Because everything the government does it does badly. That's the nature of government. If you want "good" government, you whittle it down to just those activities which history has shown aren't credibly done outside government -- military, justice system (police and courts), funding basic scientific research (not technology research!), and so on.
I understand that we have far more invested interest in modelling the human brain for medical purposes than any other type of brain. However, if you're going to try to create a model of something vastly complex you should probably start with something easy (and by easy I mean less vastly complex). A short list of neuron amounts in various animals is here, an aplysia(sea slug) or fly brain, I would expect to be a much more reasonable starting point and one with the obvious advantage that you can experiment on, breed whole lines of defective forms to study, just generally have far more control and face no ethical issues with.
Oh and whatever differences may be present in moveing from fly to rat to monkey to human it isn't in the neuron itself those, from what I understand, are almost indistinguishable across species.
This project will not, and I suspect will make no meaningful attempt at, creating a thinking human brain simulation and is really just about better medicine for various mental diseases, which we do sorely need. If it was attempting to take a stab at hard AI "The research hinges on creating a super-powerful computer that's 1,000 times faster than those in use today" is most certainly a false statement: my smartphone is no more creative than the computers of yore that it is 1,000 times faster than.
I suspect they went the thinking machine angle just for the attention... Is it just me or is there a chill in the air?
I'm trying to figure out exactly how they figure they can justify $30k in the first place. It just doesn't make any sense from where I sit.
Agreed
What if it only cost $1 would you pay for it? Would you really? Somehow I don't the the price is a reflection of a team of brilliant minds patenting some amazing new learning assessment test.
IQ tests are flawed I'm sure these are as well, my impression is that these seem more like a way for rich people to fleece well meaning but not well grounded rich people out of money. Given the natural desire for people to want the best for kids and everyones desire to want to hear their kid is special/getting the best help/intelligent in their own way/etc I'm sure the marketing on this will be easy and virtually unchallenged.
I don't have kids but I suspect any results from this (annual?) test will be less useful then quality time by the parent spent learning what the child is interested in and encouraging growth in those areas. Something like this might be valuable one day but probably not soon.
Is it bribery or do companies donate more money to politicians that agree with their policies?
In this case, and many others, probably bribery.
On a more general note Lawence Lessig has a good amount to say about reducing corruption in American politics. http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html
I don't remember if he covers it in that talk but somewhere I have heard him give an example where a state(?) imposed a system that judges, when running for election, (yes judges do in some states) could only accept donations under a scheme where
A) they could not see how much money was donated
B) even if told it didn't matter because the donator could withdraw their amount (in some time frame) so it was unverifiable and
C) the donation was spit out to their campaign in random amounts over several bursts combined with other donations, further obscuring donations
I believe this was eventually cancelled because judges suddenly weren't getting any campaign contributions.
If someone could give some links to those points I'd appreciate it. I'm just going by a half remembered ted talk and daily show interview.
Companies/individuals could claim that they were merely supporting the politicians because he/she already believed as they did and not that those companies/individuals were bribing the politicians into a new position, which other commenters have pointed out.
What seems like a good solution (and I believe is more or less what LL advocates) would be a combination of,
1) only individuals (human beings) can donate to campaigns,
2) all contributions must be donated via an anonymous system as above,
3) the amount a person can donate is not only fixed but in fact paid for by the government from taxes -- each person has the same $$$ to donate.
To not fix the amount a person can donate at a flat rate, is a triumph for capitalism but a deep wound for democracy. Which do you value more?
We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?
Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7. Activity recorded M.Y. 2302.22467. (TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED)
Slashdot Mirror
Because everything the government does it does badly. That's the nature of government. If you want "good" government, you whittle it down to just those activities which history has shown aren't credibly done outside government -- military, justice system (police and courts), funding basic scientific research (not technology research!), and so on.
I agree. One such area is health care.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/charts-health-care-costs-americans_n_2957266.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/26/21-graphs-that-show-americas-health-care-prices-are-ludicrous/
I understand that we have far more invested interest in modelling the human brain for medical purposes than any other type of brain. However, if you're going to try to create a model of something vastly complex you should probably start with something easy (and by easy I mean less vastly complex). A short list of neuron amounts in various animals is here, an aplysia(sea slug) or fly brain, I would expect to be a much more reasonable starting point and one with the obvious advantage that you can experiment on, breed whole lines of defective forms to study, just generally have far more control and face no ethical issues with.
Oh and whatever differences may be present in moveing from fly to rat to monkey to human it isn't in the neuron itself those, from what I understand, are almost indistinguishable across species.
This project will not, and I suspect will make no meaningful attempt at, creating a thinking human brain simulation and is really just about better medicine for various mental diseases, which we do sorely need. If it was attempting to take a stab at hard AI "The research hinges on creating a super-powerful computer that's 1,000 times faster than those in use today" is most certainly a false statement: my smartphone is no more creative than the computers of yore that it is 1,000 times faster than.
I suspect they went the thinking machine angle just for the attention... Is it just me or is there a chill in the air?
I'm trying to figure out exactly how they figure they can justify $30k in the first place. It just doesn't make any sense from where I sit.
Agreed
What if it only cost $1 would you pay for it? Would you really? Somehow I don't the the price is a reflection of a team of brilliant minds patenting some amazing new learning assessment test.
IQ tests are flawed I'm sure these are as well, my impression is that these seem more like a way for rich people to fleece well meaning but not well grounded rich people out of money. Given the natural desire for people to want the best for kids and everyones desire to want to hear their kid is special/getting the best help/intelligent in their own way/etc I'm sure the marketing on this will be easy and virtually unchallenged.
I don't have kids but I suspect any results from this (annual?) test will be less useful then quality time by the parent spent learning what the child is interested in and encouraging growth in those areas. Something like this might be valuable one day but probably not soon.
Wait so... you prefer incest?
Is it bribery or do companies donate more money to politicians that agree with their policies?
In this case, and many others, probably bribery.
On a more general note Lawence Lessig has a good amount to say about reducing corruption in American politics.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html
I don't remember if he covers it in that talk but somewhere I have heard him give an example where a state(?) imposed a system that judges, when running for election, (yes judges do in some states) could only accept donations under a scheme where
I believe this was eventually cancelled because judges suddenly weren't getting any campaign contributions.
If someone could give some links to those points I'd appreciate it. I'm just going by a half remembered ted talk and daily show interview.
Companies/individuals could claim that they were merely supporting the politicians because he/she already believed as they did and not that those companies/individuals were bribing the politicians into a new position, which other commenters have pointed out.
What seems like a good solution (and I believe is more or less what LL advocates) would be a combination of,
To not fix the amount a person can donate at a flat rate, is a triumph for capitalism but a deep wound for democracy. Which do you value more?
We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism? Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7. Activity recorded M.Y. 2302.22467. (TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED)
In other news John McCain has tabled his recent 'a la carte' TV channels bill and is currently drafting legislation for 'a la carte' bloodpacks.