Laugh all you want, but this is an open secret amongst the millions of personnel serving in various clandestine space commands since WWII. Air superiority has governed every war since we could get off the ground, and everybody ran to weaponize space as quickly as possible.
The Air Force doesn't like this reorganization, because they don't want to lose control of all their very cool toys.
The curious researcher will make note that only one U.S. Military Command -- The U.S. Navy -- is Constitutionally chartered, and they (mostly) own this area of operation. There is a reason that Star Trek follows the rank and command structure of the Navy, and not the Army nor Air Force. The other military commands similarly have their own space-faring tech and toys; but the average person might be surprised at how much they don't get along, and forcefully demonstrate their disagreement.
Tip of the iceberg. The rabbit hole goes very deep, and actions like these are to prime the public for better awareness regarding what the "break-away civilization" has been up to for the past half-century (and longer).
While it's true that incremental discoveries (and downright "surprises") commonly occur during development (causing us to revise at some level our specification and even design), cities built incrementally are typically not as good as those planned out.
In the United States, Chicago, IL is the only city that *makes money* with its mass transit, because it has a spokes-on-a-wheel rail layout, where everything "goes in" in the morning, and "goes out" in the afternoon (like a breathing organism). Chicago was designed monolithically and (re-)built in a massive effort after the Great Chicago Fire in 1871.
All the other cities that grow incrementally might have other nice aesthetics, but typically grow their own structural problems that aren't/can't be addressed without centralized planning.
For software, if nobody owns the "theory of operation" for "how this thing is supposed to do its job", then you're just wandering in the desert until you finally make up your mind.
No. You're mixing motives (values) and efficiency.
The market-driven system is merely a mechanism for efficient resource distribution. Society puts a financial price tag on what it wants (by directing dollars into that market). Don't look to capitalism for motives (it won't "cure the world's problems"), but rather, to efficiently address those things society decides to pay for.
Your goal for "people's lives" that you don't "trust to private corporations" isn't a useful observation. It's not relevant. Society decides what it values, and it may or may not agree with you.
In this community, it's the same sloppy thinking regarding "free/open source": It's a development model, not a business model (those are different things, and it's not helpful to mix them together).
That's a famous quote from Willie Sutton, in the 1930's (USA).
FYI, it's the *classic* example of for why lawyers are told to *never* put their defendant on the stand in a trial (because it was a stupid admission of guilt after the prosecutor lulled the defendant into confident and cocky behavior on the stand).
On Willie's life:
http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/sutton /sutton.htm>
We merely disagree. Why is it that *I'm* "one of the afflicted", and not you? How is it that because we merely disagree, you can now state "You only think about yourself, which is socially irresponsible?", and *then* go on to say that *I'm* making what you do "harder"?
This is amazing. I don't mean to offend, but this strikes of arrogance.
Please don't go to platitudes of "doing good for others is the right thing to do". Of course we agree on that. But, that's a nullity: It doesn't matter. The issue is that we disagree on what it means to "do good".
I understand you find the capitalist system "perverted", but keep in mind that rich people are also the biggest philanthropists around. While many people give time, (and both rich and poor people do that), poor people generally don't donate lots of money to social causes. Rich people are not bad because they're rich.
You can provide whatever opportunities you want, but you don't get to claim moral high-ground. Perhaps I also provide opportunities? Perhaps I disagree with your opportunities, and vice-versa? Do you *still* get to claim you're the only one that's right?
A key difference between us, IMHO, is that you see a need keep me "in check". In contrast, I don't have any interest in restricting your attitudes and behaviors, nor in telling how you *should* be using what is yours.
(For the record, I used to work in a public library too.)
I'm glad you're a "pretty happy guy for the most part". Don't be sad if others disagree with you.
> I want to help them get the free > and equal access that they deserve. No... make > that the free and equal access that is their > birthright. That's what life is all about: > thinking of others who need your help.
What if others don't want what you're doing, even though you're *sure* they should want it? (You long-time married guys know what I'm saying.)
You don't own other people's emotions. You can't just *do* things and expect others to be happy as a result. If you want to buy others cable modem internet access, because you think that will make them happy, go ahead. You don't have any standing to be upset if I don't choose to do that, though.
I could support other causes, or none at all, and that's my perogative: If it's my money, you don't have any standing to say what I should do with it.
You're a bit permissive in the concept of "rights". In general, if you can be allowed something without taking something from someone else, that can be a "right". If you demand something that can only exist when somebody else gets out their wallet, that's not a right, that's a form of resource re-distribution (which society does typically impose at some level, or in some cases).
> Don't like what I'm saying? Then ask yourself > why it bothers you.
I merely disagree. I called your argument trite (rich people are the problem becuase they deny "good and smart people" from having opportunity.) It doesn't bother me, I merely find it uninformed (not defensible).
> Where do you fit in?
I support lots of rights, and minimal use of involuntary resource redistribution.
> Who are you to tell me to essentially "shut > up"? Your volley.
I'm not telling you to shut up-- go ahead and get your blog going. I'm just saying that your argument is uncompelling.
Re:Could be good... could be bad
on
The Media in 2014
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
This is such a trite argument (the elite are focused on money, good/smart people fail because their affairs are being managed by others who don't want to help them, successful people can only be successful by keeping everybody else in their place).
If you don't understand the world, then I understand how you might think it's a scary place. You seem to want a 'utopia' where people think and do what you want them to think and do. Why not let others pursue their dreams, and you do the same, and quit complaining that your life is bad because of stuff *they* are doing? Unless they are taking your freedoms or taxing your life away, your life is your own (so complaining about "The Man" is a waste of time).
I found Steven Spielberg's movie "AI" a little disturbing because it's not impossible. After all, our behaviors (including dialog) are mere stimulous to technology, to which technology is "trained" to respond. When this interaction is sufficiently rich that robots are able to respond with increasingly lifelike behavior, what are the appropriate "healthy" and (dare I suggest) "moral" responses (as accepted by a 'healthy' society)?
We all agree that it's not good to set dogs and cats on fire (for we have ethical responsibility to living things). Further, I accept that just because a child or Altzheimer's patient *believes* the stuffed bear is "real" doesn't mean *I* must accept the stuffed bear as "alive". However, society generally doesn't want to see simulated torturing of children, whether or not it involves "real kids" (for most serial killers show us they just need enough practice to work their way up to the good stuff).
So, specifically: If we reach AI's level of technology, is it "healthy" or "natural" for humans to have such callous regard to these 'self-directed entities'? Definitions for 'life' aside, these mechanical creations seem to rank *way* higher than chickens or most other poultry. Or, perhaps the 'moral' question is irrelevant? We don't get to decide if something has a 'soul' or not, but we *do* get to decide *our own* behaviors when we engage in stimulous/response with other people. Should we not expect the same healthy interactions with machines, as if they were people, when we meet someone on the street and we forgot our 'X-ray Robot Detector' back home?
I found Steven Spielberg's movie "AI" a little disturbing because it's not impossible. After all, our behaviors (including dialog) are mere stimulous to technology, to which technology is "trained" to respond. When this interaction is sufficiently rich that robots are able to respond with increasingly lifelike behavior, what are the appropriate "healthy" and (dare I suggest) "moral" responses (as accepted by a 'healthy' society)?
We all agree that it's not good to set dogs and cats on fire (for we have ethical responsibility to living things). Further, I accept that just because a child or Altzheimer's patient *believes* the stuffed bear is "real" doesn't mean *I* must accept the stuffed bear as "alive". However, society generally doesn't want to see simulated torturing of children, whether or not it involves "real kids" (for most serial killers show us they just need enough practice to work their way up to the good stuff).
So, specifically: If we reach AI's level of technology, is it "healthy" or "natural" for humans to have such callous regard to these 'self-directed entities'? Definitions for 'life' aside, these mechanical creations seem to rank *way* higher than chickens or most other poultry. Or, perhaps the 'moral' question is irrelevant? We don't get to decide if something has a 'soul' or not, but we *do* get to decide *our own* behaviors when we engage in stimulous/response with other people. Should we not expect the same healthy interactions with machines, as if they were people, when we meet someone on the street and we forgot our 'X-ray Robot Detector' back home?
Right! The Army needs geeks too, and everybody takes orders... especially IT departments and programmers (unfortunately from managers that don't always understand technology issues). You might be surprised at how much freedom you get in the Army... you might be taking fewer orders in the Army than in the private sector! Everybody knows their job, and does it. The army recently opened up a 74B MOS (military occupation specialty) that's essentially network technician (novell, ms, etc.) They can use them *a lot*. Custom programming and automation fits right in. The digital battlefield is here. I know, because I'm away from my civillian job and am sitting in Afghanistan. The Army is a very good choice for geeks.
Slashdot Mirror
Laugh all you want, but this is an open secret amongst the millions of personnel serving in various clandestine space commands since WWII. Air superiority has governed every war since we could get off the ground, and everybody ran to weaponize space as quickly as possible.
The Air Force doesn't like this reorganization, because they don't want to lose control of all their very cool toys.
The curious researcher will make note that only one U.S. Military Command -- The U.S. Navy -- is Constitutionally chartered, and they (mostly) own this area of operation. There is a reason that Star Trek follows the rank and command structure of the Navy, and not the Army nor Air Force. The other military commands similarly have their own space-faring tech and toys; but the average person might be surprised at how much they don't get along, and forcefully demonstrate their disagreement.
Tip of the iceberg. The rabbit hole goes very deep, and actions like these are to prime the public for better awareness regarding what the "break-away civilization" has been up to for the past half-century (and longer).
It's as if millions of souls cried out ... and were suddenly silenced.
I do not find your assertion compelling.
While it's true that incremental discoveries (and downright "surprises") commonly occur during development (causing us to revise at some level our specification and even design), cities built incrementally are typically not as good as those planned out.
In the United States, Chicago, IL is the only city that *makes money* with its mass transit, because it has a spokes-on-a-wheel rail layout, where everything "goes in" in the morning, and "goes out" in the afternoon (like a breathing organism). Chicago was designed monolithically and (re-)built in a massive effort after the Great Chicago Fire in 1871.
All the other cities that grow incrementally might have other nice aesthetics, but typically grow their own structural problems that aren't/can't be addressed without centralized planning.
For software, if nobody owns the "theory of operation" for "how this thing is supposed to do its job", then you're just wandering in the desert until you finally make up your mind.
It's interesting that the harder you work, the luckier you are.
Isn't all publicity good publicity? At least there's interest in his book. ;-))
No. You're mixing motives (values) and efficiency.
The market-driven system is merely a mechanism for efficient resource distribution. Society puts a financial price tag on what it wants (by directing dollars into that market). Don't look to capitalism for motives (it won't "cure the world's problems"), but rather, to efficiently address those things society decides to pay for.
Your goal for "people's lives" that you don't "trust to private corporations" isn't a useful observation. It's not relevant. Society decides what it values, and it may or may not agree with you.
In this community, it's the same sloppy thinking regarding "free/open source": It's a development model, not a business model (those are different things, and it's not helpful to mix them together).
You don't understand capitalism.
The research would never take place (why would it?) and the drugs would never become available.
Or, the "BLTN" Memoes -- better late than never? ;-)
Wasn't this supposed to be leaked on Halloween?
That's a famous quote from Willie Sutton, in the 1930's (USA). FYI, it's the *classic* example of for why lawyers are told to *never* put their defendant on the stand in a trial (because it was a stupid admission of guilt after the prosecutor lulled the defendant into confident and cocky behavior on the stand). On Willie's life: http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/sutton /sutton.htm>
We merely disagree. Why is it that *I'm* "one of the afflicted", and not you? How is it that because we merely disagree, you can now state "You only think about yourself, which is socially irresponsible?", and *then* go on to say that *I'm* making what you do "harder"?
This is amazing. I don't mean to offend, but this strikes of arrogance.
Please don't go to platitudes of "doing good for others is the right thing to do". Of course we agree on that. But, that's a nullity: It doesn't matter. The issue is that we disagree on what it means to "do good".
I understand you find the capitalist system "perverted", but keep in mind that rich people are also the biggest philanthropists around. While many people give time, (and both rich and poor people do that), poor people generally don't donate lots of money to social causes. Rich people are not bad because they're rich.
You can provide whatever opportunities you want, but you don't get to claim moral high-ground. Perhaps I also provide opportunities? Perhaps I disagree with your opportunities, and vice-versa? Do you *still* get to claim you're the only one that's right?
A key difference between us, IMHO, is that you see a need keep me "in check". In contrast, I don't have any interest in restricting your attitudes and behaviors, nor in telling how you *should* be using what is yours.
(For the record, I used to work in a public library too.)
I'm glad you're a "pretty happy guy for the
most part". Don't be sad if others disagree
with you.
> I want to help them get the free
> and equal access that they deserve. No... make
> that the free and equal access that is their
> birthright. That's what life is all about:
> thinking of others who need your help.
What if others don't want what you're doing, even
though you're *sure* they should want it? (You
long-time married guys know what I'm saying.)
You don't own other people's emotions. You
can't just *do* things and expect others to be
happy as a result. If you want to buy others
cable modem internet access, because you think
that will make them happy, go ahead. You don't
have any standing to be upset if I don't choose
to do that, though.
I could support other causes, or none at all,
and that's my perogative: If it's my money,
you don't have any standing to say what I should
do with it.
You're a bit permissive in the concept of
"rights". In general, if you can be allowed
something without taking something from someone
else, that can be a "right". If you demand
something that can only exist when somebody
else gets out their wallet, that's not a right,
that's a form of resource re-distribution
(which society does typically impose at some
level, or in some cases).
> Don't like what I'm saying? Then ask yourself
> why it bothers you.
I merely disagree. I called your argument trite
(rich people are the problem becuase they deny
"good and smart people" from having opportunity.)
It doesn't bother me, I merely find it uninformed
(not defensible).
> Where do you fit in?
I support lots of rights, and minimal use of
involuntary resource redistribution.
> Who are you to tell me to essentially "shut
> up"? Your volley.
I'm not telling you to shut up-- go ahead and
get your blog going. I'm just saying that your
argument is uncompelling.
This is such a trite argument (the elite are
focused on money, good/smart people fail because
their affairs are being managed by others who
don't want to help them, successful people can
only be successful by keeping everybody else
in their place).
If you don't understand the world, then I
understand how you might think it's a scary
place. You seem to want a 'utopia' where people
think and do what you want them to think and do.
Why not let others pursue their dreams, and you
do the same, and quit complaining that your life
is bad because of stuff *they* are doing?
Unless they are taking your freedoms or taxing
your life away, your life is your own (so
complaining about "The Man" is a waste of time).
We all agree that it's not good to set dogs and cats on fire (for we have ethical responsibility to living things). Further, I accept that just because a child or Altzheimer's patient *believes* the stuffed bear is "real" doesn't mean *I* must accept the stuffed bear as "alive". However, society generally doesn't want to see simulated torturing of children, whether or not it involves "real kids" (for most serial killers show us they just need enough practice to work their way up to the good stuff).
So, specifically: If we reach AI's level of technology, is it "healthy" or "natural" for humans to have such callous regard to these 'self-directed entities'? Definitions for 'life' aside, these mechanical creations seem to rank *way* higher than chickens or most other poultry. Or, perhaps the 'moral' question is irrelevant? We don't get to decide if something has a 'soul' or not, but we *do* get to decide *our own* behaviors when we engage in stimulous/response with other people. Should we not expect the same healthy interactions with machines, as if they were people, when we meet someone on the street and we forgot our 'X-ray Robot Detector' back home?
I found Steven Spielberg's movie "AI" a little disturbing because it's not impossible. After all, our behaviors (including dialog) are mere stimulous to technology, to which technology is "trained" to respond. When this interaction is sufficiently rich that robots are able to respond with increasingly lifelike behavior, what are the appropriate "healthy" and (dare I suggest) "moral" responses (as accepted by a 'healthy' society)? We all agree that it's not good to set dogs and cats on fire (for we have ethical responsibility to living things). Further, I accept that just because a child or Altzheimer's patient *believes* the stuffed bear is "real" doesn't mean *I* must accept the stuffed bear as "alive". However, society generally doesn't want to see simulated torturing of children, whether or not it involves "real kids" (for most serial killers show us they just need enough practice to work their way up to the good stuff). So, specifically: If we reach AI's level of technology, is it "healthy" or "natural" for humans to have such callous regard to these 'self-directed entities'? Definitions for 'life' aside, these mechanical creations seem to rank *way* higher than chickens or most other poultry. Or, perhaps the 'moral' question is irrelevant? We don't get to decide if something has a 'soul' or not, but we *do* get to decide *our own* behaviors when we engage in stimulous/response with other people. Should we not expect the same healthy interactions with machines, as if they were people, when we meet someone on the street and we forgot our 'X-ray Robot Detector' back home?
Yeah, look at those evil people. They brought us the internet, and I heard that there's sometimes pornography on that.
Right! The Army needs geeks too, and everybody takes orders... especially IT departments and programmers (unfortunately from managers that don't always understand technology issues). You might be surprised at how much freedom you get in the Army... you might be taking fewer orders in the Army than in the private sector! Everybody knows their job, and does it. The army recently opened up a 74B MOS (military occupation specialty) that's essentially network technician (novell, ms, etc.) They can use them *a lot*. Custom programming and automation fits right in. The digital battlefield is here. I know, because I'm away from my civillian job and am sitting in Afghanistan. The Army is a very good choice for geeks.