For every Congressman you could hypothetically shitcan at a moment's notice, there are a dozen more equally corrupt politicians at the state level ready to take their place. And for every Governor, Mayor etc that gets the axe (or gets promoted into a recently vacated congressional seat) there will always be a Secretary of State, greasy lawyer, corrupt CEO, Community Organizer, or some guy named Moonbeam.
The whole process is rotten to the core, and attracts like minded people into it's ranks. I see two possible outcomes, (1) some paradigm will shift and the process will slowly gravitate back towards honesty and intelligence with law-makers genuinely giving a crap about their constituents... or (2) it will continue to worsen until the populace cannot take it anymore, at which point things should get... interesting.
Knives can be fought back against, and if you do stab someone, there's fingerprints and other ways to figure out whodunnit.
If something like this becomes viable in the wild, there's virtually no way to fight back (aside from not being diabetic or not having a pump) and no way to trace it back to the source. Especially if said source is smart: pre-paid no-contract phone bought with cash and rigged up to send the "virus."
On the flip side, this would have to be a very specifically targeted attack. A very low percentage of the American populace is running around with an insulin pump, and even fewer still advertise it. One of the guys I work with has one, and at a glance it just looks like a pager/cell phone/other electronic device on his hip. This vulnerability isn't something that can just be easily exploited for the lulz
.... exactly what kind of robot would you propose that can do all that?
Personally, I was thinking of something vaguely humanoid, but decidedly different. Longer arms than a normal human would allow the 'bot to walk as a quadruped over the rough terrain for better stability. Might also be able to work in wheels somewhere, allowing for better conservation of energy when traveling long distances. Two-pronged hands (i.e. like a wrench) would allow for grabbing well enough to operate a steering wheel, grasp and open a door, etc, while being much easier to build and program and the 5-digit train-wreck we sport. Really, the only humanoid features it would require are arms/legs, and that's mostly just for vehicle operation. Give the thing it's own set of wheels (elbows and knees, perhaps) and the John Deere becomes redundant.
The sensor suite (aka eyes) could just as easily be in the chest as opposed to on top (or in both locations for better 3d vision.) It could have multiple sets of arms/legs for different functions. Olfactory and auditory sensors (nose and ears) should probably be located in the arms for better pinpointing. Easier to move the arm around and play "hotter/colder" as opposed to the head.
Humans, as we exist today, are the result of hundreds of thousands of years of trial and error evolution (and that's just us sapiens) built to survive and thrive in many MANY vastly different conditions and climates, and serve many different functions simultaneously. Building a robot to serve a fairly straightforward process *should* turn out a very different end result than you or I, even if it has to share our tools.
It is a great test of general knowledge and cognitive abilities. Subjects range from basic math to 10-key numbering to automotive questions, and everything in between. Assuming the participants took their ASVAB before enlisting, the test would have a great baseline for each individual.
Part of me hopes, sincerely, that a process is put in place to prevent this type of action.
But in reality, I know that such a process will not exist until AFTER a couple million phones get bricked by pranksters, jilted lovers, or whatever black hat group decides to get some lulz.
Why in the hell is it required that someone "take it badly?"
Just a quick example, I could say something like, "You're black, so you must love fried chicken and watermelon."
A black person might hear that and say, "haha, don't have to be black to love those foods. I bet your white ass loves some fried chicken too."
(S)he would be right, and much laughter would ensue.
OR
The black person in this little parable could chose to be offended, call me some unpleasant names, try to get me fired, etc..
There are some other things that a person could say that might be more or less likely to cause an incident. Fried chicken and watermelon is probably on the lighter end of the scale, but still, it takes two to tango. No matter what potentially racist thing I might say, and no matter what race I'm targeting, any "target" of those offensive comments could simply chose to not be offended. Write it off to my ignorance, failed social skills, poor upbringing or inability to tell a proper joke.
Potato farmers and Pre-School teachers have dealt with Big Brother spying on them for years now, but "Little Brother" turning the tables is a fairly new phenomenon.
Hopefully once the bosses and higher-ups have been on the ugly end of some questionable video painted in a negative light, they'll grow slightly more sympathetic to the general populace's fear/mistrust of "Big Brother," and maybe, just maybe, this shared discomfort will lead to more mutual respect... though I somehow doubt it
All very possible, and I do not profess to know the exact details of what happened that night.
What I do know for sure is this: someone lost his life, with a LOT of questions surrounding the situation, and neither judge nor jury has been given a say in the matter. Evidence has never been presented, a case has not been made by either side in any courts, except the court of public opinion. His innocence was determined in backroom dealings between his father (a former Judge) and the local police, and his guilt has been determined my the mob with assistance from terrible sensationalist media skewing the facts.
That's my biggest issue here. We stand no chance of knowing what actually happened here until due process is carried out, and right now, it looks like that's not going to happen.
Please look at the picture in the article you linked. Just look at it for a few seconds.
For a man who claims his head was bounced off the concrete repeatedly and his nose broken, he looked surprisingly unscathed in the picture there. No scrapes, cuts, apprasions, dried blood, bruises or even BAND AIDS. While the picture isn't exactly high-def, he looks to be the picture of slightly-blurry health.
Media has been doing this for YEARS.
On any "breaking story," they report any information they get as soon as they can, without vetting. For the most part, it usually turns out to be good info, or close enough to write off. But here, there is so much conflicting evidence for all directions that we're left with wildly different reports and no way of knowing which ones are true, because they're all from "reputable" news sources.
You and me both. Calling the cops is the correct answer
But the real question then becomes what you would do after you called the cops. Would you wait for the cops to arrive? Or would you grab a gun, chase down a random stranger, and kill him?
Watching your property for strangers who might be out to steal from you and calling 911 from a discreet distance when someone who you do not recognize is wandering around at night around your home is not a provocation to a physical attack.
Good job failing to grasp the situation, or willfully misrepresenting the facts.
You don't happen to work for NBC do you?
No one finds fault with Zimmerman for the actions you mentioned. Calling 911, keeping an eye on someone... all fine and dandy. Harmless, if a bit paranoid. What people take umbrage with is Zimmerman leaving his vehicle and actively pursuing someone while armed.
Let that roll around in your head for a bit. Zimmerman grabbed his gun, jumped out of his car, and chased down a random stranger who was just walking down the street. Who, in that scenario, has the right to Stand Their Ground? Until hard evidence proves otherwise, my sympathies lie with the random stranger. Any damage inflicted upon the gun-toting aggressor (up to and including death) is justified self defense in my eyes, and any damage inflicted upon the random stranger is grounds for arrest.
Well then. Addendum to my previous: Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc need to pick up the concept AND ADVERTISE IT.
I'm a Netflix subscriber. I watch shows fairly regularly with them... and the first I hear about their exclusive content is on/. ?? Textbook: "doing it wrong"
Fun fact: The idea that most big-studio fare is garbage led to the creation of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia." Quite simply, the main 3 stars said "everything on TV is garbage, we could make a better show with a camcorder and just us 3 cracking jokes."
So they did
And it's awesome.
I'm honestly surprised that NetFlix, Hulu, Amazon, etc haven't picked up the concept and put together an exclusive show for their platform
Not entirely true. While I don't doubt that EA will do everything in their power to bolster sales, there *IS* a technical limitation as well.
Have you ever played 2-player split screen on a modern widescreen TV? The aspect ratio is absurd either way you split it.
I don't find $60 too steep for an occasional REALLY freaking good game. For instance, I love the Mass Effect series, and despite all the chaos surrounding the 3rd one, I still felt it was a good game and worth the price I paid. However $60 as the standard price-point for every single game that comes out is absurd. Especially for games like Madden, Tiger Woods and Call of Modern Warduty which basically charge you the full $60 every year for what amounts to an expansion pack at BEST.
I just feel that there is currently too much of a disparity between Mega-huge AAA titles and little $10 indy projects like Limbo or Bastion (both great games, btw)
If the rumors presented in the article come to pass, and the next gen consoles are fully connected at all times, we may see a shift to correct this with their inevitable storefronts that will be included. The games that require giant teams of 250 people working for years on end can start at $60 or higher, whereas smaller titles (perhaps still from the big studios) can debut in the $20-30 range and indy titles can sell for whatever they feel like.
The one problem I have with your argument is the movie comparison. You can't simply equate dollars to time, without considering barrier to entry. To play a video game is a $60 buy in (not counting console price) and for that price I could see 5-7 movies depending on theater/matinee/etc. If I grab just one bad game, $60 down the hole, where as seeing 5-7 movies will all but guarantee I see a few winners. Movies that I can remember and reminisce with friends. Might be a few stinkers, but even bad movies can be entertaining (hence the phrase "so bad it's good") whereas bad games can easily become unplayable. Currently, the ability to sell bad games to Gamestop helps to alleviate some of the pain, and if that goes away... well, I might just hedge my bets and see a half-dozen movies instead.
Regardless, there is definitely room in the video game landscape for both varieties of games. Simple games with zero learning curve and instant gratification, and more complex games that teach you complex strategies and let you continue to improve over a long timeframe.
The best games, however, give you both: the ability to play instantly, and a well constructed learning curve that improves your skills as the game goes on. For a perfect explanation of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FpigqfcvlM
I suppose I could make analogies to one-night stands and long committed relationships, and how they each have advantages (as Ron White put it: "She knows what I like and I know what she won't do...") but I think the youtube clip really sums it all up nicely.
You missed the crux of the issue. Searching known gang members or convicted murders is one thing. Makes sense. That's been going on just fine WITHOUT this ruling
What we've just agreed to is strip searching anyone, anytime, for any reason. That is absurd. From TFA:
strip searches have been inflicted upon citizens collared for driving with a noisy muffler or a busted headlight, failing to use a turn signal, riding a bicycle without an audible bell – even for violating a dog-leash law.
[Justice Stephen] Breyer also wrote of "a nun, a Sister of Divine Providence for 50 years, who was arrested for trespassing during an antiwar demonstration," who was strip-searched.
Read that carefully. She has been a nun for 50 years. I'm not terribly familiar with the age requirements for joining the sisterhood, but this is quite possibly a SENIOR FRAEKING CITIZEN who was just attending an anti-war rally. The others aren't a whole lot better. Have you checked your headlights recently? If a bulb is burned out, you might be sent to jail and stripped down. And the guy who brought this whole issue to light, Albert Florence: He was arrested for an unpaid parking ticket (which we later found out WAS paid) but he was still detained for a week and stripped down twice... over a parking ticket. If that doesn't make you go "WTF," you're living in the wrong country.
So this was a big problem last week? Last month? At any point before this new rule was approved??
Admittedly, I don't have my finger firmly on the pulse of the American Prison system, but I don't recall hearing about the riots stemming from people with unpaid parking tickets smuggling C-4 and AK-47s into prisons up their ass crack.
It's not a problem, it never was a problem... but if the government can convince you otherwise, they can assuredly sell you a solution. Looks like you're buying. I'm not.
The worst part is, this new ruling includes anyone and everyone simply accused of a crime. No conviction or evidence necessary. It's one thing to thoroughly search known felons and the like, but this extends far beyond that. According to this, any cop can pull you over at any time and say "I think you were speeding, now let me see your tits."
Slashdot Mirror
Problem is: with whom do we replace them?
For every Congressman you could hypothetically shitcan at a moment's notice, there are a dozen more equally corrupt politicians at the state level ready to take their place. And for every Governor, Mayor etc that gets the axe (or gets promoted into a recently vacated congressional seat) there will always be a Secretary of State, greasy lawyer, corrupt CEO, Community Organizer, or some guy named Moonbeam.
The whole process is rotten to the core, and attracts like minded people into it's ranks. I see two possible outcomes, (1) some paradigm will shift and the process will slowly gravitate back towards honesty and intelligence with law-makers genuinely giving a crap about their constituents... or (2) it will continue to worsen until the populace cannot take it anymore, at which point things should get ... interesting.
Feels like the gvmnt is trying to Brute Force these laws through.
SOPA ... PIPA ... ACTA ... COICA... and a bunch of other bills that haven't been officially introduced yet... H.R. 1981, S.978
Eventually one will slip through and become law.
Knives can be fought back against, and if you do stab someone, there's fingerprints and other ways to figure out whodunnit.
If something like this becomes viable in the wild, there's virtually no way to fight back (aside from not being diabetic or not having a pump) and no way to trace it back to the source. Especially if said source is smart: pre-paid no-contract phone bought with cash and rigged up to send the "virus."
On the flip side, this would have to be a very specifically targeted attack. A very low percentage of the American populace is running around with an insulin pump, and even fewer still advertise it. One of the guys I work with has one, and at a glance it just looks like a pager/cell phone/other electronic device on his hip. This vulnerability isn't something that can just be easily exploited for the lulz
.... exactly what kind of robot would you propose that can do all that?
Personally, I was thinking of something vaguely humanoid, but decidedly different. Longer arms than a normal human would allow the 'bot to walk as a quadruped over the rough terrain for better stability. Might also be able to work in wheels somewhere, allowing for better conservation of energy when traveling long distances. Two-pronged hands (i.e. like a wrench) would allow for grabbing well enough to operate a steering wheel, grasp and open a door, etc, while being much easier to build and program and the 5-digit train-wreck we sport. Really, the only humanoid features it would require are arms/legs, and that's mostly just for vehicle operation. Give the thing it's own set of wheels (elbows and knees, perhaps) and the John Deere becomes redundant.
The sensor suite (aka eyes) could just as easily be in the chest as opposed to on top (or in both locations for better 3d vision.) It could have multiple sets of arms/legs for different functions. Olfactory and auditory sensors (nose and ears) should probably be located in the arms for better pinpointing. Easier to move the arm around and play "hotter/colder" as opposed to the head.
Humans, as we exist today, are the result of hundreds of thousands of years of trial and error evolution (and that's just us sapiens) built to survive and thrive in many MANY vastly different conditions and climates, and serve many different functions simultaneously. Building a robot to serve a fairly straightforward process *should* turn out a very different end result than you or I, even if it has to share our tools.
ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery)
It is a great test of general knowledge and cognitive abilities. Subjects range from basic math to 10-key numbering to automotive questions, and everything in between. Assuming the participants took their ASVAB before enlisting, the test would have a great baseline for each individual.
Overkill? I don't think so ... in fact, it might not even be sufficient.
What we really need to do it setup a orbital nuke; as we all know, it's the only way to be sure.
Part of me hopes, sincerely, that a process is put in place to prevent this type of action.
But in reality, I know that such a process will not exist until AFTER a couple million phones get bricked by pranksters, jilted lovers, or whatever black hat group decides to get some lulz.
Why in the hell is it required that someone "take it badly?"
Just a quick example, I could say something like, "You're black, so you must love fried chicken and watermelon."
A black person might hear that and say, "haha, don't have to be black to love those foods. I bet your white ass loves some fried chicken too."
(S)he would be right, and much laughter would ensue.
OR
The black person in this little parable could chose to be offended, call me some unpleasant names, try to get me fired, etc..
There are some other things that a person could say that might be more or less likely to cause an incident. Fried chicken and watermelon is probably on the lighter end of the scale, but still, it takes two to tango. No matter what potentially racist thing I might say, and no matter what race I'm targeting, any "target" of those offensive comments could simply chose to not be offended. Write it off to my ignorance, failed social skills, poor upbringing or inability to tell a proper joke.
I thought that was the whole point of the piece.
Potato farmers and Pre-School teachers have dealt with Big Brother spying on them for years now, but "Little Brother" turning the tables is a fairly new phenomenon.
Hopefully once the bosses and higher-ups have been on the ugly end of some questionable video painted in a negative light, they'll grow slightly more sympathetic to the general populace's fear/mistrust of "Big Brother," and maybe, just maybe, this shared discomfort will lead to more mutual respect... though I somehow doubt it
All very possible, and I do not profess to know the exact details of what happened that night.
What I do know for sure is this: someone lost his life, with a LOT of questions surrounding the situation, and neither judge nor jury has been given a say in the matter. Evidence has never been presented, a case has not been made by either side in any courts, except the court of public opinion. His innocence was determined in backroom dealings between his father (a former Judge) and the local police, and his guilt has been determined my the mob with assistance from terrible sensationalist media skewing the facts.
That's my biggest issue here. We stand no chance of knowing what actually happened here until due process is carried out, and right now, it looks like that's not going to happen.
For a man who claims his head was bounced off the concrete repeatedly and his nose broken, he looked surprisingly unscathed in the picture there. No scrapes, cuts, apprasions, dried blood, bruises or even BAND AIDS. While the picture isn't exactly high-def, he looks to be the picture of slightly-blurry health.
Second, you actually believe that? "I had a gun, but this kid started chasing me so I had to shoot him"
In unrelated news, I've got a bridge to sell.
What lie? Did he not jump from his car? Maybe it was more of a leap, or perhaps a subdued shuffle... but the hard points are all valid.
1) He was in his car on the phone with 911
2) He took his firearm and exited the vehicle
3) He approached a person whom he had never met before (a.k.a. random stranger)
4) Random stranger walked away, as heard in the phone call. I believe the words were "I'm not going to run, just walk faster."
5) He pursued random stranger.
6) He shot random stranger
.
Please tell me which part is a lie. I've numbered them for your convenience.
Media has been doing this for YEARS. On any "breaking story," they report any information they get as soon as they can, without vetting. For the most part, it usually turns out to be good info, or close enough to write off. But here, there is so much conflicting evidence for all directions that we're left with wildly different reports and no way of knowing which ones are true, because they're all from "reputable" news sources.
You and me both. Calling the cops is the correct answer
But the real question then becomes what you would do after you called the cops. Would you wait for the cops to arrive? Or would you grab a gun, chase down a random stranger, and kill him?
Watching your property for strangers who might be out to steal from you and calling 911 from a discreet distance when someone who you do not recognize is wandering around at night around your home is not a provocation to a physical attack.
Good job failing to grasp the situation, or willfully misrepresenting the facts.
You don't happen to work for NBC do you?
No one finds fault with Zimmerman for the actions you mentioned. Calling 911, keeping an eye on someone... all fine and dandy. Harmless, if a bit paranoid. What people take umbrage with is Zimmerman leaving his vehicle and actively pursuing someone while armed.
Let that roll around in your head for a bit. Zimmerman grabbed his gun, jumped out of his car, and chased down a random stranger who was just walking down the street. Who, in that scenario, has the right to Stand Their Ground? Until hard evidence proves otherwise, my sympathies lie with the random stranger. Any damage inflicted upon the gun-toting aggressor (up to and including death) is justified self defense in my eyes, and any damage inflicted upon the random stranger is grounds for arrest.
Well then. Addendum to my previous: Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc need to pick up the concept AND ADVERTISE IT. I'm a Netflix subscriber. I watch shows fairly regularly with them... and the first I hear about their exclusive content is on /. ?? Textbook: "doing it wrong"
I especially like "Maggie May," the song about *BEING* jail bait, as a guy no less.
Just another way to circumvent due process.
No warrant?? Just say, "I heard that house has CP in it!"
Fun fact: The idea that most big-studio fare is garbage led to the creation of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia." Quite simply, the main 3 stars said "everything on TV is garbage, we could make a better show with a camcorder and just us 3 cracking jokes."
So they did
And it's awesome.
I'm honestly surprised that NetFlix, Hulu, Amazon, etc haven't picked up the concept and put together an exclusive show for their platform
Not entirely true. While I don't doubt that EA will do everything in their power to bolster sales, there *IS* a technical limitation as well. Have you ever played 2-player split screen on a modern widescreen TV? The aspect ratio is absurd either way you split it.
Both agree and disagree with the first point.
I don't find $60 too steep for an occasional REALLY freaking good game. For instance, I love the Mass Effect series, and despite all the chaos surrounding the 3rd one, I still felt it was a good game and worth the price I paid. However $60 as the standard price-point for every single game that comes out is absurd. Especially for games like Madden, Tiger Woods and Call of Modern Warduty which basically charge you the full $60 every year for what amounts to an expansion pack at BEST.
I just feel that there is currently too much of a disparity between Mega-huge AAA titles and little $10 indy projects like Limbo or Bastion (both great games, btw)
If the rumors presented in the article come to pass, and the next gen consoles are fully connected at all times, we may see a shift to correct this with their inevitable storefronts that will be included. The games that require giant teams of 250 people working for years on end can start at $60 or higher, whereas smaller titles (perhaps still from the big studios) can debut in the $20-30 range and indy titles can sell for whatever they feel like.
The one problem I have with your argument is the movie comparison. You can't simply equate dollars to time, without considering barrier to entry. To play a video game is a $60 buy in (not counting console price) and for that price I could see 5-7 movies depending on theater/matinee/etc. If I grab just one bad game, $60 down the hole, where as seeing 5-7 movies will all but guarantee I see a few winners. Movies that I can remember and reminisce with friends. Might be a few stinkers, but even bad movies can be entertaining (hence the phrase "so bad it's good") whereas bad games can easily become unplayable. Currently, the ability to sell bad games to Gamestop helps to alleviate some of the pain, and if that goes away... well, I might just hedge my bets and see a half-dozen movies instead.
Unsure if serious ...
Regardless, there is definitely room in the video game landscape for both varieties of games. Simple games with zero learning curve and instant gratification, and more complex games that teach you complex strategies and let you continue to improve over a long timeframe.
The best games, however, give you both: the ability to play instantly, and a well constructed learning curve that improves your skills as the game goes on. For a perfect explanation of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FpigqfcvlM
I suppose I could make analogies to one-night stands and long committed relationships, and how they each have advantages (as Ron White put it: "She knows what I like and I know what she won't do...") but I think the youtube clip really sums it all up nicely.
RIDIN ON CARS!
You missed the crux of the issue. Searching known gang members or convicted murders is one thing. Makes sense. That's been going on just fine WITHOUT this ruling
What we've just agreed to is strip searching anyone, anytime, for any reason. That is absurd. From TFA:
Read that carefully. She has been a nun for 50 years. I'm not terribly familiar with the age requirements for joining the sisterhood, but this is quite possibly a SENIOR FRAEKING CITIZEN who was just attending an anti-war rally. The others aren't a whole lot better. Have you checked your headlights recently? If a bulb is burned out, you might be sent to jail and stripped down. And the guy who brought this whole issue to light, Albert Florence: He was arrested for an unpaid parking ticket (which we later found out WAS paid) but he was still detained for a week and stripped down twice... over a parking ticket. If that doesn't make you go "WTF," you're living in the wrong country.
So this was a big problem last week? Last month? At any point before this new rule was approved??
Admittedly, I don't have my finger firmly on the pulse of the American Prison system, but I don't recall hearing about the riots stemming from people with unpaid parking tickets smuggling C-4 and AK-47s into prisons up their ass crack.
It's not a problem, it never was a problem... but if the government can convince you otherwise, they can assuredly sell you a solution. Looks like you're buying. I'm not.
The worst part is, this new ruling includes anyone and everyone simply accused of a crime. No conviction or evidence necessary. It's one thing to thoroughly search known felons and the like, but this extends far beyond that. According to this, any cop can pull you over at any time and say "I think you were speeding, now let me see your tits."