So if he has all these British supporters why didn't they do a Thomas Crown Affair flash mob outside the embassy with a bunch of white-haired, suited guys?
He coulda just walked out and disappeared into the crowd.
But seriously, I instructed physics in a public school setting for a couple years and I agree that lectures are almost useless, but that is just one small part of what is wrong with our education system. If you have cultivated genuine interest in a student, either by media or hands on exercises, they will listen to a lecture (but most likely turn it into a discussion, which is better).
A. Someone dies because a cop's gun doesn't work when used by cop.
B. Someone (not cop) dies when cop's gun is wrestled away from him.
If A is less than B then it is a good idea.
Also, curious as to whether there might be situations where smart guns might be more effective because you don't have to shut off a safety. Don't know if cop's guns have safeties or if there is any data on how many times someone has been hurt when they were trying to defend themselves and forgot to switch off a safety.
Isn't this the same process developed a while ago by academic material scientists who, most likely, were funded by government grants? Not exactly the Randian ideal.
It could also mean that someone could propose something that everyone should be against (a gun that can only kills kids) and expect people to use rhetorical devices (attacking the motivation of the person proposing the extreme example) instead of conceding that maybe someone could rightfully oppose the legality of such a weapon. But thanks for proving my point.
Just use some facial recognition algorithm that recognizes juvenile features. Then sell the hacked version as the "Kinder Killer" and wait for the NRA to come to your defense as various evil, gun hating liberals try to have it banned. Enjoy the political spectacle that inevitably ensues because in Murica we are incapable of having reasonable discussion regarding guns.
Carl Sagan once commented (can't recall where) on the general aversion people hold toward the government conducting experiments in public policy. He then detailed how every change of law was an experiment of sorts, although often without proper controls.
If Facebook should be required to inform consumers of how they experimentally manipulate them then should Kellogg's reveal the details of how they use marketing to manipulate kids into buying Fruit Loops?
I think there was a Big Bang Theory ep where Sheldon tried to solve the "Isreal Problem" or however it is put. Since this is slashdot I wish someone would really explore some possible tech solutions being proposed. I've always wanted someone to put the problem in monetary terms. If it were possible to give every resident of gaza a million dollars to move to another country you could just buy them out. Obviously that is not possible, but there might be a number below that which would buy out enough of the population to be effective.
Not saying money is all that is at play here, but it certainly seems like something a bit more objective than all these fuzzy arguments about human rights or religious mandate.
IANAL, but I believe the FBI (and law enforcement in general) is free to try and crack encrypted hard drives obtained with warrant, they just can't make you give up a password (until now).
Donating to politicians to tie their product to freedom
Little need when such a right was explicitly codified in 1791.
The interpretation of the 2nd amendment is an entire different topic of discussion, that I do not want to get dragged into, but I think an honest person will admit that it is not entirely clear how to interpret it whether you come from the pro-gun or anti-gun side. On the anti-gun side someone could highlight the issue of what it means to be a "well regulated militia" and also that a strict reading of firearm means whatever a firearm was at the time. On the pro-gun side someone could argue that surface to air missiles should be legal. I don't mean to argue either of these points, just that enough ambiguity exists that there is an incentive for those who profit from guns to spend capital on keeping their product legal. I seem to remember the tobacco industry making constitutional arguments for use of their product as well and I've met more than one smoker that asserts that their right to make others suck down their carcinogens is part of living in a free country. And I generally agree with them that if you were to present the issue to someone living in 1791 they would laugh at the idea of banning smoking in any context.
granted the new buying is happening, but again, I'm not convinced it is done because of any explicit efforts on the part of the gun makers
Ok, so you do believe that the gun industry is the one exception among all other businesses in that they are not making explicit efforts for people to buy their product. I don't know how to respond to that, so we will have to disagree. Regarding the origins of gun lust/interest/fascination I don't dismiss the possibility that guns are intrinsically interesting devices. I play FPS games and I think everyone likes the basic idea of projecting force. But just like when I find the remote out of reach and I momentarily try to use the force to summon it to my hand Skywalker style, I suspect that media might have something to do with my son running around making shooting sounds as he points at things. Now, do I think the gun industry pays everyone who promotes guns, no, not anymore than I think the tobacco industry pays everyone to smoke a cigarette in a film. But where we disagree, apparently, is that I believe that the gun industry, like the tobacco industry, works to influence the culture so that their product is still desired even though, statistically, it's not good for you.
You mentioned advertising for cigarettes. When I suspect marketing is at work in promoting the gun culture in our country I would cite the efforts of big tobacco as an analogous example. Donating to politicians to tie their product to freedom. Making sure use of their product is featured in movies. And generally putting money in the right places to maintain a culture that is friendly to a product that is statistically harmful for most people to purchase and use.
Do I believe that big tobacco ever once placed an add telling kids that smoking is cool? No, nothing so blatant. But there is abundant evidence that they worked to promote that message in the culture using far more crafty marketing tactics. Do I think the gun industry is above doing the same? Do you? Does anyone?
Not sure what your point is about owning old guns. I don't see much argument about old guns coming from either camp in the gun debate. The gun industry has little concern if you have old guns as long as you feel compelled to buy those new ones which still represent (in your case at least) 20% of thousands of dollars of potential sales. Promoting a collecting mentality among consumers seems like a smart marketing model for gun manufacturers, baseball card manufacturers, comic book publishers, etc...
I'm curious as to whether anyone who really studies gun violence from either the pro or anti-gun side has looked at the possibility that making guns free might eliminate the major driving force behind America's gun obsession- the market.
I personally know several people who have personal arsenals costing thousands of dollars. I don't own any because I know that statistically I'm very unlikely to need one and would rather spend my money on other things. I'm sure they are convinced I am at risk, which technically I am, but I know that it is a far lower risk than having a heart attack and I don't see any of them with a portable defib.
Whenever people make irrational choices en mass I suspect marketing. So what happens when 3d printing is able to make all the signature weapons that are the pride of the various gun manufacturers? No more gun profits means no more gun marketing.
Of course, a good counter-argument might be that the internet has made things like media freely available and the markets have only grown. IDK, do people still pay for porn?
My understanding is that as a quasi-governmental business the USPS is mandated to have a conflict of interest.
If it was just about profitability it would charge more to send letters to BF, Alaska, but it is required by law to provide all citizens equal access to the system. So in that respect it is more of a government service. That's also why they can't raise their stamp rates anytime they like. So it is not my assumption that they are a lean, mean capitalist machine that leads me to conclude their bulk pricing rates are optimized. Rather it is the observation that I don't have a metric butt-ton of junk mail. I get more than I want, but about as much as I would expect given the costs to business to print and mail the stuff.
I don't doubt at all that there are lobbyists trying to move things their way, but I don't think there is that much room to move with respect to bulk mailing prices. I could be wrong, but I don't think I could sustain the interest in an actuarial analysis of average advertising per customer acquisition via bulk mailing blah blah blah... in order to know that I am wrong, but that is really not my main point. I just think the USPS could find an email model for there service that could bring a lot of the pluses of snail mail to email.
Although I suspect that the USPS arrived at those rates because they do optimize their profits by hitting the right price points for bulk mailers. But that does present a conflict of interests- the USPS will want more people sending you stuff if they can charge people to do so and you want them to charge people enough to prevent them from sending you crap.
From the user's perspective the best thing would be to let the user set the cost. Of course, if a user sets a bill of $1000 then they don't get anything and that kills the utility of it being a delivery service.
A fair compromise would be if they hit a price point that results in the same average number of spams arriving as the average number of junk snail mail. The prices would have to be higher per email than postage per junk mail to reflect the savings in paper, but for the USPS I'm sure the overall reduction in delivery costs would put them back in the black.
It would also result in much more relevant, targeted spam that more closely approximates the kind of junk snail mail people get now. But I still probably wouldn't read it.
1. It costs people something to send me crap (deters spam)
2. Certified mail (I can know that someone got it and acknowledged getting it)
3. All the force of law (satisfying legal requirements of official notices, putting official timestamps on documents, etc...)
4. Everyone has an official address
My guess is the USPS could provide those services in a model where revenue from #1 pays for the servers and operating costs of #4. And they justify it by #3
Then provide a way to work with independent third party encryption services and a way to designate favorites who can send me email for free and I might funnel all my email through it.
I remember getting the PS3 at a time when it seemed like the best Blu-Ray value. If this one brings a new 4k (real, not interpolated) Blu-Ray standard to the party, it might sell on that alone.
Hasn't anyone looked at using well trained midgets? You could reduce supplies and ship sizes by a third, that's billions of dollars! My guess, rampant hieght-ism at NASA.
Didn't they do this with a gradient of teflon?
on
Water Flows Uphill
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I remember seeing this ridiculous pop science show that was trying to come up with any evidence to support various bible stories. In one of them the tried to support the splitting of the red sea by showing some researchers who got water to flow up a gradient of decreasingly hydrophobic material (teflon I think). I remember thinking, "Oh yeah, Moses was an expert in poly-flourinated chemistry!"
Does this ring a bell for anyone? The teflon gradient that is, not the cooky show.
Like many here I'm already boycotting the RIAA by not buying CDs and getting my music through *cough* other means. I think geeks can be far more effective by making it even easier for more people not to need to buy their product (better more anonymous p2p systems). Now that's a boycott!
I'll start worrying about destroying the incentive for artists to make more material as soon as I see actors getting less than $25 million for big ticket movies, "artists" like Britney Spears making most of their money off of live performances, and when politicians no longer accept giant bribes from the industry.
Why not assume David is in the Matrix?
on
Taken?
·
· Score: 1
Given the fact that David states without qualification that he can never go to sleep, the meaning is clear.
That's definately a good point, but as I recall I saw it as an indication that David had evolved (maybe through advanced mecha help). The stuff about the mecha's fabricating the whole event still isn't necessary nor does it make any sense to tell him it's only one day if they plan to put him to sleep anyway.
Interpretation is subjective, but I try to take an Occam's razor approach. I know that a program (the ultimate basis of any AI) is extensible, that David does demonstrate learning capabilities, that his mourning period (minus the offtime in the ice) isn't abnormally long for a child seperated from his mother in such a way. My assumptions are that the advanced mechas are honest, caring, and capable of modifying his program (if even necessary). That doesn't seem like a big leap.
I think it takes a lot more assumptions for the other interpretation and one might as well assume David's entire experience was on a computer. That would actually explain how all the various improbable events fell into place to set him on a journey his creator intended him to take (i,.e. the surprise recovery of Monica's son which is essential for his abandonement).
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?
on
Taken?
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for the recap. I know I'm walking a fine line here in arguing technical merits vs the writer's intent, but as far as the use of the hair for DNA I think most viewers (and writers) assume that their is usable DNA in hair. If they had wanted to clearly communicate that the mechas were just appeasing David then they would have had Teddy save a piece of her dress or a picture or something.
As for the one day thing that still doesn't make sense if they planned to kill him as he slept the first night. There still is no reason for him to need to know that it would only last a day.
I honestly can't remember if the narrator indicated that David dies or not. I certianly don't remember them saying they killed him and I don't think all this stuff about the mecha's judging his limitations and euthanizing him is necessary to the main theme of the film. The message wasn't so cryptic, it was quite simple- the first AI with real emotions will undoubtedly suffer in a world of humans that don't accept their validity. I don't think a happy ending, even having David become a real boy (in the upgraded sense) would have detracted from that.
I used to have a method for getting As in english, literature, and a couple film courses I took. I would look at a simple story and then come up with some BS interpretation about how everything was symbology and metaphor. The more whacked out it sounded the better the grade.
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?
on
Taken?
·
· Score: 1
It's been a while since I saw A.I., but I find problems with your interpretation. I got two main problems with it...
1. Why did they first suggest that his mother couldn't be recovered without DNA? Why not just go right ahead with their compassionate deception? Even if that was some sort of test to see if he could get over the loss of his mom then why add the qualifier about only giving him one day with her? If they were planning to euthanize him as he slept contentedly in her arms then why detract from the joy of his time with her by adding the additional stress of knowing he only had one day?
2. This may seem like Trekkie-style technical bickering, but why wouldn't the advanced mecha's just upgrade him (sorta like what happened to Vger in Star Trek 1)? Suggesting that he can't be upgraded would seem to violate the whole conceptual idea of artificial intelligences. Heck, even if they couldn't upgrade him you'd think they could just download his program and the mom simulation until they figured out how. If Moore's law held all that time they probably could run his program on their wristwatches. Ok , so they didn't have wristwatches.
To me AI was a vehicle for exploring the depths and desperation of a child's love for their parent. In that way it really complemented E.T. which Spielberg suggested was about his parents divorce. For some reason I found ET uplifiting and touching and AI remarkably sad.
Slashdot Mirror
He coulda just walked out and disappeared into the crowd.
But seriously, I instructed physics in a public school setting for a couple years and I agree that lectures are almost useless, but that is just one small part of what is wrong with our education system. If you have cultivated genuine interest in a student, either by media or hands on exercises, they will listen to a lecture (but most likely turn it into a discussion, which is better).
Two situations to track in use of smart guns:
A. Someone dies because a cop's gun doesn't work when used by cop.
B. Someone (not cop) dies when cop's gun is wrestled away from him.
If A is less than B then it is a good idea.
Also, curious as to whether there might be situations where smart guns might be more effective because you don't have to shut off a safety. Don't know if cop's guns have safeties or if there is any data on how many times someone has been hurt when they were trying to defend themselves and forgot to switch off a safety.
Isn't this the same process developed a while ago by academic material scientists who, most likely, were funded by government grants? Not exactly the Randian ideal.
It could also mean that someone could propose something that everyone should be against (a gun that can only kills kids) and expect people to use rhetorical devices (attacking the motivation of the person proposing the extreme example) instead of conceding that maybe someone could rightfully oppose the legality of such a weapon. But thanks for proving my point.
Just use some facial recognition algorithm that recognizes juvenile features. Then sell the hacked version as the "Kinder Killer" and wait for the NRA to come to your defense as various evil, gun hating liberals try to have it banned. Enjoy the political spectacle that inevitably ensues because in Murica we are incapable of having reasonable discussion regarding guns.
Carl Sagan once commented (can't recall where) on the general aversion people hold toward the government conducting experiments in public policy. He then detailed how every change of law was an experiment of sorts, although often without proper controls.
If Facebook should be required to inform consumers of how they experimentally manipulate them then should Kellogg's reveal the details of how they use marketing to manipulate kids into buying Fruit Loops?
I think there was a Big Bang Theory ep where Sheldon tried to solve the "Isreal Problem" or however it is put. Since this is slashdot I wish someone would really explore some possible tech solutions being proposed. I've always wanted someone to put the problem in monetary terms. If it were possible to give every resident of gaza a million dollars to move to another country you could just buy them out. Obviously that is not possible, but there might be a number below that which would buy out enough of the population to be effective.
Not saying money is all that is at play here, but it certainly seems like something a bit more objective than all these fuzzy arguments about human rights or religious mandate.
IANAL, but I believe the FBI (and law enforcement in general) is free to try and crack encrypted hard drives obtained with warrant, they just can't make you give up a password (until now).
Little need when such a right was explicitly codified in 1791.
The interpretation of the 2nd amendment is an entire different topic of discussion, that I do not want to get dragged into, but I think an honest person will admit that it is not entirely clear how to interpret it whether you come from the pro-gun or anti-gun side. On the anti-gun side someone could highlight the issue of what it means to be a "well regulated militia" and also that a strict reading of firearm means whatever a firearm was at the time. On the pro-gun side someone could argue that surface to air missiles should be legal. I don't mean to argue either of these points, just that enough ambiguity exists that there is an incentive for those who profit from guns to spend capital on keeping their product legal. I seem to remember the tobacco industry making constitutional arguments for use of their product as well and I've met more than one smoker that asserts that their right to make others suck down their carcinogens is part of living in a free country. And I generally agree with them that if you were to present the issue to someone living in 1791 they would laugh at the idea of banning smoking in any context.
Ok, so you do believe that the gun industry is the one exception among all other businesses in that they are not making explicit efforts for people to buy their product. I don't know how to respond to that, so we will have to disagree. Regarding the origins of gun lust/interest/fascination I don't dismiss the possibility that guns are intrinsically interesting devices. I play FPS games and I think everyone likes the basic idea of projecting force. But just like when I find the remote out of reach and I momentarily try to use the force to summon it to my hand Skywalker style, I suspect that media might have something to do with my son running around making shooting sounds as he points at things. Now, do I think the gun industry pays everyone who promotes guns, no, not anymore than I think the tobacco industry pays everyone to smoke a cigarette in a film. But where we disagree, apparently, is that I believe that the gun industry, like the tobacco industry, works to influence the culture so that their product is still desired even though, statistically, it's not good for you.
You mentioned advertising for cigarettes. When I suspect marketing is at work in promoting the gun culture in our country I would cite the efforts of big tobacco as an analogous example. Donating to politicians to tie their product to freedom. Making sure use of their product is featured in movies. And generally putting money in the right places to maintain a culture that is friendly to a product that is statistically harmful for most people to purchase and use.
Do I believe that big tobacco ever once placed an add telling kids that smoking is cool? No, nothing so blatant. But there is abundant evidence that they worked to promote that message in the culture using far more crafty marketing tactics. Do I think the gun industry is above doing the same? Do you? Does anyone?
Not sure what your point is about owning old guns. I don't see much argument about old guns coming from either camp in the gun debate. The gun industry has little concern if you have old guns as long as you feel compelled to buy those new ones which still represent (in your case at least) 20% of thousands of dollars of potential sales. Promoting a collecting mentality among consumers seems like a smart marketing model for gun manufacturers, baseball card manufacturers, comic book publishers, etc...
I'm curious as to whether anyone who really studies gun violence from either the pro or anti-gun side has looked at the possibility that making guns free might eliminate the major driving force behind America's gun obsession- the market.
I personally know several people who have personal arsenals costing thousands of dollars. I don't own any because I know that statistically I'm very unlikely to need one and would rather spend my money on other things. I'm sure they are convinced I am at risk, which technically I am, but I know that it is a far lower risk than having a heart attack and I don't see any of them with a portable defib.
Whenever people make irrational choices en mass I suspect marketing. So what happens when 3d printing is able to make all the signature weapons that are the pride of the various gun manufacturers? No more gun profits means no more gun marketing.
Of course, a good counter-argument might be that the internet has made things like media freely available and the markets have only grown. IDK, do people still pay for porn?
My understanding is that as a quasi-governmental business the USPS is mandated to have a conflict of interest.
If it was just about profitability it would charge more to send letters to BF, Alaska, but it is required by law to provide all citizens equal access to the system. So in that respect it is more of a government service. That's also why they can't raise their stamp rates anytime they like. So it is not my assumption that they are a lean, mean capitalist machine that leads me to conclude their bulk pricing rates are optimized. Rather it is the observation that I don't have a metric butt-ton of junk mail. I get more than I want, but about as much as I would expect given the costs to business to print and mail the stuff.
I don't doubt at all that there are lobbyists trying to move things their way, but I don't think there is that much room to move with respect to bulk mailing prices. I could be wrong, but I don't think I could sustain the interest in an actuarial analysis of average advertising per customer acquisition via bulk mailing blah blah blah... in order to know that I am wrong, but that is really not my main point. I just think the USPS could find an email model for there service that could bring a lot of the pluses of snail mail to email.
Will they? No.
Good point.
Although I suspect that the USPS arrived at those rates because they do optimize their profits by hitting the right price points for bulk mailers. But that does present a conflict of interests- the USPS will want more people sending you stuff if they can charge people to do so and you want them to charge people enough to prevent them from sending you crap.
From the user's perspective the best thing would be to let the user set the cost. Of course, if a user sets a bill of $1000 then they don't get anything and that kills the utility of it being a delivery service.
A fair compromise would be if they hit a price point that results in the same average number of spams arriving as the average number of junk snail mail. The prices would have to be higher per email than postage per junk mail to reflect the savings in paper, but for the USPS I'm sure the overall reduction in delivery costs would put them back in the black.
It would also result in much more relevant, targeted spam that more closely approximates the kind of junk snail mail people get now. But I still probably wouldn't read it.
1. It costs people something to send me crap (deters spam)
2. Certified mail (I can know that someone got it and acknowledged getting it)
3. All the force of law (satisfying legal requirements of official notices, putting official timestamps on documents, etc...)
4. Everyone has an official address
My guess is the USPS could provide those services in a model where revenue from #1 pays for the servers and operating costs of #4. And they justify it by #3
Then provide a way to work with independent third party encryption services and a way to designate favorites who can send me email for free and I might funnel all my email through it.
I'm sure they are reading it anyway.
I remember getting the PS3 at a time when it seemed like the best Blu-Ray value. If this one brings a new 4k (real, not interpolated) Blu-Ray standard to the party, it might sell on that alone.
Hasn't anyone looked at using well trained midgets? You could reduce supplies and ship sizes by a third, that's billions of dollars! My guess, rampant hieght-ism at NASA.
I remember seeing this ridiculous pop science show that was trying to come up with any evidence to support various bible stories. In one of them the tried to support the splitting of the red sea by showing some researchers who got water to flow up a gradient of decreasingly hydrophobic material (teflon I think). I remember thinking, "Oh yeah, Moses was an expert in poly-flourinated chemistry!" Does this ring a bell for anyone? The teflon gradient that is, not the cooky show.
Like many here I'm already boycotting the RIAA by not buying CDs and getting my music through *cough* other means. I think geeks can be far more effective by making it even easier for more people not to need to buy their product (better more anonymous p2p systems). Now that's a boycott!
I'll start worrying about destroying the incentive for artists to make more material as soon as I see actors getting less than $25 million for big ticket movies, "artists" like Britney Spears making most of their money off of live performances, and when politicians no longer accept giant bribes from the industry.
That's definately a good point, but as I recall I saw it as an indication that David had evolved (maybe through advanced mecha help). The stuff about the mecha's fabricating the whole event still isn't necessary nor does it make any sense to tell him it's only one day if they plan to put him to sleep anyway.
Interpretation is subjective, but I try to take an Occam's razor approach. I know that a program (the ultimate basis of any AI) is extensible, that David does demonstrate learning capabilities, that his mourning period (minus the offtime in the ice) isn't abnormally long for a child seperated from his mother in such a way. My assumptions are that the advanced mechas are honest, caring, and capable of modifying his program (if even necessary). That doesn't seem like a big leap.
I think it takes a lot more assumptions for the other interpretation and one might as well assume David's entire experience was on a computer. That would actually explain how all the various improbable events fell into place to set him on a journey his creator intended him to take (i,.e. the surprise recovery of Monica's son which is essential for his abandonement).
Thanks for the recap. I know I'm walking a fine line here in arguing technical merits vs the writer's intent, but as far as the use of the hair for DNA I think most viewers (and writers) assume that their is usable DNA in hair. If they had wanted to clearly communicate that the mechas were just appeasing David then they would have had Teddy save a piece of her dress or a picture or something.
As for the one day thing that still doesn't make sense if they planned to kill him as he slept the first night. There still is no reason for him to need to know that it would only last a day.
I honestly can't remember if the narrator indicated that David dies or not. I certianly don't remember them saying they killed him and I don't think all this stuff about the mecha's judging his limitations and euthanizing him is necessary to the main theme of the film. The message wasn't so cryptic, it was quite simple- the first AI with real emotions will undoubtedly suffer in a world of humans that don't accept their validity. I don't think a happy ending, even having David become a real boy (in the upgraded sense) would have detracted from that.
I used to have a method for getting As in english, literature, and a couple film courses I took. I would look at a simple story and then come up with some BS interpretation about how everything was symbology and metaphor. The more whacked out it sounded the better the grade.
It's been a while since I saw A.I., but I find problems with your interpretation. I got two main problems with it... 1. Why did they first suggest that his mother couldn't be recovered without DNA? Why not just go right ahead with their compassionate deception? Even if that was some sort of test to see if he could get over the loss of his mom then why add the qualifier about only giving him one day with her? If they were planning to euthanize him as he slept contentedly in her arms then why detract from the joy of his time with her by adding the additional stress of knowing he only had one day? 2. This may seem like Trekkie-style technical bickering, but why wouldn't the advanced mecha's just upgrade him (sorta like what happened to Vger in Star Trek 1)? Suggesting that he can't be upgraded would seem to violate the whole conceptual idea of artificial intelligences. Heck, even if they couldn't upgrade him you'd think they could just download his program and the mom simulation until they figured out how. If Moore's law held all that time they probably could run his program on their wristwatches. Ok , so they didn't have wristwatches. To me AI was a vehicle for exploring the depths and desperation of a child's love for their parent. In that way it really complemented E.T. which Spielberg suggested was about his parents divorce. For some reason I found ET uplifiting and touching and AI remarkably sad.