What benefit is there to shooting people based on their heat signatures? You have the distinct problem of not getting confirmation of your target before taking the shot.
A lot of people imagine all sorts of bad things that can happen with technologies like this. Most of it's nonsense because it doesn't actually make things easier. If someone wants to shoot you, they can just break down your door and do it, use a predator drone, or snipe through a window using traditional SWAT tactics.
The problem is for every bad aspect of technologies like these, there are many good aspects. A technology like this could have huge benefits for people exercising, for instance, or concerned about their health.
Sure, if you really dislike all this technology stuff you could go live in a log cabin in the woods, living off the land and avoiding all technology. The government will even subsidize your stay with food stamps.
But the cost of such a move is just to costly; the solution, clearly, is finding a way to embrace modern technology that minimizes the bad aspects, and maximizes the good aspects.
But my original point was, if you found evidence, would anyone accept it?
Look at black holes. 20 years ago if you went to a major conference on astronomy, and said you thought at the center of every galaxy there was a supermassive black hole, you would have been laughed out of the conference. Fast forward to today: go to the same conference and say you don't believe there are black holes, and you will get laughed at.
Part of the problem with humanity is if something is determined "not to have any credance" we completely eliminate the possibility that it may be one of those tail cases that, while not probable, is possibly true.
If you were willing to plough a few tens of billion into the study and development, I can guarantee you that you would either figure out how to do it, or learn why it's just not possible.
The key is of course the resources needed. Even a trillion is a drop in the bucket, on a global basis. However, it will be difficult to get everyone to contribute enough to fund your solution.
Except in Europe a lot of cities promote use of mass transit by capping the max number of parking lots spaces to 0.5 per employee or something like that.
What! You mean a grumpy slashdotter can't just come up with a remarkably brilliant solution to solve the world's problems in just 30 seconds of thinking?
While I agree with you, I'm hopeful this will change, and that in a few iterations of this technology it'll be fast.
Honestly, I've had so many times my phone has just gone low battery or run out of battery, it would be refreshing if I could just go into a coffee shop, grab a cappuccino, and come out with a fully charged phone.
(Yes I realize I can do this if I carry my charger with me, but come on, who wants to do that?)
English is not my first language so you'll have to forgive me.
Let's talk statistics.
If you say there are no intelligent dinosaurs with a 99% confidence level, I agree If you say there are no intelligent dinosaurs with a 99.99% confidence level, I agree If you say there are no intelligent dinosaurs with a 99.99999% confidence level, I agree If you say there are no intelligent dinosaurs with a 100% confidence level, I disagree
What my original post was pointing out, is that even if something like this were to be true, no one would believe it. Anyone arguing dinosaurs are superintelligent, or that aliens are real, etc., are viewed as crack pots.
I checked the Wikipedia link, an argument of ignorance presumes that something is true because we don't know.
I don't presume anything to be true. I simply state you have no way of proving if it's true or false either way. For the same reason that in statistics you don't say you have proved something, you simply fail to reject a hypothesis.
There is much we lack the ability to say with absolute certainty. We cannot say, with absolute certainty, for instance, the world is not the dream of a sleeper, and that this argument is happening in his dream. Or that we're plugged into a sort of version of the Matrix.
That doesn't mean I'm going to worry about being a computer program somewhere. Just that, absolute certainty doesn't exist
And what would such a structure look like? Chances are even if we've seen one, we'd have no idea what we were looking at.
Also, remember while premodern humans existed thousands of years ago, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. There's a HUGE difference in how much of the historical record is preserved over a time frame of 100,000 years and 65 million years!
Now I have absolutely no idea what was going on 65 million years ago. But the fact of the matter is the few ways we do have to look into the past do not give us the ability to rule such things out conclusively. Although you can say we believe the chances to be small, we can't say they're zero.
No. I'm not arguing that that dinosaurs were super intelligent beings, or that aliens exist.
My point is while you can say it is unlikely that they were, you cannot rule out the possibility.
It's the "black swan" problem. For hundreds of years people said swans were only white. Then Australia was discovered, and people realized they were wrong.
Remember also that a lot of the ways that human beings are able to be intelligent is the two hands we're blessed with. Take dolphins as an example. Some people say they're as intelligent as humans. Frankly, I have no idea. But if they were, being underwater, they'd be completely unable to create fire which would limit how much technology they could create. And by virtue of the fact that they have fins, they'd never be able to mine ores or create basic tools necessary to create more complex tools.
Even if I had evidence of intelligent life existing before humans, you wouldn't believe it, you'd call it nonsense. Or you'd come up with an explanation that involves natural phenomena.
Human beings are remarkably good at filtering out information that is true but they want to believe is false. Before you argue with me this point, consider the current debate over whether or not global warming is real.
There is quite a bit of evidence other species have some sort of intelligence -- like dolphins for instance. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some super intelligent dinosaur that just didn't get a chance to grow into a nuclear age species.
Have you ever watched one of those crazy shows purporting to show "evidence" of "Ancient Aliens" or some other such thing?
What's your opinion of them? Nonsense? Sensationalist?
If intelligent life evolved before humans, and became able to use tools like humans, any evidence they left behind wouldn't be taken seriously. Additionally, what may have been created by intelligent species might not clearly not be a natural phenomenon. For instance, what does a dinosaur's house look like? Even if you found a fossilized dino house, would you know it?
Not that, necessarily, there has been intelligent life before humans. We just simply cannot know.
Except you've got a video tape of them up until that point and TFS mentions "for health and safety reasons"
What if you are in the middle of a riot, videotaping, and the police tell the rioters (and you) to disperse? Do you get to sue the cops?
The law tends to have caveats for a reason. If you look at the PDF, they talk about an officer at a traffic stop in a public place not having the right to expect privacy. The judgement she got is the best she could have hoped for, and the judge should be applauded.
With awards coming directly out of the police budget for that year - no fobbing off the penalty on the taxpayers.
And who do you think funds the taxpayer budgets?
Under your scenario police departments will disband / lay off officers leaving an unprotected populace.
IMHO a bigger stick needs to be used to stop these sorts of abuses, but you're smoking crack if you think large awards out of department budgets are the answer
You have to be careful here. You create an incentive for people to bring false charges against someone else.
Property should not be seizable unless as a punishment from the judge and it should go to general government. If I commit a crime, my property's not involved.
Except people deserve transparency in taxes they pay.
As far as I'm concerned, if the police department needs more revenue it should come in the form of a tax levy. We should shut down any "creative" ways of increasing revenue like adding red light cameras, or allowing confiscation of your car if you get a speeding ticket.
Well I'm not talking about sticking cameras everywhere. Just that in the event you wanted to do surveillance, you don't use donut munchers, you put up a camera (that you could then take down).
Well if you read the book, the Japanese are not exactly painted as heros. They're at best villains with a few redeeming qualities, and at worst super evil. Clavell surrendered himself to the Japanese and apparently they smiled and offered to kill him. Because, according to bushido, it's more honorable to be killed by the enemy then to be taken prisoner. He preferred being a prisoner and was quite badly mistreated for that reason.
If you've ever traveled to south east asia, you'll see they really do like to pack people in. My girlfriend when I lived in Vietnam lived in a one bedroom apartment with three other people. She thought this was normal, and a lot of other people I met had similar arrangements....
Slashdot Mirror
What benefit is there to shooting people based on their heat signatures? You have the distinct problem of not getting confirmation of your target before taking the shot.
A lot of people imagine all sorts of bad things that can happen with technologies like this. Most of it's nonsense because it doesn't actually make things easier. If someone wants to shoot you, they can just break down your door and do it, use a predator drone, or snipe through a window using traditional SWAT tactics.
The problem is for every bad aspect of technologies like these, there are many good aspects. A technology like this could have huge benefits for people exercising, for instance, or concerned about their health.
Sure, if you really dislike all this technology stuff you could go live in a log cabin in the woods, living off the land and avoiding all technology. The government will even subsidize your stay with food stamps.
But the cost of such a move is just to costly; the solution, clearly, is finding a way to embrace modern technology that minimizes the bad aspects, and maximizes the good aspects.
True.
But my original point was, if you found evidence, would anyone accept it?
Look at black holes. 20 years ago if you went to a major conference on astronomy, and said you thought at the center of every galaxy there was a supermassive black hole, you would have been laughed out of the conference. Fast forward to today: go to the same conference and say you don't believe there are black holes, and you will get laughed at.
Part of the problem with humanity is if something is determined "not to have any credance" we completely eliminate the possibility that it may be one of those tail cases that, while not probable, is possibly true.
If you were willing to plough a few tens of billion into the study and development, I can guarantee you that you would either figure out how to do it, or learn why it's just not possible.
The key is of course the resources needed. Even a trillion is a drop in the bucket, on a global basis. However, it will be difficult to get everyone to contribute enough to fund your solution.
THIS!
REAL restaurants tend to be cheaper, and of better quality. You're smoking crack if you'd rather go to PF Changs.
If man can dream it, he can achieve it.
If we really wanted to, we'd find a way.
Except in Europe a lot of cities promote use of mass transit by capping the max number of parking lots spaces to 0.5 per employee or something like that.
What! You mean a grumpy slashdotter can't just come up with a remarkably brilliant solution to solve the world's problems in just 30 seconds of thinking?
http://xkcd.com/793/
There's no equipment that exists yet that could possibly drill this deep.
Fixed that for you.
While I agree with you, I'm hopeful this will change, and that in a few iterations of this technology it'll be fast.
Honestly, I've had so many times my phone has just gone low battery or run out of battery, it would be refreshing if I could just go into a coffee shop, grab a cappuccino, and come out with a fully charged phone.
(Yes I realize I can do this if I carry my charger with me, but come on, who wants to do that?)
English is not my first language so you'll have to forgive me.
Let's talk statistics.
If you say there are no intelligent dinosaurs with a 99% confidence level, I agree
If you say there are no intelligent dinosaurs with a 99.99% confidence level, I agree
If you say there are no intelligent dinosaurs with a 99.99999% confidence level, I agree
If you say there are no intelligent dinosaurs with a 100% confidence level, I disagree
What my original post was pointing out, is that even if something like this were to be true, no one would believe it. Anyone arguing dinosaurs are superintelligent, or that aliens are real, etc., are viewed as crack pots.
Then you misunderstood my meaning.
I checked the Wikipedia link, an argument of ignorance presumes that something is true because we don't know.
I don't presume anything to be true. I simply state you have no way of proving if it's true or false either way. For the same reason that in statistics you don't say you have proved something, you simply fail to reject a hypothesis.
There is much we lack the ability to say with absolute certainty. We cannot say, with absolute certainty, for instance, the world is not the dream of a sleeper, and that this argument is happening in his dream. Or that we're plugged into a sort of version of the Matrix.
That doesn't mean I'm going to worry about being a computer program somewhere. Just that, absolute certainty doesn't exist
And what would such a structure look like? Chances are even if we've seen one, we'd have no idea what we were looking at.
Also, remember while premodern humans existed thousands of years ago, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. There's a HUGE difference in how much of the historical record is preserved over a time frame of 100,000 years and 65 million years!
Now I have absolutely no idea what was going on 65 million years ago. But the fact of the matter is the few ways we do have to look into the past do not give us the ability to rule such things out conclusively. Although you can say we believe the chances to be small, we can't say they're zero.
No. I'm not arguing that that dinosaurs were super intelligent beings, or that aliens exist.
My point is while you can say it is unlikely that they were, you cannot rule out the possibility.
It's the "black swan" problem. For hundreds of years people said swans were only white. Then Australia was discovered, and people realized they were wrong.
Remember also that a lot of the ways that human beings are able to be intelligent is the two hands we're blessed with. Take dolphins as an example. Some people say they're as intelligent as humans. Frankly, I have no idea. But if they were, being underwater, they'd be completely unable to create fire which would limit how much technology they could create. And by virtue of the fact that they have fins, they'd never be able to mine ores or create basic tools necessary to create more complex tools.
But that's entirely the point!
Even if I had evidence of intelligent life existing before humans, you wouldn't believe it, you'd call it nonsense. Or you'd come up with an explanation that involves natural phenomena.
Human beings are remarkably good at filtering out information that is true but they want to believe is false. Before you argue with me this point, consider the current debate over whether or not global warming is real.
There is quite a bit of evidence other species have some sort of intelligence -- like dolphins for instance. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some super intelligent dinosaur that just didn't get a chance to grow into a nuclear age species.
Have you ever watched one of those crazy shows purporting to show "evidence" of "Ancient Aliens" or some other such thing?
What's your opinion of them? Nonsense? Sensationalist?
If intelligent life evolved before humans, and became able to use tools like humans, any evidence they left behind wouldn't be taken seriously. Additionally, what may have been created by intelligent species might not clearly not be a natural phenomenon. For instance, what does a dinosaur's house look like? Even if you found a fossilized dino house, would you know it?
Not that, necessarily, there has been intelligent life before humans. We just simply cannot know.
Who in their right mind would want to program in Pascal these days.
IIRC you had to declare every single variable at the beginning of the program.
That's nice if you are using a small code base, but anything larger and things get hairy really quickly.
Why is it when people come out against having a police state, they always seem to advocate anarchy?
Except you've got a video tape of them up until that point and TFS mentions "for health and safety reasons"
What if you are in the middle of a riot, videotaping, and the police tell the rioters (and you) to disperse? Do you get to sue the cops?
The law tends to have caveats for a reason. If you look at the PDF, they talk about an officer at a traffic stop in a public place not having the right to expect privacy. The judgement she got is the best she could have hoped for, and the judge should be applauded.
With awards coming directly out of the police budget for that year - no fobbing off the penalty on the taxpayers.
And who do you think funds the taxpayer budgets?
Under your scenario police departments will disband / lay off officers leaving an unprotected populace.
IMHO a bigger stick needs to be used to stop these sorts of abuses, but you're smoking crack if you think large awards out of department budgets are the answer
Excellent response. I award you the point
You have to be careful here. You create an incentive for people to bring false charges against someone else.
Property should not be seizable unless as a punishment from the judge and it should go to general government. If I commit a crime, my property's not involved.
Except people deserve transparency in taxes they pay.
As far as I'm concerned, if the police department needs more revenue it should come in the form of a tax levy. We should shut down any "creative" ways of increasing revenue like adding red light cameras, or allowing confiscation of your car if you get a speeding ticket.
Well I'm not talking about sticking cameras everywhere. Just that in the event you wanted to do surveillance, you don't use donut munchers, you put up a camera (that you could then take down).
LOL
Well if you read the book, the Japanese are not exactly painted as heros. They're at best villains with a few redeeming qualities, and at worst super evil. Clavell surrendered himself to the Japanese and apparently they smiled and offered to kill him. Because, according to bushido, it's more honorable to be killed by the enemy then to be taken prisoner. He preferred being a prisoner and was quite badly mistreated for that reason.
If you've ever traveled to south east asia, you'll see they really do like to pack people in. My girlfriend when I lived in Vietnam lived in a one bedroom apartment with three other people. She thought this was normal, and a lot of other people I met had similar arrangements....