I have to say, my own personal wedge issue is ethics.
People say lots of things about the other person, so I confine myself to things that a person has actually done. Compare with people who say "Romney will do this, and Obama will do that..." - none of these statements are real, no one can speak for another person, the candidates aren't held to their promises, and you can't predict special circumstances.
Not one question was asked about civil liberties. Not one question about the TSA, or drug policy, or drone strikes. Not one question about Obama's failure to prosecute any banking execs for fraud after the 2008 financial crisis.
For these and myriad other reasons - killing an American without trial, voting for telecom immunity, extending the Patriot Act &c - I have to vote against Obama.
Ethics and morality speak to the substance of the candidate. If a board is rotten, you replace it with a different board.
We know Romney did things that were uncharitable, but at least his actions were not evil - they were, after all, legal and financial actions.
When faced with a known bad solution, try something else. Perhaps the new board won't be as rotten.
if a fucking pacemaker can be hacked and compromised [...] God help us all. Just wait until they drag us into this war with Iran here soon, and China and Russia decide to team up to end our bullshit and we end up descending into WW3.
Can you imagine the utter chaos in the U.S. when all our magic electronic boxes suddenly stop working, or worse, work silently behind our backs to sabotage and/or kill us?
I'd like to propose a new logical fallacy, the "Fireman Bill" fallacy.
That's where you start with a problem and predict a series of possible - but highly unlikely - events which lead to total catastrophe.
I don't see it on the Lofical Fallacy Bingo card. (Some are close or have similar characteristics, but none address the complete goofiness of the argument.)
Diet and exercise work. A lot of the biological mechanisms are well understood. The problem is that people don't stick to it, because dieting sucks and exercise isn't easy. (What we don't understand as well, and this is probably what you're refering to, is WHY some people have such a hard time sticking to a healthy lifestyle, while others willingly get regular exercise and have a moderate diet.) Social trends are pushing people towards desk jobs, rather than manual labor, and food is cheaper than ever. Combined with our innate programming to be lazy and eat a lot, it shouldn't be surprising that people are getting fatter.
I agree that we probably don't know enough to form public policy on diet, but saying that changing lifestyle is ineffective is just nonsense.
I'm glad it's all cut-and-dried.
One question: if it's so obvious, how come not everyone agrees with you? What you're saying is a medical fact, right?
Difficulty sticking to a healthy lifestyle might be a genetic trait, in which case lifestyle and obesity correlate, but the one does not cause the other.
Difficulty sticking to a healthy lifestyle bight be rooted in lack of vitamin D (which we get through sunshine), lifestyle and obesity correlate, but the one does not cause the other.
Correlation is not causation, and we should only pass laws to affect the cause, not the correlate.
Sorry to burst your bubble - try thinking logically next time. Nonsense is repeating something you heard without thinking it through.
One could attempt to analyze the situation using logic.
There is a perceived problem with obesity. Fair enough, it's widely recognized and backed by studies and trends.
It's apparent from the literature that obesity is not caused by sedentary lifestyle or eating too many calories, at least not directly. Changing to a more vigorous lifestyle or reducing caloric intake is usually ineffective, as evidenced by the myriad exercise plans and fad diets available. We now see obese children as young as 6-months - since children of this age cannot choose their lifestyle or caloric input, there must be something else going on.
On a recent Slashdot article, the commentary held not a single premise or conclusion about diet which was universally held as correct. None, nada. Like economics, every position had opponents and adherents. If smart people can't agree on even the basics, how can we expect lawmakers to pass effective legislation?
Passing a law to combat obesity right now is pointless. No one knows what causes obesity, so any law must be misdirected almost by definition. This is amply illustrated by describing the law using fuzzy, imprecise terms. Drinks which are "sugary" and more than 16 oz? Why not 15 oz? Or 20? Is the caloric content important or the type of sugar? Is HFCS the problem, or the fact that most sodas are a mixture of a diuretic (caffeine) and salt, so that drinking makes you more thirsty? And some stores are exempt (WTF)?
Passing a law which affects the end users rather than the makers only promotes disrespect for the law. Cigarettes are heavily taxed but Philip Morris can freely make and sell them. If HFCS is the culprit, taxing the Coca Cola corporation in proportion to the amount of HFCS it uses will be more effective in solving the problem than end-user laws.
And finally, as the war on drugs has shown, education is more effective than prohibition. Dollar for dollar, money spent on drug education is several times as effective as money spent on prohibition (around 7x more, IIRC). Why not put the effort into education instead?
Legislators are just guessing at a solution to a real problem about which they know nothing. They should shut up and keep quiet until we know more. Once we can identify the root causes, we make correct policy which will reduce the problem.
Until then, it seems that illogic and counterproduction are having their moment.
You make a good point - that would be an even more efficient way to deliver goods.
I don't see online ordering for things like fresh vegetables - people still want to squeeze the tomatoes and pick the best from the lot. Despite this, most of what comes from a supermarket could be auto-delivered.
One problem with this scheme (yours and mine) is that someone or something has to be home to receive the delivery. If the supermarket scheduler delays by a day for greater efficiency, it may not be convenient for the recipient. I can't see an automated home system dealing with frozen/refrigerated items either.
Perhaps a fixed schedule would work - like we have now for trash pickup or US mail. Groceries are always delivered once a week at a specified time, and the system will leave bags on your doorstep.
Do not want. It's obvious at this point that the real deal with all these innovations is to retain more and more control over what people do and where they go.
The savings in time will result in everyone else in society being more productive and more successful than you. Good luck competing in that scenario:
1) Read and/or do other things while the car drives you to work (or sleep a little more).
2) Have the car bring the kids to school/soccer practice/wherever without my involvement. Also, get them and bring them home without having to leave work.
3) Disembark near the destination and have the car go find a parking spot by itself. (Especially useful for the elderly and disabled.)
4) Order online and have the car go get groceries. Saves time, and the supermarket doesn't need a large expensive public space to maintain. A factory floor with robotic pick-and-place out on factory street would be more productive.
5) Trucks for shipping and delivery can be utilized 24/7, without having human drivers take time off for sleep, meals, or recuperation.
(This will put a lot of people out of work, but it's work that humans find tedious and don't like doing anyway. We'll need a new economic model, but that's a separate issue from self-driving cars being more efficient.)
Slashdot, here's some feedback for making better videos.
In comparison to other slashdot videos, this one's OK, and it could be a better. Without commenting on the content or participants or video production (which other people can do), here's some notes about presentation:
Repeat until memorized:
Audio is for talk
Slides are for charts
Video is for action
Having a video of talking heads/talking people is the wrong way to present. Watching people talk is boring! Use the right technology in the right way for maximum interest.
A short clip of people talking will establish the context and make a personal connection with the viewer. Then cutting to illustrative videos while they talk makes a stronger, clearer presentation of the information.
(Also, briefly cut back to the people talking to reestablish context between subjects. Talking heads aren't forbidden, but using talking heads to present verbal information is bad form.)
When the video finally cuts away from the talking heads, it doesn't track the speech! Talk about the dome size, type, materials, area, earthworms is dubbed over a video of the controller box. The audio doesn't match the video, and it makes no sense.
Choose video clips which correspond to and illustrate the talk, this serves to present the information in two ways (video and audio) for better impact.
What's the point of the picture-in-picture at the beginning? It's arty and establishes the context (ie - growing things), but context is established after 5 seconds or so. What's the point of PIP for 45 seconds? You're crippling the presentation for no purpose.
The subject and content is pretty good. The people interviewed give a surprisingly good talk, given that this was probably off-the-cuff and they're not professional presenters. No problems there.
The content was a little shallow - it's more of an advertizing brochure with no detail. I would have liked to hear more about the nuts-and-bolts of what they are doing: their controller box, how things connect, what micros/sensors/interfaces they use, how the dome is built, what materials to use, assembly, &c. I know it's in the link, but this is a web site for people interested in tech, and since tech is what will get people interested in their site, you should explore it.
Overall the quality of video posts is improving. Keep up the good work, and keep on making it better.
One thing I've always wondered about is the apparent logical inconsistency of political opinions.
Lots of people here have noted the equivalence of Republicans and Democrats - self-serving corrupt parasites who sell favors to special interests, in total disregard of the welfare or wishes of the people. They're the same - either side will screw the people.
Yet whenever the president comes up it's "Your guy is worse than my guy". Obama is a man of the people, but Romney is a financial predator, Romney is a financial genius while Obama is a profligate wastrel.
Can anyone identify an issue - not an opinion or a general feeling or a policy goal, but an actual issue - for which Obama and Romney are on opposite sides? Something for which Obama would veto and Romney would pass, or vice versa? (Note: It's not health care.) Does such an issue exist? Is there any concrete way to differentiate between candidates?
Another aspect is the image of the man versus the actions of the man. Obama has continued and extended most of the odious practices started by Bush. Attacking Libya, assassinating an American citizen, voting telecom immunity, increasing drone strikes, running up the deficit - types of actions which were roundly decried when Bush did similar, but Obama seems to get a pass. Are we voting the image or the actions? Ethics is supposed to be absolute - are there different versions for red and blue states?
Everyone yells how great things will be when *their* candidate gets elected. "We can do so much to change the world, but first we have to get elected".
Quick question: if Obama will be so great once he gets reelected, why can't he do some of that great stuff *right now*? This is his employer mid-term review. How about showing us what he can do in the 3 months running up to the election? Sort of a "try before you buy" kind of thing. Ryan's a congressman - how has he voted in the last 3 months? What legislation has he proposed in that time? (Romney's hard to judge with this, usually it's a congressman running for president.)
A president cannot instigate many changes, that's true. He can't unilaterally pass legislation, for instance. However, a president has the power to stop bad things from happening. Like when the president told the Justice department not to oppose challenges to the Defense of Marriage act. He can veto things, he can suggest legislation, and he can negotiate for outcomes. He can tell the executive branch what to do - why can't he just tell the TSA to stop violating our rights?
(Oh, and incidentally: if he tells the military to do something, they *have* to do it. He doesn't need permission from Congress to close Gitmo.)
The information available about each candidate is noise and randomness. Each issue is a labyrinth of mis-quotes, mis-information, and nuance. Did Obama double the deficit? Or is it the debt? Or did he double it, but it's Bush's fault? Or was it the Democratic Congress? Did Romney pillage the retirement funds of Bain companies? Was it just one company or all of them? Was it actually Romney or the company owner? Was Romney even aware? Should (or shouldn't) either of them be held responsible?
Candidate choice appears to be an emotional decision. It certainly follows no discernible logic.
The only realistic reason for voting one way or the other I can think of is this: vote the incumbent out. We know for certain that "his way" isn't working. If we vote for him again, nothing will change.
Maybe that's the rule we should follow - if things aren't fixed, vote the incumbent out. That sounds more in line with the ideals of democracy.
Regardless of the R or D after the name, how about we just vote the incumbent out?
Lots of people here will argue the merits one way or another, adding ever more subtle points to a cauldron of legal opinion that attempts to guess the outcome......and it doesn't matter one whit.
Regardless of the law, the lower court decision cannot be allowed to stand simply as a matter of practicality. If it does, Monsanto stands to control virtually all farmland in America and put all farmers out of business. Monsanto would find itself in the position of controlling all food prices and dictating whatever terms it likes in the manner of process and production.
The simplest solution is to rule that, absent any contractual obligations, the patent holder's rights are exhausted after first sale of self-reproducing physical objects. For anything beyond this, the rules of contract law would apply. Farmers would be bound by whatever contracts they enter into with Monsanto.
Monsanto's mistake was in freely allowing the sale of the harvested seed. A second-generation-seed purchaser is under no contractual obligation to Monsanto because they didn't enter into a contract. If Monsanto wants this to happen differently, then they need to word the original contract in such a way that this can't happen - so that the original purchaser can't sell seed for replanting, for instance.
Monsanto winning this would be really, *really* bad.
As creative writing, that was great. Colorful, simile, creative, and with great pacing. That could have easily been part of a published novel. (I hope the passage wasn't a quote from somewhere & I missed it.)
What you want is single-digit inflation that keeps pace with economic growth. This is actually healthy for an economy. The problem is that when bitcoin true believers like you talk about inflation, you're comparing all inflation to the 1930s German hyper-inflation, which isn't the same thing.
The math spells it out and if even math is not going to convince you, then I guess there is no talking.
I'm glad you brought that up. As it happens, I'm a math major and I can be easily convinced by arguments that are based on math.
Let's start with the basics: What is the "best" value for single-digit inflation? I assume that 1% is too low and 9% is too high - what's the optimum value to use? Is 7% too much?
While we're on the subject, what's the math formula for calculating the optimal value? If the answer is "it depends", then what does it depend on? Is the function relatively flat (any value within a range is good) or peaked (one specific value is best, and near values are bad)?
Actually, how does one even calculate the current inflation rate? Are gas prices included? Luxuries? How do I tell which purchases contribute to inflation and which don't? Is there a rule I can look up?
Don't appeal to math unless you know what math is. Economics is not math.
I've never understood the vitriol heaped on BitCoins in this forum. None of the stated reasons for "It'll never work" seem to hold under examination.
1) It's not based on anything
Well, neither are any of the major currencies, especially the dollar. The Euro is teetering on the brink of disaster, the Fed has been spraying money with a firehose, numerous South American currencies have gone bust - I just don't see any difference....except, that bitcoins are immune to *some* of the problems typically found in national currencies.
2) No one is using them
There was a time when no one used the internet, either, and look how big that got.
I'm not sure there is a point here - lots of things didn't get big and no one uses them (pets.com, anyone?), and lots of things got big and *everyone uses* them (google.com).
If you're saying that not enough people will *ever* use them, so that the idea won't take off, then that's an opinion. A lot of people are predicting success, so why are they wrong and you right?
3) It's a scam
All of the scams reported so far have been, effectively, companies trying to be a bank without banking regulation.
It's not a problem for BitCoin if someone convinces you to deposit your coins in their bank and then loses them, any more than it's a problem for US currency if someone convinces you to give them your money and loses it. People get scammed all the time, but it's not the fault of the currency.
Again, I don't see the difference. BitCoins are like money, and can be stolen like money. Why is having money any different?
==================
BitCoins doesn't solve all the problems of money, but it does solve a fair number of them. Logic and reason would seem to indicate that this is a better way to do currency.
I must be missing something.
Can one of the economists explain why it won't work?
I mean, explain it without appealing to emotion and irrational fear. Like, by using logic and evidence.
How about giving away a free voltmeter to any student from a 3rd world nation who passes the edX course "Circuits and Electronics"?
6002x "Circuits and Electronics", an online version of the MIT introductory electronics course. This was an exact copy of the MIT course, taught by an MIT professor, and was just as hard as the original course. Same material, same difficulty, online format.
Some of the 7,000 graduates were from 3rd world nations. For example, this article talks about a class of high-school students in Mongolia:
I'm reminded of William Kamkwamba, who built a wind-powered generator and was able to bring electricity to his village. His Ted talk is pretty interesting.
Mr. Kamkwamba had nothing. He built his windmill from scratch after learning the principles of electricity from books in the local library. He built his own circuit breaker by winding wire onto nails driven into wood.
His task would have been so much easier if he could have measured continuity, or the output voltage of his generator.
Most of the modern world is based on electronics - measurements, actions, communications, and so on. Having the tools and understanding would allow people to repair broken equipment and machinery, to take pieces from ewaste and hook them together in new ways, and generally have better life opportunities.
Supplying 5,000 students (a generous estimate) would cost only $10,000.
Unless you need publishing cred for your job, I can't see why anyone would bother going that route.
It's only really useful for tenure in a teaching position, and *slightly* useful for other job prospects. If you're not pursuing either of those, why bother?
1) Your information is owned by the publisher, you can't reprint or send copies to friends. 2) You make no money from having done the work. 3) The work gets restricted to a small audience - the ones who can afford the access fees 4) It's rife with politics and petty, spiteful people 5) The standard format is cripplingly small, confining, and constrained. 6) The standard format requires jargonized cant to promote exclusion.
A website or blog serves much better as a means to disseminate the information. It allows the author to bypass all of the disadvantages, and uses the world as a referee.
Alternately, you could write a book (cf: Quantum Electrodynamics by Feynman). There's no better way to tell if your ideas are good than by writing a book and submitting it to the world for review.
Alternately, you could just not bother. For the vast majority of people, even if they discover a new process or idea publishing it makes no sense. There's perhaps some value in patenting, but otherwise there's no real value in making it public.
Today's scientific publishing is just a made-up barrier with made-up benefits. In the modern world it's been supplanted by better technology.
I've entered a couple of Kaggle competitions, but I'm 'kinda put off by the opaque results.
After the first one ended (predict HIV progression), the released full dataset indicated that the data had been sorted before it was separated into train and test sets. IOW, after being sorted by length, all the short sequences were put into the training set, and the longer ones into the test set. This mistake may have invalidated the competition, and I strongly suspect it would have invalidated any paper written about the results.
More recently, the organizers of one competition stated flatly in the forums that they would release the entire data set once the competition had ended, but then didn't. I inquired about this, and a Kaggle data scientist replied saying "we almost never release the test data".
I'm not sure that Kaggle is all that scientific. If the full dataset can't be examined after the competitions close, there's no way to verify the results.
In the US, we have the National Electrical Code which explains in clear detail how house wiring is constructed.
Following the code a legal requirement in many (most?) states, but from the point of an electrician it's a "book of best practices". Use this gauge wire for this current, staple the wire within 6" of the box, and so on. The code gets revised and added to over time as questions crop up and new technologies get added and people get more experience.
There's a reason for everything. For example, the light in a bathroom should be on a separate breaker from the outlet next to the sink. It makes sense in retrospect, but this is not something that is obvious beforehand.
It's very detailed, but also very clear. Homeowners routinely understand the instructions and are able to make simple repairs and modifications to their home wiring which conform to the code.
We throw a lot of "best practices" around here as if they were simple and obvious at the outset, but maybe they're not. Hash your passwords, salt the hash, sanitize the form inputs, don't keep CC info... lots of best practices which in hindsight make sense but which aren't necessarily obvious beforehand.
Most web apps have common requirements for login, identity management, privacy, various forms of functionality, and so on.
Good try, but even if this passes the Turing test, it is not AI in any way. Responses are by humans and there is no intelligence in it. So it will be the collective human engine behind it that will pass the test. Not really any big achievement.
Totally agree.
What's the point of this? Is it to make a better chatbot? Do chatbots have any use beyond annoying chatroom participants and surreptitiously inserting ads?
Is it to study human language? Will useful insights come from this? Will there be results? A publishable algorithm? Will this inform future software packages?
Does this tell us something about AI? Can this bring us closer to machines which actually think?
I'm not even sure there is a purpose here. I don't see any academic value in this project. Perhaps someone more familiar with mainstream AI could shed some light.
What's obnoxious about something like this is that the attack isn't likely to get the attention of the general public. Most people will see their favorite site is down, say "Aw, shucks," and check again later.
"Most people" aren't the target audience here. The target audience is IT administrators who are given the task of choosing a domain hosting solution.
Domain hosting choice involves a lot of factors such as cost, customer satisfaction, down-time, and so on. If Anonymous can insert a new factor "being down due to backlash from unethical behaviour", they will have accomplished their goal.
Numerous studies show that tiny influences can have a noticeable effect on large populations. We see this all the time where human decision-making is involved - tiny influences will not sway any individual decision, but those same tiny effects have enough of an effect to be measurable in the population at large.
That's what Anonymous (or rather, the hacker with "Anonymous" in his name) is doing here - generating a new, tiny influence which might have an effect on the overall population.
They are bringing "company reputation" back into the purchase decision process.
Don't want to be obnoxious or flaming, but isn't "putting profit over all else" the very foundation of the free market capitalism? Why this behavior surprises anyone is beyond me...
Yes, "profit over all else" is one of the cornerstones of free market capitalism, but you have to remember that capitalism is neither good nor evil.
For the situation at hand, it would appear that, at the time Gamma Group made the sales pitch:
1) There was a possibility of short-term profit 2) There was a fair likelihood that the sale would not be discovered 3) If discovered, there was a fair likelihood that it would be so far in the future that the persons responsible would be unaccountable 4) Well-connected companies tend to get lenient, slap-on-the-wrist penalties anyway
It is not capitalism per-se which is the problem here, it is items 2 through 4 which allows capitalism to be used for immoral ends. If we really value morality over profit, then we should strongly discourage immoral acts which use capitalism as a tool.
We don't. Blaming capitalism is avoiding the real issue, which is that morality is more important than capitalism (or rather, it should be).
It's like the old adage - any technology can be used for both good or evil.
Clueless politicians sometimes have these ideas which, on the surface at lease, seem like a good idea.
Unfortunately, they have no earthly idea how to implement these ideas; and indeed, the very political nature of their jobs and way of thinking precludes them from doing so.
To draw an analogy, it's like trying to grow a forest by transplanting seedlings, without considering issues like soil quality, moisture, or environment.
Businesses are started by innovation, and grow in an environment of infrastructure.
What is the infrastructure in London like? Is there easy and direct access to roads, or is there draconian limits on driving in the city. Is there universal access to high-speed internet, or are there restrictions on what you can do with your net connection?
How easy is it to register a new business? Are there tax breaks for established businesses which newly-started businesses don't get? Do existing businesses get political favors that the local pizza-shop doesn't have access to?
Does the society have a general feeling of tolerance for radical ideas? Do they allow people to air radical ideas in the political forum? Do the laws enforce restrictions on publishing truthful facts (such as libel/slander)?
Does the society allow free exchange of ideas and reworking and improvement of the ideas of others (as the fashion industry does), or do they promote draconian restrictions? (Note the size of the fashion industry which has no protections, versus the size of the music/movie industry which is very strict.)
Does London allow people to go about freely and conduct affairs which do not harm others, or are people always monitored, afraid, "looking over their shoulders"?
Is high-level crime punished at the same level as low-level? IOW, can rich business owners get away with serious crimes with impunity? (Wasn't some rich business owner accused of tampering with a police investigation awhile back? Did anyone go to jail for that?)
This sounds ever-so-much like a fuzzy "feel good" idea that sounds nice on paper, which will be used as an excuse to funnel tax money from the people to existing businesses. "If you set up here for a tax break, we'll get more in tax revenue from the workers than the tax break costs".
As a contrast, look at Hong Kong pre-2000 (before it became part of China), and India pre-2000. Hong Kong had no resources and no people, but was a major world power. India had lots of people and lots of resources but was a 3rd world nation. To start a business in Hong Kong you pay a small fee and register... you're done. In America, it's a little more but largely painless.
In India, it took Kentucky Fried Chicken 7 years to get "permission" to start selling food in India.
Environment matters. Innovation and infrastructure is what counts.
I agree with you (and them) completely, and had come to that same conclusion independently.
I don't mean to say that the elections can be bought in this manner - I'm neutral on the issue (or at least, undecided). I think of it more as an example of crowd-sourcing a question with an easy way to determine the result.
Correlation and causation really don't matter in this instance. The observation is that the two correlate; consequently, we can predict the future from past observations.
The 1% figure is interesting. If (as I suspect) Romney has around 10x the campaign money as Obama, that accounts for a little over 3% of the popular vote (three doublings of spending). Would that be enough to give Romney the election?
(I don't care for either of them - this as just an intellectual exercise.)
In a PEW study, some 93% of elections (the big ones, like president and house) are won by the candidate who spends the most money. Of the remainder, most fail because of political scandal.
Romney won't be the center of a scandal. Being Mormon, it's unlikely that he'll be accused of having sex with an aide, and it's unlikely that any financial shenanigans will come to light.
Romney has been "out funding" Obama by a wide margin, and very little of this money has been spent. There's also the likelihood of pro-Romney advertizing by various groups independent of his campaign - anyone, any PAC or business can take out an ad.
After the nomination, check the proportion of pro-Romney advertizing versus pro-Obama.
I think you'll find that a fire hose of predominately Romney advertizing will change a good many opinions.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to say, my own personal wedge issue is ethics.
People say lots of things about the other person, so I confine myself to things that a person has actually done. Compare with people who say "Romney will do this, and Obama will do that..." - none of these statements are real, no one can speak for another person, the candidates aren't held to their promises, and you can't predict special circumstances.
Not one question was asked about civil liberties. Not one question about the TSA, or drug policy, or drone strikes. Not one question about Obama's failure to prosecute any banking execs for fraud after the 2008 financial crisis.
For these and myriad other reasons - killing an American without trial, voting for telecom immunity, extending the Patriot Act &c - I have to vote against Obama.
Ethics and morality speak to the substance of the candidate. If a board is rotten, you replace it with a different board.
We know Romney did things that were uncharitable, but at least his actions were not evil - they were, after all, legal and financial actions.
When faced with a known bad solution, try something else. Perhaps the new board won't be as rotten.
if a fucking pacemaker can be hacked and compromised [...] God help us all. Just wait until they drag us into this war with Iran here soon, and China and Russia decide to team up to end our bullshit and we end up descending into WW3.
Can you imagine the utter chaos in the U.S. when all our magic electronic boxes suddenly stop working, or worse, work silently behind our backs to sabotage and/or kill us?
I'd like to propose a new logical fallacy, the "Fireman Bill" fallacy.
That's where you start with a problem and predict a series of possible - but highly unlikely - events which lead to total catastrophe.
I don't see it on the Lofical Fallacy Bingo card. (Some are close or have similar characteristics, but none address the complete goofiness of the argument.)
Where does one go to register these things?
Diet and exercise work. A lot of the biological mechanisms are well understood. The problem is that people don't stick to it, because dieting sucks and exercise isn't easy. (What we don't understand as well, and this is probably what you're refering to, is WHY some people have such a hard time sticking to a healthy lifestyle, while others willingly get regular exercise and have a moderate diet.) Social trends are pushing people towards desk jobs, rather than manual labor, and food is cheaper than ever. Combined with our innate programming to be lazy and eat a lot, it shouldn't be surprising that people are getting fatter.
I agree that we probably don't know enough to form public policy on diet, but saying that changing lifestyle is ineffective is just nonsense.
I'm glad it's all cut-and-dried.
One question: if it's so obvious, how come not everyone agrees with you? What you're saying is a medical fact, right?
Difficulty sticking to a healthy lifestyle might be a genetic trait, in which case lifestyle and obesity correlate, but the one does not cause the other.
Difficulty sticking to a healthy lifestyle bight be rooted in lack of vitamin D (which we get through sunshine), lifestyle and obesity correlate, but the one does not cause the other.
Correlation is not causation, and we should only pass laws to affect the cause, not the correlate.
Sorry to burst your bubble - try thinking logically next time. Nonsense is repeating something you heard without thinking it through.
One could attempt to analyze the situation using logic.
There is a perceived problem with obesity. Fair enough, it's widely recognized and backed by studies and trends.
It's apparent from the literature that obesity is not caused by sedentary lifestyle or eating too many calories, at least not directly. Changing to a more vigorous lifestyle or reducing caloric intake is usually ineffective, as evidenced by the myriad exercise plans and fad diets available. We now see obese children as young as 6-months - since children of this age cannot choose their lifestyle or caloric input, there must be something else going on.
On a recent Slashdot article, the commentary held not a single premise or conclusion about diet which was universally held as correct. None, nada. Like economics, every position had opponents and adherents. If smart people can't agree on even the basics, how can we expect lawmakers to pass effective legislation?
Passing a law to combat obesity right now is pointless. No one knows what causes obesity, so any law must be misdirected almost by definition. This is amply illustrated by describing the law using fuzzy, imprecise terms. Drinks which are "sugary" and more than 16 oz? Why not 15 oz? Or 20? Is the caloric content important or the type of sugar? Is HFCS the problem, or the fact that most sodas are a mixture of a diuretic (caffeine) and salt, so that drinking makes you more thirsty? And some stores are exempt (WTF)?
Passing a law which affects the end users rather than the makers only promotes disrespect for the law. Cigarettes are heavily taxed but Philip Morris can freely make and sell them. If HFCS is the culprit, taxing the Coca Cola corporation in proportion to the amount of HFCS it uses will be more effective in solving the problem than end-user laws.
And finally, as the war on drugs has shown, education is more effective than prohibition. Dollar for dollar, money spent on drug education is several times as effective as money spent on prohibition (around 7x more, IIRC). Why not put the effort into education instead?
Legislators are just guessing at a solution to a real problem about which they know nothing. They should shut up and keep quiet until we know more. Once we can identify the root causes, we make correct policy which will reduce the problem.
Until then, it seems that illogic and counterproduction are having their moment.
You make a good point - that would be an even more efficient way to deliver goods.
I don't see online ordering for things like fresh vegetables - people still want to squeeze the tomatoes and pick the best from the lot. Despite this, most of what comes from a supermarket could be auto-delivered.
One problem with this scheme (yours and mine) is that someone or something has to be home to receive the delivery. If the supermarket scheduler delays by a day for greater efficiency, it may not be convenient for the recipient. I can't see an automated home system dealing with frozen/refrigerated items either.
Perhaps a fixed schedule would work - like we have now for trash pickup or US mail. Groceries are always delivered once a week at a specified time, and the system will leave bags on your doorstep.
Do not want. It's obvious at this point that the real deal with all these innovations is to retain more and more control over what people do and where they go.
The savings in time will result in everyone else in society being more productive and more successful than you. Good luck competing in that scenario:
(This will put a lot of people out of work, but it's work that humans find tedious and don't like doing anyway. We'll need a new economic model, but that's a separate issue from self-driving cars being more efficient.)
Slashdot, here's some feedback for making better videos.
In comparison to other slashdot videos, this one's OK, and it could be a better. Without commenting on the content or participants or video production (which other people can do), here's some notes about presentation:
Repeat until memorized:
Having a video of talking heads/talking people is the wrong way to present. Watching people talk is boring! Use the right technology in the right way for maximum interest.
A short clip of people talking will establish the context and make a personal connection with the viewer. Then cutting to illustrative videos while they talk makes a stronger, clearer presentation of the information.
(Also, briefly cut back to the people talking to reestablish context between subjects. Talking heads aren't forbidden, but using talking heads to present verbal information is bad form.)
When the video finally cuts away from the talking heads, it doesn't track the speech! Talk about the dome size, type, materials, area, earthworms is dubbed over a video of the controller box. The audio doesn't match the video, and it makes no sense.
Choose video clips which correspond to and illustrate the talk, this serves to present the information in two ways (video and audio) for better impact.
What's the point of the picture-in-picture at the beginning? It's arty and establishes the context (ie - growing things), but context is established after 5 seconds or so. What's the point of PIP for 45 seconds? You're crippling the presentation for no purpose.
The subject and content is pretty good. The people interviewed give a surprisingly good talk, given that this was probably off-the-cuff and they're not professional presenters. No problems there.
The content was a little shallow - it's more of an advertizing brochure with no detail. I would have liked to hear more about the nuts-and-bolts of what they are doing: their controller box, how things connect, what micros/sensors/interfaces they use, how the dome is built, what materials to use, assembly, &c. I know it's in the link, but this is a web site for people interested in tech, and since tech is what will get people interested in their site, you should explore it.
Overall the quality of video posts is improving. Keep up the good work, and keep on making it better.
One thing I've always wondered about is the apparent logical inconsistency of political opinions.
Lots of people here have noted the equivalence of Republicans and Democrats - self-serving corrupt parasites who sell favors to special interests, in total disregard of the welfare or wishes of the people. They're the same - either side will screw the people.
Yet whenever the president comes up it's "Your guy is worse than my guy". Obama is a man of the people, but Romney is a financial predator, Romney is a financial genius while Obama is a profligate wastrel.
Can anyone identify an issue - not an opinion or a general feeling or a policy goal, but an actual issue - for which Obama and Romney are on opposite sides? Something for which Obama would veto and Romney would pass, or vice versa? (Note: It's not health care.) Does such an issue exist? Is there any concrete way to differentiate between candidates?
Another aspect is the image of the man versus the actions of the man. Obama has continued and extended most of the odious practices started by Bush. Attacking Libya, assassinating an American citizen, voting telecom immunity, increasing drone strikes, running up the deficit - types of actions which were roundly decried when Bush did similar, but Obama seems to get a pass. Are we voting the image or the actions? Ethics is supposed to be absolute - are there different versions for red and blue states?
Everyone yells how great things will be when *their* candidate gets elected. "We can do so much to change the world, but first we have to get elected".
Quick question: if Obama will be so great once he gets reelected, why can't he do some of that great stuff *right now*? This is his employer mid-term review. How about showing us what he can do in the 3 months running up to the election? Sort of a "try before you buy" kind of thing. Ryan's a congressman - how has he voted in the last 3 months? What legislation has he proposed in that time? (Romney's hard to judge with this, usually it's a congressman running for president.)
A president cannot instigate many changes, that's true. He can't unilaterally pass legislation, for instance. However, a president has the power to stop bad things from happening. Like when the president told the Justice department not to oppose challenges to the Defense of Marriage act. He can veto things, he can suggest legislation, and he can negotiate for outcomes. He can tell the executive branch what to do - why can't he just tell the TSA to stop violating our rights?
(Oh, and incidentally: if he tells the military to do something, they *have* to do it. He doesn't need permission from Congress to close Gitmo.)
The information available about each candidate is noise and randomness. Each issue is a labyrinth of mis-quotes, mis-information, and nuance. Did Obama double the deficit? Or is it the debt? Or did he double it, but it's Bush's fault? Or was it the Democratic Congress? Did Romney pillage the retirement funds of Bain companies? Was it just one company or all of them? Was it actually Romney or the company owner? Was Romney even aware? Should (or shouldn't) either of them be held responsible?
Candidate choice appears to be an emotional decision. It certainly follows no discernible logic.
The only realistic reason for voting one way or the other I can think of is this: vote the incumbent out. We know for certain that "his way" isn't working. If we vote for him again, nothing will change.
Maybe that's the rule we should follow - if things aren't fixed, vote the incumbent out. That sounds more in line with the ideals of democracy.
Regardless of the R or D after the name, how about we just vote the incumbent out?
IANAL, but in this case that doesn't matter.
Lots of people here will argue the merits one way or another, adding ever more subtle points to a cauldron of legal opinion that attempts to guess the outcome... ...and it doesn't matter one whit.
Regardless of the law, the lower court decision cannot be allowed to stand simply as a matter of practicality. If it does, Monsanto stands to control virtually all farmland in America and put all farmers out of business. Monsanto would find itself in the position of controlling all food prices and dictating whatever terms it likes in the manner of process and production.
The simplest solution is to rule that, absent any contractual obligations, the patent holder's rights are exhausted after first sale of self-reproducing physical objects. For anything beyond this, the rules of contract law would apply. Farmers would be bound by whatever contracts they enter into with Monsanto.
Monsanto's mistake was in freely allowing the sale of the harvested seed. A second-generation-seed purchaser is under no contractual obligation to Monsanto because they didn't enter into a contract. If Monsanto wants this to happen differently, then they need to word the original contract in such a way that this can't happen - so that the original purchaser can't sell seed for replanting, for instance.
Monsanto winning this would be really, *really* bad.
For those of us who speak English as a first language, here's a translation:
"A messed-up spreadsheet caused a multi-million-pound fiasco."
I think it refers to government financing for some sort of rail transport project in England, but I'm not as sure about that part.
Totally awesome comment, dude.
As creative writing, that was great. Colorful, simile, creative, and with great pacing. That could have easily been part of a published novel. (I hope the passage wasn't a quote from somewhere & I missed it.)
Give up the day job - write for a living.
You made a good case, up until you decided to protect the guilty group.
How can other people believe in the strength of your opinion, when you run from controversy at the slightest whiff of risk?
If you don't believe in your position strongly enough to take a stand, then no one else will either.
Ethics without courage is nothing (cf: integrity).
I'm glad you brought that up. As it happens, I'm a math major and I can be easily convinced by arguments that are based on math.
Let's start with the basics: What is the "best" value for single-digit inflation? I assume that 1% is too low and 9% is too high - what's the optimum value to use? Is 7% too much?
While we're on the subject, what's the math formula for calculating the optimal value? If the answer is "it depends", then what does it depend on? Is the function relatively flat (any value within a range is good) or peaked (one specific value is best, and near values are bad)?
Actually, how does one even calculate the current inflation rate? Are gas prices included? Luxuries? How do I tell which purchases contribute to inflation and which don't? Is there a rule I can look up?
Don't appeal to math unless you know what math is. Economics is not math.
I've never understood the vitriol heaped on BitCoins in this forum. None of the stated reasons for "It'll never work" seem to hold under examination.
1) It's not based on anything
Well, neither are any of the major currencies, especially the dollar. The Euro is teetering on the brink of disaster, the Fed has been spraying money with a firehose, numerous South American currencies have gone bust - I just don't see any difference. ...except, that bitcoins are immune to *some* of the problems typically found in national currencies.
2) No one is using them
There was a time when no one used the internet, either, and look how big that got.
I'm not sure there is a point here - lots of things didn't get big and no one uses them (pets.com, anyone?), and lots of things got big and *everyone uses* them (google.com).
If you're saying that not enough people will *ever* use them, so that the idea won't take off, then that's an opinion. A lot of people are predicting success, so why are they wrong and you right?
3) It's a scam
All of the scams reported so far have been, effectively, companies trying to be a bank without banking regulation.
It's not a problem for BitCoin if someone convinces you to deposit your coins in their bank and then loses them, any more than it's a problem for US currency if someone convinces you to give them your money and loses it. People get scammed all the time, but it's not the fault of the currency.
Again, I don't see the difference. BitCoins are like money, and can be stolen like money. Why is having money any different?
==================
BitCoins doesn't solve all the problems of money, but it does solve a fair number of them. Logic and reason would seem to indicate that this is a better way to do currency.
I must be missing something.
Can one of the economists explain why it won't work?
I mean, explain it without appealing to emotion and irrational fear. Like, by using logic and evidence.
How about giving away a free voltmeter to any student from a 3rd world nation who passes the edX course "Circuits and Electronics"?
6002x "Circuits and Electronics", an online version of the MIT introductory electronics course. This was an exact copy of the MIT course, taught by an MIT professor, and was just as hard as the original course. Same material, same difficulty, online format.
Some of the 7,000 graduates were from 3rd world nations. For example, this article talks about a class of high-school students in Mongolia:
I'm reminded of William Kamkwamba, who built a wind-powered generator and was able to bring electricity to his village. His Ted talk is pretty interesting.
Mr. Kamkwamba had nothing. He built his windmill from scratch after learning the principles of electricity from books in the local library. He built his own circuit breaker by winding wire onto nails driven into wood.
His task would have been so much easier if he could have measured continuity, or the output voltage of his generator.
Most of the modern world is based on electronics - measurements, actions, communications, and so on. Having the tools and understanding would allow people to repair broken equipment and machinery, to take pieces from ewaste and hook them together in new ways, and generally have better life opportunities.
Supplying 5,000 students (a generous estimate) would cost only $10,000.
Here is the contact page for edX.
I hear there's this great new energy device called an E-Cat that's just coming into the market!
It was covered by Slashdot when the first demo plant went online.
It's now a year later, and the company is willing to sell units to anyone. Check here for details! Or this great WIkipedia article.
It sounds like a perfect high-tech replacement for old-style backup generators!
(For those of you who can only read English the way a compiler reads code: yes, I'm being sarcastic.)
Unless you need publishing cred for your job, I can't see why anyone would bother going that route.
It's only really useful for tenure in a teaching position, and *slightly* useful for other job prospects. If you're not pursuing either of those, why bother?
1) Your information is owned by the publisher, you can't reprint or send copies to friends.
2) You make no money from having done the work.
3) The work gets restricted to a small audience - the ones who can afford the access fees
4) It's rife with politics and petty, spiteful people
5) The standard format is cripplingly small, confining, and constrained.
6) The standard format requires jargonized cant to promote exclusion.
A website or blog serves much better as a means to disseminate the information. It allows the author to bypass all of the disadvantages, and uses the world as a referee.
Alternately, you could write a book (cf: Quantum Electrodynamics by Feynman). There's no better way to tell if your ideas are good than by writing a book and submitting it to the world for review.
Alternately, you could just not bother. For the vast majority of people, even if they discover a new process or idea publishing it makes no sense. There's perhaps some value in patenting, but otherwise there's no real value in making it public.
Today's scientific publishing is just a made-up barrier with made-up benefits. In the modern world it's been supplanted by better technology.
I've entered a couple of Kaggle competitions, but I'm 'kinda put off by the opaque results.
After the first one ended (predict HIV progression), the released full dataset indicated that the data had been sorted before it was separated into train and test sets. IOW, after being sorted by length, all the short sequences were put into the training set, and the longer ones into the test set. This mistake may have invalidated the competition, and I strongly suspect it would have invalidated any paper written about the results.
More recently, the organizers of one competition stated flatly in the forums that they would release the entire data set once the competition had ended, but then didn't. I inquired about this, and a Kaggle data scientist replied saying "we almost never release the test data".
I'm not sure that Kaggle is all that scientific. If the full dataset can't be examined after the competitions close, there's no way to verify the results.
In the US, we have the National Electrical Code which explains in clear detail how house wiring is constructed.
Following the code a legal requirement in many (most?) states, but from the point of an electrician it's a "book of best practices". Use this gauge wire for this current, staple the wire within 6" of the box, and so on. The code gets revised and added to over time as questions crop up and new technologies get added and people get more experience.
There's a reason for everything. For example, the light in a bathroom should be on a separate breaker from the outlet next to the sink. It makes sense in retrospect, but this is not something that is obvious beforehand.
It's very detailed, but also very clear. Homeowners routinely understand the instructions and are able to make simple repairs and modifications to their home wiring which conform to the code.
We throw a lot of "best practices" around here as if they were simple and obvious at the outset, but maybe they're not. Hash your passwords, salt the hash, sanitize the form inputs, don't keep CC info... lots of best practices which in hindsight make sense but which aren't necessarily obvious beforehand.
Most web apps have common requirements for login, identity management, privacy, various forms of functionality, and so on.
Should we have a "book of best practices"?
Good try, but even if this passes the Turing test, it is not AI in any way. Responses are by humans and there is no intelligence in it. So it will be the collective human engine behind it that will pass the test. Not really any big achievement.
Totally agree.
What's the point of this? Is it to make a better chatbot? Do chatbots have any use beyond annoying chatroom participants and surreptitiously inserting ads?
Is it to study human language? Will useful insights come from this? Will there be results? A publishable algorithm? Will this inform future software packages?
Does this tell us something about AI? Can this bring us closer to machines which actually think?
I'm not even sure there is a purpose here. I don't see any academic value in this project. Perhaps someone more familiar with mainstream AI could shed some light.
What's obnoxious about something like this is that the attack isn't likely to get the attention of the general public. Most people will see their favorite site is down, say "Aw, shucks," and check again later.
"Most people" aren't the target audience here. The target audience is IT administrators who are given the task of choosing a domain hosting solution.
Domain hosting choice involves a lot of factors such as cost, customer satisfaction, down-time, and so on. If Anonymous can insert a new factor "being down due to backlash from unethical behaviour", they will have accomplished their goal.
Numerous studies show that tiny influences can have a noticeable effect on large populations. We see this all the time where human decision-making is involved - tiny influences will not sway any individual decision, but those same tiny effects have enough of an effect to be measurable in the population at large.
That's what Anonymous (or rather, the hacker with "Anonymous" in his name) is doing here - generating a new, tiny influence which might have an effect on the overall population.
They are bringing "company reputation" back into the purchase decision process.
Don't want to be obnoxious or flaming, but isn't "putting profit over all else" the very foundation of the free market capitalism? Why this behavior surprises anyone is beyond me...
Yes, "profit over all else" is one of the cornerstones of free market capitalism, but you have to remember that capitalism is neither good nor evil.
For the situation at hand, it would appear that, at the time Gamma Group made the sales pitch:
1) There was a possibility of short-term profit
2) There was a fair likelihood that the sale would not be discovered
3) If discovered, there was a fair likelihood that it would be so far in the future that the persons responsible would be unaccountable
4) Well-connected companies tend to get lenient, slap-on-the-wrist penalties anyway
It is not capitalism per-se which is the problem here, it is items 2 through 4 which allows capitalism to be used for immoral ends. If we really value morality over profit, then we should strongly discourage immoral acts which use capitalism as a tool.
We don't. Blaming capitalism is avoiding the real issue, which is that morality is more important than capitalism (or rather, it should be).
It's like the old adage - any technology can be used for both good or evil.
Clueless politicians sometimes have these ideas which, on the surface at lease, seem like a good idea.
Unfortunately, they have no earthly idea how to implement these ideas; and indeed, the very political nature of their jobs and way of thinking precludes them from doing so.
To draw an analogy, it's like trying to grow a forest by transplanting seedlings, without considering issues like soil quality, moisture, or environment.
Businesses are started by innovation, and grow in an environment of infrastructure.
What is the infrastructure in London like? Is there easy and direct access to roads, or is there draconian limits on driving in the city. Is there universal access to high-speed internet, or are there restrictions on what you can do with your net connection?
How easy is it to register a new business? Are there tax breaks for established businesses which newly-started businesses don't get? Do existing businesses get political favors that the local pizza-shop doesn't have access to?
Does the society have a general feeling of tolerance for radical ideas? Do they allow people to air radical ideas in the political forum? Do the laws enforce restrictions on publishing truthful facts (such as libel/slander)?
Does the society allow free exchange of ideas and reworking and improvement of the ideas of others (as the fashion industry does), or do they promote draconian restrictions? (Note the size of the fashion industry which has no protections, versus the size of the music/movie industry which is very strict.)
Does London allow people to go about freely and conduct affairs which do not harm others, or are people always monitored, afraid, "looking over their shoulders"?
Is high-level crime punished at the same level as low-level? IOW, can rich business owners get away with serious crimes with impunity? (Wasn't some rich business owner accused of tampering with a police investigation awhile back? Did anyone go to jail for that?)
This sounds ever-so-much like a fuzzy "feel good" idea that sounds nice on paper, which will be used as an excuse to funnel tax money from the people to existing businesses. "If you set up here for a tax break, we'll get more in tax revenue from the workers than the tax break costs".
As a contrast, look at Hong Kong pre-2000 (before it became part of China), and India pre-2000. Hong Kong had no resources and no people, but was a major world power. India had lots of people and lots of resources but was a 3rd world nation. To start a business in Hong Kong you pay a small fee and register... you're done. In America, it's a little more but largely painless.
In India, it took Kentucky Fried Chicken 7 years to get "permission" to start selling food in India.
Environment matters. Innovation and infrastructure is what counts.
I agree with you (and them) completely, and had come to that same conclusion independently.
I don't mean to say that the elections can be bought in this manner - I'm neutral on the issue (or at least, undecided). I think of it more as an example of crowd-sourcing a question with an easy way to determine the result.
Correlation and causation really don't matter in this instance. The observation is that the two correlate; consequently, we can predict the future from past observations.
The 1% figure is interesting. If (as I suspect) Romney has around 10x the campaign money as Obama, that accounts for a little over 3% of the popular vote (three doublings of spending). Would that be enough to give Romney the election?
(I don't care for either of them - this as just an intellectual exercise.)
In a PEW study, some 93% of elections (the big ones, like president and house) are won by the candidate who spends the most money. Of the remainder, most fail because of political scandal.
Romney won't be the center of a scandal. Being Mormon, it's unlikely that he'll be accused of having sex with an aide, and it's unlikely that any financial shenanigans will come to light.
Romney has been "out funding" Obama by a wide margin, and very little of this money has been spent. There's also the likelihood of pro-Romney advertizing by various groups independent of his campaign - anyone, any PAC or business can take out an ad.
After the nomination, check the proportion of pro-Romney advertizing versus pro-Obama.
I think you'll find that a fire hose of predominately Romney advertizing will change a good many opinions.