We've got one of these planet-sized computers already; it can accurately predict within a precise interval the position of molecules one day in advance in just 24 hours!
Re:My 2 cents (or 4 cents Australian)
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
I do appreciate your sentiments, however, on another note, I would rather that you had not used the same poem that Timothy McVeigh did on his way out...
Re:One approach: Undermine them
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
I do really like this as an approach, but the way these things seem to work, here's how I read the response:
"The devils of the west are trying their best to seduce God's people from the true path. Those who succumb are heretics, and enemies of God."
Add a bit of infighting, and the U.S. looks more "evil" for it's "deviousness"
All of that aside, it'd be tough to convince investors that subsidizing the citizens of Iraq et al. is the way to go (never mind the problem of sending aid; Somalia is a good example of how foreign aid is distributed)
Re:What can be done? Nothing.
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
Good point; let's legalize murder, too. That way, people will realize that it's an empty gesture and just give up on it.
While this approach worked for civil rights in the US, is the proportional number of abuses and casualties acceptable? Perhaps, in the long run it would end terrorism, however, that end will be the generation of nations that follows ours, which would be buried as surely as Rome was sacked.
Another point. You would have the elected representatives of the United States defect against what seems to be the will of the people. This itself is an affront to civil liberty, a turn towards dictatorship.
There is no static response. Business as usual is an affront to the government by representation. The only solution would be for Americans to decide by majority that no retaliation was necessary - I'm not going to bother trying to guess the odds on that one.
I understand the points that you have made, as I too agree that I believe I would attempt to resist in this situation.
That disclaimer aside, I would like to plead that it's nearly impossible to comprehend the mindset that a victim would be in in this situation. It's likely that, in most cases, some sort of authority syndrome would occur, and the victims would hope that by "being good" they would avert their own immenent death, keeping in mind that reports seem to indicate that many had witnessed flight attendants stabbed to death
Most people had heard news of suicide attackers long before this event, however, I contend that few (outside of the regions most afflicted by this type of violence) actually comprehend this behavior, or think it likely. Most of the victims on planes would probably have rather tried their luck with a 'crazy hijacker' flying the plane, rather than untrained individuals from their own ranks, under the assumption that the hijackers are not necessarily likely to sacrifice the entire jet
Putting questions of blame aside for a (very brief) moment, I would like to mention that I've always found it interesting to substitute "Emmanuel Goldstein" for "Osama bin Ladin" in all news stories
Just what I've always wanted, especially given the recent attention to 'air rage' among passengers (just do a search on CNN for 'air rage' to see what I mean).
Imagine this situation: A person gets on a plane with a gun legally. He/she gets drunk and agitated and brandishes said gun - another law abiding citizen packing heat decides to be the hero who puts down the former person with his/her own weapon. Escalation ensues, and possible outcomes are one to all passengers/crew dead. But at least they could all defend themselves...
Sounds good; are you intending to live forever? Imagine the number of relational experiences of the causal interaction or inferential form you take part in each day. Now, imagine the fact that all of these have some form of uncertainty that can lead up to an infinite number of possible effects with different degrees of likelyhood...
I don't believe the length of time that the human species will exist will be equal to this task under this formulation
I agree with your statement about 'horse power'; when people think about A.I., they tend to examine all of the thoughts that go on in their head, and assume that, because induction and hypothesis forming occur so quickly there, it must be similar in computing.
The problem is, often, these procedures are NP-complete in our current understanding of decision making, as they typically have to be solved using search methods on a possibly infinite search space. While massive parallelism and limited knowledge serve to speed up our decision processes, serialism (or very limited parallelism) limits the ability to compute these in a simulated environment. On top of this, limited knowledge and uncertainty raise the computation complexity in a computer; this is why seeing systems that aren't built for a very specific application will take several generations at minimum (barring any huge breakthroughs...)
The human approach to recreating itself is very likely to always require many hardwired concepts; therefore, the creator of such a hypothetical system will have the role of genetic predecessor, except with the alternative of choosing the ontology of his/her choice. Therefore, the entity will be a reflection of the attitudes of the programmers
Slashdot Mirror
We've got one of these planet-sized computers already; it can accurately predict within a precise interval the position of molecules one day in advance in just 24 hours!
I do appreciate your sentiments, however, on another note, I would rather that you had not used the same poem that Timothy McVeigh did on his way out...
I do really like this as an approach, but the way these things seem to work, here's how I read the response:
"The devils of the west are trying their best to seduce God's people from the true path. Those who succumb are heretics, and enemies of God."
Add a bit of infighting, and the U.S. looks more "evil" for it's "deviousness"
All of that aside, it'd be tough to convince investors that subsidizing the citizens of Iraq et al. is the way to go (never mind the problem of sending aid; Somalia is a good example of how foreign aid is distributed)
Good point; let's legalize murder, too. That way, people will realize that it's an empty gesture and just give up on it.
While this approach worked for civil rights in the US, is the proportional number of abuses and casualties acceptable? Perhaps, in the long run it would end terrorism, however, that end will be the generation of nations that follows ours, which would be buried as surely as Rome was sacked.
Another point. You would have the elected representatives of the United States defect against what seems to be the will of the people. This itself is an affront to civil liberty, a turn towards dictatorship.
There is no static response. Business as usual is an affront to the government by representation. The only solution would be for Americans to decide by majority that no retaliation was necessary - I'm not going to bother trying to guess the odds on that one.
Considering that Stern is likely to be looking for fanatics at all times, this is not too surprising.
I understand the points that you have made, as I too agree that I believe I would attempt to resist in this situation.
That disclaimer aside, I would like to plead that it's nearly impossible to comprehend the mindset that a victim would be in in this situation. It's likely that, in most cases, some sort of authority syndrome would occur, and the victims would hope that by "being good" they would avert their own immenent death, keeping in mind that reports seem to indicate that many had witnessed flight attendants stabbed to death
Most people had heard news of suicide attackers long before this event, however, I contend that few (outside of the regions most afflicted by this type of violence) actually comprehend this behavior, or think it likely. Most of the victims on planes would probably have rather tried their luck with a 'crazy hijacker' flying the plane, rather than untrained individuals from their own ranks, under the assumption that the hijackers are not necessarily likely to sacrifice the entire jet
Putting questions of blame aside for a (very brief) moment, I would like to mention that I've always found it interesting to substitute "Emmanuel Goldstein" for "Osama bin Ladin" in all news stories
Just what I've always wanted, especially given the recent attention to 'air rage' among passengers (just do a search on CNN for 'air rage' to see what I mean).
Imagine this situation: A person gets on a plane with a gun legally. He/she gets drunk and agitated and brandishes said gun - another law abiding citizen packing heat decides to be the hero who puts down the former person with his/her own weapon. Escalation ensues, and possible outcomes are one to all passengers/crew dead. But at least they could all defend themselves...
Sounds good; are you intending to live forever? Imagine the number of relational experiences of the causal interaction or inferential form you take part in each day. Now, imagine the fact that all of these have some form of uncertainty that can lead up to an infinite number of possible effects with different degrees of likelyhood...
I don't believe the length of time that the human species will exist will be equal to this task under this formulation
I agree with your statement about 'horse power'; when people think about A.I., they tend to examine all of the thoughts that go on in their head, and assume that, because induction and hypothesis forming occur so quickly there, it must be similar in computing.
The problem is, often, these procedures are NP-complete in our current understanding of decision making, as they typically have to be solved using search methods on a possibly infinite search space. While massive parallelism and limited knowledge serve to speed up our decision processes, serialism (or very limited parallelism) limits the ability to compute these in a simulated environment. On top of this, limited knowledge and uncertainty raise the computation complexity in a computer; this is why seeing systems that aren't built for a very specific application will take several generations at minimum (barring any huge breakthroughs...)
Depends on the programmers
The human approach to recreating itself is very likely to always require many hardwired concepts; therefore, the creator of such a hypothetical system will have the role of genetic predecessor, except with the alternative of choosing the ontology of his/her choice. Therefore, the entity will be a reflection of the attitudes of the programmers