Can you imagine what it would be like if Canadians voting in the US, or Ohioans voted in California?
Only citizens get to vote in their respective elections. Regardless of whey they're voting on, peer review and democracy are similar systems.
"Science is not and has never been very democratic. What wins arguments is not weight of numbers (which is what democracy is about) but verifiable truth of ideas."
And how is the veracity of those ideas determined? Peer review.
You have an interesting critique, but what are the implications? How do we determine what information is correct? Whatever process you use, it's going to involve people.
It seems to me that it's either going to be an authoritarian revelatory expert-based system ("This is true because I say so an I'm the expert") or a democratic, peer-based system ("Most people tend to agree on this, but some argue...").
Even if you take the extreme position and tell people to personally verify all information the encounter, no one has the time to do every experiment in the history of science, and non-scientific information is by definition revelatory -- you always have to hear it from someone; most of the time you can't do an experiment to figure out history. When you can, it's usually to support or discredit someone's story.
how would they live?
on
Exultant
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
"How would it function?"
Probably just like any other eusocial society? With an egg laying queen, sterile female workers, and mouthless drones who live just long enough to mate? For a neat mammal example of this structure, see Nake mole rats.
"You want to hand over the Internet to an agency that lost track of how many billions to Saddam Hussein?"
The Oil for Food program was overseen by the security council. The security council has five permanent members: France, Great Britain, China, Russia, and The United States. The security council bears ultimate responsbility for any scandal connected with Oil for Food; Kofi Annan, and the rest of the U.N, had next to nothing to do with it.
"Well, if you want a robust robot it must also be able to get up from any position it might get into..."
That's why I propose a radially symmetrical spider-like robot, with legs that can bend backwards. If it tumbles and finds itself upside-down, it can invert its legs and continue on, or it should be designed that if can muster enough force to flip itself over, aided by double-jointed legs.
I disagree that bipedal robots have a benefit in made-for-humans environments. Cats can get around a lot better than people in houses. The only benefit a humanoid robot would have is if it had arms and hands, and could manipulate objects designed for people. Otherwise a locomotion sysem of four or more legs is much more stable than two. And of course, you can easily add hands to a four, six, or eight legged robot.
In any case, wheels are the worst idea for locomotion anywhere expect roads. Mechanically, they are simple to build, and from an AI standpoint, they are easy to control, but they don't get you very far in any kind of non-artificial environment.
Remember that C3PO is actually a person. There was a guy inside of him that gave him all of his movements. Yeah, his face was frozen, but he still had the body language of a human being, albeit a bit stiff. Add to that the langauge, and you've got a stroke sufferer, not a robot.
What about muppets? They don't have a lot of the details that real people have -- in fact, their facial expressions are downright primitive : no eyebrows, no mouth expressions, etc. For the most part, the only have one hand to emote with. Is it because they are wrangled by humans that they aren't so creepy? Or is it because they are a good enough caracature of people without being too close?
"And hey, why not send them to Mars to look for those microbes?"
Probably because there are much more efficient ways to locomote. Bipedalism is risky, especially if you want to bend over a lot to pick things up.
I'm in favor of a radially symmetrical spider-like walker that can turn in any direction, or even invert it legs and continue walking if it gets turned upside down. This would make it much more flexible in navigating the Martian environment.
You could have a central ring with legs attatched all around it, and then a rotating body that includes sensors, power supply, and a grappling hand. The single grappling hand descends from the center and pulls samples up into the body for storage/analysis.
You must have seen different photographs than I did. I didn't see any guys touching each other's asses, but I did see one guy with another's penis in his mouth, a hooded guy with eletrodes in each hand, a guys with shit smeared all over his torso, and a guy with his face less than 1 foot away from a barking german shepherd. Also, if you would have bothered to read any of the investigation reports, you would have read about detainees being beaten to death, and being held underwater for extended periods of time.
Furthermore, out administration says that these detainees were not prisoners of war, and therefore not subject to Geneva Protections.
The FBI says that torture is bad because 1. it produces bad evidence, meaning false evidence -- you'll say anything and everything when being tortured and 2. it erodes popular support for you.
America invades Iraq to install democracy and stories (accurate stories stemming from official investigations) and photographs of torture and abuse circulate throughout the Arab world. What a monumental fuck-up this administration has foisted on us and the rest of this world. This ensures a new generation of Bin Ladens.
"and those photos [of abused Abu Ghraib detainees] were taken right after a riot was quelled, the people in the photos were primarily violent rioters, not people randomly picked off the street."
Why do you find it relevant to point out that the abused detainees were alleged violent rioters? Was it proven in a court of law that they were violent rioters? Would that justify the abuse they suffered?
I was just looking over core wars -- it's seems to be some kind of virus creation lab using fantasy terms as a metaphor. Imps, dwarves, etc. are 'warriors' that fight to control memory space.
But I would like to see a magic system like the one you describe -- where it's more like a powerful programming language. My guess as to the best way to do this is to have the server host the virtual environment and give players some kind of API to affect qualities of the environment. Players would write their own programs and scripts, share them, sell them, etc. What fun!
OK fine, I'll take your word for it. I'm not interested in befriending them. I just don't want those damn animals shitting and pissing in my room, like they did everyone elses. I hiss at them and stare them right out of my room at the doorway, and so far my room is clean. At least dogs know to go outside.
" With cats you are either their "parent" in a sense or not"
You just made my point. With a cat, you are either parent or not. They have no brotherhoods, fraternities, gangs, or groups. They have no social awareness. They are aware of other individuals, and self aware, but have no awareness of societies, meanings groups of individuals.
"Yeah right, buddy, that's quite a statement there. You really are the expert on cats, that I can tell right away... You hate cats and you have never met one that cared about her environment?... trust me, cats are HIGHLY sensitive creatures to things like that..."
OK, surely as a slashdot poster you respect the scientific method? There is no way I will base my beliefs on trusting other people. I am a skeptic as far as cat social sensitivity. I agree that they are great hunters and I think that they probably analyse a room strategically, but what evidence do you present that they are understanding a social map of a room (or have any concept of a 'room' at all, which is a reification of a social group? I am currently living with cats , and while they seem to respect *individuals*, I haven't had any experience showing that they have any concept of group or heirarchy. How do I know you aren't incorrectly personifying cats because of your personal predilections?
So, aside from trusting you, what evidence can you present me with that cats are socially aware, meaning aware of groups as collections of individuals?
The last point you bring up about octopuses is very interesting. Octopuses are solitary creatues. Previous theory supposed that living in co-operative groups is what makes a creature intelligent (that seems to be true for us), but such examples as the ant (highly social, but as dumb as a rock) and orangutans and octopuses (which are solitary and very socially aware) are evidence against that theory. Orangs are the smartest animal in the zoo -- they are so smart that when zoo keepers invent new cages, they test them with orangutans. If they can't get out, no one else can. Orangutans, despite spending most of thier time alone, except for mating and mother-infant child rearing, are very aware of human social structure, and will conceal escape attempts from zoo keepers.
What I'm getting to is this is why I think cats are stupid. There are solitary animals that are smarter, such as organs and octopuses. Both of those creatues have enough 1. social intelligence to recognize individual people, conceal evidence from them, hide escape attempts and cladestine feeding, and 2. object manipulation intelligence, for maze solving, lock picking, cage escaping, etc. Cats are good at neither of these.
I guess I'm biased. Maybe cats have as much social awareness and just don't *care*, but how would that evolve? I think that's incorrectly personifying. I think rather, since cats aren't aware of human or other social hierarchy, they act in a manner that seems *cool* or uncaring to a creature that is aware of social hierarchy, such as a person. How would awareness of social structure benefit the reproductive success of a cat?
Furthermore, with object manipulation, I guess cats are good hunters, which means that they have to have a sophisticated understanding of prey psychology -- how/when a prey animal becomes aware of being stalked, what its reaction will be, where it will try to run, etc. Obviously this is more complicated than the simple physics of inanimate objects such as cages and locks.
That's really interesting about the cat bringing food. I studied a little bit about cat domestication, and the current hot theory is that they hung around rodent-infested graineries in Egypt to the point where they became tolerant of people and vice versa. I suspect, as an evolutionist, that when cats 'present gifts', they actually aren't thinking that they are giving something to their master; instead they are just following an instinct that's been bred into them by selection in domestication. In other words, cats that caught mice were given bonuses (like saucers of milk) by people, so that gene was selected for. Cats that misbehaved were killed. However, your story seems to suggest that cats actually think/feel that they are giving food to people.
I'm not saying that cats aren't socially aware, they just aren't as sophisticated as others. For instance, a dog will do bad things when the owner is away, but when the owner returns the dog will act doeful and become extra submissive when confronted with evidence. They are feeling guilt, and they have enough social grey matter to know that the owner will *conclude from evidence* that they are guilty. In your case the cat seems to think "out of sight, out of mind", and that the owner isn't smart enough or aware enough to put two and two together when s/he finds evidence of the cat misbehaving. Or else the cat just doesn't care.
So I submit that dogs have a more sophisticated theory of mind, or at the very least feel 'subscribed' to a human justice code, whereas the cat either isn't aware, or else is aware and just doesn't care.
There was a case of an organutan how managed to pick the lock of its cage at a zoo. A person visited the zoo noticed that the orang was able to do it -- the orang was smart enough not to do it in front of any zookeeper! But it apparently didn't think the zoo visitor would care. This shows that the orang was smart enough to recognise zookeepers -- people weaing the uniform. I don't know if cats can recognize classes of people likewise.
In regards to your amazing cat, a.) jumping is not a feat of intelligence b.) this is no diffferent than picking up a leaf to uncover hiding prey c.) ditto b's critique, and d.) so he treats a straw like a mouse. Big deal.
Cats are agile, dextrous, acrobatical, excellent hunters, all that -- just not very bright.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you imagine what it would be like if Canadians voting in the US, or Ohioans voted in California? Only citizens get to vote in their respective elections. Regardless of whey they're voting on, peer review and democracy are similar systems.
"Science is not and has never been very democratic. What wins arguments is not weight of numbers (which is what democracy is about) but verifiable truth of ideas."
And how is the veracity of those ideas determined? Peer review.
It seems to me that it's either going to be an authoritarian revelatory expert-based system ("This is true because I say so an I'm the expert") or a democratic, peer-based system ("Most people tend to agree on this, but some argue...").
Even if you take the extreme position and tell people to personally verify all information the encounter, no one has the time to do every experiment in the history of science, and non-scientific information is by definition revelatory -- you always have to hear it from someone; most of the time you can't do an experiment to figure out history. When you can, it's usually to support or discredit someone's story.
Probably just like any other eusocial society? With an egg laying queen, sterile female workers, and mouthless drones who live just long enough to mate? For a neat mammal example of this structure, see Nake mole rats.
NO ONE is ASKING Microsoft to update ANY emulator. They are asking Microsoft to UPDATE MICROSOFT SOFTWARE running under wine.
Yes, you are right! The ipod shuffle has no display, either!
The Oil for Food program was overseen by the security council. The security council has five permanent members: France, Great Britain, China, Russia, and The United States. The security council bears ultimate responsbility for any scandal connected with Oil for Food; Kofi Annan, and the rest of the U.N, had next to nothing to do with it.
Self help books only work if you read them yourself.
That's why I propose a radially symmetrical spider-like robot, with legs that can bend backwards. If it tumbles and finds itself upside-down, it can invert its legs and continue on, or it should be designed that if can muster enough force to flip itself over, aided by double-jointed legs.
I disagree that bipedal robots have a benefit in made-for-humans environments. Cats can get around a lot better than people in houses. The only benefit a humanoid robot would have is if it had arms and hands, and could manipulate objects designed for people. Otherwise a locomotion sysem of four or more legs is much more stable than two. And of course, you can easily add hands to a four, six, or eight legged robot.
In any case, wheels are the worst idea for locomotion anywhere expect roads. Mechanically, they are simple to build, and from an AI standpoint, they are easy to control, but they don't get you very far in any kind of non-artificial environment.
Remember that C3PO is actually a person. There was a guy inside of him that gave him all of his movements. Yeah, his face was frozen, but he still had the body language of a human being, albeit a bit stiff. Add to that the langauge, and you've got a stroke sufferer, not a robot.
What about muppets? They don't have a lot of the details that real people have -- in fact, their facial expressions are downright primitive : no eyebrows, no mouth expressions, etc. For the most part, the only have one hand to emote with. Is it because they are wrangled by humans that they aren't so creepy? Or is it because they are a good enough caracature of people without being too close?
Probably because there are much more efficient ways to locomote. Bipedalism is risky, especially if you want to bend over a lot to pick things up.
I'm in favor of a radially symmetrical spider-like walker that can turn in any direction, or even invert it legs and continue walking if it gets turned upside down. This would make it much more flexible in navigating the Martian environment.
You could have a central ring with legs attatched all around it, and then a rotating body that includes sensors, power supply, and a grappling hand. The single grappling hand descends from the center and pulls samples up into the body for storage/analysis.
Well, I agree with the 'away' part...
Furthermore, out administration says that these detainees were not prisoners of war, and therefore not subject to Geneva Protections.
The FBI says that torture is bad because 1. it produces bad evidence, meaning false evidence -- you'll say anything and everything when being tortured and 2. it erodes popular support for you.
America invades Iraq to install democracy and stories (accurate stories stemming from official investigations) and photographs of torture and abuse circulate throughout the Arab world. What a monumental fuck-up this administration has foisted on us and the rest of this world. This ensures a new generation of Bin Ladens.
Why do you find it relevant to point out that the abused detainees were alleged violent rioters? Was it proven in a court of law that they were violent rioters? Would that justify the abuse they suffered?
So, are you a polo shirt geek or a flannel shirt geek?
But I would like to see a magic system like the one you describe -- where it's more like a powerful programming language. My guess as to the best way to do this is to have the server host the virtual environment and give players some kind of API to affect qualities of the environment. Players would write their own programs and scripts, share them, sell them, etc. What fun!
So cats can't join cross-species societies. Dogs and people are capable of an intellectual feat that cats aren't.
OK fine, I'll take your word for it. I'm not interested in befriending them. I just don't want those damn animals shitting and pissing in my room, like they did everyone elses. I hiss at them and stare them right out of my room at the doorway, and so far my room is clean. At least dogs know to go outside.
You just made my point. With a cat, you are either parent or not. They have no brotherhoods, fraternities, gangs, or groups. They have no social awareness. They are aware of other individuals, and self aware, but have no awareness of societies, meanings groups of individuals.
OK, surely as a slashdot poster you respect the scientific method? There is no way I will base my beliefs on trusting other people. I am a skeptic as far as cat social sensitivity. I agree that they are great hunters and I think that they probably analyse a room strategically, but what evidence do you present that they are understanding a social map of a room (or have any concept of a 'room' at all, which is a reification of a social group? I am currently living with cats , and while they seem to respect *individuals*, I haven't had any experience showing that they have any concept of group or heirarchy. How do I know you aren't incorrectly personifying cats because of your personal predilections?
So, aside from trusting you, what evidence can you present me with that cats are socially aware, meaning aware of groups as collections of individuals?
What I'm getting to is this is why I think cats are stupid. There are solitary animals that are smarter, such as organs and octopuses. Both of those creatues have enough 1. social intelligence to recognize individual people, conceal evidence from them, hide escape attempts and cladestine feeding, and 2. object manipulation intelligence, for maze solving, lock picking, cage escaping, etc. Cats are good at neither of these.
I guess I'm biased. Maybe cats have as much social awareness and just don't *care*, but how would that evolve? I think that's incorrectly personifying. I think rather, since cats aren't aware of human or other social hierarchy, they act in a manner that seems *cool* or uncaring to a creature that is aware of social hierarchy, such as a person. How would awareness of social structure benefit the reproductive success of a cat?
Furthermore, with object manipulation, I guess cats are good hunters, which means that they have to have a sophisticated understanding of prey psychology -- how/when a prey animal becomes aware of being stalked, what its reaction will be, where it will try to run, etc. Obviously this is more complicated than the simple physics of inanimate objects such as cages and locks.
I classify that under 'grooming'.
That's really interesting about the cat bringing food. I studied a little bit about cat domestication, and the current hot theory is that they hung around rodent-infested graineries in Egypt to the point where they became tolerant of people and vice versa. I suspect, as an evolutionist, that when cats 'present gifts', they actually aren't thinking that they are giving something to their master; instead they are just following an instinct that's been bred into them by selection in domestication. In other words, cats that caught mice were given bonuses (like saucers of milk) by people, so that gene was selected for. Cats that misbehaved were killed. However, your story seems to suggest that cats actually think/feel that they are giving food to people.
OR do you mean 'NoooOOOOoooo'?
So I submit that dogs have a more sophisticated theory of mind, or at the very least feel 'subscribed' to a human justice code, whereas the cat either isn't aware, or else is aware and just doesn't care.
There was a case of an organutan how managed to pick the lock of its cage at a zoo. A person visited the zoo noticed that the orang was able to do it -- the orang was smart enough not to do it in front of any zookeeper! But it apparently didn't think the zoo visitor would care. This shows that the orang was smart enough to recognise zookeepers -- people weaing the uniform. I don't know if cats can recognize classes of people likewise.
In regards to your amazing cat,
a.) jumping is not a feat of intelligence
b.) this is no diffferent than picking up a leaf to uncover hiding prey
c.) ditto b's critique, and
d.) so he treats a straw like a mouse. Big deal.
Cats are agile, dextrous, acrobatical, excellent hunters, all that -- just not very bright.