cases (like two neutron stars orbiting each other at a distance of a few miles), but eventually they would cause the system to run down.
In my 200-level physics class, I was constantly coming up with new "perpetual motion devices" for my teacher to shoot down. I understood full well that it was fundamentally impossible, but it's kind of nice to bash into your own preconceptions and watch them break.
Anyways, the most interesting things I came up with weren't perpetual motion devices per se. I came up with some ideas that sucked energy from Brownian motion in matter. I don't think anything like that has ever been fielded as a large-scale source of energy, and probably for good reason. But he seemed to agree that, when nanotech really improves, such devices are feasible.
I'm not taking credit for it. I'm sure there are similar ideas doodled in the notebooks of thousands of undergrads. I'm simply pointing out that, even though it was a pointless waste of time on one level, on another level it was a real eye-opener for me.
Oooh! "Biblically based advice from financial teacher Larry Burkett!" I'll bet you can't find *that* particular feature in Quicken. I'll take my financial cues from the Trinity Broadcasting Network, thankyouverymuch.
1) Why do you assume that "personal users" don't need to care about security?
2) You poor Yahoo!-using schmuck. There are some real advantages to using an actual mail client like Eudora, Mozilla, or even Outlook. For example, not having a 4 MB storage limit and a 3 MB file size limit.
Even Yahoo! recognizes these advantages. For a fee, they'll let you connect to your account via IMAP.
3) You say that you'd "love to know how to use Linux, but to put it simply, I don't need to." Which is it? Either you're actively interested in learning it, or you're not at all interested in trying it until you find something that Win2K cannot do.
If you really are interested in learning, there are plenty of routes for you. There's the 100% risk-free Knoppix. Mandrake (for one) will allow you to resize FAT and NTFS partitions to make room for a dual boot install. You could play around with Cygwin. If you have a home network, you could install another box as a gateway/router/MP3 streamer/full-time RC5 keycruncher.
You seem like a bright, technically inclined fellow, and knowing a second operating system might open some doors for you.
Other than that, and Ashcroft notwithstanding, this is a free country, and you're free to use whichever OS best suits your needs.
Last time I was in my local Office Depot, I looked for Linux distros. I didn't see any. I don't even remember seeing any Macintosh software, but I wasn't looking for it.
Back in 1997, I went in and bought a copy of "Microsoft Liquid Motion," thinking it was basically a light version of 3D Studio Max. $100 later, I learned the importance of researching a product before buying it, and of not buying software from any store that also sells office chairs.
"But you have recruiting ads on TV. Why do you need subliminal messages?" "It's a three-pronged attack. Subliminal, liminal, and superliminal." "Superliminal?" "I'll show you. Hey you! Join the navy!" "Uh, yeah, alright." "I'm in."
Sounds like fun, but I'll bet if you multiplied the number of employees in your company by 10, you'd end up with something like this:
Memorandum 803-A : This memorandum addresses the issue of "camping."
Distribution: All employees (especially our illustrious vice president).
"Camping" is a term used by some players of Counter-Strike and other games, to describe the practice of finding a location near an important "item," and waiting to "ambush" your "opponent." This practice is generally frowned upon as unfair, and not sportsmanlike.
Management has set up a "Camping Support Hotline," where you can call and report unsportsmanlike activity in your corporate games. Just call 1-800-FRAGGED, and be ready to report the perpitrator, time of incident, and specifics of the situation. Also report your ping time and server name, if available.
Together, we can make our daily Counter-Strike game fun and enjoyable.
For further information on proper use of Counter-Strike slang, please read the following resource:
You're one of those people who said "for twenty-two-million, *I'd* get into the ring with Mike Tyson." The fact is, nobody would be willing to pay $22M to see you or me box with Mike Tyson, or even whatever greatly reduced sum his opponents are drawing these days.
Same goes for someone like Toby McGwire. I would be happy to do a movie for $11M pounds. I'd go through back pains, and possibly even severe risk to my future health, for that kind of money. But a big time actor knows what kind of money he or she can draw, and $11M for a movie (especially one that could knock McGwire out of three or four others) might not be the best use of his time.
I thought he did a terrific job in the first movie, and I hope he can swing the sequel. *ducks*
Whenever somebody starts talking about bloaty, worthless software, I immediately think of the HP Officejet v40 my parents bought.
The printer itself is pretty sweet. But the first thing the enclosed instructions tell you to do is pop their CD into the computer. It pops up with a single dialog button that says "Click here to install software," then throws about 300-400 megabytes of stuff into a couple of directories. When you reboot, you have shortcuts galore on your desktop, new things in your system tray... it was ugly.
When I reinstalled Windows on their computer, I didn't reinstall anything for the printer, and yet it works like a dream.
Slashdot Mirror
Preview! Preview!
On the upside, it's a link worth clicking.
How does technology influence ideas like "freedom of speech", "freedom from unlawful search and seizure," and other supposedly inalienable rights? An example: If a government writes a virus that infects a computer, looks for illegal material, sends a warning back if it finds anything, and then deletes itself after infecting a few more computers, have you been illegally searched? Remember that (ideally) only those who actually possessed said material would get any notice from the authorities.
has written some great books on these matters (my example was actually ripped off from "Code and other Laws of Cyberspace").
The question is often asked, "Can a robot have a soul?" Being an atheist, I would rephrase it to ask whether a robot could have those qualities which we value in ourselves and other human beings. Creativity, flashes of inspiration, hopes, fears, emotions, and dreams. Further reading: anything by Daniel C. Dennett.
A lot of questions you could formulate simply take a classical ethical dilemma and uses technology to highlight some aspect of the problem. For example, say that we created an artificial intelligence. Now, say that the intelligence took a staff of fifty people and half the electricity from a hydroelectric dam, but was only about as intelligent as a normal human being. Assume further that it has passed the Turing test.
Question 1) Is this machine as valuable as a human life? Why or why not?
Question 2) Given the vast resources that the machine consumes, are its creators obligated to keep it running once its scientific value has been exhausted?
The second question is basically a reformulation of the well-explored question, "When do the needs of the many justify the taking of a life?"
"What do other people have a right to know about you? What information do you have a right to keep private, and from whom? Technology gives the people around you unprecedented abilities to keep track of your history, your likes, your dislikes, your behavior patterns, and your associations. If a government develops a technology that can take this information and use it to determine which people are likely to commit serious offenses, where does the government's obligations lie? In protecting the potential victims, or in respecting the rights of the suspects (who haven't actually done anything). How well do current laws fit both the current and future problem space?
Doomsday tech: With every advance in science, things get easier. Advances in chip manufacturing happen, and suddenly you have game consoles that cannot be shipped to hostile nations. Advances in materials technologies suddenly make it possible to build 400-story skyscrapers. So what happens when a technology suddenly pops up that makes it very easy to do serious, unspeakable damage to those around you?
For example, a new chemical process suddenly makes it possible for someone to enrich uranium in his basement? Or, in a worst-case scenario, imagine that someone figures out how to create a device that would destroy the world, and knows that it could be built without leaving your local Radio Shack?
The ethical thing would be to not build the device. That's simple enough. But what if such powers were a natural result of a discovery in physics? Would it be appropriate to outlaw entire branches of scientific inquiry to avoid the things we could inflict upon ourselves if we had the knowledge?
There's a lot of science fiction that could be used to illustrate ethical dilemmas. For example, The Measure of a Man is probably my favorite Star Trek episode of all time. I also remember an excellent story by Isaac Asimov, where an archaeologist builds an illegal device that can be used to see into the past. He simply wanted to do some research on the worshippers of Moloch, and ends up distributing plans for the ultimate privacy intrusion device known to man. Does anyone remember the name of the story?
Not a perfect analogy. With an organ transplant, you can expect that the person you're explaining it to will have some idea what your heart, lungs, and kidneys are. So all you need to do is tell them, "We're taking out the old heart, and swapping in the new one." With quite a few computer users, they understand screen, keyboard, mouse, and "magic box".
"I'm just going to repartition your hard drive."
"Repermission my what?"
"It's a little disk in your computer that stores all your files. I'm just going to divide it into two sections so that you can install two separate operating systems."
"Couldn't we just use a second disk? I have a blank one in my desk drawer."
"No, that's a different type of disk. You can't fit an operating system on one, except maybe tomsrtbt..."
"Okay, I'll try that one."
"I'll call you when I'm done."
Their motto is "Seven brains are smarter than one." On the other hand, Despair.com tells us that "None of us is dumber than all of us."
Who do I believe?
I'm glad we're getting some results from all this.
I'd like to see it twice more today, then posted a third time around April 15th.
Mock the technique all you want, but it can be surprisingly effective.
Here's how a friend explained it to me. "When you find something funny, it's often funny a second time. So do it again. Now, by the third time, it gets a little irritating, but it's still kind of funny. By the fourth time, people are going to start rolling their eyes, and that's when a lesser comedian than myself might lose their nerve and stop. Don't do it. Just keep hammering away at it, and you'll be surprised how often it blows right across that 'not funny' line and starts being funny from the other direction."
Weird fella, but he makes it work.
That's nothing. Moderators on April 1 can do no wrong. What about meta-moderation?
/., I would never really get it.
I clicked the "unwilling to moderate" checkbox last April 1, after being faced with the conundrum of metamoderating a "fr15t p0st" that had been modded +5, informative. I couldn't decide if the moderators were just being morons, staging a coup against the fake story overload, or just doing an April Fools joke of their own.
Yep, that was the moment when I realized, no matter how long I spent on
This is an attempt by the beleaguered BSD community to consolidate, postponing BSD's inevitable death.
I think this is an excellent idea. Consolidation will reduce re-invention and focus developers. Other projects/programs I'd like to see consolidated:
MacOSX and YellowDog Linux
Linux and WheatoniX
bash and ksh
Gnome and KDE
KnomeDE and Enlightenment 1.0
Windows 2003 Server and BackOrifice
Metal Gear, Tomb Raider, and Tetris
GIMP and MSPaint
Slashdot and The Onion... oh, wait. Never mind.
The key words here are "mathematical proofs." To look at a much simpler example, how do we know that there are an infinite number of prime numbers? The proof was actually discovered by (dead Greek dude) Euclid himself.
First, assume that there are only a finite number of prime numbers, and that you have a complete list of them. To disprove your original assumption and prove that another prime number exists, multiply all the numbers on the list together into one gargantuan number. This number is divisible by every number on the original list.
Now, add 1 to that number. Suddenly, the new number cannot be divided by any number on the list but 1. So the new number is either prime itself, or a composite number made up of at least two primes not on the original list.
Step 5 : Add new prime(s) to list, and start from step 1.
Step 6 : ???
Step 7 : Profit!
If the "twin primes" conjecture is ever proven, it will be done through a proof, not by checking every number between zero and infinity.
Unfortunately, I'm just getting started on discrete mathematics, so I can't point to any non-encrypting applications for prime number theory. It may be useful in helping prove the Reimann Hypothesis, which I've heard would be helpful in physics and telecommunications. But that exhausts the sum of my knowledge on the subject.
I caught myself agreeing with you, then thought, "What about the term 'lawyer'?" I've been told that when I argue, I sound like a lawyer. Now, if the term were to come into common use as "a person who argues in a legalistic manner," I would still have to say that it would be inappropriate, possibly even fraudulent, to claim "lawyer" as your profession, unless you've passed the bar.
Therefore, I believe that it is in the interests of the government, and society as a whole, to not allow such terms to evolve. Otherwise, we open entire professions up to a dangerous sort of abuse.
Personally, I think the fastest way to solve this particular dilemma is to let go of the term "engineer," and instead lay hold of certain, specific titles. For example, if the Texas Board of Professional Engineers has a certification program for civil engineering, then allow them to decide who calls themselves "Civil Engineers." Same goes for chemical, software, genetic, and automotive engineering.
Of course, that solution flies in the face of my former "I disagree with you" stance. Can't be helped.
As two objects orbit each other, they give off "gravity waves," which slowly suck energy out of the system. They're difficult to detect, even in extreme cases (like two neutron stars orbiting each other at a distance of a few miles), but eventually they would cause the system to run down.
I think.
In my 200-level physics class, I was constantly coming up with new "perpetual motion devices" for my teacher to shoot down. I understood full well that it was fundamentally impossible, but it's kind of nice to bash into your own preconceptions and watch them break.
Anyways, the most interesting things I came up with weren't perpetual motion devices per se. I came up with some ideas that sucked energy from Brownian motion in matter. I don't think anything like that has ever been fielded as a large-scale source of energy, and probably for good reason. But he seemed to agree that, when nanotech really improves, such devices are feasible.
I'm not taking credit for it. I'm sure there are similar ideas doodled in the notebooks of thousands of undergrads. I'm simply pointing out that, even though it was a pointless waste of time on one level, on another level it was a real eye-opener for me.
Oooh! "Biblically based advice from financial teacher Larry Burkett!" I'll bet you can't find *that* particular feature in Quicken. I'll take my financial cues from the Trinity Broadcasting Network, thankyouverymuch.
A few (slightly trollish) responses:
1) Why do you assume that "personal users" don't need to care about security?
2) You poor Yahoo!-using schmuck. There are some real advantages to using an actual mail client like Eudora, Mozilla, or even Outlook. For example, not having a 4 MB storage limit and a 3 MB file size limit.
Even Yahoo! recognizes these advantages. For a fee, they'll let you connect to your account via IMAP.
3) You say that you'd "love to know how to use Linux, but to put it simply, I don't need to." Which is it? Either you're actively interested in learning it, or you're not at all interested in trying it until you find something that Win2K cannot do.
If you really are interested in learning, there are plenty of routes for you. There's the 100% risk-free Knoppix. Mandrake (for one) will allow you to resize FAT and NTFS partitions to make room for a dual boot install. You could play around with Cygwin. If you have a home network, you could install another box as a gateway/router/MP3 streamer/full-time RC5 keycruncher.
You seem like a bright, technically inclined fellow, and knowing a second operating system might open some doors for you.
Other than that, and Ashcroft notwithstanding, this is a free country, and you're free to use whichever OS best suits your needs.
Last time I was in my local Office Depot, I looked for Linux distros. I didn't see any. I don't even remember seeing any Macintosh software, but I wasn't looking for it.
Back in 1997, I went in and bought a copy of "Microsoft Liquid Motion," thinking it was basically a light version of 3D Studio Max. $100 later, I learned the importance of researching a product before buying it, and of not buying software from any store that also sells office chairs.
"But you have recruiting ads on TV. Why do you need subliminal messages?"
"It's a three-pronged attack. Subliminal, liminal, and superliminal."
"Superliminal?"
"I'll show you. Hey you! Join the navy!"
"Uh, yeah, alright."
"I'm in."
The Simpsons is the sum of all wisdom.
Sounds like fun, but I'll bet if you multiplied the number of employees in your company by 10, you'd end up with something like this:
g .html
Memorandum 803-A : This memorandum addresses the issue of "camping."
Distribution: All employees (especially our illustrious vice president).
"Camping" is a term used by some players of Counter-Strike and other games, to describe the practice of finding a location near an important "item," and waiting to "ambush" your "opponent." This practice is generally frowned upon as unfair, and not sportsmanlike.
Management has set up a "Camping Support Hotline," where you can call and report unsportsmanlike activity in your corporate games. Just call 1-800-FRAGGED, and be ready to report the perpitrator, time of incident, and specifics of the situation. Also report your ping time and server name, if available.
Together, we can make our daily Counter-Strike game fun and enjoyable.
For further information on proper use of Counter-Strike slang, please read the following resource:
http://solair.eunet.yu/~kimy/cstrike/english/slan
Please respond, indicating that you have read and understood this memo.
Considering how many times their website has been defaced, I think this is by far the most likely of all the speculations I've read.
Or, as Despair.com says, "Sometimes the solution to the morale problem is to fire all the unhappy people."
You're one of those people who said "for twenty-two-million, *I'd* get into the ring with Mike Tyson." The fact is, nobody would be willing to pay $22M to see you or me box with Mike Tyson, or even whatever greatly reduced sum his opponents are drawing these days.
Same goes for someone like Toby McGwire. I would be happy to do a movie for $11M pounds. I'd go through back pains, and possibly even severe risk to my future health, for that kind of money. But a big time actor knows what kind of money he or she can draw, and $11M for a movie (especially one that could knock McGwire out of three or four others) might not be the best use of his time.
I thought he did a terrific job in the first movie, and I hope he can swing the sequel. *ducks*
Whenever somebody starts talking about bloaty, worthless software, I immediately think of the HP Officejet v40 my parents bought.
The printer itself is pretty sweet. But the first thing the enclosed instructions tell you to do is pop their CD into the computer. It pops up with a single dialog button that says "Click here to install software," then throws about 300-400 megabytes of stuff into a couple of directories. When you reboot, you have shortcuts galore on your desktop, new things in your system tray... it was ugly.
When I reinstalled Windows on their computer, I didn't reinstall anything for the printer, and yet it works like a dream.
I have a '94 Saturn. Let's rock.