Medical apps are just one step in a trend that will redo the way we manage health.
Health care is broken in the US. The problem is that the system is so unbelievably entrenched that it's impossible to dislodge. Health insurance companies that make billions, safety rules that require half a billion investment to test a drug, physicians' inability to make exceptions... everything is frozen in bureaucracy that will not change.
Any entrenched fixed system will eventually be overtaken by smaller innovative solutions. Big companies become risk-averse, big government becomes "politically correct", and eventually all are overtaken by smaller groups. We see it in companies over time, we're seeing it in selected companies right now: cable is dying due to its inability to change (on demand video), the music industry is dying due to its inability to change (internet purchases), the book publishing industry, newspapers, lots of obvious examples.
We're seeing the start of this in health care right now. People are doing their own research, reading medical papers online. People are having medical tests done without a doctor's order - and taking the results home. People are buying medical devices which are not FDA approved: heart rate monitors, blood pressure readers, also programs such as sleep quality monitors (using a laptop microphone), 24/7 body temperature monitors, and the like.
This is how health will change in the US. Not by billing reform or electronic records, but by having access to cheap medical services that can bypass the entire system. When you can get a $20 test which will definitively diagnose or rule out the top 10 reasons why you're feeling tired, that will be true reform.
And yes, it's scary and we shouldn't step out of the house without a physician's approval and "woo woo" be afraid and all that. And yes there will be some disinformation which may be fraudulent or may mislead people or may just be outright wrong.
At first. These systems will self correct, because there are enormous system forces to do so. For example, sites which publish physician reviews.
This is the shape of things to come. It'll be a blessing. Don't worry about it. Indeed, pitch in and help.
We see numerous announcements on Slashdot where some researchers or company has made a "breakthrough in X", and experts on this very forum roundly lambast them for being nothing new, nothing important, nothing innovative, or "10 years to market".
This is one of those announcements.
Attaching a stick to a robot is *not new*. It's obvious and even trivial when you think about it. Similar for using a kinect to sense a stick and react to it...
I'll repeat this once more: it's NOTHING NEW. It's not innovative or a breakthrough, it's nothing important.
Car analogy: We've mounted a camera and servos on a car, soon we'll have autodriving vehicles!
It's not a technology in it's infancy that only needs a few years to mature. The bulk of the technology, the important bits that need to be addressed, lie in the software.
It's slow - so what, that's not the issue. It responds to a green stick - so what, that's not the issue. It's a prototype and a little rough - so what, that's not the issue. It's done by students and cut them a little slack - that's not the issue.
As a long time swordfight student and instructor, I have to say that putting a stick in the grip of an industrial robot does not make it a sword fighter.
For example, the obvious mistake seen in the video is that the robot strikes at the *weapon*, not the *person*. As any 1st year fencing student knows, you can't win the fight that way. I love fighting nubies who make that mistake.
We have a term for this - it's called "Erroll Flynn" fighting, and it refers to those cheap movie swordfight scenes where the actors aren't skilled enough to actually fight without putting out their opponent's eye. Stay far enough away so that you can't hit the opponent, and cross swords in mid air. Clack... Clack... Clack... now low: Clack... Clack... Clack... now high...
Let's have a robot that holds a broom and say it's a sweeping robot! Or a robot that holds a hose and say it's a car washing robot! Or a robot that holds a trimmer and say it's a hedge-trimming robot.
Wake me when it can detect an opening in the opponent's defense and strike at it.
We could take a facial scan whenever we interact with a policeman, get a list of prior complaints and check out review sites.
We could find out whether he's been accused of rights violations, racist behaviour, corruption - and the percent chance that he'll settle out of court versus fighting a conviction.
So... this tech will help keep me safe from criminals *and* cops?
I don't think that the events of the experiment are in any way unexpected, with the exception of Zimbardo's girlfriend intervening.
I think quite highly of Zimbardo, so I don't believe it's his fault. It's because of all of our social conditioning.
We're never schooled in ethics. We're only occasionally *sometimes* told the difference between right and wrong, but overall we're just expected to know where these concepts are without a map. Breaking a promise is wrong, but when the principal wants to know something you promised to keep secret, see if he thinks ethics is a good excuse.
Schools teach compliance in a big way. Government and industry and pretty much everyone in charge will tell you that it's no use - there's nothing you can do. Be on the wrong side of a policeman, prosecutor, judge, politician, your boss, or the town council to see what I mean.
And even if anyone knows where the boundaries of ethics lie, there's no real chance to practice the decisions in the field. In any emotional situation your cognitive functions shut down and you rely completely on stored habits. That's a survival tactic - the stored programs can be executed very fast without spending any time to think - but it means that if you haven't set up any mental patterns to recognize injustice and speak out against it it won't happen during a situation where it's needed. Only after the fact.
People who practice role-playing in various forms (LARP, emergency training, EMT, police, navy seals) get around it by learning not to react emotionally and by making patterns which are useful because they've been thought out in advance.
So we have a big population which is schooled in compliance, where no formal ethical standards are taught and where ethical rules are often violated for any expedient reason. Drop some of these in a fearful situation and you're surprised that they don't react?
I'm surprised at the reaction of his girlfriend, and much more surprised that she *insisted* in the face of his resistance.
So you're saying that NH residents pay 3x the taxes as California residents?
I don't believe it, and to support my claim there are numerous studies on the net that indicate that NH has one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation.
The only way I can see these numbers making sense, is to distinguish between tax rates and taxes actually paid.
If businesses are required to pay sales tax, but get an "economic incentive" discount from the government, and if there are enough discounts so that very little of the sales tax gets actually paid, then overall the tax load may appear high but result in little revenue.
Are there that many businesses getting tax breaks from the CA government?
I don't doubt your numbers, but this site made the same calculations (2009) and came up with wildly differing numbers:
Illegal immigration and crime are fair points - I get those.
So the rest of your position seems to be that:
1) A vast industrial and agricultural base is more expensive for the state than the revenue they bring in 2) International shipping is more expensive than the revenue it brings in 3) Tourism is more expensive on the state than the revenue it brings in 4) Having 36x more people to tax somehow brings in less revenue than 1x the people?
I don't get these last 4 points. Do they even make sense?
People who live in NH and work in MA have pay income tax to MA, but don't get any of the services that a MA state resident would. How is that leeching off of MA?
It seems to me that MA is getting a better deal - they tax NH citizens without representation, but don't have to pay for the wear-and-tear that a citizen would cause.
Does that even make sense? People who live in NH and work in MA have pay income tax to MA, but don't get any of the services that a MA state resident would. How is that leeching off of MA?
It seems to me that MA is getting a better deal - they tax NH citizens without representation, but don't have to pay for the wear-and-tear that a citizen would cause.
One thing I've always wondered is why California needs so much money to operate.
Here in NH, we've got no sales tax and no income tax. Our overall tax burden is among the lowest in the US (sometimes *the* lowest, depending on the year), so yeah - our property taxes are high but not high enough to make up the difference.
Despite this dearth of income, we manage to keep the roads plowed, the schools funded, and the streetlights burning.
So what part of the economic model is different for California? Do they have more road per person to maintain? Are there more criminals per person so that they need more jails? Do they have social services we're missing (universal healthcare)?
Are coastlines more expensive than inland borders?
There's a lot of economists (student and hobby) here on Slashdot. I just don't see the difference in models.
It's like trying to simulate a computer by wiring 5 million transistors. Without a deep understanding of how computers work and a plan for implementation, the result will be worthless.
I see this all the time in AI strategies. Without no deep understanding of AI, the project implements bad assumptions.
Some examples: no way to encode the adjacency information, a fixed internal encoding system which cannot change (ie - a chess program that can't learn checkers), linear input->process->output models, and so on.
Before building a system with a million processors capable of simulating the brain, how about we design an algorithm that embodies the simplest possible AI?
Some decades ago, X-ray machines were common. So common that you could go into a department store and get an X-ray to see how well your new shoes fit. Doctors routinely used continuous X-ray scanners (fluoroscopes) with dosages much higher and for much longer durations.
Once people started to suspect that X-rays could cause cancer, it was straightforward to find out. Not trivial, but straightforward. Follow a lot of people and look for a correlation between exposure and cancer. Lo and behold, there is an effect.
Once the effects were measured we could compare risks. One of the results was that the risk due to undiagnosed dental problems is far greater than the risk of cancer from an X-ray, so dental X-rays are a good trade-off.
Fast forward to modern times and we have scanners. There is no evidence to suggest that these devices are safe, or unsafe. The manufacturer has a *model* of what should happen with the dosages, and the consensus of opinion is that the devices are safe... except that the result is based on the model, not evidence. Pick different assumptions to get a different model and there may be a risk.
Some assumptions about the new technology are: a) The manufacturer is correctly reporting dosage, b) The radiation is blocked by the skin (or in reverse, the effects will concentrate in the skin), c) Exposures below a certain threshold pose no risk (versus, any exposure causes proportional risk)
To put this in perspective, it's instructional to look at the history of MRI machines. Despite the fact that there is no known mechanism for magnetic fields interacting with the body and causing problems (notwithstanding metal implants &c), the FDA cautiously required progressive testing of the machines before they were deployed for common use.
I approve of this sort of thing. It's one thing to believe that magnetic fields have no effect, but it's important to test things out before you try them on, for example, pregnant women.
In summary, there has been no testing of the TSA scanners whatsoever. Their entire claim to safety rests on their belief that they know how the radiation will affect living tissue, but they cannot back that up with evidence.
They are not scientists, and they have side-stepped the normal medical safety certification process that we take for granted.
Scientists make conclusions based on evidence, politicians make conclusions based on models.
Don't expect anything to come from "Crowdsourcing", as they've made it nearly impossible to navigate.
For instance, you cannot go to a document at random, you have to page through the entire collection 10 links at a time. Sure, I'll be happy to hit "NEXT" 200 times and wait 5 seconds each to get somewhere in the middle because my time isn't valuable and I'm happy to give it to the NYT.
Some of us geeks have experience in getting redacted information out of documents, and there would be quite a bit of motivation to look into this... oh, right-click is disabled, everything has been scanned and put into PDF format. No joy there.
All the public can do is read the words, and then only on the first few easy-to-get-to pages.
This is just the NYT getting the public to do its Mechanical Turk work for free.
The UN estimates of world population now indicate an increase until around 2075 (9.2 billion), and then a decrease after that.
Birth rates in all developed nations are falling fast, many are under replacement rate already. The US population would be lower than the replacement rate right now if it weren't for immigration.
The problem with Malthus is not the math, it's the model. Anyone can pick assumptions and make a model, and from there make predictions. Mathus erred in assuming that things would not change. An exponential curve is indistinguishable from a bell curve at the long tail beginning, so the evidence seemed to support his prediction.
What's changing is the demographics. Once raised out of poverty, people naturally start having fewer children. There are a variety of proposed reasons for this, and the evidence is very strong.
The prediction now is that once everyone is reasonably above the poverty line (mostly Africa, with some contribution from SE Asia) population growth will reverse.
Interestingly enough, in 75 years time there may be the reverse problem - population *shrinkage*.
Here's the problem with this, and most of modern science: It's model based.
To use your reasoning, airport scanners are safe because we can model the effects of radiation on living tissue.
...except that this model has lots of assumptions which may or may not be true, which have not been verified by evidence. In the case of airport scanners, some of the most salient assumptions are: 1) This frequency is blocked by the skin 2) Exposures smaller than a cutoff minimum have no effect, and 3) The manufacturer is accurately reporting.
Choose different assumptions to argue the outcome in different ways.
Compare with dental X-rays. At the time people started worrying about radiation, X-rays had been used for some time so it was straightforward to collect data on lots of people and look for a correlation. The correlation was almost vanishingly small, but it was there. From this data we calculate the increased risk, and compare against other risks.
For those of us old enough to remember, there was a similar controversy awhile back about high tension power lines causing cancer in children. In similar manner there were lots of arguments back and forth on why it could happen versus why it doesn't.
Only after a series of evidence based measurements was the issue finally put to rest.
Your model works for you - and that's fine. I notice no one is doing actual experiments; for example - raising mice in close proximity with cell phones and looking for correlations.
You wrote: Our brains have evolved to exclude randomness as much as possible.
I agree completely, but this rather misses the point. The question is whether or not we have free will.
With no free will, then lots of philosophical questions become moot. Criminals can claim that they had no choice, no one can hope to improve their lot... indeed, the very purpose of life becomes unimportant if the outcome is fixed.
Information passed in from outside is necessary for free will. Whether it is sufficient is another matter, but I think it's interesting (and comforting) to know that a necessary condition is satisfied.
Be fair. I was being brief for the sake of clarity.
A model entails predictive capabilities. An image has no predictive capabilities on its own - you also need a mechanism of prediction. An image doesn't rise to the level of "model" as needed for the definition, and the camera has no capacity to make predictions from the model.
Thus, I would say that even though the camera has a "picture" of it's universe and itself within that universe, it can make no predictions about the information - therefore it's not a model. It also has no sense of itself within that model - the picture contains information of the camera within it, but the camera does not distinguish the information describing itself from the rest of the information.
No, a camera pointed at a mirror is not conscious.
Any computer program run on a deterministic machine is predictable. It may be complex, in which case the prediction can be made by simply running the program until the prediction time, noting the state, then deleting the program state and going back to square one. Congratulations - you've just predicted the program behaviour!
In order for a program to be unpredictable, information must be passed in from outside its universe. That is to say, information which is NOT encoded in the program and NOT available in it's input stream.
From the point of view of the program, this information is random, which is the definition of unpredictable. From the point of view of an observer outside the scope of the machine and its universe, the information may not be random. It may be based on something that's altogether outside the measurement capability of the program, in which case there is no way to predict the behaviour of that program without the extra information.
The universe I'm talking about is *our* universe, the programs I'm talking about are people, the information is quantum randomness, and the outside observer is God. Quantum randomness is essentially information passed into this universe from outside. It is the basis of free will - without it, our actions would be completely predictable. Put a baby in a VR environment and let them grow up and they would make exactly the same choices and grow up to be exactly the same person - except for quantum randomness.
The fallacy is confusing the terms, which leads to all sorts of mistaken ideas and beliefs. Consciousness is simply the ability to have a mental model of one's universe, with oneself as a separate entity within that model. This is different and completely separate from the concept of free will.
Quantum randomness is the embodiment of free will, not consciousness.
Gee whiz, people! Doesn't anyone study AI any more?
Also, CDV-700 units come with a small radioactive sample taped to the case, specifically for testing.
Hold the tube next to the black dot on the side of the case (with the shield open) and you will hear lots of clicks. That will show you that the unit is working.
Originally, the dot was manufactured so that you could roughly tell if the unit was calibrated, but over time the dots have decayed to about half their initial activity. But they still work and can still be used to test the counter.
I couldn't find a good picture link, but the dot is well marked on the unit. It's easy to find.
For the past 6 months I've been putting together a rad experiment unrelated to Fukishima. I've been all over eBay looking for samples and geiger counters.
Many units on eBay are old Civil Defense units. These are all bright yellow and 30 to 50 years old, and come in several varieties. Of the varieties, the ONLY ONE which is worth getting is the CDV-700 model. All others are unusable for your purposes.
For example, a CDV-715 is only useful if there is lots and lots of radiation available, as in the aftermath of a nuclear war. It's measuring range is so high that it simply cannot see radiation at small levels. Here is an example of what NOT to get:
Similar for the dosimeters. Their range is so high that they will be useless for your purposes. Also, the dosimeters tend to go bad after awhile (air leaks into the chamber), so it's likely that any units you get will not work anyway. Here is an example of what NOT to get:
A CDV-700 has about the right range, and is a very robust - if you get a working unit chances are that it will work for decades. Here is an example of what TO get (any model is OK):
Up until Fukishima, these were going for around $50 USD per unit. Now they are going for around $250.
I've been active on the experimenter's boards for the past several months, and many people are decrying the number of scams and bad counters that unscrupulous people are selling on eBay. People are getting counters with no tubes, which don't work, or are not as advertised. I personally ordered a CDV-700 and received a dosimeter instead - there are lots and lots of bad people trying to take advantage of the situation right now.
(The good news: If you do get a CDV-700 and it doesn't work, they're easy to fix, even for beginner electronics hobbyists.)
I'm also advising several hobbyist groups which are designing their own geiger counters. Of 6 or so separate designs by separate groups, not one of them will be useful for your purpose, for various reasons. These units will work and will detect radiation, but there is no way to assign a meaning to the measurements. They are well suited for the purpose intended, which is measuring radiation over long periods where the measurements can be compared with measurements from the same unit, but these are not useful for your purpose. They also make good hobbyist units, to show the principles of detection.
Measuring radiation, knowing the different types and what to look for isn't hard. It takes about 40 hours of research and reading and some tinkering to get a grasp on the problem. Do that first, then you will know better what to look for and what to buy.
My advice: Get together with the people in your neighborhood, purchase 1 counter and share it. Not everyone needs their own counter, and lots of times only a single measurement is needed anyway (is this area clean?). Designate one person to study up on the techniques and issues, and rely on that one person to make measurements as needed and explain the results.
It's not hard, but it takes a little dedication. Specialize and trade.
For those of us who need accurate clocks and don't have $1500 to spend, highly stable temp controlled oscillator chips are cheap and common right now. (Search eBay for OXCO)
For example, this one (which I'm using) is accurate in the PPB range:
Refutation is not very strong
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I've just now reviewed Alan Aragon's debunking of Lustig's claims, roundly publicized here in several comments. Including some of the cited references from that article.
Alan's rebuttal was a debate between himself and Lustig. The issues wander the landscape of unrelated factual errors (Lustig claims that the Japanese have no added fructose in their diet), cites of papers which show the data being inconclusive (specifically, he's citing absence of evidence as evidence of absence), and painting Lustig with the same brush as more "fringe" claimants.
And of course it wasn't the actual debate, but a summary of the debate, and written by Alan. He must have won the debate too - he says so in his summary.
In comparing the two positions, I find Alan's rebuttal lacking in scientific rigor. If a half-dozen or so studies can be found (or undertaken) which target Lustig's claims directly and show no evidence for the things that he says, that would counter the half-dozen or so studies that form the basis of Lustig's lecture.
Until then, I assign higher likelyhood to Lustig. I'll continue to hold this position until actual scientists chime in with conclusions based on evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
Medical apps are just one step in a trend that will redo the way we manage health.
Health care is broken in the US. The problem is that the system is so unbelievably entrenched that it's impossible to dislodge. Health insurance companies that make billions, safety rules that require half a billion investment to test a drug, physicians' inability to make exceptions... everything is frozen in bureaucracy that will not change.
Any entrenched fixed system will eventually be overtaken by smaller innovative solutions. Big companies become risk-averse, big government becomes "politically correct", and eventually all are overtaken by smaller groups. We see it in companies over time, we're seeing it in selected companies right now: cable is dying due to its inability to change (on demand video), the music industry is dying due to its inability to change (internet purchases), the book publishing industry, newspapers, lots of obvious examples.
We're seeing the start of this in health care right now. People are doing their own research, reading medical papers online. People are having medical tests done without a doctor's order - and taking the results home. People are buying medical devices which are not FDA approved: heart rate monitors, blood pressure readers, also programs such as sleep quality monitors (using a laptop microphone), 24/7 body temperature monitors, and the like.
This is how health will change in the US. Not by billing reform or electronic records, but by having access to cheap medical services that can bypass the entire system. When you can get a $20 test which will definitively diagnose or rule out the top 10 reasons why you're feeling tired, that will be true reform.
And yes, it's scary and we shouldn't step out of the house without a physician's approval and "woo woo" be afraid and all that. And yes there will be some disinformation which may be fraudulent or may mislead people or may just be outright wrong.
At first. These systems will self correct, because there are enormous system forces to do so. For example, sites which publish physician reviews.
This is the shape of things to come. It'll be a blessing. Don't worry about it. Indeed, pitch in and help.
We see numerous announcements on Slashdot where some researchers or company has made a "breakthrough in X", and experts on this very forum roundly lambast them for being nothing new, nothing important, nothing innovative, or "10 years to market".
This is one of those announcements.
Attaching a stick to a robot is *not new*. It's obvious and even trivial when you think about it. Similar for using a kinect to sense a stick and react to it...
I'll repeat this once more: it's NOTHING NEW. It's not innovative or a breakthrough, it's nothing important.
Car analogy: We've mounted a camera and servos on a car, soon we'll have autodriving vehicles!
It's not a technology in it's infancy that only needs a few years to mature. The bulk of the technology, the important bits that need to be addressed, lie in the software.
It's slow - so what, that's not the issue. It responds to a green stick - so what, that's not the issue. It's a prototype and a little rough - so what, that's not the issue. It's done by students and cut them a little slack - that's not the issue.
Like autodriving vehicles: I/O is not the issue.
As a long time swordfight student and instructor, I have to say that putting a stick in the grip of an industrial robot does not make it a sword fighter.
For example, the obvious mistake seen in the video is that the robot strikes at the *weapon*, not the *person*. As any 1st year fencing student knows, you can't win the fight that way. I love fighting nubies who make that mistake.
We have a term for this - it's called "Erroll Flynn" fighting, and it refers to those cheap movie swordfight scenes where the actors aren't skilled enough to actually fight without putting out their opponent's eye. Stay far enough away so that you can't hit the opponent, and cross swords in mid air. Clack... Clack... Clack... now low: Clack... Clack... Clack... now high...
Let's have a robot that holds a broom and say it's a sweeping robot! Or a robot that holds a hose and say it's a car washing robot! Or a robot that holds a trimmer and say it's a hedge-trimming robot.
Wake me when it can detect an opening in the opponent's defense and strike at it.
I'll just betcha this app works on police, too!
We could take a facial scan whenever we interact with a policeman, get a list of prior complaints and check out review sites.
We could find out whether he's been accused of rights violations, racist behaviour, corruption - and the percent chance that he'll settle out of court versus fighting a conviction.
So... this tech will help keep me safe from criminals *and* cops?
I love this new tech! Let's do it! Woo-hoo!
I don't think that the events of the experiment are in any way unexpected, with the exception of Zimbardo's girlfriend intervening.
I think quite highly of Zimbardo, so I don't believe it's his fault. It's because of all of our social conditioning.
We're never schooled in ethics. We're only occasionally *sometimes* told the difference between right and wrong, but overall we're just expected to know where these concepts are without a map. Breaking a promise is wrong, but when the principal wants to know something you promised to keep secret, see if he thinks ethics is a good excuse.
Schools teach compliance in a big way. Government and industry and pretty much everyone in charge will tell you that it's no use - there's nothing you can do. Be on the wrong side of a policeman, prosecutor, judge, politician, your boss, or the town council to see what I mean.
And even if anyone knows where the boundaries of ethics lie, there's no real chance to practice the decisions in the field. In any emotional situation your cognitive functions shut down and you rely completely on stored habits. That's a survival tactic - the stored programs can be executed very fast without spending any time to think - but it means that if you haven't set up any mental patterns to recognize injustice and speak out against it it won't happen during a situation where it's needed. Only after the fact.
People who practice role-playing in various forms (LARP, emergency training, EMT, police, navy seals) get around it by learning not to react emotionally and by making patterns which are useful because they've been thought out in advance.
So we have a big population which is schooled in compliance, where no formal ethical standards are taught and where ethical rules are often violated for any expedient reason. Drop some of these in a fearful situation and you're surprised that they don't react?
I'm surprised at the reaction of his girlfriend, and much more surprised that she *insisted* in the face of his resistance.
So you're saying that NH residents pay 3x the taxes as California residents?
I don't believe it, and to support my claim there are numerous studies on the net that indicate that NH has one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation.
The only way I can see these numbers making sense, is to distinguish between tax rates and taxes actually paid.
If businesses are required to pay sales tax, but get an "economic incentive" discount from the government, and if there are enough discounts so that very little of the sales tax gets actually paid, then overall the tax load may appear high but result in little revenue.
Are there that many businesses getting tax breaks from the CA government?
I don't doubt your numbers, but this site made the same calculations (2009) and came up with wildly differing numbers:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/336.html
If your numbers are correct, then NH overall taxes have doubled in two years. I can personally attest that this didn't happen.
Something else has to be going on here. I don't doubt your figures, but it still doesn't make any sense.
(I posted the original question)
Illegal immigration and crime are fair points - I get those.
So the rest of your position seems to be that:
1) A vast industrial and agricultural base is more expensive for the state than the revenue they bring in
2) International shipping is more expensive than the revenue it brings in
3) Tourism is more expensive on the state than the revenue it brings in
4) Having 36x more people to tax somehow brings in less revenue than 1x the people?
I don't get these last 4 points. Do they even make sense?
(I posted the original question)
People who live in NH and work in MA have pay income tax to MA, but don't get any of the services that a MA state resident would. How is that leeching off of MA?
It seems to me that MA is getting a better deal - they tax NH citizens without representation, but don't have to pay for the wear-and-tear that a citizen would cause.
I'm still missing your point.
(I posted the original question)
Does that even make sense? People who live in NH and work in MA have pay income tax to MA, but don't get any of the services that a MA state resident would. How is that leeching off of MA?
It seems to me that MA is getting a better deal - they tax NH citizens without representation, but don't have to pay for the wear-and-tear that a citizen would cause.
I'm still missing your point.
(I posted the original question)
Does that even make sense? You have to fund 18x more area than we do, but you have 28x the people to tax for it.
And each person is taxed 17% *more* in California than NH on average.
I'm still missing your point.
One thing I've always wondered is why California needs so much money to operate.
Here in NH, we've got no sales tax and no income tax. Our overall tax burden is among the lowest in the US (sometimes *the* lowest, depending on the year), so yeah - our property taxes are high but not high enough to make up the difference.
Despite this dearth of income, we manage to keep the roads plowed, the schools funded, and the streetlights burning.
So what part of the economic model is different for California? Do they have more road per person to maintain? Are there more criminals per person so that they need more jails? Do they have social services we're missing (universal healthcare)?
Are coastlines more expensive than inland borders?
There's a lot of economists (student and hobby) here on Slashdot. I just don't see the difference in models.
What am I missing?
I'm attempting to solve AI and have found a dearth of informed people who can talk about it.
I'd love to chat with you about your views. If you feel up to it, drop me a line:
Niroz (dot) 9 (dot) okianwarrior (at) spamgourmet.com
This makes sense, how?
It's like trying to simulate a computer by wiring 5 million transistors. Without a deep understanding of how computers work and a plan for implementation, the result will be worthless.
I see this all the time in AI strategies. Without no deep understanding of AI, the project implements bad assumptions.
Some examples: no way to encode the adjacency information, a fixed internal encoding system which cannot change (ie - a chess program that can't learn checkers), linear input->process->output models, and so on.
Before building a system with a million processors capable of simulating the brain, how about we design an algorithm that embodies the simplest possible AI?
Some decades ago, X-ray machines were common. So common that you could go into a department store and get an X-ray to see how well your new shoes fit. Doctors routinely used continuous X-ray scanners (fluoroscopes) with dosages much higher and for much longer durations.
Once people started to suspect that X-rays could cause cancer, it was straightforward to find out. Not trivial, but straightforward. Follow a lot of people and look for a correlation between exposure and cancer. Lo and behold, there is an effect.
Once the effects were measured we could compare risks. One of the results was that the risk due to undiagnosed dental problems is far greater than the risk of cancer from an X-ray, so dental X-rays are a good trade-off.
Fast forward to modern times and we have scanners. There is no evidence to suggest that these devices are safe, or unsafe. The manufacturer has a *model* of what should happen with the dosages, and the consensus of opinion is that the devices are safe... except that the result is based on the model, not evidence. Pick different assumptions to get a different model and there may be a risk.
Some assumptions about the new technology are: a) The manufacturer is correctly reporting dosage, b) The radiation is blocked by the skin (or in reverse, the effects will concentrate in the skin), c) Exposures below a certain threshold pose no risk (versus, any exposure causes proportional risk)
To put this in perspective, it's instructional to look at the history of MRI machines. Despite the fact that there is no known mechanism for magnetic fields interacting with the body and causing problems (notwithstanding metal implants &c), the FDA cautiously required progressive testing of the machines before they were deployed for common use.
I approve of this sort of thing. It's one thing to believe that magnetic fields have no effect, but it's important to test things out before you try them on, for example, pregnant women.
In summary, there has been no testing of the TSA scanners whatsoever. Their entire claim to safety rests on their belief that they know how the radiation will affect living tissue, but they cannot back that up with evidence.
They are not scientists, and they have side-stepped the normal medical safety certification process that we take for granted.
Scientists make conclusions based on evidence, politicians make conclusions based on models.
Does a cow have a Buddha nature?
Don't expect anything to come from "Crowdsourcing", as they've made it nearly impossible to navigate.
For instance, you cannot go to a document at random, you have to page through the entire collection 10 links at a time. Sure, I'll be happy to hit "NEXT" 200 times and wait 5 seconds each to get somewhere in the middle because my time isn't valuable and I'm happy to give it to the NYT.
Some of us geeks have experience in getting redacted information out of documents, and there would be quite a bit of motivation to look into this... oh, right-click is disabled, everything has been scanned and put into PDF format. No joy there.
All the public can do is read the words, and then only on the first few easy-to-get-to pages.
This is just the NYT getting the public to do its Mechanical Turk work for free.
The UN estimates of world population now indicate an increase until around 2075 (9.2 billion), and then a decrease after that.
Birth rates in all developed nations are falling fast, many are under replacement rate already. The US population would be lower than the replacement rate right now if it weren't for immigration.
The problem with Malthus is not the math, it's the model. Anyone can pick assumptions and make a model, and from there make predictions. Mathus erred in assuming that things would not change. An exponential curve is indistinguishable from a bell curve at the long tail beginning, so the evidence seemed to support his prediction.
What's changing is the demographics. Once raised out of poverty, people naturally start having fewer children. There are a variety of proposed reasons for this, and the evidence is very strong.
The prediction now is that once everyone is reasonably above the poverty line (mostly Africa, with some contribution from SE Asia) population growth will reverse.
Interestingly enough, in 75 years time there may be the reverse problem - population *shrinkage*.
Here's the problem with this, and most of modern science: It's model based.
To use your reasoning, airport scanners are safe because we can model the effects of radiation on living tissue.
Choose different assumptions to argue the outcome in different ways.
Compare with dental X-rays. At the time people started worrying about radiation, X-rays had been used for some time so it was straightforward to collect data on lots of people and look for a correlation. The correlation was almost vanishingly small, but it was there. From this data we calculate the increased risk, and compare against other risks.
For those of us old enough to remember, there was a similar controversy awhile back about high tension power lines causing cancer in children. In similar manner there were lots of arguments back and forth on why it could happen versus why it doesn't.
Only after a series of evidence based measurements was the issue finally put to rest.
Your model works for you - and that's fine. I notice no one is doing actual experiments; for example - raising mice in close proximity with cell phones and looking for correlations.
Show me the evidence.
You wrote: Our brains have evolved to exclude randomness as much as possible.
I agree completely, but this rather misses the point. The question is whether or not we have free will.
With no free will, then lots of philosophical questions become moot. Criminals can claim that they had no choice, no one can hope to improve their lot... indeed, the very purpose of life becomes unimportant if the outcome is fixed.
Information passed in from outside is necessary for free will. Whether it is sufficient is another matter, but I think it's interesting (and comforting) to know that a necessary condition is satisfied.
Be fair. I was being brief for the sake of clarity.
A model entails predictive capabilities. An image has no predictive capabilities on its own - you also need a mechanism of prediction. An image doesn't rise to the level of "model" as needed for the definition, and the camera has no capacity to make predictions from the model.
Thus, I would say that even though the camera has a "picture" of it's universe and itself within that universe, it can make no predictions about the information - therefore it's not a model. It also has no sense of itself within that model - the picture contains information of the camera within it, but the camera does not distinguish the information describing itself from the rest of the information.
No, a camera pointed at a mirror is not conscious.
Okay, here's the deal.
Any computer program run on a deterministic machine is predictable. It may be complex, in which case the prediction can be made by simply running the program until the prediction time, noting the state, then deleting the program state and going back to square one. Congratulations - you've just predicted the program behaviour!
In order for a program to be unpredictable, information must be passed in from outside its universe. That is to say, information which is NOT encoded in the program and NOT available in it's input stream.
From the point of view of the program, this information is random, which is the definition of unpredictable. From the point of view of an observer outside the scope of the machine and its universe, the information may not be random. It may be based on something that's altogether outside the measurement capability of the program, in which case there is no way to predict the behaviour of that program without the extra information.
The universe I'm talking about is *our* universe, the programs I'm talking about are people, the information is quantum randomness, and the outside observer is God. Quantum randomness is essentially information passed into this universe from outside. It is the basis of free will - without it, our actions would be completely predictable. Put a baby in a VR environment and let them grow up and they would make exactly the same choices and grow up to be exactly the same person - except for quantum randomness.
The fallacy is confusing the terms, which leads to all sorts of mistaken ideas and beliefs. Consciousness is simply the ability to have a mental model of one's universe, with oneself as a separate entity within that model. This is different and completely separate from the concept of free will.
Quantum randomness is the embodiment of free will, not consciousness.
Gee whiz, people! Doesn't anyone study AI any more?
Also, CDV-700 units come with a small radioactive sample taped to the case, specifically for testing.
Hold the tube next to the black dot on the side of the case (with the shield open) and you will hear lots of clicks. That will show you that the unit is working.
Originally, the dot was manufactured so that you could roughly tell if the unit was calibrated, but over time the dots have decayed to about half their initial activity. But they still work and can still be used to test the counter.
I couldn't find a good picture link, but the dot is well marked on the unit. It's easy to find.
For the past 6 months I've been putting together a rad experiment unrelated to Fukishima. I've been all over eBay looking for samples and geiger counters.
Many units on eBay are old Civil Defense units. These are all bright yellow and 30 to 50 years old, and come in several varieties. Of the varieties, the ONLY ONE which is worth getting is the CDV-700 model. All others are unusable for your purposes.
For example, a CDV-715 is only useful if there is lots and lots of radiation available, as in the aftermath of a nuclear war. It's measuring range is so high that it simply cannot see radiation at small levels. Here is an example of what NOT to get:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Gieger-Geiger-Counter-Radiation-Detector-CDV-715-/120725761857?pt=BI_Security_Fire_Protection&hash=item1c1bd0ef41
Similar for the dosimeters. Their range is so high that they will be useless for your purposes. Also, the dosimeters tend to go bad after awhile (air leaks into the chamber), so it's likely that any units you get will not work anyway. Here is an example of what NOT to get:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Gieger-Geiger-Counter-Radiation-Detector-CDV-715-/120725761857?pt=BI_Security_Fire_Protection&hash=item1c1bd0ef41
A CDV-700 has about the right range, and is a very robust - if you get a working unit chances are that it will work for decades. Here is an example of what TO get (any model is OK):
http://cgi.ebay.com/Geiger-counter-radiation-detector-CDV-700-Anton-Model-6-/330566290368?pt=BI_Security_Fire_Protection&hash=item4cf7494bc0
Up until Fukishima, these were going for around $50 USD per unit. Now they are going for around $250.
I've been active on the experimenter's boards for the past several months, and many people are decrying the number of scams and bad counters that unscrupulous people are selling on eBay. People are getting counters with no tubes, which don't work, or are not as advertised. I personally ordered a CDV-700 and received a dosimeter instead - there are lots and lots of bad people trying to take advantage of the situation right now.
(The good news: If you do get a CDV-700 and it doesn't work, they're easy to fix, even for beginner electronics hobbyists.)
I'm also advising several hobbyist groups which are designing their own geiger counters. Of 6 or so separate designs by separate groups, not one of them will be useful for your purpose, for various reasons. These units will work and will detect radiation, but there is no way to assign a meaning to the measurements. They are well suited for the purpose intended, which is measuring radiation over long periods where the measurements can be compared with measurements from the same unit, but these are not useful for your purpose. They also make good hobbyist units, to show the principles of detection.
Measuring radiation, knowing the different types and what to look for isn't hard. It takes about 40 hours of research and reading and some tinkering to get a grasp on the problem. Do that first, then you will know better what to look for and what to buy.
My advice: Get together with the people in your neighborhood, purchase 1 counter and share it. Not everyone needs their own counter, and lots of times only a single measurement is needed anyway (is this area clean?). Designate one person to study up on the techniques and issues, and rely on that one person to make measurements as needed and explain the results.
It's not hard, but it takes a little dedication. Specialize and trade.
For those of us who need accurate clocks and don't have $1500 to spend, highly stable temp controlled oscillator chips are cheap and common right now. (Search eBay for OXCO)
For example, this one (which I'm using) is accurate in the PPB range:
I've just now reviewed Alan Aragon's debunking of Lustig's claims, roundly publicized here in several comments. Including some of the cited references from that article.
Alan's rebuttal was a debate between himself and Lustig. The issues wander the landscape of unrelated factual errors (Lustig claims that the Japanese have no added fructose in their diet), cites of papers which show the data being inconclusive (specifically, he's citing absence of evidence as evidence of absence), and painting Lustig with the same brush as more "fringe" claimants.
And of course it wasn't the actual debate, but a summary of the debate, and written by Alan. He must have won the debate too - he says so in his summary.
In comparing the two positions, I find Alan's rebuttal lacking in scientific rigor. If a half-dozen or so studies can be found (or undertaken) which target Lustig's claims directly and show no evidence for the things that he says, that would counter the half-dozen or so studies that form the basis of Lustig's lecture.
Until then, I assign higher likelyhood to Lustig. I'll continue to hold this position until actual scientists chime in with conclusions based on evidence.