I don't think the idea of this pill is to make anyone forget anything. The idea is to keep the memory from being implanted in such a way so that the person is damaged an unable to function normally.
The trauma is still there, the initial shock is still there. This is just helping to prevent secondary damage - and that damage may actually be worse than the initial shock.
Why is it that people believe that damage/illness in the brain is so different than "physical" damage/illness. I think it's crazy to tell someone with severe depression, PTSD, or schizophrenia to just "get over it". We typically don't tell people with cancer and diabetes to "get over it" - we try to give them the best treatments possible so that they can live the best life possible.
Why should it be any different in the mental-health arena? Why shouldn't we use every means available to minimize the damage that someone receives from a tramatic event?
I'm sure someone will say that it's easy to fake something like depression so you can be a "victim", get out of work, and get happy-pills. But it's just as easy to fake a bad back, to be a "victim", get out of work, and get happy pills. Is it really so different?
I guess the way I see it, this pill is kind of like emergency first aid. It helps prevent permanent damage after a traumatic event. The memories are still there - the person is just more able to function after the fact.
There's a medication that if given shortly after a stroke occurs can mitigat the permanent damage of the stroke. Should we withhold that medicine so people can experience the full effect of a stroke - and "grow as a person" as they try to overcome that damage? Or if I twist my ankle - should I not put ice on it, but rather experience the full possiblity of pain and suffering that can cause? The ice doesn't get rid of the consequences of whatever I did to twist my ankle - it still hurts - but icing it may reduce the swelling that can cause secondary damage that will take longer to heal. That's all we're talking about here.
if we take away the emotional and psychological damage of rape, does that lighten the charge from rape to assault and battery?
Probably not. If I stab you with a knife trying to kill you, but only manage to land a minor flesh wound, I'd most likely be charged with attempted murder - not just simple assault.
Your comment makes me think of the Turner Diaries.
1. Fast for a first generation, the speed can be increased with more power, and further increased by turning the shaft into a vacuum, eliminating air resistance.
Heck, if you're going to make the shaft a vacuum, why not just make it a pneumatic elevator - kind of like those things at the bank drive-throughs?
The article says that it does not erase memories or prevent the memories. It simply helps keep the memory from becoming a PTSD type memory - where certain stimuli actually cause you to relive the event.
The victim will still have her memory - and would probably be in a better place to accurately recall that memory.
Besides, we already have drugs that will cause blackouts so that someone can rape someone else with them having little or no memory. Just look up "date rape drug".
Would you really want your memory erased with a pill? The emotional stress of a memory is just as important as the events.
The article is dumb by starting out with "make your forget" and then refutes itself by saying that's not what they're doing.
The pill works to help keep the event from causing the kinds of connections that lead to PTSD. You still remember the event and its effects - it's just less likely to lead to PTSD.
PTSD can be very debilitating and I don't think anyone should have to live through that. Soldiers won't come back with no memory of the terrible things they did. They just won't spend the rest of their lives diving for cover when a car backfires - or attacking their wife when they are startled in their sleep.
Nobody lives a richer life because of PTSD. But with their memories of terrible things still intact, people will still be able to reflect, and work for change.
Of course, rape victims will be made victims twice because they will not be able to both use this pill to prevent the psychological damage and be considered a reliable witness. Defense Lawyers will say, just as you have assumed, that her memories were changed and there's no way she could identify her attacker reliably. And gullible people on the jury will go for it. "We can give you this pill that will help you be whole, but you'll have to give up on having a solid prosecution against your attacker." What a choice. Ironically, I would imagine that by reducing the tramatic effect of the attack, the victims memories might actually be more reliable.
Are you saying rape victims should be forced to endure PTSD symptoms for the rest of their lives - just because you think people should have traumatic experience to grow from?
There's a big difference between struggling through difficult situations and thriving and being emtionally and psychologically damaged.
Your logic leads me to believe that maybe we should have government-mandated rape in order to make sure everyone has maximum opportunity to grow as a human being. I hope that's not what you're saying.
Not every computer is networked to the big bad world of the internet.
In meatspace, I don't put deadbolts and chainlocks on every door inside my house. I presume there is not much benefit to it - and in fact it's a hinderance to my mobility within my house. In the computer world, if I don't have my computer hooked up to anything, there's no real security threat or need for a strong root password - if any at all.
Besides, most ways of breaking into a networked computer seem to rely on faults in the OS and sofware, rather than merely hacking the passwords. I'll accept responsiblity for the DOS attach done from my computer sure... but Microsoft better be the lead defendant when it's millions of bot/machines running their hacked OS that's causing the DOS.
How much liablity will you assume if a dreaded terrorist breaks into your house and uses your phone to initiate a dirty-bomb attack on a major city? Do you really believe you should be held liable? What if your front door was unlocked and you just happened to be taking a shit and didn't hear him com in?
I personally prefer the idea that _I_ take responsibility for securing my machine - and likewise have the option of using blank passwords for root if I want to. I'm very aggrevated when the OS has arbitrary restrictions on what I can do. Maybe it would be a good idea to make it non-default, but I should be able to do waht I want with my system.
But that's just me, a whacky liberal/libertarian/meatatarian beer drinker.
The problem with a receipt is that it can then be used to make sure you voted a certain way.
corrupt boss: Joe, have fun voting, and be sure to bring back your receipt so I can know how you voted and decide if I'm going to fire you. Oh yeah, and if you don't have a receipt, I'll fire you.
What I've always thought would be a good idea would be a computer to help generate the ballot, and then a separate computer to count those ballots.
This offers the advantages of multi-language ballots with brail, audio prompts, etc. And the resulting ballot is standardized so it can be read by both machine and human - and no "hanging chads".
The ballots can then be easily counted by another machine - and human validated as necessary.
The ballot-generating computer never needs to "count" - but it could do so as a spot check against the counting computer.
The more I understand, the less I really know. Science has this nasty habit of taking things that make perfect sense, "dirt is a solid", and turn that sense on its head. Eventually, I think scientific advances will bring us all back to the philosophical perspective, "all things are one".
VonSkippy, I'm afraid we have to decline your application for health insurance. We've monitored your travel habits via public cameras and determined that you spend too much time at your local pub. Furthermore, the records from your grocery-rewards cards indicate you purchase foods that are too high in fats and cholestorol.
VonSkippy, I'm afraid we can't offer you a job. From your the records of the license plate tracking system, we see that you spend a significant amount of time at the republican headquarters. Clearly your political activities are not in alignment with those of this corporation.
VonSkippy, I'm afraid we must deny your application for a home mortgage. From tracking your cellphone travel, we see that you are often speed to work because you are late and are likely to lose your job or die in a traffic accident. We cannot assume that risk.
Get the idea? All public information - all things that the casual observer could see. Do you really want it aggregated so it can be used against you?
I don't have a TV with cable (I just watch DVDs). So, a friend of mine introduces me to new shows after we go drinking - he keeps them on his Tivo.
Among some great shows he got me hooked on: The Venture Brothers, Sports Night, Firefly, and Battlestar Galactica.
He's also tried to get me into SG Atlantis, but it just hasn't worked for me. I think part of it is my head saying "oh... ANOTHER SG?"
I can't say much about it - other than watching one episode of it did not hook me in. I didn't find it compelling enough that I just had to watch more of it.
I think what makes Galactica work (at least for me) is that it's really a story about people - how we intereact, and how often we are our own worst enemies.
As for the water issue, it's been brought up before. Let's presume you're in our solar system, and your technology means you could get from Earth to Mars in a few weeks, you're running out of water, and you need enough for 45000 people. I realize that water molecules are pretty abundant in the solar system, but how many places could you get to where you could actually get that water in a potable form and in quantities you need, and in the time you need it? Just because it's everywhere, it's not necessarily useable - reminds me of an old peom... "water water everywhere, but not a drop to drink". Anyway, I thought a weaker part of that episode was that they were just saying how great Galactica's water recycling system was and how they could last so long without replenishment... assuming that they're also figuring in the replenihsing of other ships. Then, after losing half their water, they no longer can replen. What's up with that?
Anyway, Galactica is a good story, with very interesting characters, and puts those characters in very difficult situations. Nobody's all good, or all bad - they're people with good points and bad points. Roslin & Adama might be good leaders, but they both lead based on lies they've told - but presumably for the right reasons. Tigh is an alcoholic hard-ass, but he actually can make good decisions and help out from time to time. Tyrol, in love with someone who turns out to be a cylon, is fundamentally good guy who makes occasionally very flawed decisions.
And let's not forget the hot women. There's not a woman on that show that I wouldn't mind some one-on-one time with. But even with that, they're not just window dressing. They are strong, different, and play vital roles.
It's gritty, edgy, and a world with no easy-to-see right and wrong. It's everything that Star Trek is not (and I loved Star Trek).
I won't try to convince you that you should like it. But, I think there's a lot there - and it has a lot of things I like to see in a story. It sucked me right in.
I know not many of you actual RTFA, but that article was so damned annoying. There's a table in there - think it's to compare compression schemes? nope - it's for processors. There are red links.. article related? Nope - ad links. Blue underlined links - yup, for more ads.
I agree with the internet being more ubiquitous and more mainstream. But I wouldn't post numbers messages. Instead, I'd embed the messages as static in images - almost like watermarking - maybe posted to usenet. That way, it's easy to send & recieve, and most people wouldn't even notice that there's messages in the images.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the idea of this pill is to make anyone forget anything. The idea is to keep the memory from being implanted in such a way so that the person is damaged an unable to function normally.
The trauma is still there, the initial shock is still there. This is just helping to prevent secondary damage - and that damage may actually be worse than the initial shock.
Why is it that people believe that damage/illness in the brain is so different than "physical" damage/illness. I think it's crazy to tell someone with severe depression, PTSD, or schizophrenia to just "get over it". We typically don't tell people with cancer and diabetes to "get over it" - we try to give them the best treatments possible so that they can live the best life possible.
Why should it be any different in the mental-health arena? Why shouldn't we use every means available to minimize the damage that someone receives from a tramatic event?
I'm sure someone will say that it's easy to fake something like depression so you can be a "victim", get out of work, and get happy-pills. But it's just as easy to fake a bad back, to be a "victim", get out of work, and get happy pills. Is it really so different?
I guess the way I see it, this pill is kind of like emergency first aid. It helps prevent permanent damage after a traumatic event. The memories are still there - the person is just more able to function after the fact.
There's a medication that if given shortly after a stroke occurs can mitigat the permanent damage of the stroke. Should we withhold that medicine so people can experience the full effect of a stroke - and "grow as a person" as they try to overcome that damage? Or if I twist my ankle - should I not put ice on it, but rather experience the full possiblity of pain and suffering that can cause? The ice doesn't get rid of the consequences of whatever I did to twist my ankle - it still hurts - but icing it may reduce the swelling that can cause secondary damage that will take longer to heal. That's all we're talking about here.
if we take away the emotional and psychological damage of rape, does that lighten the charge from rape
to assault and battery?
Probably not. If I stab you with a knife trying to kill you, but only manage to land a minor flesh wound, I'd most likely be charged with attempted murder - not just simple assault.
Your comment makes me think of the Turner Diaries.
Reasons I think your wrong
1. Fast for a first generation, the speed can be increased with more power, and further increased by turning the shaft into a vacuum, eliminating air resistance.
Heck, if you're going to make the shaft a vacuum, why not just make it a pneumatic elevator - kind of like those things at the bank drive-throughs?
The article says that it does not erase memories or prevent the memories. It simply helps keep the memory from becoming a PTSD type memory - where certain stimuli actually cause you to relive the event.
The victim will still have her memory - and would probably be in a better place to accurately recall that memory.
Besides, we already have drugs that will cause blackouts so that someone can rape someone else with them having little or no memory. Just look up "date rape drug".
Would you really want your memory erased with a pill? The emotional stress of a memory is just as important as the events.
The article is dumb by starting out with "make your forget" and then refutes itself by saying that's not what they're doing.
The pill works to help keep the event from causing the kinds of connections that lead to PTSD. You still remember the event and its effects - it's just less likely to lead to PTSD.
PTSD can be very debilitating and I don't think anyone should have to live through that. Soldiers won't come back with no memory of the terrible things they did. They just won't spend the rest of their lives diving for cover when a car backfires - or attacking their wife when they are startled in their sleep.
Nobody lives a richer life because of PTSD. But with their memories of terrible things still intact, people will still be able to reflect, and work for change.
Of course, rape victims will be made victims twice because they will not be able to both use this pill to prevent the psychological damage and be considered a reliable witness. Defense Lawyers will say, just as you have assumed, that her memories were changed and there's no way she could identify her attacker reliably. And gullible people on the jury will go for it. "We can give you this pill that will help you be whole, but you'll have to give up on having a solid prosecution against your attacker." What a choice. Ironically, I would imagine that by reducing the tramatic effect of the attack, the victims memories might actually be more reliable.
Are you saying rape victims should be forced to endure PTSD symptoms for the rest of their lives - just because you think people should have traumatic experience to grow from?
There's a big difference between struggling through difficult situations and thriving and being emtionally and psychologically damaged.
Your logic leads me to believe that maybe we should have government-mandated rape in order to make sure everyone has maximum opportunity to grow as a human being. I hope that's not what you're saying.
And that's most likely because people have historically beaten the crap out of the button repeatedly. It's like self-reinforcing bad behavior.
Not every computer is networked to the big bad world of the internet.
In meatspace, I don't put deadbolts and chainlocks on every door inside my house. I presume there is not much benefit to it - and in fact it's a hinderance to my mobility within my house. In the computer world, if I don't have my computer hooked up to anything, there's no real security threat or need for a strong root password - if any at all.
Besides, most ways of breaking into a networked computer seem to rely on faults in the OS and sofware, rather than merely hacking the passwords. I'll accept responsiblity for the DOS attach done from my computer sure... but Microsoft better be the lead defendant when it's millions of bot/machines running their hacked OS that's causing the DOS.
How much liablity will you assume if a dreaded terrorist breaks into your house and uses your phone to initiate a dirty-bomb attack on a major city? Do you really believe you should be held liable? What if your front door was unlocked and you just happened to be taking a shit and didn't hear him com in?
Unix/Linux allows blank root passwords too.
I personally prefer the idea that _I_ take responsibility for securing my machine - and likewise have the option of using blank passwords for root if I want to. I'm very aggrevated when the OS has arbitrary restrictions on what I can do. Maybe it would be a good idea to make it non-default, but I should be able to do waht I want with my system.
But that's just me, a whacky liberal/libertarian/meatatarian beer drinker.
I actually liked fvwm. I don't need fading menus and shadowed windows to get my work done. Sometimes simpler is better.
Or does that make me a luddite?
I'm sure you could write some kind of "scripts" that that you could pipe into debug to generate webpages server-side.
I prefer to use debug myself. It's a great tool for all the flexibility you could ever want. If it's not available, edlin is always a nice choice.
The problem with a receipt is that it can then be used to make sure you voted a certain way.
corrupt boss: Joe, have fun voting, and be sure to bring back your receipt so I can know how you voted and decide if I'm going to fire you. Oh yeah, and if you don't have a receipt, I'll fire you.
What I've always thought would be a good idea would be a computer to help generate the ballot, and then a separate computer to count those ballots.
This offers the advantages of multi-language ballots with brail, audio prompts, etc. And the resulting ballot is standardized so it can be read by both machine and human - and no "hanging chads".
The ballots can then be easily counted by another machine - and human validated as necessary.
The ballot-generating computer never needs to "count" - but it could do so as a spot check against the counting computer.
It's the new interpretation of the 1st Ammendment. The founders actually intended media to be free as in beer, not free as in speech.
But dirt isn't a liquid"
a in.html
Ahh... but it can be: http://www.ce.washington.edu/~liquefaction/html/m
The more I understand, the less I really know. Science has this nasty habit of taking things that make perfect sense, "dirt is a solid", and turn that sense on its head. Eventually, I think scientific advances will bring us all back to the philosophical perspective, "all things are one".
And apparently posting anonymously will still "undo" your moderations. Fuck.
Wow... and now it's making me wait several minutes to post this...
Consider these scenarios:
VonSkippy, I'm afraid we have to decline your application for health insurance. We've monitored your travel habits via public cameras and determined that you spend too much time at your local pub. Furthermore, the records from your grocery-rewards cards indicate you purchase foods that are too high in fats and cholestorol.
VonSkippy, I'm afraid we can't offer you a job. From your the records of the license plate tracking system, we see that you spend a significant amount of time at the republican headquarters. Clearly your political activities are not in alignment with those of this corporation.
VonSkippy, I'm afraid we must deny your application for a home mortgage. From tracking your cellphone travel, we see that you are often speed to work because you are late and are likely to lose your job or die in a traffic accident. We cannot assume that risk.
Get the idea? All public information - all things that the casual observer could see. Do you really want it aggregated so it can be used against you?
Oh yeah...
I don't have a TV with cable (I just watch DVDs). So, a friend of mine introduces me to new shows after we go drinking - he keeps them on his Tivo.
Among some great shows he got me hooked on: The Venture Brothers, Sports Night, Firefly, and Battlestar Galactica.
He's also tried to get me into SG Atlantis, but it just hasn't worked for me. I think part of it is my head saying "oh... ANOTHER SG?"
I can't say much about it - other than watching one episode of it did not hook me in. I didn't find it compelling enough that I just had to watch more of it.
I think what makes Galactica work (at least for me) is that it's really a story about people - how we intereact, and how often we are our own worst enemies.
... "water water everywhere, but not a drop to drink". Anyway, I thought a weaker part of that episode was that they were just saying how great Galactica's water recycling system was and how they could last so long without replenishment... assuming that they're also figuring in the replenihsing of other ships. Then, after losing half their water, they no longer can replen. What's up with that?
As for the water issue, it's been brought up before. Let's presume you're in our solar system, and your technology means you could get from Earth to Mars in a few weeks, you're running out of water, and you need enough for 45000 people. I realize that water molecules are pretty abundant in the solar system, but how many places could you get to where you could actually get that water in a potable form and in quantities you need, and in the time you need it? Just because it's everywhere, it's not necessarily useable - reminds me of an old peom
Anyway, Galactica is a good story, with very interesting characters, and puts those characters in very difficult situations. Nobody's all good, or all bad - they're people with good points and bad points. Roslin & Adama might be good leaders, but they both lead based on lies they've told - but presumably for the right reasons. Tigh is an alcoholic hard-ass, but he actually can make good decisions and help out from time to time. Tyrol, in love with someone who turns out to be a cylon, is fundamentally good guy who makes occasionally very flawed decisions.
And let's not forget the hot women. There's not a woman on that show that I wouldn't mind some one-on-one time with. But even with that, they're not just window dressing. They are strong, different, and play vital roles.
It's gritty, edgy, and a world with no easy-to-see right and wrong. It's everything that Star Trek is not (and I loved Star Trek).
I won't try to convince you that you should like it. But, I think there's a lot there - and it has a lot of things I like to see in a story. It sucked me right in.
I know not many of you actual RTFA, but that article was so damned annoying. There's a table in there - think it's to compare compression schemes? nope - it's for processors. There are red links.. article related? Nope - ad links. Blue underlined links - yup, for more ads.
What a steaming pile of shit. Happy new year.
I agree with the internet being more ubiquitous and more mainstream. But I wouldn't post numbers messages. Instead, I'd embed the messages as static in images - almost like watermarking - maybe posted to usenet. That way, it's easy to send & recieve, and most people wouldn't even notice that there's messages in the images.
One way to be sure it to see if they've been buying... err... uhh... lobbying congressmen to get this passed.
The company that's been doing that will most likely be the one that has a solution waiting in the wings.
And THAT's why we don't want to give Haliburton the Mars contracts too...