Well, remember that the machine doesn't tell anything. It's up to the analyst to determine what the results mean. If the analyst simply looks for deceit, they will miss sociopaths ( or maybe not, depending on the exact mechanism ) and compulsive liars. So all I'm saying is that they would have to look pretty thoroughly.
There is tremendous pressure on intel guys to crack the network, and if the detainees contact or knowledge is not exciting/terrifying enough, well, we have ways of making him talk more.
This is basically phrenology with pretty lights instead of bumps on the head.
Paraphrasing, the 10th amendment covers state's rights. The ACLU doesn't really come on my radar screen as staunch defenders of state's rights, but then again, most of what I know about them comes from the ranting of their detrtactors. That the ACLU wouldn't do much work about the 10th amendment makes sense if they construe themselves to be interested in *personal* liberties, but I digress.
Also paraphrasing, the 9th amendment protects rights not specifically enumerated in the constitution. Can you point out some glaring examples where the ACLU has been silent on a purportedly 9th amendment issue?
"or genuinely have no political leanings or agenda (e.g., nobody right now)."
I don't think that such a perspective is possible. First of all, I've never seen a theory or technique enumerated or even hinted at for achieving a biasless perspective. I can't help but conclude that human communication is inherenly biased. Even if there were such a technique, would human organizations be able to achieve that standard with limited time and resources?
Let's say that you did have a biasless report on something. You still have to present the information in serial order. Which side gets to make the 'first move'? (Whose side is presented first?) Who gets the last word? Who gets more words? Who gets longer quotes?
"The same people who can't get beyond the Rule of Unintended Consequences want to something like this?"
Humans are undergoing evolution just like every other organism on the planet. Maybe our consciousness and self-consciousness, planning, and foresight has absolutely no effect whatsoever? Maybe humans constantly meddling with things is just part of evolution.
"for a lawyer after the bullet either A) doesn't work when it is supposed to in a life or death situation or, B) ends up working just fine even in a gun that wasn't authorized for it. Our society just keeps finding more and more interesting ways to keep lawyers employed!"
Do these scenarios have anything to do with RFID encryption in bullets? You could pretty much make the same arguments about regular bullets.
"If everyone on the planet only worked 20 hours a week, and relied on technology and handouts for food and clothing, there would be no technology, no clothes and no food.
There was a time where most people worked 80 hours a week farming, and relied on a non-market system for distribution of goods.
Somehow we go to a point where we could work 40 hours a week and live much better than surfs ever did, and still progress at a much faster rate. There is no reason, with constantly improving technology, that we shoulnd't be able to get away witth working even less.
The trick is to make sure that a decent portion of the profit goes to the producers, instead of fuedal lords or CEOs.
I'm not surprised by *any* of the news I hear about any of our records being tracked. If you remember, shortly after 9/11, Admiral Poindexter proposed a Total Information Awareness, with this logo, which would be the aggregation of all commercial, financial, and medical data of everyone. A database of everything that everyone knows about you.
It was shorly cancelled after criticism, but it turns out that the program is still up and running. So expect to hear more stories about the government having all of our records. Expect them to have *all* of our records.
"Call me crazy, but I'm reasonably certain that many governments already have their citizens' name and address."
I won't call you crazy, but I'd say you are using too broad a brush;)
Here in the US, we have seperation of powers. That means that the police aren't allowed to call up the IRS and demand someone's address. They could do so if they get a warrant, but they have to get a judge to sign off on it, which means that there is some judicial oversight of executive power. So yes, many different parts of the US government has names and addresses, but the executive doesn't, and there are checks and balances and separations of power that prevent the executive from getting information too easily. I can't say I'm too knowledgeable about other governments, but I would bet other western countries have similar protections.
You are correct in a respect. In a dictatorship, the executive isn't really going to worry about warrants -- they will get thier information from wherever, without regard to seperation of powers.
"If you choose to give out your phone number, then I nearly expect that you will be at my beck and call any time I please. You made the choice to give out your phone number. Live with it. It's rude to fake people out. " You really think that when someone gives you their phone number, they are really expecting to become your personal genie ( "You rang, master?" ) just because they gave you seven digits? I think you have an unrealistic perception of what relationship you are establishing when you get a phone number.
I think you are probably the only one getting "faked out" when people hand you their number. I haven't met anyone who thinks like you.
So you don't like call screening. You don't like talking to machines and leaving messages. Can you imagine that you might actually need to leave a message for someone? That an answering machine might actually convey information?
You do realize that you aren't actually talking to a machine, right? That box isn't acutally listening to you, you know -- it's just a recording device to give a message to the intended recipient. You might think of it as a delayed conversation, or a verbal letter -- a 'voice mail', so to speak.
When you were young, you lived in a different world. When the phone rang, you had to rush to wipe your ass so you could pick it up -- if you missed the call, you would have no idea who called, why, or how important it was. Nowadays, we have caller id, answering machines, and voice mail. We don't *have* to rush, so why should we? Why should I develop hemmoroids hurrying my bowel movements because Right Now works for you?
You took the damn time to call, you must have had something to say, even if it's just "hey, calling to chat" so leave a fricking mesage!! I've got better things to do than wait around for people to call.
"Depends on what the information is. If it's just name, address, DOB kind of stuff, then it's probably not a problem. "
What other information do you need? If you have the name and address, that's all you need to come in the middle of the night and arrest them. Are you talking about whatever additional information that the authorities might need to decide that you are an enemy of the state? Well, once you have a giant database of names and addresses, a fascist government simply needs regular police monitoring to discover political dissidents in order to start disappearing people.
People living in fear of the authorities will call in and report a controversial editorial writer or talking head.
People have reputations as to who they are, what they do, and what they believe, so all you need to do is start asking questions as to who has said what. There you get a name, and that is all you need.
"If you won't pick up the phone, why did you give out the number in the first place? That was rude. You faked me out."
I certainly wouldn't have given you my number to be at your beck and call at any time you please. When you call, I'll pick up if I'm not busy and I feel like socializing. Since you probably have no idea what I'm doing at the time when you call, you wouldn't know whether or not it's a good time. Maybe I'm the the shower, in the middle of a task, having an argument with my spouse, or even driving, in the case of a cell phone.
If I didn't have an answering machine or caller id, I wouldn't even know you called if I wasn't able to pick up. At least with an answering machine you have the opportunity to let me know that you called, and what you wanted to talk about.
That sounds nice if all the police are doing if giving you free rides when you are too drunk to get yourself home. However, what if the South Korea were taken over by a dictator like North Korea? the supreme leader has access to everyone's personal information. That kind of information is very handy when you want to crack down on political prisoners, and have political enemies 'disappear'.
"Am I supposed to have a ready-made speech for you to record?"
Look, this isn't a Senate hearing. Just say who you are, when (approximately) you are calling, and what you are calling about, and what I should do in response to your call (i.e. call the police, call back immediately, call back when I get a chance, wait for your call...)
Something like, Hey, it's r00t, it's about five-thirty -- I was just calling to see if you wanted to go to the game on Saturday... I had an extra ticket... Gimme a call when you get this message. Bye!
"
I may be paying long distance charges.
So, screw you. I have better things to do. I could talk to some nice and friendly people."
Are you calling to communicate, or to socialize? If you call and say "call me back long distance", you might get the other person to call you back and pay the long distance toll.
After I posted the gp, it took me a while to remember why toddlers weren't coming down with polio. They had immunity from their mother's breastmilk, which they lost after they were weaned. The average Joey was continuously re-exposed to polio in his everyday life, while the wealthier children didn't have such dirty environs, so they lost the immunity.
I took a class on the history of American medicine, and IIRC, it was pretty well established that polio was an upper-class disease.
If you are exposed as a child, you are able to fight it off and are pretty much innoculated to it for the rest of your life. Poor people didn't have the cleanest conditions a century ago, and even middle class parents allowed their kids to mingle with the masses, in places like public swimming pools. Polio was pretty much endemic in the population, and it was only the rich kids, who weren't allowed to play with dirty urchins, who contracted the virus later in life and were unable to fight it off.
"I just would like to see us move into a future where some of the basic human ailments have been conquered."
I don't think you'll ever be happy. We already live in the era when people have a good chance of living into old age. Time was, before antibiotics, almost half of all infants died before their first birthday. Of those people who made it past age 1, half of them died before age 30. So only about 25% of the people born ever made it to old age.
Here in the US, the average male life span is 75.2. Welcome to paradise;)
It's a risk, and you didn't win this time around. Any of the possibilities you entertain -- contract, golden parachute -- only work provided you have a good relationship with them. If you're fired, don't expect anything. Sue? Good luck -- they have more money than you. If you are not fired, you are in good standing, and you won't need them. So in the end, they won't do anything for you.
The grandparent said that "treaties don't actually do anything domestically". I pointed out that the constitutions says otherwise. The 'order of supremacy' is irrelevant.
"By my understanding, treaties don't actually do anything domestically. "
Your understanding is incomplete. According to the U.S. Constitution, Aticle VI, treaties are the supreme law of the land:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
My guess is that it was probably a demo. There was probably a lot of people who thought they knew everything about everything, and their positions as advisors and sages depending on them being right, or projecting the aura of being.
Without the modern scientific method, there was no way to arbitrate disputes, which were probably dogmatic. If you claimed to really understand the motion of the heavens, a device like the Antikythera device was a powerful debating tool to have on your side.
Slashdot Mirror
Who would win in a fight? You or Harry Shearer?
Well, remember that the machine doesn't tell anything. It's up to the analyst to determine what the results mean. If the analyst simply looks for deceit, they will miss sociopaths ( or maybe not, depending on the exact mechanism ) and compulsive liars. So all I'm saying is that they would have to look pretty thoroughly.
What we are witnessing is terror-hysteria.
There is tremendous pressure on intel guys to crack the network, and if the detainees contact or knowledge is not exciting/terrifying enough, well, we have ways of making him talk more.
This is basically phrenology with pretty lights instead of bumps on the head.
Paraphrasing, the 10th amendment covers state's rights. The ACLU doesn't really come on my radar screen as staunch defenders of state's rights, but then again, most of what I know about them comes from the ranting of their detrtactors. That the ACLU wouldn't do much work about the 10th amendment makes sense if they construe themselves to be interested in *personal* liberties, but I digress.
Also paraphrasing, the 9th amendment protects rights not specifically enumerated in the constitution. Can you point out some glaring examples where the ACLU has been silent on a purportedly 9th amendment issue?
And if will filter out the purposefully deceptive ones, the only politicians we will have left are compulsive liars or sociopaths.
"creating prioritized vertical slices that iterate on the most critical elements and features"
Can someone tell me what this means?
"or genuinely have no political leanings or agenda (e.g., nobody right now)."
I don't think that such a perspective is possible. First of all, I've never seen a theory or technique enumerated or even hinted at for achieving a biasless perspective. I can't help but conclude that human communication is inherenly biased. Even if there were such a technique, would human organizations be able to achieve that standard with limited time and resources?
Let's say that you did have a biasless report on something. You still have to present the information in serial order. Which side gets to make the 'first move'? (Whose side is presented first?) Who gets the last word? Who gets more words? Who gets longer quotes?
"The same people who can't get beyond the Rule of Unintended Consequences want to something like this?"
Humans are undergoing evolution just like every other organism on the planet. Maybe our consciousness and self-consciousness, planning, and foresight has absolutely no effect whatsoever? Maybe humans constantly meddling with things is just part of evolution.
"for a lawyer after the bullet either A) doesn't work when it is supposed to in a life or death situation or, B) ends up working just fine even in a gun that wasn't authorized for it. Our society just keeps finding more and more interesting ways to keep lawyers employed!"
Do these scenarios have anything to do with RFID encryption in bullets? You could pretty much make the same arguments about regular bullets.
"If everyone on the planet only worked 20 hours a week, and relied on technology and handouts for food and clothing, there would be no technology, no clothes and no food.
There was a time where most people worked 80 hours a week farming, and relied on a non-market system for distribution of goods.
Somehow we go to a point where we could work 40 hours a week and live much better than surfs ever did, and still progress at a much faster rate. There is no reason, with constantly improving technology, that we shoulnd't be able to get away witth working even less.
The trick is to make sure that a decent portion of the profit goes to the producers, instead of fuedal lords or CEOs.
I'm not surprised by *any* of the news I hear about any of our records being tracked. If you remember, shortly after 9/11, Admiral Poindexter proposed a Total Information Awareness, with this logo, which would be the aggregation of all commercial, financial, and medical data of everyone. A database of everything that everyone knows about you.
It was shorly cancelled after criticism, but it turns out that the program is still up and running. So expect to hear more stories about the government having all of our records. Expect them to have *all* of our records.
"Call me crazy, but I'm reasonably certain that many governments already have their citizens' name and address."
;)
I won't call you crazy, but I'd say you are using too broad a brush
Here in the US, we have seperation of powers. That means that the police aren't allowed to call up the IRS and demand someone's address. They could do so if they get a warrant, but they have to get a judge to sign off on it, which means that there is some judicial oversight of executive power. So yes, many different parts of the US government has names and addresses, but the executive doesn't, and there are checks and balances and separations of power that prevent the executive from getting information too easily. I can't say I'm too knowledgeable about other governments, but I would bet other western countries have similar protections.
You are correct in a respect. In a dictatorship, the executive isn't really going to worry about warrants -- they will get thier information from wherever, without regard to seperation of powers.
"If you choose to give out your phone number, then I nearly expect that you will be at my beck and call any time I please. You made the choice to give out your phone number. Live with it. It's rude to fake people out. " You really think that when someone gives you their phone number, they are really expecting to become your personal genie ( "You rang, master?" ) just because they gave you seven digits? I think you have an unrealistic perception of what relationship you are establishing when you get a phone number.
I think you are probably the only one getting "faked out" when people hand you their number. I haven't met anyone who thinks like you.
So you don't like call screening. You don't like talking to machines and leaving messages. Can you imagine that you might actually need to leave a message for someone? That an answering machine might actually convey information?
You do realize that you aren't actually talking to a machine, right? That box isn't acutally listening to you, you know -- it's just a recording device to give a message to the intended recipient. You might think of it as a delayed conversation, or a verbal letter -- a 'voice mail', so to speak.
When you were young, you lived in a different world. When the phone rang, you had to rush to wipe your ass so you could pick it up -- if you missed the call, you would have no idea who called, why, or how important it was. Nowadays, we have caller id, answering machines, and voice mail. We don't *have* to rush, so why should we? Why should I develop hemmoroids hurrying my bowel movements because Right Now works for you?
You took the damn time to call, you must have had something to say, even if it's just "hey, calling to chat" so leave a fricking mesage!! I've got better things to do than wait around for people to call.
"Depends on what the information is. If it's just name, address, DOB kind of stuff, then it's probably not a problem. "
What other information do you need? If you have the name and address, that's all you need to come in the middle of the night and arrest them. Are you talking about whatever additional information that the authorities might need to decide that you are an enemy of the state? Well, once you have a giant database of names and addresses, a fascist government simply needs regular police monitoring to discover political dissidents in order to start disappearing people.
People living in fear of the authorities will call in and report a controversial editorial writer or talking head. People have reputations as to who they are, what they do, and what they believe, so all you need to do is start asking questions as to who has said what. There you get a name, and that is all you need.
"If you won't pick up the phone, why did you give out the number in the first place? That was rude. You faked me out."
I certainly wouldn't have given you my number to be at your beck and call at any time you please. When you call, I'll pick up if I'm not busy and I feel like socializing. Since you probably have no idea what I'm doing at the time when you call, you wouldn't know whether or not it's a good time. Maybe I'm the the shower, in the middle of a task, having an argument with my spouse, or even driving, in the case of a cell phone.
If I didn't have an answering machine or caller id, I wouldn't even know you called if I wasn't able to pick up. At least with an answering machine you have the opportunity to let me know that you called, and what you wanted to talk about.
That sounds nice if all the police are doing if giving you free rides when you are too drunk to get yourself home. However, what if the South Korea were taken over by a dictator like North Korea? the supreme leader has access to everyone's personal information. That kind of information is very handy when you want to crack down on political prisoners, and have political enemies 'disappear'.
"Am I supposed to have a ready-made speech for you to record?"
Look, this isn't a Senate hearing. Just say who you are, when (approximately) you are calling, and what you are calling about, and what I should do in response to your call (i.e. call the police, call back immediately, call back when I get a chance, wait for your call...)
Something like,
Hey, it's r00t, it's about five-thirty -- I was just calling to see if you wanted to go to the game on Saturday... I had an extra ticket... Gimme a call when you get this message. Bye!
" I may be paying long distance charges.
So, screw you. I have better things to do. I could talk to some nice and friendly people."
Are you calling to communicate, or to socialize? If you call and say "call me back long distance", you might get the other person to call you back and pay the long distance toll.
You are right.
After I posted the gp, it took me a while to remember why toddlers weren't coming down with polio. They had immunity from their mother's breastmilk, which they lost after they were weaned. The average Joey was continuously re-exposed to polio in his everyday life, while the wealthier children didn't have such dirty environs, so they lost the immunity.
I took a class on the history of American medicine, and IIRC, it was pretty well established that polio was an upper-class disease.
If you are exposed as a child, you are able to fight it off and are pretty much innoculated to it for the rest of your life. Poor people didn't have the cleanest conditions a century ago, and even middle class parents allowed their kids to mingle with the masses, in places like public swimming pools. Polio was pretty much endemic in the population, and it was only the rich kids, who weren't allowed to play with dirty urchins, who contracted the virus later in life and were unable to fight it off.
"I just would like to see us move into a future where some of the basic human ailments have been conquered."
;)
I don't think you'll ever be happy. We already live in the era when people have a good chance of living into old age. Time was, before antibiotics, almost half of all infants died before their first birthday. Of those people who made it past age 1, half of them died before age 30. So only about 25% of the people born ever made it to old age.
Here in the US, the average male life span is 75.2. Welcome to paradise
It's a risk, and you didn't win this time around. Any of the possibilities you entertain -- contract, golden parachute -- only work provided you have a good relationship with them. If you're fired, don't expect anything. Sue? Good luck -- they have more money than you. If you are not fired, you are in good standing, and you won't need them. So in the end, they won't do anything for you.
The grandparent said that "treaties don't actually do anything domestically". I pointed out that the constitutions says otherwise. The 'order of supremacy' is irrelevant.
;)
However, we do agree about the use of power
"By my understanding, treaties don't actually do anything domestically. "
Your understanding is incomplete. According to the U.S. Constitution, Aticle VI, treaties are the supreme law of the land:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
[Emphasis mine]
My guess is that it was probably a demo. There was probably a lot of people who thought they knew everything about everything, and their positions as advisors and sages depending on them being right, or projecting the aura of being.
Without the modern scientific method, there was no way to arbitrate disputes, which were probably dogmatic. If you claimed to really understand the motion of the heavens, a device like the Antikythera device was a powerful debating tool to have on your side.
Have you considered small claims court?