Or at least off-topic? Oh yeah, it's jives with the moderators' political biases. Watch, my comment is going to get a negative moderation merely for pointing out that a bayesian moderation system would be vastly better than a human one. Certainly less biased.
You sir, are absolutely correct.
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 1
I had the exact same reaction when reading it as well. The author simply doesn't understand the "nature of business" that the CIA is in.
Can their operations be improved? Almost certainly, it's the nature of every organization that inefficiencies arise. But as you stated, the CIA has to actively eliminate risk rather than just "manage" it.
That's an interesting link. I've read about gaseous core nuclear powered rockets about twenty years ago, but I hadn't heard about the "transparent silica" idea of heat transference before. I hope this guy succeeds in influencing NASA in persuing something similar to what he outlines.
You missed my point, which is that self-sufficiency is centuries off.
Uh, excuse me, but how do you figure? Your quote for growing food is for soil based agriculture. Hydroponics enables you to grow much, much more food in a much, much smaller area, at least twice as efficient as convential agriculture according to this PDF. And since we're talking about Outer Space here it doesn't matter how many hectacres it takes to grow food since there's a lot of room in Outer Space. Why you can fit entire planets there!
Where are those settlements going to get their Pentiums and RAM from? Their medicines? Their circuit boards? Their silicone hoses and seals? Their fabrics?
Gee, that is a puzzler, where do we get all those things now? Oh yeah, we manufactor them. That's part of the definition of self-sufficiency in that they no longer import these things from Earth but rather manufactor them in situ.
You see, there are teratons of raw materials available both on the Moon and in asteroids that are far more easy to get to (once your living in space for the long term) than here on Earth for several reasons.
The Moon and asteroids all have much, much smaller gravitational fields so lifting the materials off them to move to another location is vastly more easy than doing it from Earth.
The energy needed to extract, purify and then use these materials is free, abundant and powerful. It's called the Sun and without the pesky influences of an atmosphere solar power becomes a real power house (no pun intended) compared to what it's like here at the bottom of our gaseous ocean. Plus solar power is available twenty four hours a day! Of course on the Moon you have to put up with two weeks of night, but you have two weeks of daylight to generate power to later use for the nightfall. Plus standard fission power plants can be created without worries about screwing up the environment because there isn't any!
Their software developers?
Same way that we do here. You see, when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much....;-)
All of the problems that you list have been though of back in fifties and effective plans were drawn up back then. Again, there is absolutely no technological barriers to permanent colonies on the Moon and near Earth. It's merely a matter of political will and money.
We can fly around the solar system for the next thousand years with current technology and we would still be unable to achieve colonization. Unless and until we achieve fundamental breakthroughs, space colonization is a pipe dream, and those breakthroughs depend on science to be done here on earth.
There is no technological barrier preventing us from establishing permanent bases in earth orbit and the moon right now. All that we lack is the will and the desire to spend the money to do it.
The technology needed to put people on the moon, for instance, was there in the late sixties, or has everyone forgotten that? If NASA, or better yet, an international space consortium of the richest nations on Earth were to launch back-to-back missions to build permanent habitats on the moon and to keep those habitats supplied and working toward self-sufficiency then we could have the dream of a large human presence in space by the middle of this century. And that, my friends, is a pessimistic timeframe.
Once a self-sufficient colony on the moon has been established it's only a matter of time before humanity is permanently established on Mars and the rest of the solar system. Seriously folx, it's not a matter of technology that is preventing this dream from happening. It's a matter of political will and if US (and all the other western nations, for that matter) were to spend half of the budgets they allot for military adventures then the future of humanity would be secure.
He's also a strong supporter of Baghdad Jim from Seattle -- the representative who broadcast from Baghdad weeks before we invaded, saying there is nothing there that would interest us, and that Saddam was a really great guy, while badmouthing the president and otherwise spreading Hussein's propaganda. You should've seen the look on his face when an army vet told him to his face on TV camera
Yeah, you should have really seen his face after the US army found those "hugh stockpiles" of WMD...oh, wait a minute...
In case it hadn't occured to you, a wind tunnel is a simulator too. It simulates the air flow dynamics of high speed air flow that an object would encounter if it was traveling at a given (high) speed.
Computers can do cute things like simulate the parachute in a Martian atmosphere. Which might be kind of handy given that the air density on Mars is 1% of Earth.
Gee, I guess it's impossible for an experimentor to be able to evacuate the air in a wind tunnel until it was 1% that of sea level on Earth....Wait a minute! I've just got a great patentable idea!
I'm more than a little skeptical of Minksy
on
AI Going Nowhere?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Although I'm familiar with the Chinese Room argument I haven't read Searle's and Block's discussion. I have, though, argued with other researchers about this topic and the most vigorous defenders of the "intelligence is innately biological" argument all end up sounding like Vitalists.
The nineteeth century debate between two camps of biologists, "Vitalists" and "Mechanists," is very similar to the debate between those who think machines can eventually have intelligence and those who think only biological systems can possess intelligence. Vitalists believed that living beings had something more than their physical and chemical composition which differentiated them from non-living matter. This difference was a "vital spark" or elan vital which made them innately different from ordinary or "dead matter." Their opponents, the "Mechanists" believed that living things were essentially no different than non-living things, at least in terms of what they were composed of. That there was no "vital spark" which separated living and non-living things but rather only a difference in their physical and chemical compositions.
Obviously the "mechanists" won since no modern biologist believes in the elan vital.
In a very, very similar fashion, Minsky and his supporters seem to be making the same type of argument. They seem to want humans to still have a "soul," called intelligence, something that "dumb" matter can never have. Whether they argue for a mysterious quality that only biology systems seem to possess or for mystical "quantum processes" that seem to only take place in brains and not in machines I still call this vitalism and I don't think its scientific at all. It's more like an intellectual retreat to defend some deep seated emotions about humanity's place in the Universe.
What constitutional power does the President hold that can prevent legislation passed by Congress, like spending packages, so that it doesn't become law?
Scroll down to the highlighted text. Which President had only 12% (compared to 65%) of their vetoes overturn, despite the President in question having a majority of the opposing party in Congress, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton?
Look at the reference chart. Of the eight presidencies shown (Johnson - Democrat, Nixon - Republican, Ford - Republican, Carter - Democrat, Reagan - Republican, Bush - Republican, Clinton - Democrat, Bush - Republican), which party has consistently spent more than they were receiving?
Fill in the blank, "The US Congress during the 80s was largely controlled by these conservatives who went by the popular name of '______ Democrat'"
Hint: The word is the same as the last name of the president in office at the time.
Bonus Question: Take a look at this chartWhich political party (as represented by the administration of the time), has consistently cut taxes on corporations while doing nothing about the individual tax payers' tax bill? Now compare this to the spending of each of those administrations.
But you still want a high-tech military, flawless interstate roads, a literate and well educated work force, public funded basic science research, Army Corp. of Engineer control of flooding, free (or low cost) public parks, etc., etc.
I live near several trailer parks and I have to drive through them to reach the city. I see nothing but pro-war signs and dozens upon dozens of flags on the trailers and their tiny little lawns. I know that a lot of them have family in the military but I've talked with more than a few and they also have bought the government lie about the war, the economy (things are going to get better now that Saddam is gone!) and everything else.
So frankly, I don't hold much hope out that they'll remember in November. I'm afraid that we're in for four more 'fears' with King George.
On Thursday, the California state Senate approved a bill that requires
businesses with stores in the state to charge their customers sales tax for purchases made over the Internet."
Nothing there says anything about an interstate tax! The California legislator is simply asking Internet businesses to pay the same taxes that mail order businesses have been doing forever! What is wrong with leveling the playing field and ending the damn state deficet?
I've been in large scale protests, sports championship "celebrations" and many other large gatherings and I've never seen any of the behaviors of the individuals there that is any different than they would have been had they been acting alone. Try reading this book, "The Myth of the Maddening Crowd" Clark McPhail, 1991 which shows that all of those popular myths about "crowd psychology" are utterly without factual basis.
The individuals in a riot that set fires or throw rocks through windows and steal typically engage in vandalism and theft when they're acting alone too. The crowd setting merely gives them the excuse and the opportunity to engage in behavior that they do anyway. Again, I recommend reading that book since Dr. McPhail is the only person to have done systematic observation of riots, protests, and peaceful gatherings in the last 100 years. All other researchers on the subject merely quoted older researchers rather than gathering data themselves. McPhail documents this travesty very carefully.
This lets us learn a lot about the ages and chemical composition of M 31's halo stars, which turn out to be quite different from the stars in our halo (our halo is entirely composed of ancient, metal-poor stars; M 31's halo contains stars that are only 6 Gyr old, and much more metal-rich than our halo).
That would imply that our galaxy is much older than M31. If that's the case then what does this imply about life in the universe? I mean if our galaxy is one of the oldest out there that would imply that life may not have evolved yet in other galaxies. Or is M31 not typical?
Only if you think that someone pointing out that your argument is bogus because your quoting movie characters as if they're authorities, is trollish, otherwise it's called '"pointing out a bad argument."
Nowhere did I state that it was a scientific fact.
I suppose I should have stated something like, "Since when does dialog from a lame ass movie hold any argumentative/factual weight?" I instead went with something a bit shorter, but semantically the same.
I'm merely expressing my opinion thru the words of a character in a popular movie.
That doesn't make sense, especially since you were arguing against someone else (BTW, just so your not confused, I think the parent post was f*cked up too). When you argue with someone your implying that the topic that your arguing over can be factually established. Otherwise why bother disagreeing? It would be like arguing over whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla, or whether rap is better than rock. Both of those arguments are pointless precisely because they're arguments over opinions. Since your arguing in the first place, thus implying you believe the debate can be settled one way or another, your use of the movie dialog then implies that you believe the characters are some sort of authority on the issue.
Human beings developed civilization and technology because they can communicate with and work with each other!
And your point is...
O.k., I'll write very s-l-o-w-l-y. If "people are stupid" then we wouldn't have human civilization or technology. It's precisely because people (as groups) are not stupid that we do have human civilization and technology. You know the whole Isaac Newton, "I have seen so far because I've stood on the shoulder of giants" sort of thing? Is that clear? People quote that line from MIB precisely because they're convinced that they're geniuses and everybody else is a moron. But they fail to realize that the quote, if it was true, has to apply to themselves too. Hence my question, "Do you get more stupid when you step into a crowd?" (which I noticed you conveniently ignored). So how about it? Does your I.Q. lower when your out walking in a crowd of people compared to when your alone? Care to answer?
Neither soldiers nor basketball players take a vote regarding strategies, that's what their leaders are for, you know, officers, team captains and coaches. If you don't like how they perform, you remove them. Otherwise you shut up and put up.
And the leaders don't mentally control their followers through some sort of telepathic hypnosis either. That isn't the point, the point is that each of the individuals in a team or squad are (usually) given imprecise instructions, e.g., "Take Hill 471." All of which can be accomplished in many, many, many ways that are up to the people that have been given the instruction. Micromanaging people, unless they're children or mentally retardad, is usually a recipe for disaster or at least massive inefficiency.
Hell, no! To paraphrase Agent K. in MIB, "A person is smart, people are dumb" (or somesuch).
WTF? Since when did the dialog from some lame ass movie become scientific fact? Are you telling me that when you step outside into a crowd you suddenly become more stupid? Human beings developed civilization and technology because they can communicate with and work with each other! All other animals are true individuals, even the preverbial cow herd is nothing more than a bunch of individuals panicing and acting independently of each other. Compare the action of a cow herd to that of a basketball team or a squad of soldiers and you'll see the difference between mindless individualism and thoughtful collective action.
When a laser beam hits any material (depending, of course on the wattage of the laser beam) it will vaporize the surrounding material causing sputtering in low powered beams and explosions in mega-watt beams. I've seen videos of Army test lasers hitting a tank and the side of the tank does indeed explode. BTW, the tank had no munitions on it.
You have to remember that an explosion is nothing more than a rapidly expanding hot plasma, which is what a sufficiently powerful laser beam will turn the material it hits into. Of course there won't be any explosions if the beam doesn't hit anything (unlike the original Star Wars which showed exploding "laser" beams in a vacuum)
nobody thought much if a B-52 dropping 500 bombs on a military target happened to wipe out an adjacent village.
Actually it was more often than not an intentional act. For instance, the firebombing of Dresden in WWII, which had no military or industrial value, was conducted because bombing civilians, "reduced the German people's desire to continue the war". In other words, it was terrorism by any other name.
The same thing happened during the Korean and Vietnam wars, unarmed civilians were targeted because they "harbored enemy combatents". It's the same excuse that the Israelis use when they wantonly shell refugee camps. "Well there are terrorists in there somewhere and those damn refugees are just hiding them!"
Face it, roboticization of war will only result in unarmed civilians being massacred by robots. Of course it will be explained that these unarmed civilians were actually harboring terrorists, etc. so they're to blame for their own deaths anyway. And people like you will lap up this government propaganda without question.
Slashdot Mirror
Or at least off-topic? Oh yeah, it's jives with the moderators' political biases. Watch, my comment is going to get a negative moderation merely for pointing out that a bayesian moderation system would be vastly better than a human one. Certainly less biased.
I don't see no stinkin' sig, seriously.
Can their operations be improved? Almost certainly, it's the nature of every organization that inefficiencies arise. But as you stated, the CIA has to actively eliminate risk rather than just "manage" it.
Sounds like an urban legend to me.
That's an interesting link. I've read about gaseous core nuclear powered rockets about twenty years ago, but I hadn't heard about the "transparent silica" idea of heat transference before. I hope this guy succeeds in influencing NASA in persuing something similar to what he outlines.
You see, there are teratons of raw materials available both on the Moon and in asteroids that are far more easy to get to (once your living in space for the long term) than here on Earth for several reasons.
- The Moon and asteroids all have much, much smaller gravitational fields so lifting the materials off them to move to another location is vastly more easy than doing it from Earth.
- The energy needed to extract, purify and then use these materials is free, abundant and powerful. It's called the Sun and without the pesky influences of an atmosphere solar power becomes a real power house (no pun intended) compared to what it's like here at the bottom of our gaseous ocean. Plus solar power is available twenty four hours a day! Of course on the Moon you have to put up with two weeks of night, but you have two weeks of daylight to generate power to later use for the nightfall. Plus standard fission power plants can be created without worries about screwing up the environment because there isn't any!
Same way that we do here. You see, when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much....All of the problems that you list have been though of back in fifties and effective plans were drawn up back then. Again, there is absolutely no technological barriers to permanent colonies on the Moon and near Earth. It's merely a matter of political will and money.
The technology needed to put people on the moon, for instance, was there in the late sixties, or has everyone forgotten that? If NASA, or better yet, an international space consortium of the richest nations on Earth were to launch back-to-back missions to build permanent habitats on the moon and to keep those habitats supplied and working toward self-sufficiency then we could have the dream of a large human presence in space by the middle of this century. And that, my friends, is a pessimistic timeframe.
Once a self-sufficient colony on the moon has been established it's only a matter of time before humanity is permanently established on Mars and the rest of the solar system. Seriously folx, it's not a matter of technology that is preventing this dream from happening. It's a matter of political will and if US (and all the other western nations, for that matter) were to spend half of the budgets they allot for military adventures then the future of humanity would be secure.
Finally, conservative critics all seem to forget one important fact that is inescapable:
The Media is only as liberal as the corporations that own them.
Gee, I guess it's impossible for an experimentor to be able to evacuate the air in a wind tunnel until it was 1% that of sea level on Earth....Wait a minute! I've just got a great patentable idea!
The nineteeth century debate between two camps of biologists, "Vitalists" and "Mechanists," is very similar to the debate between those who think machines can eventually have intelligence and those who think only biological systems can possess intelligence.
Vitalists believed that living beings had something more than their physical and chemical composition which differentiated them from non-living matter. This difference was a "vital spark" or elan vital which made them innately different from ordinary or "dead matter." Their opponents, the "Mechanists" believed that living things were essentially no different than non-living things, at least in terms of what they were composed of. That there was no "vital spark" which separated living and non-living things but rather only a difference in their physical and chemical compositions.
Obviously the "mechanists" won since no modern biologist believes in the elan vital.
In a very, very similar fashion, Minsky and his supporters seem to be making the same type of argument. They seem to want humans to still have a "soul," called intelligence, something that "dumb" matter can never have. Whether they argue for a mysterious quality that only biology systems seem to possess or for mystical "quantum processes" that seem to only take place in brains and not in machines I still call this vitalism and I don't think its scientific at all. It's more like an intellectual retreat to defend some deep seated emotions about humanity's place in the Universe.
Hint: The word is the same as the last name of the president in office at the time.
But you still want a high-tech military, flawless interstate roads, a literate and well educated work force, public funded basic science research, Army Corp. of Engineer control of flooding, free (or low cost) public parks, etc., etc.
If your a Libbie-tarian then you just say, "They poor have no bread? Let them eat cake."
So frankly, I don't hold much hope out that they'll remember in November. I'm afraid that we're in for four more 'fears' with King George.
Nothing there says anything about an interstate tax! The California legislator is simply asking Internet businesses to pay the same taxes that mail order businesses have been doing forever! What is wrong with leveling the playing field and ending the damn state deficet?
The individuals in a riot that set fires or throw rocks through windows and steal typically engage in vandalism and theft when they're acting alone too. The crowd setting merely gives them the excuse and the opportunity to engage in behavior that they do anyway. Again, I recommend reading that book since Dr. McPhail is the only person to have done systematic observation of riots, protests, and peaceful gatherings in the last 100 years. All other researchers on the subject merely quoted older researchers rather than gathering data themselves. McPhail documents this travesty very carefully.
Here's the URL
"Facism should rightly be called 'corporatism' as it is the merger between the State and corporate power" - Benito Mussolini
You have to remember that an explosion is nothing more than a rapidly expanding hot plasma, which is what a sufficiently powerful laser beam will turn the material it hits into. Of course there won't be any explosions if the beam doesn't hit anything (unlike the original Star Wars which showed exploding "laser" beams in a vacuum)
Actually it was more often than not an intentional act. For instance, the firebombing of Dresden in WWII, which had no military or industrial value, was conducted because bombing civilians, "reduced the German people's desire to continue the war". In other words, it was terrorism by any other name.
The same thing happened during the Korean and Vietnam wars, unarmed civilians were targeted because they "harbored enemy combatents". It's the same excuse that the Israelis use when they wantonly shell refugee camps. "Well there are terrorists in there somewhere and those damn refugees are just hiding them!"
Face it, roboticization of war will only result in unarmed civilians being massacred by robots. Of course it will be explained that these unarmed civilians were actually harboring terrorists, etc. so they're to blame for their own deaths anyway. And people like you will lap up this government propaganda without question.