The embryonic stem cell research ban was just on FEDERAL funding of such research when using non-approved embryonic stem cell lines. This story is about privately funded research using approved stem cell lines, and so doesn't conflict with the Bush administration ban, or have anything to do with the change in administrations.
So ya, it's a cheap shot.
Better to learn from other people's mistakes (or experiences). I'm pretty sure the Planned Ignorance crowd is motivated by a desire to propogate their genetic line at all costs, rather than any real concern for their immediate offsprings.
Ya, a handful of people of were unlawfully detained, and there were attempts to repress critical comments, but when the American people finally got sick of it they were allowed to change directions. The US Constitution doesn't stop us from electing idiots, crooks, or both. But it slows them down with the checks-and-balances scheme and allows the people to get a new government without violence. The Bush administration got away with far less than they attempted, and we've got the Constitution to thank for it.
It's possible that the image is there, even though you are not consciously aware of it. The nature of consciousness is still poorly understood, but a great deal of what we can be conscious of usually occurs subconsciously.
What is known is that conscious awareness generally occurs after the event, and is "post-dated" by the memory system. I saw a study on runners that showed that they reacted to a starting gun several hundred milliseconds before they were aware the gun had fired, but remembered it as "the gun fired, then I decided to run".
I don't know whether the visual system behaves in a similar manner; conjuring images that fail to rise to a conscious level. But the possibility is there.
I think a direct mind-picture system would constitute a new artistic medium, with it's own advantages and drawbacks. There would still be a learning curve, and traditional drawing/painting skills would no doubt assist the artist. You might also combine the forms to touchup the captured mental images using more traditional methods.
Alternatively one might use it in the manner of a camera. Things would get most interesting when we learn to directly pipe these experiences into another person's mind...
I just skimmed both papers, looks like the Japanese group goes well beyond what they did at Berkeley, capturing true images, whereas the Berkeley group only found some evidence that this would be possible.
1) by the same mechanism described in the article, raters will be randomly rated highly or overlooked. 2) highly rated raters will age and slowly lose touch with what is relevant. Their rater rating will fail to reflect this. You see this with current arbiters of popular culture.
Slashdotters Missing the Point
on
Censorship By Glut
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"Censorship" (for lack of a better word) is occuring not due to the innane mob network effect of the masses, but is the fault of the ranking algorithm. Come up with a better algorithm and merit will be more accurately and "fairly" distributed. Of course, there are a lot of related stories out there, something like the Netflix competition may produce a better algorithm, although it may end up being too damn complicated. I see this more as a math/engineering story; you can complain about the behavior of mobs, or you can fix it with math.
The definition of censorship above depends on the definition of a censor, the 4th definition below satisfies the use in the article.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
1 definition(s) found
Censor \Cen"sor\, n. [L. censor, fr. censere to value, tax.]
1. (Antiq.) One of two magistrates of Rome who took a
register of the number and property of citizens, and who
also exercised the office of inspector of morals and
conduct.
2. One who is empowered to examine manuscripts before they
are committed to the press, and to forbid their
publication if they contain anything obnoxious; -- an
official in some European countries.
3. One given to fault-finding; a censurer.
Nor can the most circumspect attention, or steady
rectitude, escape blame from censors who have no
inclination to approve. --Rambler.
4. A critic; a reviewer.
Received with caution by the censors of the press.
--W. Irving.
1) You are identified as a near match. All of your relatives are now suspects. 2) Near match doesn't mean the perpetrator is a close relative of yours. Police waste their time on an extensive bad lead and fail to solve the crime.
The problem with these tests is that they don't identify enough of the genome to operate in this fashion. They are really only suited for conclusively ruling out a suspect, not for identifying one. The odds of a false positive are much higher than is reported, and going up all of the time as the number of people in these databases increases.
The privilege not to testify against close relatives is part of English Common Law, which precedes and often transcends the US Constitution. It's where the right of Habeas Corpus comes from as well. Then there are more specific laws, in California http://law.justia.com/california/codes/evid/970-973.html
Ya, I'd give Sony the benefit of the doubt here. "Offensive" and "controversial" just might not be image they're looking for in this title. If their self-censorship undermined a critical plot point I could see getting upset about this, but this sounds like it's some throwaway background track that isn't worth the hassle.
So what would he think of an innumerate Chinese woman? If it's a woman skilled in math that he likes, then that's the trait to admire. But making the assumption a Chinese woman has the skills that he finds attractive is a racial assumption that has a very good chance of being false.
Personally I'd like to see all poorly considered statistical correlations banished.
Deep Blue lost the first few rounds with Kasparov, and the team of engineers and chess players that managed it had to tweak it repeatedly to win the tournament. Not to mention that chess is a much much simpler scenario to model. Without humans to guide the machines people are going to identify their weakness and run circles around them, because they'll fall for the same trick every time. Everything we know about the 9/11 attack indicates that traditional crime prevention methods would have worked if any of the people on top (upper bureaucrats, FBI chief, CIA chief, President) had been competent and paying attention. Data mining has a very poor track record, and deserves a lot more skepticism than it gets.
The "cultural enrichment" argument is attractive but flawed, as you point out. However, your argument that the business model would fall apart ignores the flaws with the current copyright system. I'm pretty sure Janis Joplin and Walt Disney would still have created what they did even knowing that their works would not be collecting revenue 75 years after their death. If I were to record and post "Happy Birthday to You" I could be sued for copyright infringement http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/posts.html?pg=7
Copyright has always had a concept of "cultural enrichment" built in, with the idea that IP can and should eventually go to the public domain. The problem with a Copyright Czar and expanded war on copyright infringement is that it will be costly and discourage the very creativity and innovation copyright was supposed to foster. ShieldW0lf's argument doesn't work as written, but the arguments made by the RIAA are pretty flawed too. One very important thing that is missing from the government-level dialogue on copyright law is the needs of the people.
Large constrained optimization problems get solved all the time, algorithms like simplex scale nicely and the computer doesn't care that you've thrown hundreds of variables at it (well, it bogs down a bit, especially with non-linearities). I've been paid rather well to consult on problems like this. The biggest they thought there was something wrong with their solver, but it was just bad data. The people collecting the data had been given inconsistent instructions, things like "measure at the beginning of the year" vs "measure halfway through the year". Garbage in, garbage out, and no fancy algorithm is going to save you.
Slashdot Mirror
The embryonic stem cell research ban was just on FEDERAL funding of such research when using non-approved embryonic stem cell lines. This story is about privately funded research using approved stem cell lines, and so doesn't conflict with the Bush administration ban, or have anything to do with the change in administrations.
So ya, it's a cheap shot.
Better to learn from other people's mistakes (or experiences). I'm pretty sure the Planned Ignorance crowd is motivated by a desire to propogate their genetic line at all costs, rather than any real concern for their immediate offsprings.
welcome our new holographic overlords!
Ya, a handful of people of were unlawfully detained, and there were attempts to repress critical comments, but when the American people finally got sick of it they were allowed to change directions. The US Constitution doesn't stop us from electing idiots, crooks, or both. But it slows them down with the checks-and-balances scheme and allows the people to get a new government without violence.
The Bush administration got away with far less than they attempted, and we've got the Constitution to thank for it.
It's possible that the image is there, even though you are not consciously aware of it. The nature of consciousness is still poorly understood, but a great deal of what we can be conscious of usually occurs subconsciously.
What is known is that conscious awareness generally occurs after the event, and is "post-dated" by the memory system. I saw a study on runners that showed that they reacted to a starting gun several hundred milliseconds before they were aware the gun had fired, but remembered it as "the gun fired, then I decided to run".
I don't know whether the visual system behaves in a similar manner; conjuring images that fail to rise to a conscious level. But the possibility is there.
I think a direct mind-picture system would constitute a new artistic medium, with it's own advantages and drawbacks. There would still be a learning curve, and traditional drawing/painting skills would no doubt assist the artist. You might also combine the forms to touchup the captured mental images using more traditional methods.
Alternatively one might use it in the manner of a camera. Things would get most interesting when we learn to directly pipe these experiences into another person's mind...
I just skimmed both papers, looks like the Japanese group goes well beyond what they did at Berkeley, capturing true images, whereas the Berkeley group only found some evidence that this would be possible.
1) by the same mechanism described in the article, raters will be randomly rated highly or overlooked.
2) highly rated raters will age and slowly lose touch with what is relevant. Their rater rating will fail to reflect this. You see this with current arbiters of popular culture.
"Censorship" (for lack of a better word) is occuring not due to the innane mob network effect of the masses, but is the fault of the ranking algorithm.
Come up with a better algorithm and merit will be more accurately and "fairly" distributed. Of course, there are a lot of related stories out there, something like the Netflix competition may produce a better algorithm, although it may end up being too damn complicated.
I see this more as a math/engineering story; you can complain about the behavior of mobs, or you can fix it with math.
The definition of censorship above depends on the definition of a censor, the 4th definition below satisfies the use in the article.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
1 definition(s) found
Censor \Cen"sor\, n. [L. censor, fr. censere to value, tax.]
1. (Antiq.) One of two magistrates of Rome who took a
register of the number and property of citizens, and who
also exercised the office of inspector of morals and
conduct.
2. One who is empowered to examine manuscripts before they
are committed to the press, and to forbid their
publication if they contain anything obnoxious; -- an
official in some European countries.
3. One given to fault-finding; a censurer.
Nor can the most circumspect attention, or steady
rectitude, escape blame from censors who have no
inclination to approve. --Rambler.
4. A critic; a reviewer.
Received with caution by the censors of the press.
--W. Irving.
1) You are identified as a near match. All of your relatives are now suspects.
2) Near match doesn't mean the perpetrator is a close relative of yours. Police waste their time on an extensive bad lead and fail to solve the crime.
The problem with these tests is that they don't identify enough of the genome to operate in this fashion. They are really only suited for conclusively ruling out a suspect, not for identifying one. The odds of a false positive are much higher than is reported, and going up all of the time as the number of people in these databases increases.
The privilege not to testify against close relatives is part of English Common Law, which precedes and often transcends the US Constitution. It's where the right of Habeas Corpus comes from as well.
Then there are more specific laws, in California http://law.justia.com/california/codes/evid/970-973.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLJ/2004/1.html
I was going to cite an episode of Weeds, but my l33t search was strong...
The Chandrayaan Constitution was twittered!
Ya, consider my mind blown. Particularly the epigenetic factors.
He doesn't really refute anything in TFA, he just complains that this is old news, and gives his own summary.
[Blocked] It has been determined that the contents of this comment do not serve the public interest.
-The Secretariate General-
Ya, I'd give Sony the benefit of the doubt here. "Offensive" and "controversial" just might not be image they're looking for in this title. If their self-censorship undermined a critical plot point I could see getting upset about this, but this sounds like it's some throwaway background track that isn't worth the hassle.
That minority is about to pass a gay marriage ban in liberal California.
So what would he think of an innumerate Chinese woman? If it's a woman skilled in math that he likes, then that's the trait to admire. But making the assumption a Chinese woman has the skills that he finds attractive is a racial assumption that has a very good chance of being false.
Personally I'd like to see all poorly considered statistical correlations banished.
Thanks for the translation. It was helpful.
Deep Blue lost the first few rounds with Kasparov, and the team of engineers and chess players that managed it had to tweak it repeatedly to win the tournament. Not to mention that chess is a much much simpler scenario to model. Without humans to guide the machines people are going to identify their weakness and run circles around them, because they'll fall for the same trick every time.
Everything we know about the 9/11 attack indicates that traditional crime prevention methods would have worked if any of the people on top (upper bureaucrats, FBI chief, CIA chief, President) had been competent and paying attention. Data mining has a very poor track record, and deserves a lot more skepticism than it gets.
The "cultural enrichment" argument is attractive but flawed, as you point out. However, your argument that the business model would fall apart ignores the flaws with the current copyright system. I'm pretty sure Janis Joplin and Walt Disney would still have created what they did even knowing that their works would not be collecting revenue 75 years after their death. If I were to record and post "Happy Birthday to You" I could be sued for copyright infringement http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/posts.html?pg=7
Copyright has always had a concept of "cultural enrichment" built in, with the idea that IP can and should eventually go to the public domain. The problem with a Copyright Czar and expanded war on copyright infringement is that it will be costly and discourage the very creativity and innovation copyright was supposed to foster. ShieldW0lf's argument doesn't work as written, but the arguments made by the RIAA are pretty flawed too. One very important thing that is missing from the government-level dialogue on copyright law is the needs of the people.
We can do it on the cheap in Cali where you don't have to pay overtime!
Large constrained optimization problems get solved all the time, algorithms like simplex scale nicely and the computer doesn't care that you've thrown hundreds of variables at it (well, it bogs down a bit, especially with non-linearities).
I've been paid rather well to consult on problems like this. The biggest they thought there was something wrong with their solver, but it was just bad data. The people collecting the data had been given inconsistent instructions, things like "measure at the beginning of the year" vs "measure halfway through the year". Garbage in, garbage out, and no fancy algorithm is going to save you.