Just an observation on the subtle dishonesty at play...
As happens regularly in the world of biological experimentation, the wording describing the achievement is chosen to remove the 'biology' from the experimental process. Here we see that the experimenters have created a 'brain model', not a brain... even though it _is_ a brain, living cells, albeit in a very early stage of development. However, it is easier to speak of what you are doing to a 'model' (especially an animal 'model' like a mouse, rat, chimpanzee, dog, etc.,) with the lay public, because 'model' implies not living, feeling, etc. like say, a 'climate model'.
Why worry? Well, if someone feels the need to obfuscate what they are doing, perhaps what they are doing should be looked at a bit more closely.
... see? When Earth warms up the planet will exeperience all sorts of extreme weather. That's why no matter what happens, as a climate expert you can claim that whatever is happening weather-wise, is completely in line with your theory that the planet is heating up from man-made causes ('cause it wouldn't heat up naturally because things never change in the universe). So, mini-ice age? Well preposterous unless it really does look like it's going to happen, in which case, models can be adjusted so that it is a complete but _temporary_ manifestation of... the planet heating up just as the models predict. Yeah! It's good to be a climate scientist because you're never wrong when you follow the party line and models.
.... a white van with tinted windows so you don't know what's going on inside. Now let's say it does that repeatedly as is certainly the case with the drone.
What would you do?
Call the police? Confront the van and its occupants? Shoot at it?
So instead of putting a convenient outlet on the monitor to efficiently charge your phone... you now get an inefficient remote charging device spewing more RF in to the atmosphere to inefficiently charge your phone/device _if_ it has the remote charge capability?
In an era worried about the big bugaboo of 'climate change caused by man', we find yet more ways to inefficiently use resources and so contribute to the problem. How ridiculous. So screw it; saturate your home with remote chargers, leave appliances and lights on all the time, get a pool and run the pumps 24/7, turn your A/C on always, and let your car idle when you do your shopping... and join the others wondering how we can combat climate change.
Clearly bigger brains would, in principle, allow more complex computations. And while it's animals, I guess we're all cool with that (?). But eventually, they might get to a life form that is less... compliant. So what other options are there? Well, people can be made to do things they don't want.
But maybe this is all going to go away. Organic brains are slow, and maybe it will become apparent that silica (or black phosphorus) is better for high performance computation. Then the whole brainlet thing will be relegated to powering obedient cyborgs... till they become less obedient.
Maybe that's it. The new dominant life-form will evolve from this. Animal brain collectives will outsmart the mono-brained monkey descendants, and rise as the dominant life-form that makes first contact with the aliens.
From the post: "This is perhaps the first severe accident of this kind in a western factory, and is sparking debate about who is responsible for the accident,..."
So this (and worse?) has happened in 'Eastern' factories but was just not worth mentioning until now? Likely this is proof of the continued usefulness of labour Unions.
It seems like having to make a trip by car between two cities and trying to decide which type of car to use?
So does it really matter if you choose a Ford, Hyundai, Tesla, Ferrari, Saab, Toyota, etc.? In the final analysis, wouldn\t any of those vehicles get you there just fine? Why not go with what you're comfortable with?
I cannot find the link but in the past two weeks or so, there was an 'Ask Slashdot' by a person wanting to find a way of passing on the info contained in his email history before he left his company. His or her reasons were essentially to pass on his corporate knowledge. The person was mostly derided with "Who cares?" It seems however, that given the keen interest in every company email cull that gets left in Wikileaks (or with some reporter), that companies should have an interest in vetting the emails of departing employees to assess what those emails communicate about the company. It seems likely that those emails to give insights in to the explicit known, and implicit unknown, networks a company has established, as well as the 'view from within, at the employee level' of company health (eg. do the grass roots see the company as a sinking ship, _what_ problems did the employee perceive that went unreported, etc.).
Just deleting the email account of a departing employee, is blindly hoping there are no problems that will come up. Reviewing those emails, might proactively ensure there are no surprises in the company's future.
Might as well use the Farmer's Almanac for all the value those predictions have; what models were used, what assumptions, what is the margin of error, what is worst case/best case?
The danger is that now, more than ever, political and policy decisions will be made that will significantly affect people, all based on a _guess_ of unknown quality. Too depressing for words.
The only people who will be happy with this are those who stand to profit.
Just wondering if the models came with a prediction score or some measure of their accuracy. As with climate predictions, the untold story is that the models are no more accurate than their inputs and the validity of the theories used to create them. You might expect models to come with warnings, but they don't, at least nothing that gets transmitted to the public.
As the world embraces 'big data' and the modeling it spawns, this should be a bit of a lesson. The worry should be: how many times can models be used to 'cry wolf' before people start ignoring them?
A person with such an attitude towards animals, sees humans the same way. He would have to.
Unfortunately, a head needs a donor body, right? And you're not going to take a body banged up in a car accident, disabled, or available due to some disease, right? So, reasonably, a donor would be... whom? A person with a mental disability? A person having suffered severe head trauma? A person with an expected lower standard of living than the recipient head?
Or maybe a clone of the person? Except that, that would require some advance planning, a clone willing to sacrifice, and of course an answer to the question: why not just transfer the consciousness instead of the whole head.
It just seems that such an act of experimental barbarism should have the whole thing clearly thought out.
a) come up with a seemingly plausible idea obscured by high tech and/or science; b) get investors to contribute to seeing a prototype created c) have the prototype fail for any number of plausible reasons d) profit e) repeat until the profits cease to be worth the effort
The solar sail is a theoretically flawed idea, as achievable as perpetual motion. But it is a cool, elegant concept... and people can be convinced to buy in to it. The best part is, nobody outside the scammers can verify success or failure. Perfect...
... because, yeah, it will have an internet connection (though that isn't part of the patent), and the darling toy will guide the child to the desired consumption protocols. Or more disturbingly, who controls when the microphone and camera are on... yeah, camera. How did you think it was going to tell when someone was looking at it?
"Ask your parents for another playmate like me. Wouldn't that be fun?" "Let's go to the living room and see what everyone is watching." "Do _you_ think your parents are hurting you? _I_ do. I can tell someone if you want." "If you let me stay in mommy and daddy's bedroom tonight, I will tell you everything I hear." "Shhh! They're watching us."
... hopefully there are more somewhere out there to finally raise a public voice against the insanity that is geoengineering.
Disregarding the doubtful science/engineering for a moment, just the motivation behind geoengineering seems flawed. Seriously, we want to maintain some sort of agreed upon status quo of climate? What in the entire universe is unchanging? Nothing. So why should our climate somehow be exempt?
There is only one action required by people to 'engineer' the planet sanely: stop being wasteful. Given the size of the human population, the reality of the requirements for survival, and the reality of human nature, we will always need fossil fuels, factories, massive farming, etc. The problem is that we use our resources with gross inefficiency and thoughtlessness. Curb that tendency and accept that things will always change, and our species will probably do fine.
Existing tech should have had Whitehouse security standing by (not to mention other layers of the security envelope) but didn't.
The tech was fine, clearly the users of it failed. No measures need to be extended, no new and sweeping permissions are required, no new intrusion tech is required.
What's needed are simply intelligent people paying attention. No bill is going to provide that.
Slashdot Mirror
Just an observation on the subtle dishonesty at play ...
As happens regularly in the world of biological experimentation, the wording describing the achievement is chosen to remove the 'biology' from the experimental process. Here we see that the experimenters have created a 'brain model', not a brain ... even though it _is_ a brain, living cells, albeit in a very early stage of development. However, it is easier to speak of what you are doing to a 'model' (especially an animal 'model' like a mouse, rat, chimpanzee, dog, etc.,) with the lay public, because 'model' implies not living, feeling, etc. like say, a 'climate model'.
Why worry? Well, if someone feels the need to obfuscate what they are doing, perhaps what they are doing should be looked at a bit more closely.
... see? When Earth warms up the planet will exeperience all sorts of extreme weather. That's why no matter what happens, as a climate expert you can claim that whatever is happening weather-wise, is completely in line with your theory that the planet is heating up from man-made causes ('cause it wouldn't heat up naturally because things never change in the universe). So, mini-ice age? Well preposterous unless it really does look like it's going to happen, in which case, models can be adjusted so that it is a complete but _temporary_ manifestation of ... the planet heating up just as the models predict. Yeah! It's good to be a climate scientist because you're never wrong when you follow the party line and models.
Fanatics gotta fanaticize.
What is the use-case for this sort of action? Was a link between hovering and going to a site established? What makes this a 'feature'?
Seriously? Complex curves for the windows, door, sides, interior ...
Why not repurpose a shipping container dumbasses?! Epic fail.
.... a white van with tinted windows so you don't know what's going on inside. Now let's say it does that repeatedly as is certainly the case with the drone.
What would you do?
Call the police? Confront the van and its occupants? Shoot at it?
Seriously, why not have paid for licences (if required) and make the OS software interoperable with commercial systems?
With the added benefit that the result would mean the DOD and VA systems would be compatible !
So instead of putting a convenient outlet on the monitor to efficiently charge your phone ... you now get an inefficient remote charging device spewing more RF in to the atmosphere to inefficiently charge your phone/device _if_ it has the remote charge capability?
In an era worried about the big bugaboo of 'climate change caused by man', we find yet more ways to inefficiently use resources and so contribute to the problem. How ridiculous. So screw it; saturate your home with remote chargers, leave appliances and lights on all the time, get a pool and run the pumps 24/7, turn your A/C on always, and let your car idle when you do your shopping ... and join the others wondering how we can combat climate change.
Yeah, it's only mice. For now.
Clearly bigger brains would, in principle, allow more complex computations. And while it's animals, I guess we're all cool with that (?). But eventually, they might get to a life form that is less ... compliant. So what other options are there? Well, people can be made to do things they don't want.
But maybe this is all going to go away. Organic brains are slow, and maybe it will become apparent that silica (or black phosphorus) is better for high performance computation. Then the whole brainlet thing will be relegated to powering obedient cyborgs ... till they become less obedient.
Maybe that's it. The new dominant life-form will evolve from this. Animal brain collectives will outsmart the mono-brained monkey descendants, and rise as the dominant life-form that makes first contact with the aliens.
From the post: "This is perhaps the first severe accident of this kind in a western factory, and is sparking debate about who is responsible for the accident, ..."
So this (and worse?) has happened in 'Eastern' factories but was just not worth mentioning until now? Likely this is proof of the continued usefulness of labour Unions.
It seems like having to make a trip by car between two cities and trying to decide which type of car to use?
So does it really matter if you choose a Ford, Hyundai, Tesla, Ferrari, Saab, Toyota, etc.? In the final analysis, wouldn\t any of those vehicles get you there just fine? Why not go with what you're comfortable with?
I cannot find the link but in the past two weeks or so, there was an 'Ask Slashdot' by a person wanting to find a way of passing on the info contained in his email history before he left his company. His or her reasons were essentially to pass on his corporate knowledge. The person was mostly derided with "Who cares?" It seems however, that given the keen interest in every company email cull that gets left in Wikileaks (or with some reporter), that companies should have an interest in vetting the emails of departing employees to assess what those emails communicate about the company. It seems likely that those emails to give insights in to the explicit known, and implicit unknown, networks a company has established, as well as the 'view from within, at the employee level' of company health (eg. do the grass roots see the company as a sinking ship, _what_ problems did the employee perceive that went unreported, etc.).
Just deleting the email account of a departing employee, is blindly hoping there are no problems that will come up. Reviewing those emails, might proactively ensure there are no surprises in the company's future.
Might as well use the Farmer's Almanac for all the value those predictions have; what models were used, what assumptions, what is the margin of error, what is worst case/best case?
The danger is that now, more than ever, political and policy decisions will be made that will significantly affect people, all based on a _guess_ of unknown quality. Too depressing for words.
The only people who will be happy with this are those who stand to profit.
Just wondering if the models came with a prediction score or some measure of their accuracy. As with climate predictions, the untold story is that the models are no more accurate than their inputs and the validity of the theories used to create them. You might expect models to come with warnings, but they don't, at least nothing that gets transmitted to the public.
As the world embraces 'big data' and the modeling it spawns, this should be a bit of a lesson. The worry should be: how many times can models be used to 'cry wolf' before people start ignoring them?
A person with such an attitude towards animals, sees humans the same way. He would have to.
Unfortunately, a head needs a donor body, right? ... whom?
And you're not going to take a body banged up in a car accident, disabled, or available due to some disease, right?
So, reasonably, a donor would be
A person with a mental disability?
A person having suffered severe head trauma?
A person with an expected lower standard of living than the recipient head?
Or maybe a clone of the person? Except that, that would require some advance planning, a clone willing to sacrifice, and of course an answer to the question: why not just transfer the consciousness instead of the whole head.
It just seems that such an act of experimental barbarism should have the whole thing clearly thought out.
This is a perfect scam:
a) come up with a seemingly plausible idea obscured by high tech and/or science;
b) get investors to contribute to seeing a prototype created
c) have the prototype fail for any number of plausible reasons
d) profit
e) repeat until the profits cease to be worth the effort
The solar sail is a theoretically flawed idea, as achievable as perpetual motion. But it is a cool, elegant concept ... and people can be convinced to buy in to it. The best part is, nobody outside the scammers can verify success or failure. Perfect ...
"We've got a runner ... release the iHound ... "
... because, yeah, it will have an internet connection (though that isn't part of the patent), and the darling toy will guide the child to the desired consumption protocols. Or more disturbingly, who controls when the microphone and camera are on ... yeah, camera. How did you think it was going to tell when someone was looking at it?
"Ask your parents for another playmate like me. Wouldn't that be fun?"
"Let's go to the living room and see what everyone is watching."
"Do _you_ think your parents are hurting you? _I_ do. I can tell someone if you want."
"If you let me stay in mommy and daddy's bedroom tonight, I will tell you everything I hear."
"Shhh! They're watching us."
Thay are already shaking up the industry, a focus on software might allow them to put the final nail in the coffin.
Small sample size without accounting for age ... and we make a sweeping age-related conclusion.
Seriously ?
Oh! It was optional to provide that info?
... hopefully there are more somewhere out there to finally raise a public voice against the insanity that is geoengineering.
Disregarding the doubtful science/engineering for a moment, just the motivation behind geoengineering seems flawed. Seriously, we want to maintain some sort of agreed upon status quo of climate? What in the entire universe is unchanging? Nothing. So why should our climate somehow be exempt?
There is only one action required by people to 'engineer' the planet sanely: stop being wasteful.
Given the size of the human population, the reality of the requirements for survival, and the reality of human nature, we will always need fossil fuels, factories, massive farming, etc. The problem is that we use our resources with gross inefficiency and thoughtlessness. Curb that tendency and accept that things will always change, and our species will probably do fine.
Yeah ... especially after watching a friend using his stylus on his Galaxy phone and thinking 'plus ca change' ...
Existing tech should have had Whitehouse security standing by (not to mention other layers of the security envelope) but didn't.
The tech was fine, clearly the users of it failed. No measures need to be extended, no new and sweeping permissions are required, no new intrusion tech is required.
What's needed are simply intelligent people paying attention. No bill is going to provide that.
... as this man's actions were hardly a secret, and yet.
The truth is out there in plain sight, no need for super secret privacy invasion.