If "scientists" want more maverick's in science...then they need to **hire** and **promote** more mavericks...then write and *publish* papers about their theories
Right now, anyone who doesn't toe the institutional line will get put with the Graduate Advisor who is either A) insane or B) can't speak English and only was hired to get more full-tuition-paying foreign students
If you want the pedigree you have to 'drink the kool-aide' of whatever academic is above you
Don't get me wrong, TFA is a good start, but they need to do alot more than this to make academia right again
So your response, which by your own statements should be **blatantly obvious** is this:
> Canada is a better system b/c their local, state, & federal elections are on **different days**
- Too many candidates on one day??? Canadians are idiots if a list of candidates confuses them so that they can't do it all on one day. This is irrelevant and in no way measures up to the evidence you claimed to have. Also, Canada's voter turnout in state/local elections are significantly lower...b/c they're on different days
> "any country with X"
- that's not a specific example...that's half of a specific example...and your "X" criteria are baffling...if the US's 'bill of rights' doesn't pass your test, you **must** identify which one would & what the differences are
Researchers messed up from the start using the "conspiracy theory" contextualization.
Operation Northwoods would certainly **sound** like a conspiracy theory, a US gov't plan investigating the use of false-flag actions on US population to manufacture consent, but follow the link to the official documents, declassified, proving the plan existed
Or how about The Gulf of Tonkin Incident which was a **all fake** and used to justify Vietnam intervention. Again...follow the link...the documents are declassified and it's true.
Today's conspiracy "theory" is tomorrows class action settlement!
By using the "conspiracy theory" contextualization, the researchers then biased **what theories they chose** and to go deeper **which variation of the theory to use**
ex: Flouride. Some say flouride in the water table is for dumping toxic chemicals to cause their Pineal Gland to calcify...others don't think it's so devious...just a way to make money off of industrial waste (selling something uneccesary on decades-long contracts w/ governments) not actually ***hurt people***
from TFA, here's the **versions** of various theories they chose:
They include the theory that the government knows cell phones cause cancer but does nothing about it, that genetically modified organisms are being used to shrink the world's population, that routine vaccinations cause autism and that water fluoridation is a way for companies to dump dangerous chemicals into the environment.
Notice that ****corporate conspiracies**** are not mentioned!!!
The health care industry profits from **artificial scarcity**...and lobbying to get unsafe, easily abusable drugs approved by the FDA over objections (see: Rudy Guilianni's early career as an attorney;)
Artificial Scarcity & corporate cronyism is not a "conspiracy theory"...in fact, if you toss out the craziness, just about all "conspiracy theories" can be explained by unscrupulous people doing criminal behavior on a large scale.
the tech industry does not set up training programs of the economically disadvantaged area of this country
i'm not against the concept at all, but it's got to be at a larger scale in multiple areas
most of our "tech industry heroes" were ***alienated*** from both Academia & Corporate America. it was their alienation from the "tech industry" that drove them to create something that subverted the bad tendencies that caused their alienation.
we can all think of examples of this
my question: how is setting up a dumbed-down version of a system that ***doesn't work*** going to help?
we don't need to "re-invent the wheel" but we do need to refine how our theory/practice in Academia
we have a whole **public education system**...we don't need headline grabbing "hackathons" where a bunch of Detroit HS students are sat in front of a computer & taught a few lines of C++ or w/e
we need **qualified teachers** in every school in America...teaching from a **coherent theory of Human/machine interaction** that they learned from **gov't funded professors** writing papers that establish a theory that can be put into practice consistently
industry needs to open the wallets as well if they expect to have a quality workforce to draw from and a consumer base with enough disposable income to buy their gadgets
I **do** have a problem with this reductive, tone-deaf initiative of his...this program won't improve anything.
Just as with the lack of women in tech, the lack of racial diversity is a ***symptom of a greater problem*** and trying to hit some sort of abstract "number" is ridiculous.
The problem goes all the way back to middle school & all the way up through funding for graduate research. We don't know how to **teach technology**...partially because of misperceptions of how the industry works. Steve Jobs as "technology genius" is a perfect example. Jobs was a 'genius' at marketing & dealmaking. He applied innovation to opening new markets & had the vision to see potentials. These are great traits, but have ***nothing to do with actual computing***
The misperceptions influence organizaitonal decisions...which influences academia...which just reinforces the cycle of bad theory/practice.
Diversity is an evolutionary advantage, but it's **two steps** beyond fixing right now...tech's problems are systemic and hitting some artificial quota will not help fix things!!!
First step is to acknowledge we have a problem & start talking about refining + improving how we explain tech to non-techs and students...and integrating those improvements into our systems naturally.
It's sort of a "healing algorythm" that has to go throughout the whole system to optimize.
The things you point out are *human behavior* problems, not inherent to any system.
You're conflating fraud, abuse, and manipulation of the system as inherent flaws, from a cybernetic perspective.
To undrestand the difference, for a specific issue, ask yourself, "Is this caused by part of the structure of the system or could any system have a human who could make this choice?"
The thing that makes a system "better" in this context is its ability to **be corrected**
Like a submarine will sink without effort, so will Democracy. What makes the system better is the ability for people to overcome fraud, abuse, manipulation, etc.
I'm comparing **systems** not **behavior in the system**
So start over...tell me a better **system** and point out specific parts of the system and why they are better than the US system of checks and balances.
I think it's to hit the 97.53% number they have for humans...basically its PR...internal & external PR
Internally, that DeepFace team has to justify their existence
Externally, f/b uses these headlines to drive their ad revenue
It's all a shell game, from a researchers perspective. It's essentially psuedo-science....it's engineering demonstrating a capability not data proving/disproving a hypothesis that is being actively tested.
all decisions can be reduced to "DO or Don't"..."yes or no"...."yeah or nay"...that's why **in every country** there is a majority and minority party
first, the US is not by law or statute a "two party system"....any parties that meet the qualifications can get their candidates on the ballot
2nd, since all decisions can be reduced to a Binary then by logic at the decision point all parties must pick a "yes or no" on a law or policy
3rd, political parties are in other countries that have more than one strong party always ***reduce the policy question*** down to a majority & opposition
your "two party system" rhetoric is about 20 years old...no one currently in politics is pushing the "3rd party will solve our problems" horsepucky anymore
Republicans are **way worse** than Democrats in the USA right now in 2014...they vote in ****total antipathy to each other**** on all kinds of policies...from Abortion to Net Neutrality
I'm sorry this is as much of debate as you're going to get from me...I have seen the "3rd party solves everything" fail over and over & no one really takes it seriously
If you make good points I'll comment, but if you think carefully you'll see you're wrong.
Multiple party systems are in use all over right now & they prove the "binary by necessity" point.
4) I don't agree that you can "clean house". You are naively assuming that the people are still in control of their government.
trust me, Republicans are working on this as hard as they can, but only at the margins (voter ID laws)...and YES we did see Bush II get in via court decision...that is true....
but you're wrong...all your points are wrong, but #4 is the only one that is worth refuting...for posterity
for you to be correct, the US has to have widespread fruadulent elections
it's not true at all
if we vote for people & they win, then they make policies and vote on laws
I see complaints that could be leveled against any of the world's largest countries. Not that I agree with the concept of "for profit prison.." at all...
Nope.
I want a counter example. If my comment was so aggregiously dumb then you should easily be able to give me a counter example that proves me wrong
I hear you...you're don't sound like a nutcase **to me**...you go a bit off on a few of your list there but that's not why i'm writing.
It's wrong to say "the US government"
Our government is the best system yet implemented.
The problem is criminality. Even if it goes up to the President (and it surely has...many times...recently) that does not mean that **our system of governmance** is faulty.
Our economic system (hardcore captialism) may surely encourage bribery...but in totalitarian communist countries you find examples of **more** bribery comparitively...or at least equal ammounts
YES...the CIA "dealt crack" in the 80s, research brainwashing, etc etc...and maybe that whole organization has been rotten from the start but it doesn't define **what the good people are trying to do**
According to its stated documents, the US of A could be the *best country in the world*....we have a *long way to go* but our problems arent because of our system...its b/c our **system is infected**
Yes, the "infected system" line could be used for any country's problems...but precisely because the US has so many channels in place for **the people** to do the right thing...because we have the *power to change* means we are held to a higher standard than say, North Korea or Ukraine
We can clean house...we can get rid of the criminals in our governemnt...the sun will still rise, and we will have ****NEW PROBLEMS****....that's progress!
I can see only two possibilities for how the NSA could collect every single phone call of an entire country,
my first reaction was "wow" but I was amazed that *the scope* not the technical ability
from a network engineering perspective, those calls have to go through certain nodes and pathways...
all are potential points of intercept...one concept you missed is **multiple collection methods**...they could do both of what you suggested combined with any of the following other possibilities:
1. Submarines...every "phone call" (this excludes things like google talk to skype) has to go specific routing points on the coast...subs can but a signal analyzer on the seafloor cables
2. Aircraft...esp blimps/drones...and satellites
3. passive collectors...at major routing nodes...again these are on the coastline...you could put a passive, satellite-operated device that sends the data being recorded up to space in real time
Or maybe you could isolate control systems from the Internet.
Unkown Lamer has it.
tl;dr - using analog in security situations would be obvious if "computer security" wasn't so tangled in abstractions
Sure someone may point out that the "air gap" was overcome by BadBios http://it.slashdot.org/story/1... but that requires multiple computers with speakers and microphones connected to an infected system
IMHO computer security (and law enforcement/corrections) has been reduced to hitting a "risk assessment" number, which has given us both a false sense of security & a misperception of how our data is vulnerable to attack
100% of computers connected to the internet are vulnerable...just like 100% of lost laptops with credit card data are vulnerable
Any system can have a "vulnerability map" illustrating nodes in the system & how they can be comprimised. I imagine it like a Physical Network Topology map for IT networking only with more types of nodes.
This is where the "risk assessment" model becomes reductive...they use statistics & infer causality...the statistics they use are historical data & they use voodoo data analysis to find **correlations** then produce a "risk assessment" number from any number of variables.
If I'm right, we can map every possible security incursion in a tree/network topology. For each node of possible incursion, we can identify every possible vulnerability. If we can do this, we can have alot more certainty than an abstract "risk assessment" value.
Analog comes into play thusly: if you use my theory, using **analog electronics** jumps out as a very secure option against "cyber" intrusions. Should be obvious!
I wouldn't take that chance with something as elementally "me" as my mind.
right? me neither...
problem is, there are tons of people willing to line up to do this...**tons**...and they will all surely blog about it in hopes of getting picked up by mainstream news publications
with this "brain mod" crap I'm getting a bad feeling...
remember back in the early days of the 'web'...say 1995 when AOL was king...we all knew that there was so much more that could be done with the internet but even then, the question was **are we willing to sacrifice privacy**
same with cell phones
i remember when the internet was new, everyone was skeptical of it & **assumed** what they did on the internet was not private...
then the commercialization effort started in earnest and before long every desk job required internet usage...
what I'm getting at is ***I feel that same feeling now***
SKEPTICAL...it's not what its made out to be...and if we ever *do* get hyper-selective brain stimulation I can only envision all the ways the tech could be misused
Slashdot Mirror
hey AC...thnx for the comment...I lol'ed
yeah my punctuation sucks...but grammar nazi's suck more...
you however kept a lighthearted tone which makes it at least neutral if not constructive...
so, in reward for your only *mildly* annoying grammar-nazi-ness....I will endeavor to fix my possessive punctuation from now on
YES.
You're one of those closet Republican, "I hate anything the government does always no matter what" people & debating you is pointless.
If you want to talk about your defunct ideas, slide on over to Foxnews.com and have fun in the comments section...
If "scientists" want more maverick's in science...then they need to **hire** and **promote** more mavericks...then write and *publish* papers about their theories
Right now, anyone who doesn't toe the institutional line will get put with the Graduate Advisor who is either A) insane or B) can't speak English and only was hired to get more full-tuition-paying foreign students
If you want the pedigree you have to 'drink the kool-aide' of whatever academic is above you
Don't get me wrong, TFA is a good start, but they need to do alot more than this to make academia right again
So your response, which by your own statements should be **blatantly obvious** is this:
> Canada is a better system b/c their local, state, & federal elections are on **different days**
- Too many candidates on one day??? Canadians are idiots if a list of candidates confuses them so that they can't do it all on one day. This is irrelevant and in no way measures up to the evidence you claimed to have. Also, Canada's voter turnout in state/local elections are significantly lower...b/c they're on different days
> "any country with X"
- that's not a specific example...that's half of a specific example...and your "X" criteria are baffling...if the US's 'bill of rights' doesn't pass your test, you **must** identify which one would & what the differences are
Researchers messed up from the start using the "conspiracy theory" contextualization.
Operation Northwoods would certainly **sound** like a conspiracy theory, a US gov't plan investigating the use of false-flag actions on US population to manufacture consent, but follow the link to the official documents, declassified, proving the plan existed
Or how about The Gulf of Tonkin Incident which was a **all fake** and used to justify Vietnam intervention. Again...follow the link...the documents are declassified and it's true.
Today's conspiracy "theory" is tomorrows class action settlement!
By using the "conspiracy theory" contextualization, the researchers then biased **what theories they chose** and to go deeper **which variation of the theory to use**
ex: Flouride. Some say flouride in the water table is for dumping toxic chemicals to cause their Pineal Gland to calcify...others don't think it's so devious...just a way to make money off of industrial waste (selling something uneccesary on decades-long contracts w/ governments) not actually ***hurt people***
from TFA, here's the **versions** of various theories they chose:
Notice that ****corporate conspiracies**** are not mentioned!!!
The health care industry profits from **artificial scarcity**...and lobbying to get unsafe, easily abusable drugs approved by the FDA over objections (see: Rudy Guilianni's early career as an attorney ;)
Artificial Scarcity & corporate cronyism is not a "conspiracy theory"...in fact, if you toss out the craziness, just about all "conspiracy theories" can be explained by unscrupulous people doing criminal behavior on a large scale.
So where's the counter-example?
You take the time to type that out but you still can't manage to participate in **constructive discussion**
I made a claim, that the US system had the most 'feedback' mechanisms + therefore was theoretically the "best", and you & others said:
"no you're wrong"
but didn't actually counter my point
You didn't address the notion of "feedback mechanisms" in evaluating gov't systems or my other points
anything you type that is **not** a direct clash with my claim is trolling
that includes a meta-comment on my comment asking for a counter-example
you can't present an example b/c you're just trolling
i'm not against the concept at all, but it's got to be at a larger scale in multiple areas
most of our "tech industry heroes" were ***alienated*** from both Academia & Corporate America. it was their alienation from the "tech industry" that drove them to create something that subverted the bad tendencies that caused their alienation.
we can all think of examples of this
my question: how is setting up a dumbed-down version of a system that ***doesn't work*** going to help?
we don't need to "re-invent the wheel" but we do need to refine how our theory/practice in Academia
we have a whole **public education system**...we don't need headline grabbing "hackathons" where a bunch of Detroit HS students are sat in front of a computer & taught a few lines of C++ or w/e
we need **qualified teachers** in every school in America...teaching from a **coherent theory of Human/machine interaction** that they learned from **gov't funded professors** writing papers that establish a theory that can be put into practice consistently
industry needs to open the wallets as well if they expect to have a quality workforce to draw from and a consumer base with enough disposable income to buy their gadgets
You took the type to type a response, but couldn't actually provide a specific, testable example...just more rhetoric
If what you say is true if I ***just*** have to ***look*** then YOU should be able to at least give an example, specifically, of your claim.
If it's so blatantly obvious why can't you manage to type it in a post???
counter-example, with specifics & explanation, or STFU...I'm still waiting
I dont have a problem with Jesse Jackson...
I **do** have a problem with this reductive, tone-deaf initiative of his...this program won't improve anything.
Just as with the lack of women in tech, the lack of racial diversity is a ***symptom of a greater problem*** and trying to hit some sort of abstract "number" is ridiculous.
The problem goes all the way back to middle school & all the way up through funding for graduate research. We don't know how to **teach technology**...partially because of misperceptions of how the industry works. Steve Jobs as "technology genius" is a perfect example. Jobs was a 'genius' at marketing & dealmaking. He applied innovation to opening new markets & had the vision to see potentials. These are great traits, but have ***nothing to do with actual computing***
The misperceptions influence organizaitonal decisions...which influences academia...which just reinforces the cycle of bad theory/practice.
Diversity is an evolutionary advantage, but it's **two steps** beyond fixing right now...tech's problems are systemic and hitting some artificial quota will not help fix things!!!
First step is to acknowledge we have a problem & start talking about refining + improving how we explain tech to non-techs and students...and integrating those improvements into our systems naturally.
It's sort of a "healing algorythm" that has to go throughout the whole system to optimize.
The things you point out are *human behavior* problems, not inherent to any system.
You're conflating fraud, abuse, and manipulation of the system as inherent flaws, from a cybernetic perspective.
To undrestand the difference, for a specific issue, ask yourself, "Is this caused by part of the structure of the system or could any system have a human who could make this choice?"
The thing that makes a system "better" in this context is its ability to **be corrected**
Like a submarine will sink without effort, so will Democracy. What makes the system better is the ability for people to overcome fraud, abuse, manipulation, etc.
I'm comparing **systems** not **behavior in the system**
So start over...tell me a better **system** and point out specific parts of the system and why they are better than the US system of checks and balances.
I think it's to hit the 97.53% number they have for humans...basically its PR...internal & external PR
Internally, that DeepFace team has to justify their existence
Externally, f/b uses these headlines to drive their ad revenue
It's all a shell game, from a researchers perspective. It's essentially psuedo-science....it's engineering demonstrating a capability not data proving/disproving a hypothesis that is being actively tested.
so you've never had a passport or driver's license?
This is a total trolling comment.
First, Oracle **is** a large IT development company and they screwed the site up....they have a (well earned) reputation for screwing up projects
IT experience? You mean has she ever hooked up a router?
She knew enough to ask questions that got her fired...and she was told to help in the cover up!
2nd, Lawson was & still is one of the few who speak out about the **actual** problems of the exchange
I love how my posts get modded down when I put the trolls in a box
Sorry Republicans, "libertarians" and general haters...you're dead in the water
that was funny...i haven't even been mistaken for a Republican before here on /. so that's a new one
I hate Republicans & their policies!
i was being sarcastic!
all decisions can be reduced to "DO or Don't"..."yes or no"...."yeah or nay"...that's why **in every country** there is a majority and minority party
first, the US is not by law or statute a "two party system"....any parties that meet the qualifications can get their candidates on the ballot
2nd, since all decisions can be reduced to a Binary then by logic at the decision point all parties must pick a "yes or no" on a law or policy
3rd, political parties are in other countries that have more than one strong party always ***reduce the policy question*** down to a majority & opposition
your "two party system" rhetoric is about 20 years old...no one currently in politics is pushing the "3rd party will solve our problems" horsepucky anymore
Republicans are **way worse** than Democrats in the USA right now in 2014...they vote in ****total antipathy to each other**** on all kinds of policies...from Abortion to Net Neutrality
I'm sorry this is as much of debate as you're going to get from me...I have seen the "3rd party solves everything" fail over and over & no one really takes it seriously
If you make good points I'll comment, but if you think carefully you'll see you're wrong.
Multiple party systems are in use all over right now & they prove the "binary by necessity" point.
counter-example? if you don't have one then you don't have a point & should just admit you're wrong
one that doesn't have the flaws you mention...
trust me, Republicans are working on this as hard as they can, but only at the margins (voter ID laws)...and YES we did see Bush II get in via court decision...that is true....
but you're wrong...all your points are wrong, but #4 is the only one that is worth refuting...for posterity
for you to be correct, the US has to have widespread fruadulent elections
it's not true at all
if we vote for people & they win, then they make policies and vote on laws
I see complaints that could be leveled against any of the world's largest countries. Not that I agree with the concept of "for profit prison.." at all...
Nope.
I want a counter example. If my comment was so aggregiously dumb then you should easily be able to give me a counter example that proves me wrong
I hear you...you're don't sound like a nutcase **to me**...you go a bit off on a few of your list there but that's not why i'm writing.
It's wrong to say "the US government"
Our government is the best system yet implemented.
The problem is criminality. Even if it goes up to the President (and it surely has...many times...recently) that does not mean that **our system of governmance** is faulty.
Our economic system (hardcore captialism) may surely encourage bribery...but in totalitarian communist countries you find examples of **more** bribery comparitively...or at least equal ammounts
YES...the CIA "dealt crack" in the 80s, research brainwashing, etc etc...and maybe that whole organization has been rotten from the start but it doesn't define **what the good people are trying to do**
According to its stated documents, the US of A could be the *best country in the world*....we have a *long way to go* but our problems arent because of our system...its b/c our **system is infected**
Yes, the "infected system" line could be used for any country's problems...but precisely because the US has so many channels in place for **the people** to do the right thing...because we have the *power to change* means we are held to a higher standard than say, North Korea or Ukraine
We can clean house...we can get rid of the criminals in our governemnt...the sun will still rise, and we will have ****NEW PROBLEMS****....that's progress!
my first reaction was "wow" but I was amazed that *the scope* not the technical ability
from a network engineering perspective, those calls have to go through certain nodes and pathways...
all are potential points of intercept...one concept you missed is **multiple collection methods**...they could do both of what you suggested combined with any of the following other possibilities:
1. Submarines...every "phone call" (this excludes things like google talk to skype) has to go specific routing points on the coast...subs can but a signal analyzer on the seafloor cables
2. Aircraft...esp blimps/drones...and satellites
3. passive collectors...at major routing nodes...again these are on the coastline...you could put a passive, satellite-operated device that sends the data being recorded up to space in real time
Unkown Lamer has it.
tl;dr - using analog in security situations would be obvious if "computer security" wasn't so tangled in abstractions
Sure someone may point out that the "air gap" was overcome by BadBios http://it.slashdot.org/story/1... but that requires multiple computers with speakers and microphones connected to an infected system
IMHO computer security (and law enforcement/corrections) has been reduced to hitting a "risk assessment" number, which has given us both a false sense of security & a misperception of how our data is vulnerable to attack
100% of computers connected to the internet are vulnerable...just like 100% of lost laptops with credit card data are vulnerable
Any system can have a "vulnerability map" illustrating nodes in the system & how they can be comprimised. I imagine it like a Physical Network Topology map for IT networking only with more types of nodes.
This is where the "risk assessment" model becomes reductive...they use statistics & infer causality...the statistics they use are historical data & they use voodoo data analysis to find **correlations** then produce a "risk assessment" number from any number of variables.
If I'm right, we can map every possible security incursion in a tree/network topology. For each node of possible incursion, we can identify every possible vulnerability. If we can do this, we can have alot more certainty than an abstract "risk assessment" value.
Analog comes into play thusly: if you use my theory, using **analog electronics** jumps out as a very secure option against "cyber" intrusions. Should be obvious!
"computer security"....
man, i didn't gloss over it...i ignored it
i don't put any stock in your opinion b/c it is exhibiting selection bias
you're doubting *only* the things that could discredit her...ignoring the ways the doubt could go her way
i wanted to get you to put away your bias...or if not at least admit that its pure opinion
right? me neither...
problem is, there are tons of people willing to line up to do this...**tons**...and they will all surely blog about it in hopes of getting picked up by mainstream news publications
with this "brain mod" crap I'm getting a bad feeling...
remember back in the early days of the 'web'...say 1995 when AOL was king...we all knew that there was so much more that could be done with the internet but even then, the question was **are we willing to sacrifice privacy**
same with cell phones
i remember when the internet was new, everyone was skeptical of it & **assumed** what they did on the internet was not private...
then the commercialization effort started in earnest and before long every desk job required internet usage...
what I'm getting at is ***I feel that same feeling now***
SKEPTICAL...it's not what its made out to be...and if we ever *do* get hyper-selective brain stimulation I can only envision all the ways the tech could be misused