What are you talking about? The U.S. has a missle shield advanced enough to handle all of Russia's nukes thrown at us (although maybe not at the same time, heh). You think all these tests and whatnot that are made public are evident of the current status of missile shield technology? Hah! Gimme a break! The U.S. [government, military, etc] uses extremely advanced technology for as long as possible until it is evident to the outside world that the technology is present and the U.S. is using it. Remember that little 1972 ABM treaty? What do you think the U.S. government did the day after that treaty was signed? Any appropriate division immediately began work on missile defense shields the next day. The Russians did the same thing. The only reason we broke the treaty first was because we developed the necessary technology quicker to begin tests sooner, and eventually exposing ourselves after the technology had been tested again and again. After thirty years, I'm sure we have a fairly sophisticated missile defense system. Especially if you recognize the latest releases about moving certain systems such as lasers into the ground forces and onto more general air defense systems. You think the F-117, SR-71, and B-2 all flew their maiden voyages the day their presence was released to the public? Hah! They had been in service for several years under top secret programs before that. I'm fairly confident that within the next 5 to 10 years, the U.S. government will unveil its fully operational 99.9% fail-proof missile-shield defense system after it has been put through its paces in actual deployment around the U.S.
But once get past this third dimension data storage and try to move into fourth dimension, time, data storage, then we will need time machines to access that data. You know that word document you saved that you were supposed to send to your boss but didn't? Well now, in order to get it back before you are fired, you have to travel back in time. Fourth dimensional storage is extremely far off, that is if time travel even is possible.
Um, 100 miles away? Have you ever experienced a Windows crash... when it crashes, it crashes hard, and geez, what crashes. If I knew of a nuclear reactor that operated under Windows, I would move to a different continent. I just hope there aren't six or more reactors operating under Windows, else I would have to move to Antarctica probably.
Um, "$9.95 (yeah, right)"... $9.95, yep, right. Thousands of places offer this kind of deal, and people take it because they pretty much know they will always want internet access and will want to save as much money as possible.
As pointed out in many of the various replies under this thread, ISPs make tons of money. Perhaps they aren't making as much money as they could in other sectors, so their economic profit is negative, but their accounting profit is through the roof. Sure, a tiered bandwidth plan is justified for the small percentage of users that use a large percentage of bandwidth, but that is not to evidence that the ISPs are going broke or anything, it's entirely the opposite in fact.
Used CDs are exchanged/sold between friends, co-workers, fellow students, etc. Sure, a used store makes it easy to find things, but a large portion of the exchange of used CDs goes on unseen.
If something along these lines were implemented to increase used CD sales, I would propose a sort of P2P network of people to exchange used CDs with the same sort of selection. Similar to an eBay system, the network would simply deal with used CDs. All that needs to be done is connect someone who wants a particular CD with someone who wouldn't mind selling the particular CD, and bam, the used CD store is eliminated from the equation, and the RIAA can't get in the way.
Although a calc 2 class isn't all that hardcore, I'm willing to bet some people felt like it killed them. In calc 2, you do approximations and analysis by numerical methods. Creating Taylor polynomials from a set of data, etc. Although this can be a simple process if the data lends itself to be, it can also become quite complicated very quickly. You may also use some calculator integration programs in order to approximate difficult improper integrals with easier integrals to a certain error percentage.
Exactly, the calculator/PDA is a tool, not a solution. For my differential equations class, we can use maple and whatever calculator we want on our homework, but are encouraged to just use it as a tool for checking answers and gaining clues (although even that is rare). Because when the test comes, you get to sit in the middle of a classroom with no computers, no calculators, no PDAs, nothing but ur brain which actually gives you the solutions. The same thing went for quite a few of the tests in my other math classes so far - calc 1 (although I took it in high school), calc 2, linear algebra, multivariable calc, etc. You have to be able to think on your feet anyhow, anyone can learn how to use a system and memorize techniques for using the system in order to spit out solutions, but it takes someone that understands the subject to move ahead and really be productive.
The only problem with that is during a test, do you need to access your PDA? If it is some sort of basic economics class, and you are adding 10, 5, and 6 to find some sort of profit, do you really need a PDA? If 95% of the class nevers looks at their PDA or calculator and some kid is looking at his for the entire test, I would imagine some suspicion would arise. Even on math tests you typically don't look at your calculator throughout the whole thing. Maybe for a calculus class, you might need to do some integration approximations on your calculator, but it isn't anything that you should be using your calculator for 100% of the time. If the prof just pays attention during the tests, they'll be able to notice these sorts of things. And just to keep everything clean, profs can even restrict calculator use for portions of the test. If you have a 2 question test, and you can use your calculator on question 2, but not question 1, and as soon as you give someone a test they pull out their calculator without flipping the page or anything... well, you can guess what's going on. There are all sorts of various semantics that can be used within the test procedure to limit unfair advantages and cheating.
If you do run a server that people access regularly, or are in charge of computer caches, etc, and you run these personally without PHBs, then just be kind and delete the data that can be requested from you. An agency demands a log of IPs that have accessed your server(s)? Tell them that you clear your logs every so often (6, 12, 24 hours?) and that you don't have the information that they are requesting anymore. They demand a list of URLs visited by your family/friends/clients who use some of your computers? Tell them that you clear caches, history settings, etc, quite often and that the data they request is gone. Sure this won't keep the government out of every last bit of people's lives, but it'll prevent some privacy leaks, and it'll provide a bit of anonymity since a semi-public work station that is available to family and friends will not be able to link other collected data to the individual person that requested it.
Some people may be grousing about what's the big deal? If you aren't attempting or researching criminal activities, you won't be targeted. Besides certain freedoms that people would like to preserve, what if someone is in a chemistry class and wants to examine the structure of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene... well looks like they must be a terrorist since the URL data indicates that they were surfing sites about TNT, oh no. There are a million other examples like this, and we don't want to be questioned every time we take an interest in a government/security-sensitive subject.
Almost already being done. Check out this family that decided to have chip implants put into everyone. Sure, it may only contain certain medical data and whatnot currently, but how much would you be betting to wager that when one of the kids becomes lost, the designers don't inform the parents of the "hidden tracking feature"?
We have everyone means to do the exact same thing with humans as we are doing with animals, and with quite an amount of ease. The only barrier is on the enforcement end of things, trying to get people to take the implants (if they haven't gassed us all and given us them anyhow, lol) and keep them without hassle (i.e. tearing at your own skin:\).
It's a Pentium-equivalent naming scheme. Since typically AMD chips are more efficient with the use of their cycles, an AMD chip can accomplish more in 100 cycles than a Pentium chip can accomplish in 100 cycles. Lets say that the AMD chip gets 100 units of work done in 50 cycles, while the Pentium chip only gets 50 units of work done in 50 cycles. In order for them both to get 50 units of work done per second, AMD only needs to produce a chip that operates at 25 cycles per second, while Intel needs to produce a chip that operates at 50 cycles per second. However, a lot of people don't understand that the AMD chip uses the cycles more efficiently and simply think "Oh, the Pentium operates at 50 cycles per second and the AMD operates at 25 cycles per second, 50 is more than 25, so the Pentium is better" (even though they both accomplish the same exact amount of work. So to counter this uninformed behaviour, AMD decided to use a rating system to sell their chips instead of simply using the cycles per second (Hz) that their chips operate at to sell the chips. The rating system does closely resemble a Hz rating, but they are using it as a Pentium-relative measurement to how much work they get done, saying that "Even though this chip only operates at 25 cycles per second, it gets 50 units of work done. The pentium operates at 50 cycles per second, and it gets 50 units of work done. We are losing sales as a result of the uninformed public, so instead of rating our chip as 25 Hz and having people think it is inferior to to the 50 Hz Pentium, we will rate our chip with the number 50 (which is not the cycles per second of the chip, is not false advertising, but may seem deceptive to some (I tend to agree with AMD's rating system, but I look at benchmarks anyhow)) and show that it is equivalent to the Pentium chip."
That really is a fault early in the system, because the number of characteristics present to be analyzed is quite small. I'm not sure exactly how they designed the language, but it most likely (if not, should probably) require a certain percentage of characterstics to be identical for a link of that type to be recognized. Basically, we have:
- Humans are intelligent
in the databse. An analysis of the database would conclude that anything with the sole characteristic of being intelligent is human because their characteristics match the characteristics of humans 100%. Should the program have added 99 more human characteristics that didn't belong to Cyc, and then inputted that Cyc is intelligent, Cyc most likely wouldn't have asked if Cyc was human, because the characteristic match between Cyc and humans would only be 1%. This then begs the question, what percentage match is necessary to draw links? And should certain characteristics be weighted heavier than others? (i.e. John lives in the U.S., Mike lives in the U.S. - are they related? versus John lives in a house at 555 Main St in Seattle, WA and Mike lives in a house at 555 Main St in Seattle, WA - are they related? - obviously the second set of characteristics tend to indicate with a higher degree that John and Mike are related (although they aren't necessarily))
Should they have spent 3 years inputting information about humans, and then 3 years inputting information about Cyc, I am sure Cyc would have not asked if Cyc was human.
I could see this as being an all-in-one justice system in the extreme long run (I'm talking futuristic phobias here, i.e. 1984, Judge Dredd, that one episode of Max Headroom, etc). Imagine if this system gained enough information about criminal behaviours, methods of criminal activities, and just a general knowledge of anything dealing with solving crimes - forensics, scheduling (i.e. witness A saw defendant at point A at time A, and witness B saw defendant at point B at time B, considering bus schedules, speed limits, train schedules, etc, is it possible for this person to travel this route), even psychological analysis such as brain chemistry and past behaviours. This could evolve into being a one stop shop for all your justice needs. Commit a crime, send out the Gestapo-equivalent to collect all of the evidence quickly, submit it to the system, and ask for a ruling. Politicians could easily argue that this does not violate our right to a trial by a jury of our peers since the system's knowledge came from all sorts of different people that live among us, the system's knowledge and ruling will be based upon what our peers think.
Fast forward even further, and with all of the advances in robot technology, further advances in the Cyc technology, etc, we suddenly have roaming robotic law enforcers that seek out the criminals themselves, collect all evidence themselves, and give rulings on the spot (talk about a speedy trial). This Judge Dredd situation could be quite viable. As the technology improves even more, with the advances in criminal behaviour and psychological analysis, we can easily recognize patterns of criminal activites and would be able to predict crimes with a good percentage rate. Develop the tech even more to achieve a 99.9% correct prediction rate, and bam, there is our automatic justice system. Now we're living in the Minority Report age. Learn to hack the system somehow, and have that guy who gave you the finger on the highway arrested as soon as he gets home. Nevermind that he didn't break the law, he just pissed off some guy with enough knowledge to get him n trouble. Sure, in the beginning, all judgements may be reviewed to determine validity, but sooner or later there will be more and more judgements and enough trust in the system, that 99.9% of the judgements will not be reviewed.
This may be far fetched, and quite some time down the road, but imagine it and you'll find yourself in a scary situation. Extrapolate the previous advances in our knowledge and technology, and you'll find that a situation like this isn't necessarily unlikely to come upon us.
Ah yes, thanks. After reading every C&H strip several times over, and watching every Simpsons episode several times over, things start to get mushed together, heh.
All of the access lines should be in the public domain, property of everyone, since content access (internet, phone, etc) is almost becoming a necessity any more. The situation is quite similar to roads. Everyone needs to use roads, and if they need to get to some specific area, someone's house, a local business, they shouldn't be barred from doing so because the road systems are privately monopolized. People need to access information and get online, and their access should not be based on how much a few private companies want to charge them to use the system to get to the information. Now, this isn't to say that the government should take complete control over all access lines, as they would go into disrepair just as many of our roads have, but the government should have complete control over the lines, and should allow anyone access to them should they wish to provide a service over them.
I would say that is prolly for the better for everyone, since we will be able to reach more people with more information. Perhaps this will help in the human rights debates that have been rampant in China over the past years.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about? The U.S. has a missle shield advanced enough to handle all of Russia's nukes thrown at us (although maybe not at the same time, heh). You think all these tests and whatnot that are made public are evident of the current status of missile shield technology? Hah! Gimme a break! The U.S. [government, military, etc] uses extremely advanced technology for as long as possible until it is evident to the outside world that the technology is present and the U.S. is using it. Remember that little 1972 ABM treaty? What do you think the U.S. government did the day after that treaty was signed? Any appropriate division immediately began work on missile defense shields the next day. The Russians did the same thing. The only reason we broke the treaty first was because we developed the necessary technology quicker to begin tests sooner, and eventually exposing ourselves after the technology had been tested again and again. After thirty years, I'm sure we have a fairly sophisticated missile defense system. Especially if you recognize the latest releases about moving certain systems such as lasers into the ground forces and onto more general air defense systems. You think the F-117, SR-71, and B-2 all flew their maiden voyages the day their presence was released to the public? Hah! They had been in service for several years under top secret programs before that. I'm fairly confident that within the next 5 to 10 years, the U.S. government will unveil its fully operational 99.9% fail-proof missile-shield defense system after it has been put through its paces in actual deployment around the U.S.
But once get past this third dimension data storage and try to move into fourth dimension, time, data storage, then we will need time machines to access that data. You know that word document you saved that you were supposed to send to your boss but didn't? Well now, in order to get it back before you are fired, you have to travel back in time. Fourth dimensional storage is extremely far off, that is if time travel even is possible.
Um, 100 miles away? Have you ever experienced a Windows crash... when it crashes, it crashes hard, and geez, what crashes. If I knew of a nuclear reactor that operated under Windows, I would move to a different continent. I just hope there aren't six or more reactors operating under Windows, else I would have to move to Antarctica probably.
Um, "$9.95 (yeah, right)"
As pointed out in many of the various replies under this thread, ISPs make tons of money. Perhaps they aren't making as much money as they could in other sectors, so their economic profit is negative, but their accounting profit is through the roof. Sure, a tiered bandwidth plan is justified for the small percentage of users that use a large percentage of bandwidth, but that is not to evidence that the ISPs are going broke or anything, it's entirely the opposite in fact.
Used CDs are exchanged/sold between friends, co-workers, fellow students, etc. Sure, a used store makes it easy to find things, but a large portion of the exchange of used CDs goes on unseen.
If something along these lines were implemented to increase used CD sales, I would propose a sort of P2P network of people to exchange used CDs with the same sort of selection. Similar to an eBay system, the network would simply deal with used CDs. All that needs to be done is connect someone who wants a particular CD with someone who wouldn't mind selling the particular CD, and bam, the used CD store is eliminated from the equation, and the RIAA can't get in the way.
but if it only affects a service that would have been switched off already if you followed instructions
Why is it on in the first place then?
Although a calc 2 class isn't all that hardcore, I'm willing to bet some people felt like it killed them. In calc 2, you do approximations and analysis by numerical methods. Creating Taylor polynomials from a set of data, etc. Although this can be a simple process if the data lends itself to be, it can also become quite complicated very quickly. You may also use some calculator integration programs in order to approximate difficult improper integrals with easier integrals to a certain error percentage.
Exactly, the calculator/PDA is a tool, not a solution. For my differential equations class, we can use maple and whatever calculator we want on our homework, but are encouraged to just use it as a tool for checking answers and gaining clues (although even that is rare). Because when the test comes, you get to sit in the middle of a classroom with no computers, no calculators, no PDAs, nothing but ur brain which actually gives you the solutions. The same thing went for quite a few of the tests in my other math classes so far - calc 1 (although I took it in high school), calc 2, linear algebra, multivariable calc, etc. You have to be able to think on your feet anyhow, anyone can learn how to use a system and memorize techniques for using the system in order to spit out solutions, but it takes someone that understands the subject to move ahead and really be productive.
The only problem with that is during a test, do you need to access your PDA? If it is some sort of basic economics class, and you are adding 10, 5, and 6 to find some sort of profit, do you really need a PDA? If 95% of the class nevers looks at their PDA or calculator and some kid is looking at his for the entire test, I would imagine some suspicion would arise. Even on math tests you typically don't look at your calculator throughout the whole thing. Maybe for a calculus class, you might need to do some integration approximations on your calculator, but it isn't anything that you should be using your calculator for 100% of the time. If the prof just pays attention during the tests, they'll be able to notice these sorts of things. And just to keep everything clean, profs can even restrict calculator use for portions of the test. If you have a 2 question test, and you can use your calculator on question 2, but not question 1, and as soon as you give someone a test they pull out their calculator without flipping the page or anything... well, you can guess what's going on. There are all sorts of various semantics that can be used within the test procedure to limit unfair advantages and cheating.
If you do run a server that people access regularly, or are in charge of computer caches, etc, and you run these personally without PHBs, then just be kind and delete the data that can be requested from you. An agency demands a log of IPs that have accessed your server(s)? Tell them that you clear your logs every so often (6, 12, 24 hours?) and that you don't have the information that they are requesting anymore. They demand a list of URLs visited by your family/friends/clients who use some of your computers? Tell them that you clear caches, history settings, etc, quite often and that the data they request is gone. Sure this won't keep the government out of every last bit of people's lives, but it'll prevent some privacy leaks, and it'll provide a bit of anonymity since a semi-public work station that is available to family and friends will not be able to link other collected data to the individual person that requested it.
Some people may be grousing about what's the big deal? If you aren't attempting or researching criminal activities, you won't be targeted. Besides certain freedoms that people would like to preserve, what if someone is in a chemistry class and wants to examine the structure of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene... well looks like they must be a terrorist since the URL data indicates that they were surfing sites about TNT, oh no. There are a million other examples like this, and we don't want to be questioned every time we take an interest in a government/security-sensitive subject.
Almost already being done. Check out this family that decided to have chip implants put into everyone. Sure, it may only contain certain medical data and whatnot currently, but how much would you be betting to wager that when one of the kids becomes lost, the designers don't inform the parents of the "hidden tracking feature"?
We have everyone means to do the exact same thing with humans as we are doing with animals, and with quite an amount of ease. The only barrier is on the enforcement end of things, trying to get people to take the implants (if they haven't gassed us all and given us them anyhow, lol) and keep them without hassle (i.e. tearing at your own skin
Lunar Eclipse - When the Moon passes into the Earth's shadow that is caused by the sun.
Solar Eclipse - When the Earth passes into the Moon's shadow that is caused by the sun.
You might be able to catch a small chunk missing from the sun very near to sundown. Nothing that great, but still cool anyhow.
I watched you dance for about 30 seconds... and it scared me.
It's a Pentium-equivalent naming scheme. Since typically AMD chips are more efficient with the use of their cycles, an AMD chip can accomplish more in 100 cycles than a Pentium chip can accomplish in 100 cycles. Lets say that the AMD chip gets 100 units of work done in 50 cycles, while the Pentium chip only gets 50 units of work done in 50 cycles. In order for them both to get 50 units of work done per second, AMD only needs to produce a chip that operates at 25 cycles per second, while Intel needs to produce a chip that operates at 50 cycles per second. However, a lot of people don't understand that the AMD chip uses the cycles more efficiently and simply think "Oh, the Pentium operates at 50 cycles per second and the AMD operates at 25 cycles per second, 50 is more than 25, so the Pentium is better" (even though they both accomplish the same exact amount of work. So to counter this uninformed behaviour, AMD decided to use a rating system to sell their chips instead of simply using the cycles per second (Hz) that their chips operate at to sell the chips. The rating system does closely resemble a Hz rating, but they are using it as a Pentium-relative measurement to how much work they get done, saying that "Even though this chip only operates at 25 cycles per second, it gets 50 units of work done. The pentium operates at 50 cycles per second, and it gets 50 units of work done. We are losing sales as a result of the uninformed public, so instead of rating our chip as 25 Hz and having people think it is inferior to to the 50 Hz Pentium, we will rate our chip with the number 50 (which is not the cycles per second of the chip, is not false advertising, but may seem deceptive to some (I tend to agree with AMD's rating system, but I look at benchmarks anyhow)) and show that it is equivalent to the Pentium chip."
Hope this helps.
That really is a fault early in the system, because the number of characteristics present to be analyzed is quite small. I'm not sure exactly how they designed the language, but it most likely (if not, should probably) require a certain percentage of characterstics to be identical for a link of that type to be recognized. Basically, we have:
- Humans are intelligent
in the databse. An analysis of the database would conclude that anything with the sole characteristic of being intelligent is human because their characteristics match the characteristics of humans 100%. Should the program have added 99 more human characteristics that didn't belong to Cyc, and then inputted that Cyc is intelligent, Cyc most likely wouldn't have asked if Cyc was human, because the characteristic match between Cyc and humans would only be 1%. This then begs the question, what percentage match is necessary to draw links? And should certain characteristics be weighted heavier than others? (i.e. John lives in the U.S., Mike lives in the U.S. - are they related? versus John lives in a house at 555 Main St in Seattle, WA and Mike lives in a house at 555 Main St in Seattle, WA - are they related? - obviously the second set of characteristics tend to indicate with a higher degree that John and Mike are related (although they aren't necessarily))
Should they have spent 3 years inputting information about humans, and then 3 years inputting information about Cyc, I am sure Cyc would have not asked if Cyc was human.
Reading news sources eh? Lets just hope it doesn't get a hold of The Onion and pull a Beijing Evening News.
I could see this as being an all-in-one justice system in the extreme long run (I'm talking futuristic phobias here, i.e. 1984, Judge Dredd, that one episode of Max Headroom, etc). Imagine if this system gained enough information about criminal behaviours, methods of criminal activities, and just a general knowledge of anything dealing with solving crimes - forensics, scheduling (i.e. witness A saw defendant at point A at time A, and witness B saw defendant at point B at time B, considering bus schedules, speed limits, train schedules, etc, is it possible for this person to travel this route), even psychological analysis such as brain chemistry and past behaviours. This could evolve into being a one stop shop for all your justice needs. Commit a crime, send out the Gestapo-equivalent to collect all of the evidence quickly, submit it to the system, and ask for a ruling. Politicians could easily argue that this does not violate our right to a trial by a jury of our peers since the system's knowledge came from all sorts of different people that live among us, the system's knowledge and ruling will be based upon what our peers think.
Fast forward even further, and with all of the advances in robot technology, further advances in the Cyc technology, etc, we suddenly have roaming robotic law enforcers that seek out the criminals themselves, collect all evidence themselves, and give rulings on the spot (talk about a speedy trial). This Judge Dredd situation could be quite viable. As the technology improves even more, with the advances in criminal behaviour and psychological analysis, we can easily recognize patterns of criminal activites and would be able to predict crimes with a good percentage rate. Develop the tech even more to achieve a 99.9% correct prediction rate, and bam, there is our automatic justice system. Now we're living in the Minority Report age. Learn to hack the system somehow, and have that guy who gave you the finger on the highway arrested as soon as he gets home. Nevermind that he didn't break the law, he just pissed off some guy with enough knowledge to get him n trouble. Sure, in the beginning, all judgements may be reviewed to determine validity, but sooner or later there will be more and more judgements and enough trust in the system, that 99.9% of the judgements will not be reviewed.
This may be far fetched, and quite some time down the road, but imagine it and you'll find yourself in a scary situation. Extrapolate the previous advances in our knowledge and technology, and you'll find that a situation like this isn't necessarily unlikely to come upon us.
*removes tin foil hat*
Ah yes, thanks. After reading every C&H strip several times over, and watching every Simpsons episode several times over, things start to get mushed together, heh.
Yeh, that was the point.
All of the access lines should be in the public domain, property of everyone, since content access (internet, phone, etc) is almost becoming a necessity any more. The situation is quite similar to roads. Everyone needs to use roads, and if they need to get to some specific area, someone's house, a local business, they shouldn't be barred from doing so because the road systems are privately monopolized. People need to access information and get online, and their access should not be based on how much a few private companies want to charge them to use the system to get to the information. Now, this isn't to say that the government should take complete control over all access lines, as they would go into disrepair just as many of our roads have, but the government should have complete control over the lines, and should allow anyone access to them should they wish to provide a service over them.
Since when are verbs possessive?
And who was it that said verbing nouns is fun? Was that something on the Simpsons? I forget.
I would say that is prolly for the better for everyone, since we will be able to reach more people with more information. Perhaps this will help in the human rights debates that have been rampant in China over the past years.
Come on people +1 Funny, that was hilarious.
Ah, forget it...