1) Robot suicide bombers isn't exactly an ethical step down for bombers - and it lacks martyr value.
2) I imagine fear of friendly fire will keep handlers at the controls of robots for quite some time.
3) I think there have been a few robotic sentries made that act autonomously but constantly report and can be overridden (S. Korea, perhaps?)...
4) Unsettling thought the implications may be, eventually I think robotic, autonomous war machines will be built - and for the builders, it will be quite a plus. Probably a bit of a downer for everyone else.
It may be seen in retrospect as another of those "Roman Conquest" moments where a powerful, advanced culture stomps all over more primitive cultures - but the survivors end up better off, at least for a while. History, like sausages, is a process whose benefits are better (more comfortably) enjoyed than understood.
"work that adds to the value of the original, as opposed to substituting for the original, is fair use."
I don't think that defining a subjective term by the use of another subjective term clarifies anything.
This is, and will remain, a thorny issues because, whetever the long-term interests of both parties and their understanding thereof, the short-term interests collide. Given the prevalence of piracy, I'm not sure even a crystal clear definition will solve the problem.
It seems to me that the definition of copyrights and the definition, discussion and litigation of that concept is likely to be viewed historically as a process and not an event.
In other words, this discussion will pretty much be endless.
The standard Efficiency numbers are 24% for normal gas engines, and 33% for turbodiesels.
140% of 24 is 33.8.
So basically he's saying that the 6-stroke "regenerative cooling" (I made that up) engine could equal a turbodiesel, which seems quite possible, given how lean you can run and the re-use of otherwise wasted heat energy.
Water injection is used to allow increased power output all the time, from NA aircraft to hopped up turbo racecars.
One of the big problems with the "efficiency" crowd is that they think small, quiet, unobtrusive. Maybe they should have been looking at some of that raucus, loud, scary technology.
My understanding (of old) is that the primary reason for the ban was not that interference was inevitable, but that not all the myriad makes and models of phones could be adequately tested.
Maybe they've been doing tests and not finding anything.
The "pico cell" concept in the FA is interesting - do 2G cellphones normally adjust power output to cell distance / signal strength? Otherwise, the signals from the cells are just as much an issue as before.
We joke about how companies use their customers as beta-testers, but when it comes to internal proprietary software, often that's the quite literal truth.
No amount of production slowdowns or errors seem to make that clear, however.
As I used to say to developers at a company I used to work for,
"I want to tell you about a radical new idea I had - testing things before deploying them."
In the case of weapons systems, that means debugging the software before loading the gun.
Truth me told, most "automated" weapons are more like remote control, for precisely this reason.
Also, while my experience is not vast in the area, most American weapons testers follow a lot of safety rules - including not being in the line of fire of the darned thing. Note I said most - we have our munitions accidents here, too.
Wow, the convenience! Wow, the spam! Wow, the research possibilities! Wow, the fraud!
I think the more serious question is, is it inevitable? Probably.
Would I prefer Google or MS to do it? No. Is it going to be one of them? probably.
I never got excited about "net neutrality" 'cause whiever way it goes, somebody gets screwed.
I used to be "super privacy man!" but looking more deeply at things like this, and I don't have a strong position other than "well, we'd better learn to keep an eye on our data - one more thing on the list."
I think it's funny that cluster studies have been brought up as a positive... that's one of the areas that led me to spend more time trying to check the data when I hear about a study... it's kind of shocking how much innumeracy falls inbetween data and conclusions.
We all want to look for macro-applications right away, but it seems pretty obvious that this is meant for the micro.
I'm not going to stoop to doing the math (*ahem*), but I'm imagining we're not talking about a huge efficiency gain over high-end conventional sources.
Not to mention the "assembly barrier" to something like this. You though installing that modchip to put Fedora on your XBox was hard, that was just a few fiddly wires. Imagine some poor Chinese factory slave-labor dude with his soldering iron and a microscope and directions to make a 1-meter square photocell out of 1.4x10^e9 nanofibers.
On the other hand, the simple practice (among others) of slicing things thinner for the sake of slicing them thinner led us to semiconductors, so I'm all for this geeky hobby of making things tiny.
My best guess is that, with enough data and broad enough terms, some kind of vaguely accurate predictive "crowd behavior" model could be made. Better than nothing, but not very specific.
There's already a lot of documentation on group/crowd behavior, and some particular people have been quite adept at "crowd control," which implies that there is a way to do it. Advertising firms sell their services based on the principle.
The A to B part of it with regards to computer software is the hard sell.
So... maybe, maybe not.
In a sense, this is just a sort of "expert computer" that mimics a human's skill at manipulation or control of crowds. In this context, prediction is intertwined with control - you need to predict to control, but once you control you can predict.
Roy took extraordinary measures to avoid law enforcement.
Except for the part where he stickered up his car like a boy-racer with OCD, making him STAND OUT to people looking for things that stand out - like police.
I mean, even not counting the reckless endangerment charge he'll hopefully be facing in at least a dozen states following his loverly confession.
Or not, who knows the vagaries of local law enforcement. It sounds like at least one officer picked him up on radar and pursued him, so the confession will be accompanied by at least one officer's sworn testimony.
Don't get me wrong, I love fast cars and fast driving - but not in traffic. That's just stupid.
(shakes head at people referring to phishers and dealers in stolen ccards as "honest")
There are some interesting ideas on this thread. The "flooding" idea is probably both the most legally defensible and cost effective response (hey, it's a real concern). I mean, you get pretty pissed when someone floods your inbox with 100 times as much crap as you get in content, imagine if you had to check each one to see if it was crap or content?
People talk about just arresting the criminals - we have a pretty darned high bar for prosecution, and it requires a lot of man-hours for each case. To the point where, extradition issues aside, there simply aren't enough resources.
Yeah, it would be nice if there were. But there aren't, and I don't think we want to substantially lower the barriers to prosecution when we can just flood at least a portion of the crooks out of the market by making their work so time-consuming that it's unprofitable.
Yes, that applies less to DOS attackers, site hackers, and virus writers, and mainly to phishers and CC bandits of various kinds. The former still require those pesky investigations, but the population appears to be smaller.
It might not be a bad idea to simply monitor these "reputation systems" and target the highest rep d00dz for prosecution - make it unattractive to advertise for work in that field (it is illegal, after all).
This will probably turn into a pretty rapid-fire he-said she-said involving bribes, corruption, and really bad moves.
The high tarrifs, bribes, and corrupt officials make this kind of thing inevitable, but it was still stupid to try to get around the taxes. Understandable, in the sense of closing your fruit stall during the shift of the corrupt cop who collects protection money, but still stupid.
The problem is that, like India, the Brazil market is big enough for people to take risks to sell there.
We'll have to see how it turns out, but I'd place a small bet that the local Cisco office bribed the wrong official - who either turned on them or done got themselves busted.
That's why a (relatively) honest system is so important - certainty.
Coward? Who's the jackass making false accusations over the internet from a position of ignorance?
And you wonder why I didn't want to engage you in conversation?
Oh, and if you're going to quote people, please quote what they say, not what you want them to have said.
I compared VDARE's printing of bland assumptions of racial superiority to CNN and Reuter's bland acceptance of the propaganda and direction of genocidal racists. I stand by that comparison. I think if VDARE is collectively guilty of racism, then so are CNN and Reuters.
Do you stand by your pathetic false accusations? Would you make them in public, or just behind your keyboard, you ignorant, lying coward? Or would you fear that your baseless accusations would open you up to defamation charges?
Another internet loudmouth. THAT's why I made you my "enemy," because you're the kind of person I'd really rather not associate with - a hatemongering, false-accusing, ignorant dimwit.
1. Patent "Methods for Not Committing Murder, Rapine, Robbery, Soccage-in-feif, and Barratry-on-the-high-seas." 2. Hire a grasping, unethical lawyer. 3. Profit!
I think when someone is as aggressively defensive as you are, no further explanation is needed. Especially since no one else failed to get what I was saying.
Maybe, since you know what I'm talking about and are feigning ignorance in a failed attempt to score points, you should actually make an argument and let it stand.
And maybe I made my point well enough, and I'm not going to get drawn into a vapid offtopic political argument.
I'm sorry, but has the/. "editorial policy" (I know) crossed over from opposing the MPAA/RIAA's heavy-ham-handed tactics to actually encouraging copyright violation?
I'm waiting for a different scent to waft from the post itself... ain't happenin'.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Robot suicide bombers isn't exactly an ethical step down for bombers - and it lacks martyr value.
2) I imagine fear of friendly fire will keep handlers at the controls of robots for quite some time.
3) I think there have been a few robotic sentries made that act autonomously but constantly report and can be overridden (S. Korea, perhaps?)...
4) Unsettling thought the implications may be, eventually I think robotic, autonomous war machines will be built - and for the builders, it will be quite a plus. Probably a bit of a downer for everyone else.
It may be seen in retrospect as another of those "Roman Conquest" moments where a powerful, advanced culture stomps all over more primitive cultures - but the survivors end up better off, at least for a while. History, like sausages, is a process whose benefits are better (more comfortably) enjoyed than understood.
"work that adds to the value of the original, as opposed to substituting for the original, is fair use."
I don't think that defining a subjective term by the use of another subjective term clarifies anything.
This is, and will remain, a thorny issues because, whetever the long-term interests of both parties and their understanding thereof, the short-term interests collide. Given the prevalence of piracy, I'm not sure even a crystal clear definition will solve the problem.
It seems to me that the definition of copyrights and the definition, discussion and litigation of that concept is likely to be viewed historically as a process and not an event.
In other words, this discussion will pretty much be endless.
Well, maybe not so much.
The standard Efficiency numbers are 24% for normal gas engines, and 33% for turbodiesels.
140% of 24 is 33.8.
So basically he's saying that the 6-stroke "regenerative cooling" (I made that up) engine could equal a turbodiesel, which seems quite possible, given how lean you can run and the re-use of otherwise wasted heat energy.
Water injection is used to allow increased power output all the time, from NA aircraft to hopped up turbo racecars.
One of the big problems with the "efficiency" crowd is that they think small, quiet, unobtrusive. Maybe they should have been looking at some of that raucus, loud, scary technology.
My understanding (of old) is that the primary reason for the ban was not that interference was inevitable, but that not all the myriad makes and models of phones could be adequately tested.
Maybe they've been doing tests and not finding anything.
The "pico cell" concept in the FA is interesting - do 2G cellphones normally adjust power output to cell distance / signal strength? Otherwise, the signals from the cells are just as much an issue as before.
Someday, someone will explain the moderation around here to me. And how 2-1 = 0. Weird.
(Yeah, this is offtopic.)
Sentry guns! Not entirely as cool as we had hoped... at least during beta testing.
I imagine it's another "inevitable" technology, on the other hand.
We joke about how companies use their customers as beta-testers, but when it comes to internal proprietary software, often that's the quite literal truth.
No amount of production slowdowns or errors seem to make that clear, however.
As I used to say to developers at a company I used to work for,
"I want to tell you about a radical new idea I had - testing things before deploying them."
In the case of weapons systems, that means debugging the software before loading the gun.
Truth me told, most "automated" weapons are more like remote control, for precisely this reason.
Also, while my experience is not vast in the area, most American weapons testers follow a lot of safety rules - including not being in the line of fire of the darned thing. Note I said most - we have our munitions accidents here, too.
"Something we really don't know all that much about turns out somewhat different than we expected."
News at 11? We have a long way to go with cosmology, I just don't get how surprised people seem when we get a surprise.
Wow, the convenience! Wow, the spam! Wow, the research possibilities! Wow, the fraud!
I think the more serious question is, is it inevitable? Probably.
Would I prefer Google or MS to do it? No. Is it going to be one of them? probably.
I never got excited about "net neutrality" 'cause whiever way it goes, somebody gets screwed.
I used to be "super privacy man!" but looking more deeply at things like this, and I don't have a strong position other than "well, we'd better learn to keep an eye on our data - one more thing on the list."
I think it's funny that cluster studies have been brought up as a positive... that's one of the areas that led me to spend more time trying to check the data when I hear about a study... it's kind of shocking how much innumeracy falls inbetween data and conclusions.
We all want to look for macro-applications right away, but it seems pretty obvious that this is meant for the micro.
I'm not going to stoop to doing the math (*ahem*), but I'm imagining we're not talking about a huge efficiency gain over high-end conventional sources.
Not to mention the "assembly barrier" to something like this. You though installing that modchip to put Fedora on your XBox was hard, that was just a few fiddly wires. Imagine some poor Chinese factory slave-labor dude with his soldering iron and a microscope and directions to make a 1-meter square photocell out of 1.4x10^e9 nanofibers.
On the other hand, the simple practice (among others) of slicing things thinner for the sake of slicing them thinner led us to semiconductors, so I'm all for this geeky hobby of making things tiny.
My best guess is that, with enough data and broad enough terms, some kind of vaguely accurate predictive "crowd behavior" model could be made. Better than nothing, but not very specific.
There's already a lot of documentation on group/crowd behavior, and some particular people have been quite adept at "crowd control," which implies that there is a way to do it. Advertising firms sell their services based on the principle.
The A to B part of it with regards to computer software is the hard sell.
So... maybe, maybe not.
In a sense, this is just a sort of "expert computer" that mimics a human's skill at manipulation or control of crowds. In this context, prediction is intertwined with control - you need to predict to control, but once you control you can predict.
You may be correct, in which case it is the editor's error and not Roy's.
It's still nice to see someone burn their inheritance spending vast amounts of money risking the lives of strangers to feed their ego.
He could at least rent a cape and pretend he was a superhero, he might at least accidentally accomplish some good.
Except for the part where he stickered up his car like a boy-racer with OCD, making him STAND OUT to people looking for things that stand out - like police.
I mean, even not counting the reckless endangerment charge he'll hopefully be facing in at least a dozen states following his loverly confession.
Or not, who knows the vagaries of local law enforcement. It sounds like at least one officer picked him up on radar and pursued him, so the confession will be accompanied by at least one officer's sworn testimony.
Don't get me wrong, I love fast cars and fast driving - but not in traffic. That's just stupid.
I sure hope so, for everyone involved.
Oh, and if, as is mentioned in the article, they have some sort of promotional giveaway of e-paper with ads/slogans etc... grab one quick!
:)
They'll stop giving them away when a "hack" appears online to add battery life, memory, rewrite the OS, etc.
I think durability will be the biggest problem.
People are rough with things. Especially students, one of the ideal user groups for this kind of thing.
The low-power portion is desirable, but my guess is that most of these things will end up in frames.
(shakes head at people referring to phishers and dealers in stolen ccards as "honest")
There are some interesting ideas on this thread. The "flooding" idea is probably both the most legally defensible and cost effective response (hey, it's a real concern). I mean, you get pretty pissed when someone floods your inbox with 100 times as much crap as you get in content, imagine if you had to check each one to see if it was crap or content?
People talk about just arresting the criminals - we have a pretty darned high bar for prosecution, and it requires a lot of man-hours for each case. To the point where, extradition issues aside, there simply aren't enough resources.
Yeah, it would be nice if there were. But there aren't, and I don't think we want to substantially lower the barriers to prosecution when we can just flood at least a portion of the crooks out of the market by making their work so time-consuming that it's unprofitable.
Yes, that applies less to DOS attackers, site hackers, and virus writers, and mainly to phishers and CC bandits of various kinds. The former still require those pesky investigations, but the population appears to be smaller.
It might not be a bad idea to simply monitor these "reputation systems" and target the highest rep d00dz for prosecution - make it unattractive to advertise for work in that field (it is illegal, after all).
This will probably turn into a pretty rapid-fire he-said she-said involving bribes, corruption, and really bad moves.
The high tarrifs, bribes, and corrupt officials make this kind of thing inevitable, but it was still stupid to try to get around the taxes. Understandable, in the sense of closing your fruit stall during the shift of the corrupt cop who collects protection money, but still stupid.
The problem is that, like India, the Brazil market is big enough for people to take risks to sell there.
We'll have to see how it turns out, but I'd place a small bet that the local Cisco office bribed the wrong official - who either turned on them or done got themselves busted.
That's why a (relatively) honest system is so important - certainty.
I think what matters here, at least for me, is not that you were wrong about me, but that I was right about you.
You make terrible accusations based on nothing but your own prejudices - why would I ever expect you to reasonably discuss anything?
Even responding to your grotesque allegations was a waste of time - but color me human.
Coward? Who's the jackass making false accusations over the internet from a position of ignorance?
And you wonder why I didn't want to engage you in conversation?
Oh, and if you're going to quote people, please quote what they say, not what you want them to have said.
I compared VDARE's printing of bland assumptions of racial superiority to CNN and Reuter's bland acceptance of the propaganda and direction of genocidal racists. I stand by that comparison. I think if VDARE is collectively guilty of racism, then so are CNN and Reuters.
Do you stand by your pathetic false accusations? Would you make them in public, or just behind your keyboard, you ignorant, lying coward? Or would you fear that your baseless accusations would open you up to defamation charges?
Another internet loudmouth. THAT's why I made you my "enemy," because you're the kind of person I'd really rather not associate with - a hatemongering, false-accusing, ignorant dimwit.
Oh, and have a super weekend!
1. Patent "Methods for Not Committing Murder, Rapine, Robbery, Soccage-in-feif, and Barratry-on-the-high-seas."
2. Hire a grasping, unethical lawyer.
3. Profit!
I think when someone is as aggressively defensive as you are, no further explanation is needed. Especially since no one else failed to get what I was saying.
Maybe, since you know what I'm talking about and are feigning ignorance in a failed attempt to score points, you should actually make an argument and let it stand.
And maybe I made my point well enough, and I'm not going to get drawn into a vapid offtopic political argument.
If you have a point, feel free to make it.
I'm sorry, but has the
I'm waiting for a different scent to waft from the post itself... ain't happenin'.
You could always look at your comment history, like I did before I answered.