I grew up in the 60's, there is a famous incident where protesters started chanting "the whole world is watching" to the TV news cameras (the live moon landing really did have that feeling). Everyone (well those on a bit more than $1/day) can get there own "TV station/newspaper" now, but who can get "the whole world to watch" these days?
OTOH: I want to see the net free and flourishing (with due respect to victims of crimes and the assumption of innocence). Provided that politics/copyright does not strangle the net, there is some hope; eg: this story made it to the fornt page of google news, so it would seem the "grow up and argue about a real fucking problem" sentiment is popular.
Thanks for the link, turned out I was a liberal huddling in the corner next to warm centrist and somewhat autistic libetarian(jk). I think Ron Paul sounds like a bit of a nutter but kudos for the tech score (assuming I agree with the method that I didn't read). BTW over here in Australia the conservatives are the "Liberal Party", however the sites definition of "liberal" sits with me just fine thankyou:)
From the GP's link:
LIBERAL
LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.
Voting machines & procedures can be judged regardless of who's "fingerprints" are on them, if they cannot be judged without looking into the politics and motives of the manafacturer then they are bogus. Would you buy a car based soley on the reputation of the salesman or would you have your mechanic look at it first?
Ok, I confess, I also type before thinking and if I haven't changed my mind for a week it simply means I learnt nothing last week. The "mood light" thing I got from a TV doco a while back, monks in Sydney were meditating while inside an MRI machine, they were able to fake emotions such as joy, anger, fear. Thing is, a lie is cognative so maybe it is immune to "faked" states of mind. It think it would be interesting to see what people could do if given "real time" feedback on thier mental states from an fMRI.
I am intriged by the part about the brains "lie-bulb" lighting up when the subject said they were telling the truth. It could be that the subject is lying about lying or it could be that sub-consiously the subject has put the facts together but the conclusion hasn't "sunk in" to a consious level, maybe a bit of both.
I'm not sure I fully understand the distribution question. I would approach it by drawing both distributions as "four boxes" (two tables). Either machine can only predict lie/truth and each prediction can be right/wrong (I forget what type of error is what).
Comparing the two tables you can now see which machine makes the most of each of the two possible error types, to claim MRI is more accurate in every way it must have lower numbers in both error boxes, but to say 100% more accurate does some weird stuff with the tables for a binary choice(ie: 100% wrong can be used to pick the right answer!).
Having said all that, I cannot see any way to make any observations in the first place without assuming the subjects don't lie about lying. Ultimately I think that assumption makes lie detectors untestable in the strictest sense of the word, if I'm right about that bit then lie detectors are a technological "rabbit's foot".
BTW: Thankyou for the praise, respect and good humour. I hadn't noticed your uid was in the top 0.2% of uid's until I read your reply, hearing those sort of comments from a "four digit geek" was a slice of nirvana for my ego.
I agree with your irony, but the reason it is forgotten is people have drunk the "accidental" cool aid. "Someone" gave the order to "disperse" the Kent State protest by advancing on them with fixed bayonets on loaded rifles? Nobody was prosecuted, the courts found that the government had a right to use force to "disperse crowds" and refused to try any troopers. Many people were indeed horrified, especially when the victims were repeatedly villified by politicians (including Nixon). Perhaps the Australian media misrepresented these facts at the time and dubbed over the voices of politicians, but I don't think so.
My point is: The same situation has played out in virtually every country that has ever existed and it's occured more than once in the US during the last century. Therfore if Tienamman square was an abomination, so are all other similar incidents, including the US versions.
It will happen again when the politics of the situation reaches a critical temprature.
The 'receipt' you are looking for is a paper ballot, the voter does not keep it since this encourages vote buying and voter intimidation. Ink stains on voters fingers (ala Iraq) would go a long way to stopping dead people from voting.
The technology for fair elections with timely results has been well known for centuries, there is absolutly no reason to reinvent it. The real problem is very few voters in the US seem to care their system is open to wholesale fraud that is completely undetectable (now that exit polls no longer follow the laws of nature).
"You may say you want 'fair' elections, but you don't really want a return to the bad old days, do you?"
If by "bad old days" you mean "auditable" then yes, bring 'em on. The old fashioned style of "rigging" took a hell of a lot of coordination and involved intimidating large numbers of people (a true conspiracy). Much more can now be accomplished by one person "coercing" one machine that, as you say, doesn't care less. Worst still is that nobody can start a legal shitfight since the coercion of inaudatible machines can not be detected. I hope the rest of your post was intended as sarcasm/humour.
Disclaimer: I have never been to the US, election officals here in Australia dissmissed these machines as a steaming pile of junk using the same critisims as seen on slashdot. Do americans know their voting system is rigged and simply pay lip service to democracy (ala Saddam), or is the "fairness" of the voting system a partisan issue, or are american election officials genuinely too stupid to understand the concept of an audit?
"There are specific areas of the brain that light up when you lie..."
I am sure there are, but it has also been shown an individual can train his own "mood lights".
...even if you aren't conciously aware that it is a lie, from what I understand."
You only need to understand the nature of a lie, by definition a lie is delibrate. If you are not consiously aware of it then it cannot possibly be considered a lie. You may be repeating a lie but you sure as hell are not lying - well maybe to yourself, but that's still not "a lie". (this is dripping with irony folks)!
"only those who did the one study are even remotely qualified to conduct such a test"
Sorry but that puts it in the category of "black magic", science demands an independently repeatable process.
"switching to it would essentially admit that every polygraph test they've ever performed is 100% bogus"
No, at most it admits the polygraph is less accurate. However, there are effective ways to demonstrate the high "bogus factor", look up "double blind testing".
"it simply doesn't have nearly the same BDSM coolness to it as a chair with straps"
Agreed!
Disclaimer: I mean you no malice, I am just trying to demonstrate that critical thinking is not that difficult:)
"I don't see the added benefit of studying such interactions and building particle accelerators which cost a bomb, or miniaturizing them, which would cost even bigger a bomb."
A "usability engineer" can't see the point and has the costing wrong, what a surprise!
I have never been to the US, I had just started high school in 1970. The Kent state massacare was a very big deal and had a huge impact on how people around the world judged US motives and methods in the Vietnam war.
Like Tiennaman square and 9/11, the significance of the Kent state massacare has very little to do with the number of people killed.
"In 1984 the government controlled all information. People weren't allowed to know what was going on.
In Brave New World the government was much more subtle. With the use of drugs, orgies, and entertainment the government made it so nobody cared about what was going on."
"[Fox is] not a cheerleader for the Bush administration"
This I can agree with, Fox is a cheerleader for R. Murdoch's world view, period! Rupert is not shy about the fact, simply ask and he will tell you.
"fair and balanced": No such thing, everyone has bias. The best way I know to minimse the impact of propoganda (intentional or otherwise), is to read widely and often. Comparing Fox with CNN to arrive at a "fair and balanced" view is like comparing two species of penguins and concluding all birds eat fish.
Reverse engineering does not require inspecting the original code, binary or otherwise. You have the freedom to devise your own algorithims that mimic/use the functionality of the original, Apple has the freedom to make R.E. of it's products difficult.
Don't like encrypted binaries? - Don't buy an Apple.
I didn't mean to imply we could design/implement a perfect economy, what I was trying to get across is that social and environmental issues can be factored into the economy using regulation, there are many examples of existing regulations that attempt do this already.
The "special" problem with both the environment and the economy is that there is only one instance of both, we are forced to experiment on the "production system" so to speak.
"the problem is you hide your anti government agenda"
I am not hiding anything, I am not "anti-government" I strongly object to MY governments policy that is based on the same principles as the US policy, coprorate greed and corporate welfare at the expense of others.
"under a false pretence of environmental concern."
Don't presume to know how I think, you will inevitably be wrong.
"in doing so you hurt the environment with your junk science and the economies of countries which can least afford it"
What "junk science" and who said anything about other countries?
"causing 100's on millions to suffer."
This bit doesn't even make sense, do you have a point or are you just a childish troll?
Agreed: There is more to politics than meets the eye. I'm not from the US so don't know all the politics behind Katrina but....
Would it not be best to take politicians out of the picture as much as possible, say allow the national gaurd to call in the army? May be a bad example but what is needed is people who know how to manage a disaster having enough autonomy when one happens to respond in a sensible manner (most of these people work in NGO's such as the red cross). There is no need for martial law when the response is quick, effective and permenant. The long and convoluted chain of command catastrophically broke down with Katrina, martial law is also similarly prone to get bogged down by politics. Probably the worst outcome from Katrina would be another major disater, people would remeber Katrina was a screw-up and would be less likely to cooperate with relief workers.
A slashdot style analogy: Does the fire brigade have get the mayor's permission before attending a fire?
"it is part of human nature to want to impose your particular worldview on someone else."
Yes, and it is the job of any democratic civilization to channel the urges of control and curiosity into a vibrant and diverse society. More often than not, people use it at as an excuse to implement a closed, monotone, stone throwing society where curiosity can get you killed. If you think the ACLU is guilty of this then push to change the constitution, that's the weapon they are using to fight against your narcissistic philosophy.
Not a word about the far right examples, guess I offended the far left eh?
N. Korea: I was talking about the reality of far left politics, not the naive idealism that leads to it.
The economy vs environment: I am not talking about Kyoto here, I think it is possible and desirable to significantly improve our management of both the economy and the environment(particularly in the 3rd world). Some on the far green left think we need to dump everything in a modern economy and reinvent tribalism (in reality: join the 3rd world in their economic misery).
My point is that extreme economic/environmental measures only "work" for one brand of extremists at a time (if at all), the rest of us (extreme or otherwise) are not invited to the table.
You are correct, there are a lot of unknowns when fiddling with the economy. I think it would be worthwhile to make sure that the economic models we use are as robust as the climate models, I see this report as a step in the right direction (particularly when it comes from an ex world bank head). Hopefully the days of proclaiming "X will ruin the economy" without anything but FUD to back up the assertion, are over. However we still need to understand economic effects on society and the environment better than we do.
The economy is a system of rules devised by man, the system should be designed to benifit everyone equally (or as close to that ideal as is practicable).
Crichton's novel is...well...a novel! It has not even an "informative" document, it has been soundly debunked. It has been used as a political tool of FUD.
Yes we need taxation and regulation of the economy, in fact we already have it. The problem is the current system of corporate welfare mearly maintains the status-quo for a chosen few and allows polluters a free ride at the expense of everyone else.
The prospect of GW actually improving the planet for humans is grossly exagerated, here in Australia we have halved our forecast grain harvest for 2006, our bannana crop was wiped out by a cyclone and now frost has killed off our apples, pears and wine grapes. Note that the unseasonal frost came just days after a short heat wave with record tempratures for October. We are also in our worst drought ever, 20% of dairy herds have gone, sheep and cattle are being sent to the butchers now, most already close to starvation. After several years of water restrictions, some rural regions being abandoned due to lack of water, Australia is already being hit hard by GW.
Our environment minister was on TV the other night announcing $500M worth of "green" money to build a 165MW solar power station, build the largest wind farm in the southern hemisphere, research CO2 capture at our largest coal fired plant and some other smaller projects such as geothermal. This from the same minister who had a Bush style "head in the sand" attitude not so long ago, I have to wonder how such an ignoramus could have been educated so quickly, perhaps it's because his constituents are farmers and their crops and livestock are dying.
Slashdot Mirror
"Tech-savvy youth don't respect politicians"
I grew up in the 60's, there is a famous incident where protesters started chanting "the whole world is watching" to the TV news cameras (the live moon landing really did have that feeling). Everyone (well those on a bit more than $1/day) can get there own "TV station/newspaper" now, but who can get "the whole world to watch" these days?
OTOH: I want to see the net free and flourishing (with due respect to victims of crimes and the assumption of innocence). Provided that politics/copyright does not strangle the net, there is some hope; eg: this story made it to the fornt page of google news, so it would seem the "grow up and argue about a real fucking problem" sentiment is popular.
Thanks for the link, turned out I was a liberal huddling in the corner next to warm centrist and somewhat autistic libetarian(jk). I think Ron Paul sounds like a bit of a nutter but kudos for the tech score (assuming I agree with the method that I didn't read). BTW over here in Australia the conservatives are the "Liberal Party", however the sites definition of "liberal" sits with me just fine thankyou :)
From the GP's link:
LIBERAL
LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.
Voting machines & procedures can be judged regardless of who's "fingerprints" are on them, if they cannot be judged without looking into the politics and motives of the manafacturer then they are bogus. Would you buy a car based soley on the reputation of the salesman or would you have your mechanic look at it first?
Ok, I confess, I also type before thinking and if I haven't changed my mind for a week it simply means I learnt nothing last week. The "mood light" thing I got from a TV doco a while back, monks in Sydney were meditating while inside an MRI machine, they were able to fake emotions such as joy, anger, fear. Thing is, a lie is cognative so maybe it is immune to "faked" states of mind. It think it would be interesting to see what people could do if given "real time" feedback on thier mental states from an fMRI.
I am intriged by the part about the brains "lie-bulb" lighting up when the subject said they were telling the truth. It could be that the subject is lying about lying or it could be that sub-consiously the subject has put the facts together but the conclusion hasn't "sunk in" to a consious level, maybe a bit of both.
I'm not sure I fully understand the distribution question. I would approach it by drawing both distributions as "four boxes" (two tables). Either machine can only predict lie/truth and each prediction can be right/wrong (I forget what type of error is what).
Comparing the two tables you can now see which machine makes the most of each of the two possible error types, to claim MRI is more accurate in every way it must have lower numbers in both error boxes, but to say 100% more accurate does some weird stuff with the tables for a binary choice(ie: 100% wrong can be used to pick the right answer!).
Having said all that, I cannot see any way to make any observations in the first place without assuming the subjects don't lie about lying. Ultimately I think that assumption makes lie detectors untestable in the strictest sense of the word, if I'm right about that bit then lie detectors are a technological "rabbit's foot".
BTW: Thankyou for the praise, respect and good humour. I hadn't noticed your uid was in the top 0.2% of uid's until I read your reply, hearing those sort of comments from a "four digit geek" was a slice of nirvana for my ego.
I agree with your irony, but the reason it is forgotten is people have drunk the "accidental" cool aid. "Someone" gave the order to "disperse" the Kent State protest by advancing on them with fixed bayonets on loaded rifles? Nobody was prosecuted, the courts found that the government had a right to use force to "disperse crowds" and refused to try any troopers. Many people were indeed horrified, especially when the victims were repeatedly villified by politicians (including Nixon). Perhaps the Australian media misrepresented these facts at the time and dubbed over the voices of politicians, but I don't think so.
My point is: The same situation has played out in virtually every country that has ever existed and it's occured more than once in the US during the last century. Therfore if Tienamman square was an abomination, so are all other similar incidents, including the US versions.
It will happen again when the politics of the situation reaches a critical temprature.
The 'receipt' you are looking for is a paper ballot, the voter does not keep it since this encourages vote buying and voter intimidation. Ink stains on voters fingers (ala Iraq) would go a long way to stopping dead people from voting.
The technology for fair elections with timely results has been well known for centuries, there is absolutly no reason to reinvent it. The real problem is very few voters in the US seem to care their system is open to wholesale fraud that is completely undetectable (now that exit polls no longer follow the laws of nature).
"You may say you want 'fair' elections, but you don't really want a return to the bad old days, do you?"
If by "bad old days" you mean "auditable" then yes, bring 'em on. The old fashioned style of "rigging" took a hell of a lot of coordination and involved intimidating large numbers of people (a true conspiracy). Much more can now be accomplished by one person "coercing" one machine that, as you say, doesn't care less. Worst still is that nobody can start a legal shitfight since the coercion of inaudatible machines can not be detected. I hope the rest of your post was intended as sarcasm/humour.
Disclaimer: I have never been to the US, election officals here in Australia dissmissed these machines as a steaming pile of junk using the same critisims as seen on slashdot. Do americans know their voting system is rigged and simply pay lip service to democracy (ala Saddam), or is the "fairness" of the voting system a partisan issue, or are american election officials genuinely too stupid to understand the concept of an audit?
"I disagree with the idea that it is impossible to be fair and balanced."
Define: "Fair and balanced". I know you had a go at it but my definition is different.
"As news reporting has turned into a kind of theatre of emotion"
Sugar coating with euphemisims won't help. And emotion is sometimes unavoidable and justified.
...reading TFA is cheating! :)
"There are specific areas of the brain that light up when you lie..."
...even if you aren't conciously aware that it is a lie, from what I understand."
:)
I am sure there are, but it has also been shown an individual can train his own "mood lights".
You only need to understand the nature of a lie, by definition a lie is delibrate. If you are not consiously aware of it then it cannot possibly be considered a lie. You may be repeating a lie but you sure as hell are not lying - well maybe to yourself, but that's still not "a lie". (this is dripping with irony folks)!
"only those who did the one study are even remotely qualified to conduct such a test"
Sorry but that puts it in the category of "black magic", science demands an independently repeatable process.
"switching to it would essentially admit that every polygraph test they've ever performed is 100% bogus"
No, at most it admits the polygraph is less accurate. However, there are effective ways to demonstrate the high "bogus factor", look up "double blind testing".
"it simply doesn't have nearly the same BDSM coolness to it as a chair with straps"
Agreed!
Disclaimer: I mean you no malice, I am just trying to demonstrate that critical thinking is not that difficult
If that's the case then why all the fuss about the Tiennaman Square "screw-up"?
"I don't see the added benefit of studying such interactions and building particle accelerators which cost a bomb, or miniaturizing them, which would cost even bigger a bomb."
A "usability engineer" can't see the point and has the costing wrong, what a surprise!
I have never been to the US, I had just started high school in 1970. The Kent state massacare was a very big deal and had a huge impact on how people around the world judged US motives and methods in the Vietnam war.
Like Tiennaman square and 9/11, the significance of the Kent state massacare has very little to do with the number of people killed.
"In 1984 the government controlled all information. People weren't allowed to know what was going on.
In Brave New World the government was much more subtle. With the use of drugs, orgies, and entertainment the government made it so nobody cared about what was going on."
I think "Animal farm" is much closer to reality.
"[Fox is] not a cheerleader for the Bush administration"
This I can agree with, Fox is a cheerleader for R. Murdoch's world view, period! Rupert is not shy about the fact, simply ask and he will tell you.
"fair and balanced": No such thing, everyone has bias. The best way I know to minimse the impact of propoganda (intentional or otherwise), is to read widely and often. Comparing Fox with CNN to arrive at a "fair and balanced" view is like comparing two species of penguins and concluding all birds eat fish.
Thank god the mods came to their senses, very funny stuff mate, keep it up.
Reverse engineering does not require inspecting the original code, binary or otherwise. You have the freedom to devise your own algorithims that mimic/use the functionality of the original, Apple has the freedom to make R.E. of it's products difficult.
Don't like encrypted binaries? - Don't buy an Apple.
I didn't mean to imply we could design/implement a perfect economy, what I was trying to get across is that social and environmental issues can be factored into the economy using regulation, there are many examples of existing regulations that attempt do this already.
The "special" problem with both the environment and the economy is that there is only one instance of both, we are forced to experiment on the "production system" so to speak.
"the problem is you hide your anti government agenda"
I am not hiding anything, I am not "anti-government" I strongly object to MY governments policy that is based on the same principles as the US policy, coprorate greed and corporate welfare at the expense of others.
"under a false pretence of environmental concern."
Don't presume to know how I think, you will inevitably be wrong.
"in doing so you hurt the environment with your junk science and the economies of countries which can least afford it"
What "junk science" and who said anything about other countries?
"causing 100's on millions to suffer."
This bit doesn't even make sense, do you have a point or are you just a childish troll?
Agreed: There is more to politics than meets the eye. I'm not from the US so don't know all the politics behind Katrina but....
Would it not be best to take politicians out of the picture as much as possible, say allow the national gaurd to call in the army? May be a bad example but what is needed is people who know how to manage a disaster having enough autonomy when one happens to respond in a sensible manner (most of these people work in NGO's such as the red cross). There is no need for martial law when the response is quick, effective and permenant. The long and convoluted chain of command catastrophically broke down with Katrina, martial law is also similarly prone to get bogged down by politics. Probably the worst outcome from Katrina would be another major disater, people would remeber Katrina was a screw-up and would be less likely to cooperate with relief workers.
A slashdot style analogy: Does the fire brigade have get the mayor's permission before attending a fire?
"it is part of human nature to want to impose your particular worldview on someone else."
Yes, and it is the job of any democratic civilization to channel the urges of control and curiosity into a vibrant and diverse society. More often than not, people use it at as an excuse to implement a closed, monotone, stone throwing society where curiosity can get you killed. If you think the ACLU is guilty of this then push to change the constitution, that's the weapon they are using to fight against your narcissistic philosophy.
Not a word about the far right examples, guess I offended the far left eh?
N. Korea: I was talking about the reality of far left politics, not the naive idealism that leads to it.
The economy vs environment: I am not talking about Kyoto here, I think it is possible and desirable to significantly improve our management of both the economy and the environment(particularly in the 3rd world). Some on the far green left think we need to dump everything in a modern economy and reinvent tribalism (in reality: join the 3rd world in their economic misery).
My point is that extreme economic/environmental measures only "work" for one brand of extremists at a time (if at all), the rest of us (extreme or otherwise) are not invited to the table.
You are correct, there are a lot of unknowns when fiddling with the economy. I think it would be worthwhile to make sure that the economic models we use are as robust as the climate models, I see this report as a step in the right direction (particularly when it comes from an ex world bank head). Hopefully the days of proclaiming "X will ruin the economy" without anything but FUD to back up the assertion, are over. However we still need to understand economic effects on society and the environment better than we do.
The economy is a system of rules devised by man, the system should be designed to benifit everyone equally (or as close to that ideal as is practicable).
Crichton's novel is...well...a novel! It has not even an "informative" document, it has been soundly debunked. It has been used as a political tool of FUD.
Yes we need taxation and regulation of the economy, in fact we already have it. The problem is the current system of corporate welfare mearly maintains the status-quo for a chosen few and allows polluters a free ride at the expense of everyone else.
The prospect of GW actually improving the planet for humans is grossly exagerated, here in Australia we have halved our forecast grain harvest for 2006, our bannana crop was wiped out by a cyclone and now frost has killed off our apples, pears and wine grapes. Note that the unseasonal frost came just days after a short heat wave with record tempratures for October. We are also in our worst drought ever, 20% of dairy herds have gone, sheep and cattle are being sent to the butchers now, most already close to starvation. After several years of water restrictions, some rural regions being abandoned due to lack of water, Australia is already being hit hard by GW.
Our environment minister was on TV the other night announcing $500M worth of "green" money to build a 165MW solar power station, build the largest wind farm in the southern hemisphere, research CO2 capture at our largest coal fired plant and some other smaller projects such as geothermal. This from the same minister who had a Bush style "head in the sand" attitude not so long ago, I have to wonder how such an ignoramus could have been educated so quickly, perhaps it's because his constituents are farmers and their crops and livestock are dying.
Yes, but most of us already know about him.
The requisite debunking and one reason why he does not deserve any respect on climate related matters.
To those screaming about their back pocket, how else can we direct the economy away from a destructive path other than taxation and regulation?