Saddam was lobbing SCUDS at Israel & the US lent IDF a bunch of our trailer mounted ABM interceptors
We've got to assume the Israelis have the state of the art now...is this as good as it gets? Seems like it should be better, given what we had in 1991...I know Hamas isn't launching big fat slow SCUDS, but even so, technology has just gotten so much more precise & fast. I wonder if the intercept rate would be higher if Hamas didn't use DIY rockets among others.
TFA is very interesting & I'm smarter for having read it...
I'm glad people are looking at this kind of thing...it is *one* way to get some unbiased information
So, "5% effective"...
As TFA description reads, the number of Israeli casualties is mostly due to a combination of factors, including bomb shelters and early warnings...
I think the "Iron Dome" people would respond to TFA thusly:
"Yes, but **the program** is effective. "Iron Dome" is our missile defense system, which is one part of our civil defense, which is an entire program of things to keep people safe...if you look at the program in its entirity it's a success"
I responded to another person like you, but since you mentioned TRANSFORMERS...
The first Transformers movie made $700 million. "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" made $830 million, "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" grossed over a billion dollars and "Transformers: Age of Extinction" is 75% there after two weeks. Reality disagrees with you.
that proves my point, actually
Transformers remakes are shit
they grossed alot of money
that ****does not prove you right****
because there is ***NO CHOICE***
moviegoers couldn't choose between different versions of the remake...you are taking a false choice and twisting it to prove a non-existent point
if they want to see Transformers with updated special effects, there is only one option...seeing the ones with horrible writing
also, we're several iterations into this now...people have been conditioned to accept lower quality by artificial scarcity
lastly, it doesn't matter that some people will watch anything...YES...I admit that is a true fact
just because people will watch whatever shit gets most marketing doesn't mean that they wouldn't ***choose a better option if they had one***
you logic is backwards...by your logic, a zoo animal *must* like their food because they eat all of it...forget the fact that *it's all the food they get*
A problem is that this market isn't especially large nor lucrative.
you are believing the marketing...you are accepting *their* framing of the situation
it is a false choice...many excellent films are also hugely popular **when they get the marketing push**
producing shitty movies still costs alot of money, ex: ***TRANSFORMERS SERIES***
end of discussion
The big money is in mediocre crap. Always has been.
absolutely hook line and sinker...you are part of the problem
YES...people often just want to be distracted...busy people working hard dont have time to curate their entertainment like some of us
THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE RIGHT
just because people will accept the best of what is available doesnt mean that ***if they had a choice*** they wouldn't choose the better option
your point is like saying "People go to Wal-Mart...it's hugely popular...that proves that people would rather have a cheap chinese made bicycle rather than a US made one"
Wal-Mart gets all the customers not because of quality, but because of *******ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY IN THE MARKET*********
it's an engineered lack of options...it's obvious and you are a dupe for not seeing it
people want relevant, accurate news more than ever
people want entertainment that is not formulaic & trite more than ever
the ***ONY*** reasons authors, musicians, journalists and other "content creators" are suffering is because of:
***bad business management of the companies they work for***
these unscrupulous business managers are trained to understand "business" and "profit" as ONLY SHORT TERM METRICS that are abstracted into more "numbers" that they have to "hit"
it's based on the **incorrect** concept that people don't care if their journalism, art, music is quality or not...they cynically assume that people will watch whatever is on TV, read whatver books are put in front of them, and listen to trite, predictable music indefinitely
ITS NOT TRUE
people want variety, they notice repetition...
the only reason is that we, as consumers, have been conditioned by bullshit marketing to have ***REDUCED EXPECTATIONS OF VALUE***
it starts with symbols...then goes to 'logic'...then math/code/language
here's one way we can know this is true (besides using the SMCR model)...
it mirrors human development
humans use symbols before we know what they mean...before we can use **logic** to manipulate symbols in real time to get what we want (aka talking/writing)
we first mimic the symbols around us like a parrot...we just repeat what we hear
then we **associate** symbols with things...
that association allows for us to use logic...logic tells us what symbols result in what actions around us
***THEN*** we choose from all symbol systems available to us the best for the situation...
The problem with all the articles like this is that they're either written by people who did take math or didn't
right...and that biases them...same for the coders as you say...
what no one considers is what the Communications people have to say...
see...Communications Theory (as taught today...i'd know...used to teach it as adjunct in grad school) starts with Claude Shannon and his SMCR model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
sure, there is tons of 'soft science' but there is something relevant here: SYMBOLS
it really goes like this:
symbols:logic:math/programming/writtenlanguage
math/code/written language are all on the same "hierarchy" level...then branch according to ****USAGE FUNCTION**** (I hate that TFA uses that ontology!!!!)
all math, all code...it's ALL SYMBOLS...and, from a cybernetic perspective, they can all be grouped together when trying to answer questions that TFA poses
Because they can clearly only use one or the other.
yeah I thought the same...
if i was missing a hand, I'd definitely want to try this out in tandem with my prostetic hand
this is a great area to be in, for my money...you get to work with the latest BCI crap and robotics AND directly improve people's lives in a tangible way
first of all, I can criticize the concept and design all I want...it's not rude or offensive towards disabled people to demand *better* design at all...
missing one hand after an accident?
your (trolling) criticism is also factually incorrect....TFA isn't a prostetic hand to replace an injured limb...this is expressly intended to be an addition to the main 'hand' so anyone might use it
my point was/is that robotics is only limited by the power source and material strength now, and all these (really expensive) hype-generating projects is not progressing science...it's just rearranging of tinker toys, b/c we have different limits now...we have the BCI interface perfected enough to start using for this stuff...the design ideas are there...now its just a question of power/material strength...i'd like to see research and hype directed in that area
this looks like good engineering work...really...I read TFA...but the *design* and *concept* are, to me, kind of dumb
dumb...as in it really feels like they were spitballing ideas and said "hey, why not extra fingers?"
IMHO this is an example of robotics continuing to spin its wheels...
it's a *power* and *material science* game now...we have the connectivity with the brain now...we have stacks of ideas...who can't imagine all kinds of applications for robotics?
now it's just about the power source and making it small enough yet sturdy
For exanple: the more people pay for wine, the higher quality they think it is. It tasted better to them. Same mechanism
thnx for the response but...i have to respectfully disagree here...not with you per se, but more with common parliance
the situation you describe is *similar* to "the placebo effect" used in research, but it is not an example proper
the situation you describe is an *economic* effect, which should not be confused...they call it the "snob effect" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... In college I learned it as "snob good"
**yes** by this definition, most things people buy are in some way a "snob good"...ex: buying Charmin Ultra Soft instead of regular TP
remember, just an example...just like your wine example, it's a purchase of a good, which is governed by different behavior rules than personal actions like taking a sugar pill
"the placebo effect" that became part of common parliance is really, truly, only should describe the behavior we see in research when the control (placebo) group reports the same effect as the experimental thing
the problem is human behavior is **COMPLEX** and we have not, in any way, fully described it scientifically
so, lots of things people do could be called "the placebo effect" in some fashion, and you would have good reason to say so...b/c "the placebo effect" itself is poorly defined!
i'm aiming at clearing up linguistic differences so we can talk about the real issue
bottom line, every "placebo effect" we see has an explanation grounded in science that is testable
maybe affective computing is just wishful thinking...
first, it's established fact that we have sensors that can detect changes in brain waves from outside the body, and further that by intentionally thinking a certain way, those signal alterations can be detected and connected to control systems
that's scientific fact & is really interesting...been around for decades, but still, mind control and all that
2nd, saying you're testing "the placebo effect" is a good way to confuse a scientific conversation..."the placebo effect" and using a placebo in a research study are mutually exclusive concepts. The whole point is to properly design the research by establishing experimental and control variables. A control group in an experiment might be given an inert pill (called a "placebo") as a dummy pill and results compared with the experimental pill's effects
"the placebo effect" is when those in the control group, those given the inert pill which will not have a biochemical effect on them, exhibit signs as if they have taken the experimental group pill. consult wikipedia for famous examples.
in common parlaince of popular science media, "the placebo effect" is used as a term to describe many kinds of research phenomena that is counter-intuitive and not readily explainable in the context of the research
this research shows that ("really expensive") affective control is about as good as a random generator...
***THAT'S NOT A PLACEBO EFFECT......THAT'S EVIDENCE THAT AFFECT CONTROL IS BULLSHIT***
bringing "the placebo effect" into the discussion only serves to obfuscate the data...which clearly shows that BCI controls may not be related to "emotions" in the way popular media and marketing and TED talks suggest
look...
this brain wave reading stuff is awesome...really...but just because your brain waves take a certain patter when you get "teh sadz" doesn't mean that bombarding your cranium with that wave will make you "teh sadz"
google glass has a BCI interface that can snap a photo with a thought...****AWESOME****
that's great...let's do more...but let's not pretend this explains "emotions" and let's not ever use "the placebo effect" in this manner as TFA does again:)
Kurzweil should not be taken seriously anymore...no 'futurist' should be taken seriously...it's all TED talk hype-BS...at best...at worst it's a PhD thesis!
Sure, technology could advance to the point where most menial tasks are automated and only the mentioned 'skill' jobs (several posts have listed them in other comments)
yes...that can/will happen...
AWESOME
it's a win-win-win...practically a utopia in fact...a techo utopia where political systems like 'libertarianism' and 'capitalism' and 'socialism' are wholly unnecessary and we can all **share** in the bounty and **evolve** to whatever we will become once we get past meeting our basic survival needs
unless...
your value system depends on competition and scarcity
THEN
you have to make ***artificial scarcity*** to maintain your structure
technology is the ultimate anarchist...it's ***HUMANS*** who choose to make the technology reinforce the status quo
hey, Sockatume, if it's no big deal, lets have you be first.
just because ***YOU*** are willing to give up privacy b/c of insurance company's artificial scarcity con-job doesn't mean the rest of us want to do the same
you can forfeit your rights/privacy for no reason in a rigged system...
***you cannot make the same decision for everyone else***
Slashdot Mirror
when I said this:
i was obviously referring to the "Iron Dome" system, not what is being launched at it
Remember Patriot Missiles from the 1st Iraq war?
Saddam was lobbing SCUDS at Israel & the US lent IDF a bunch of our trailer mounted ABM interceptors
We've got to assume the Israelis have the state of the art now...is this as good as it gets? Seems like it should be better, given what we had in 1991...I know Hamas isn't launching big fat slow SCUDS, but even so, technology has just gotten so much more precise & fast. I wonder if the intercept rate would be higher if Hamas didn't use DIY rockets among others.
TFA is very interesting & I'm smarter for having read it...
I'm glad people are looking at this kind of thing...it is *one* way to get some unbiased information
So, "5% effective"...
As TFA description reads, the number of Israeli casualties is mostly due to a combination of factors, including bomb shelters and early warnings...
I think the "Iron Dome" people would respond to TFA thusly:
"Yes, but **the program** is effective. "Iron Dome" is our missile defense system, which is one part of our civil defense, which is an entire program of things to keep people safe...if you look at the program in its entirity it's a success"
you're reductive notion, that anything that sells is therefore 'awesome' and worthy of praise
HORSESHIT
you're blatantly wrong about this, and it's common knowledge
Wal-Mart is easily an evil, despotic purveyor broken dreams
some crooked fsker went and downmodded all my responses
***i protest these downmods b/c they are not deserved***
my posts have always been on topic, IMHO interesting, and at least involves direct clash of ideas
I WAS DOWNMODDED FOR PERSONAL/POLITICAL REASONS NOT BECAUSE OF MY IDEAS BEING WRONG
cowards show yourselves, and explain as an AC or GTFO
Wal-Mart is a know exploiter of labor & is roundly hated for their business practices
the fact that you somehow idealize their outsourcing of small town America indicates further discussion with you will be unfruitful
Watch this documentary to start educating yourself: Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price (2005)
my original comment, and the point of this thread is not to explain every shitty film/book franchise out there
there's taste, personal preference, etc...
but what I *can* explain is why the idea that "print is dead" and TFA's assertions about why are dumb and wrong.
it's bad business decisions made from the managers who think their job is to hit abstract "numbers" instead of facilitate their talent
*that's what i can explain*
globaljustin
and **I NEVER told anyone what to do**
my point was/is that **people want better things** and that TFA's assertions, at the general "print is dead" meme is BS
now go watch a documentary
tell me, what other Transformers remakes are out there?
but that's parenthetical (you and I both know there isn't one)
my *original main point* was that TFA's diagnosis is just dead wrong
a certain number of people are "sheeple" yes...but that does not prove TFA's assertions ***AT ALL***
just because **some** people will watch "whatever is on" doesn't mean that they wouldn't choose a better option, when put in front of them
I responded to another person like you, but since you mentioned TRANSFORMERS...
that proves my point, actually
Transformers remakes are shit
they grossed alot of money
that ****does not prove you right****
because there is ***NO CHOICE***
moviegoers couldn't choose between different versions of the remake...you are taking a false choice and twisting it to prove a non-existent point
if they want to see Transformers with updated special effects, there is only one option...seeing the ones with horrible writing
also, we're several iterations into this now...people have been conditioned to accept lower quality by artificial scarcity
lastly, it doesn't matter that some people will watch anything...YES...I admit that is a true fact
just because people will watch whatever shit gets most marketing doesn't mean that they wouldn't ***choose a better option if they had one***
you logic is backwards...by your logic, a zoo animal *must* like their food because they eat all of it...forget the fact that *it's all the food they get*
you are believing the marketing...you are accepting *their* framing of the situation
it is a false choice...many excellent films are also hugely popular **when they get the marketing push**
producing shitty movies still costs alot of money, ex: ***TRANSFORMERS SERIES***
end of discussion
absolutely hook line and sinker...you are part of the problem
YES...people often just want to be distracted...busy people working hard dont have time to curate their entertainment like some of us
THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE RIGHT
just because people will accept the best of what is available doesnt mean that ***if they had a choice*** they wouldn't choose the better option
your point is like saying "People go to Wal-Mart...it's hugely popular...that proves that people would rather have a cheap chinese made bicycle rather than a US made one"
Wal-Mart gets all the customers not because of quality, but because of *******ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY IN THE MARKET*********
it's an engineered lack of options...it's obvious and you are a dupe for not seeing it
the whole "print is dead" meme is a myth
people want relevant, accurate news more than ever
people want entertainment that is not formulaic & trite more than ever
the ***ONY*** reasons authors, musicians, journalists and other "content creators" are suffering is because of:
***bad business management of the companies they work for***
these unscrupulous business managers are trained to understand "business" and "profit" as ONLY SHORT TERM METRICS that are abstracted into more "numbers" that they have to "hit"
it's based on the **incorrect** concept that people don't care if their journalism, art, music is quality or not...they cynically assume that people will watch whatever is on TV, read whatver books are put in front of them, and listen to trite, predictable music indefinitely
ITS NOT TRUE
people want variety, they notice repetition...
the only reason is that we, as consumers, have been conditioned by bullshit marketing to have ***REDUCED EXPECTATIONS OF VALUE***
this is a hoodwink, plain and simple
it starts with symbols...then goes to 'logic'...then math/code/language
here's one way we can know this is true (besides using the SMCR model)...
it mirrors human development
humans use symbols before we know what they mean...before we can use **logic** to manipulate symbols in real time to get what we want (aka talking/writing)
we first mimic the symbols around us like a parrot...we just repeat what we hear
then we **associate** symbols with things...
that association allows for us to use logic...logic tells us what symbols result in what actions around us
***THEN*** we choose from all symbol systems available to us the best for the situation...
that's your answer to TFA
right...and that biases them...same for the coders as you say...
what no one considers is what the Communications people have to say...
see...Communications Theory (as taught today...i'd know...used to teach it as adjunct in grad school) starts with Claude Shannon and his SMCR model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
sure, there is tons of 'soft science' but there is something relevant here: SYMBOLS
it really goes like this:
symbols:logic:math/programming/writtenlanguage
math/code/written language are all on the same "hierarchy" level...then branch according to ****USAGE FUNCTION**** (I hate that TFA uses that ontology!!!!)
all math, all code...it's ALL SYMBOLS...and, from a cybernetic perspective, they can all be grouped together when trying to answer questions that TFA poses
yeah I thought the same...
if i was missing a hand, I'd definitely want to try this out in tandem with my prostetic hand
this is a great area to be in, for my money...you get to work with the latest BCI crap and robotics AND directly improve people's lives in a tangible way
wow...
first of all, I can criticize the concept and design all I want...it's not rude or offensive towards disabled people to demand *better* design at all...
your (trolling) criticism is also factually incorrect....TFA isn't a prostetic hand to replace an injured limb...this is expressly intended to be an addition to the main 'hand' so anyone might use it
my point was/is that robotics is only limited by the power source and material strength now, and all these (really expensive) hype-generating projects is not progressing science...it's just rearranging of tinker toys, b/c we have different limits now...we have the BCI interface perfected enough to start using for this stuff...the design ideas are there...now its just a question of power/material strength...i'd like to see research and hype directed in that area
this looks like good engineering work...really...I read TFA...but the *design* and *concept* are, to me, kind of dumb
dumb...as in it really feels like they were spitballing ideas and said "hey, why not extra fingers?"
IMHO this is an example of robotics continuing to spin its wheels...
it's a *power* and *material science* game now...we have the connectivity with the brain now...we have stacks of ideas...who can't imagine all kinds of applications for robotics?
now it's just about the power source and making it small enough yet sturdy
thnx for the response but...i have to respectfully disagree here...not with you per se, but more with common parliance
the situation you describe is *similar* to "the placebo effect" used in research, but it is not an example proper
the situation you describe is an *economic* effect, which should not be confused...they call it the "snob effect" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... In college I learned it as "snob good"
**yes** by this definition, most things people buy are in some way a "snob good"...ex: buying Charmin Ultra Soft instead of regular TP
remember, just an example...just like your wine example, it's a purchase of a good, which is governed by different behavior rules than personal actions like taking a sugar pill
"the placebo effect" that became part of common parliance is really, truly, only should describe the behavior we see in research when the control (placebo) group reports the same effect as the experimental thing
the problem is human behavior is **COMPLEX** and we have not, in any way, fully described it scientifically
so, lots of things people do could be called "the placebo effect" in some fashion, and you would have good reason to say so...b/c "the placebo effect" itself is poorly defined!
i'm aiming at clearing up linguistic differences so we can talk about the real issue
bottom line, every "placebo effect" we see has an explanation grounded in science that is testable
I think it's this "other way around"...
maybe affective computing is just wishful thinking...
first, it's established fact that we have sensors that can detect changes in brain waves from outside the body, and further that by intentionally thinking a certain way, those signal alterations can be detected and connected to control systems
that's scientific fact & is really interesting...been around for decades, but still, mind control and all that
2nd, saying you're testing "the placebo effect" is a good way to confuse a scientific conversation..."the placebo effect" and using a placebo in a research study are mutually exclusive concepts. The whole point is to properly design the research by establishing experimental and control variables. A control group in an experiment might be given an inert pill (called a "placebo") as a dummy pill and results compared with the experimental pill's effects
"the placebo effect" is when those in the control group, those given the inert pill which will not have a biochemical effect on them, exhibit signs as if they have taken the experimental group pill. consult wikipedia for famous examples.
in common parlaince of popular science media, "the placebo effect" is used as a term to describe many kinds of research phenomena that is counter-intuitive and not readily explainable in the context of the research
this research shows that ("really expensive") affective control is about as good as a random generator...
***THAT'S NOT A PLACEBO EFFECT......THAT'S EVIDENCE THAT AFFECT CONTROL IS BULLSHIT***
bringing "the placebo effect" into the discussion only serves to obfuscate the data...which clearly shows that BCI controls may not be related to "emotions" in the way popular media and marketing and TED talks suggest
look...
this brain wave reading stuff is awesome...really...but just because your brain waves take a certain patter when you get "teh sadz" doesn't mean that bombarding your cranium with that wave will make you "teh sadz"
google glass has a BCI interface that can snap a photo with a thought...****AWESOME****
that's great...let's do more...but let's not pretend this explains "emotions" and let's not ever use "the placebo effect" in this manner as TFA does again :)
Kurzweil should not be taken seriously anymore...no 'futurist' should be taken seriously...it's all TED talk hype-BS...at best...at worst it's a PhD thesis!
Sure, technology could advance to the point where most menial tasks are automated and only the mentioned 'skill' jobs (several posts have listed them in other comments)
yes...that can/will happen...
AWESOME
it's a win-win-win...practically a utopia in fact...a techo utopia where political systems like 'libertarianism' and 'capitalism' and 'socialism' are wholly unnecessary and we can all **share** in the bounty and **evolve** to whatever we will become once we get past meeting our basic survival needs
unless...
your value system depends on competition and scarcity
THEN
you have to make ***artificial scarcity*** to maintain your structure
technology is the ultimate anarchist...it's ***HUMANS*** who choose to make the technology reinforce the status quo
hey, Sockatume, if it's no big deal, lets have you be first.
just because ***YOU*** are willing to give up privacy b/c of insurance company's artificial scarcity con-job doesn't mean the rest of us want to do the same
you can forfeit your rights/privacy for no reason in a rigged system...
***you cannot make the same decision for everyone else***
what are you? a personal representative from the Mellon family?
this is a **false dichotomy**
you present two options as if those are the only two options...
> Risk crashing car
-OR-
> have health insurance companies know your health status
total logic error
those two things are not, in any way mutually exclusive...however, making them *seem* that way would surely benefit insurance companies
hey /.
just want to draw your attention to the fact that a sensor can be programmed to detect your mood and relay signals in real time accordingly
yes...sure this is **applied** to a car for "safety"
what are the other applications?
how long has this technology existed?
what else could be done with this ability and other E-M behavior of the human body?
these are questions you should be asking yourself
thanks for being cool...sorry i was a dick...
really i do know better but sometimes I just dont
posting this here too...
yes...you all were right and I was wrong...
see, this is my fault for being so angry about the 'multiverse' theory...it's a ridiculous tautology (which we can argue about another time)
but yeah...it get what you guys were trying to say about expansion of space vs light age...
yeah...sorry