Mythbusters did something similar with a minivan and phone books I think. People are never going to be very good at this, but in theory a computer can be programmed not to make a mistake by cooler heads, or at least situated such that a mistake is impossible. I admit I'd probably shoot a gun at someone if my life was in danger, not (at the time) realizing what's behind the guy that might also die.
But still we want to continue the "killer robots" theme, I guess because we still graduate far too many liberal arts types and they need jobs too.
However, as the summary points out, there's also no known algorithm that can do the same for humans, and humans usually behave less consistently than software so chances are testing humans to an acceptable degree of certainty will be harder than testing robots to the same degree of certainty.
This right here is why I would never have funded this investigation. It's idiotic by design, there is absolutely no good criteria to decide "who needs to live and die", and thus its a very highly subjective subject. We argue this in court, we frequently don't agree on the verdict.
Killer robots are going to happen, and we're going to trust them every bit as much as any given human being. And they will have advantages: - Scope can be limited: a robot may be able to kill, but it may not be able to move... we'll set it up and assume that it will kill anything in a given area, and maybe program it to try not to kill things that fit a certain criteria. But we won't rely on that - Killer robots can be turned off. Killer humans can not, and some have a hard time going from killer mode back to civilian mode - Killer robots will be far less likely to induce collateral damage. They won't forget that bullets go through walls. Humans raised on movies somehow think a bit of drywall or plaster is impervious.
There are numerous advantages. What we probably will never build, on purpose, is Terminator bots that roam around the street looking for "bad guys".
blow it on everything EXCEPT developing a sound, sustainable business.
Now in fairness to the nerds, very few people are interested in developing a sound, sustainable business, including the investors. The business has to last "just long enough" to sell your investment up the pyramid.
I'm under the impression that a judge can also rule that a corpoation is a "sham" in some cases, and may hold the owner(s) liable for the corporations debts in that case. Basically you can't form a business to go around defrauding people, then bankrupt your business and walk off. You have to at least be convincing about it...
10 years out it will be about not having a family, being able to relocate on your dime cheaply, and using what free time you have to have learned the latest Web x.0 technologies. If you want out of that rat race, you will have to acquire the $100k in income to get the college degree so you can land a mgmt position to support a more balanced lifestyle.
College isn't for everyone, but if I just change the title a little bit, does this seem like more of a bad idea?
Employers always love to get the least qualified individual with the least options and marketability to do the job, that is still able to do the job. That doesn't mean you should serve yourself up to them on a platter...
I definitely think this should be more common in both games and movies. That plus the review aggregators showing 0 stars until the review embargo has been lifted and a statistically significant number of reviews show up.
Lies. They've deployed Gigapower advertising to a large number of service trucks! They've deployed a gigapower website, where you too can go to learn you also can't get Gigapower!
I did read it and read his explanation too so I know it's about all kinds of sex (even though it was obvious from the story). In spite of that, it managed to not be the kind of soft-porn HBO sometimes gets in to. I'm not sure I agree it's his best book, but he managed to do a lot of controversial things in that book that would probably have gotten the book banned if they were spelled right out. To me that's more important than the characters just screwing all over the place as say, Heinlein might have done it. You get too much in the screwing, and you lose sight of the message.
Asimov wasn't a prude, I don't want to insinuate that he was or that sex would cause him to spin in his grave. Having his better works reduced to porn though, might. The point of many of his books was not to cater to our prurient interests, it was to put them in context of something greater. I really like what HBO has done with quite a few series, but my concern is, thus far, they haven't managed to do anything like this. They know how to make a show that caters to the mass audience, they manage to keep it somewhat intelligent while doing it, but can they make a show that rises above?
I'm willing to bet that anything the FCC does will be part of a brokered arranagement involving a bundle of entirely unrelated topics about H1B visas, oil pipelines, obamacare, and no doubt things I care even less about. I won't bet a dollar on how the deck is going to be split, only that it will be split.
The standoff can't continue: if the republicans keep doing nothing they're going to hurt in 2016. If Obama veto's everything the democrats will hurt in 2016. Something will happen in the next 2 years, I'm just afraid of what it will be.
Foundation was not really prudish, but Asimov really didn't include (any that I recall) blatant sex scenes or sexual themes in his books, at least directly. It was always between the lines, as a means to advance the plot. Similarly the language was pretty clean most of the time. I'm not sure how this fits HBO's M.O. I mean they added MORE sex to Game of Thrones, and the books I think covered almost every variety and perversion attainable without giving characters internet access.
Foundation to me was always more Star Trek style science fiction, geared towards dreamers and full of hope (even in spite of what psychohistory predicted, and why Foundation existed). In contrast, HBOs other series, though well done, tend to focus on our seedier side. HBO can make a good show, but I wonder if the end product will resemble the series it's based on. Sex won't ruin it, but done the way HBO does it, will certainly be distracting.
Yet by purchasing slaves you are increasing demand for slaves, which prompts the slave industry to acquire more. This doesn't strike me as morally pragmatic, it strikes me as wrong. The slaves did not volunteer for their duty, it was not their choice to leave their savagery, I see no way to argue that as being right. The best way to be the positive drop in the bucket is first and foremost to take the money out of the industry: don't buy slaves.
Moral pragmatism is coming in to possession of the slaves second hand (i.e. saving them from death), treating them well and releasing them and ideally giving them a paying job (given that released slaves in the US would likely have a rough go). Given the laws and social conditions, releasing them may actually have caused them greater harm, I can see having to make a less than ideal choice on this one for the greater good.
The harder choice is one more like what we face today (H1B) and more like what might be driving the cheating in India. These people choose their indentured servitude here, and you can't argue it's a step up, yet is entirely destructive and unfair. What we should be doing is giving them green cards. That will take the money out of the system and cut much of the cheating. The rest I would argue should be handled through testing that is more standardized and much harder to cheat on (with real legal penalties). Universities ultimately are not about qualifying people for a job, they're about education, it's on the student to use his time there productively. They should not also be the gatekeepers of qualification.
I actually found and still find people that think they should be forced to do it the right way even while complaining about the abuse.
I've found it's worse still, that in the corporate world if you CAN do it the wrong way, and the wrong way is profitable, you MUST do it the wrong way. I'm not even talking about the usual issues we moan about on/. (environmental abuse, consumer abuse, short-term thinking, etc). Even things as simple as reporting status and which emails you answer seem to be more subject to what you strictly have to do versus what the right thing is.
I agree with Gandhi, but I think a lot of good people would starve to death if they followed his example.
Not if you have kids... time loses meaning, each day mostly an olympic dash to microobjectives and periodic unconsciousness. Some people choose to fight the inevitable, by estbalishing a date night, sort of like a repository tag, to put a stake in the in shifting sea of time. On this date, the children are given to a baby sitter of dubious repute (sometimes chosen intentionally so) and the adults are set loose on the world.
On this night there is a date. There is no date on the quicksand of parenthood, but this is a date.
this is actually a really bad one to select to celebrate rampant consumerism.
Unlike the yearly observance of the notional birth of the messiah, or the day after a day intended to be used to express gratitude for the sacrifice of the pilgrims, or hte day that bunnies lay chocolate eggs and you actually eat them...
Really I'm not sure I know of a holiday that we haven't turned in to some sort of circus. Even memorial day is mostly about cooking meat on a grill, and the families of the people being honored are still around.
Let's just ignore it because it's China and Alibaba and not look for some excuse.
The conclusion presented in the article however, is not that, I can agree with that (even if it's obvious). Their conclusion is that people stop believing in the problem. Probably not true, probably not even the right conclusion to draw from the data presented. If you present a "fact" and then *a* solution that may or may not address the problem, may or may not be optimal, and may reveal you as having a controversial political bias then you are basically asking for people to screw up your experiment.
First, upon deciding you have a political bias that opposes mine, I immediately doubt or question your "facts". I may think there's a problem, but I am going to assume you are lying or being intentionally deceptive. Rather than internalize your facts, I will replace them with my own (possibly wrong) facts. Second, I assume that the purpose of the test is to lie/mislead/misrepresent truths for the purposes of accomplishing a goal I may not agree with. Third, even if I believe your facts, even if I don't care about motives, if I believe the solution causes more problems than it solves, I will choose instead to let the problem continue. If I have chicken pox and the cure might cause cancer 10% of the time, but will definitely heal me, I would just suffer in silence. This is a no brainer, but the issues behind politics are far more complicated and have much more significant impacts and unintended consequences, not to mention that different people will weigh the solutions differently.
Maybe the paper was smarter than all that, I'm not going to pay good money to read soft science. I spent enough time with academics to distrust the paper factory even in hard sciences, in the soft sciences it's just utter bullshit to the core, and the article more or less confirms it.
If you give a survey like this, I will probably answer in a way intended to piss the person who wrote it off. If someone presents me with something I don't believe, and with narrow minded and/or politically charged options to solve it, I stop caring and start being angry.
If they really wanted to understand human behavior present facts that most people don't know, and solutions that we're not emotionally involved with. Attempt to do science while toying with people's emotions, they will toy back.
Slashdot Mirror
Mythbusters did something similar with a minivan and phone books I think. People are never going to be very good at this, but in theory a computer can be programmed not to make a mistake by cooler heads, or at least situated such that a mistake is impossible. I admit I'd probably shoot a gun at someone if my life was in danger, not (at the time) realizing what's behind the guy that might also die.
But still we want to continue the "killer robots" theme, I guess because we still graduate far too many liberal arts types and they need jobs too.
However, as the summary points out, there's also no known algorithm that can do the same for humans, and humans usually behave less consistently than software so chances are testing humans to an acceptable degree of certainty will be harder than testing robots to the same degree of certainty.
This right here is why I would never have funded this investigation. It's idiotic by design, there is absolutely no good criteria to decide "who needs to live and die", and thus its a very highly subjective subject. We argue this in court, we frequently don't agree on the verdict.
Killer robots are going to happen, and we're going to trust them every bit as much as any given human being. And they will have advantages:
- Scope can be limited: a robot may be able to kill, but it may not be able to move... we'll set it up and assume that it will kill anything in a given area, and maybe program it to try not to kill things that fit a certain criteria. But we won't rely on that
- Killer robots can be turned off. Killer humans can not, and some have a hard time going from killer mode back to civilian mode
- Killer robots will be far less likely to induce collateral damage. They won't forget that bullets go through walls. Humans raised on movies somehow think a bit of drywall or plaster is impervious.
There are numerous advantages. What we probably will never build, on purpose, is Terminator bots that roam around the street looking for "bad guys".
blow it on everything EXCEPT developing a sound, sustainable business.
Now in fairness to the nerds, very few people are interested in developing a sound, sustainable business, including the investors. The business has to last "just long enough" to sell your investment up the pyramid.
I'm under the impression that a judge can also rule that a corpoation is a "sham" in some cases, and may hold the owner(s) liable for the corporations debts in that case. Basically you can't form a business to go around defrauding people, then bankrupt your business and walk off. You have to at least be convincing about it...
10 years out it will be about not having a family, being able to relocate on your dime cheaply, and using what free time you have to have learned the latest Web x.0 technologies. If you want out of that rat race, you will have to acquire the $100k in income to get the college degree so you can land a mgmt position to support a more balanced lifestyle.
So perhaps you can save some on interest?
College isn't for everyone, but if I just change the title a little bit, does this seem like more of a bad idea?
Employers always love to get the least qualified individual with the least options and marketability to do the job, that is still able to do the job. That doesn't mean you should serve yourself up to them on a platter...
You haven't met my mother.
one bullet
Not sure I'd use 0's. I think i'd use random data with a CRC check, or at least known files that i could copy back and diff against hte originals.
I definitely think this should be more common in both games and movies. That plus the review aggregators showing 0 stars until the review embargo has been lifted and a statistically significant number of reviews show up.
Lies. They've deployed Gigapower advertising to a large number of service trucks! They've deployed a gigapower website, where you too can go to learn you also can't get Gigapower!
Uverse and cable are competitors to a product nobody really wants...
If Google announces fiber in a city that they don't own via a bunch of anti-competitive legal nonsense.
I did read it and read his explanation too so I know it's about all kinds of sex (even though it was obvious from the story). In spite of that, it managed to not be the kind of soft-porn HBO sometimes gets in to. I'm not sure I agree it's his best book, but he managed to do a lot of controversial things in that book that would probably have gotten the book banned if they were spelled right out. To me that's more important than the characters just screwing all over the place as say, Heinlein might have done it. You get too much in the screwing, and you lose sight of the message.
Asimov wasn't a prude, I don't want to insinuate that he was or that sex would cause him to spin in his grave. Having his better works reduced to porn though, might. The point of many of his books was not to cater to our prurient interests, it was to put them in context of something greater. I really like what HBO has done with quite a few series, but my concern is, thus far, they haven't managed to do anything like this. They know how to make a show that caters to the mass audience, they manage to keep it somewhat intelligent while doing it, but can they make a show that rises above?
When did they stop writing papers in LaTeX?
I'm willing to bet that anything the FCC does will be part of a brokered arranagement involving a bundle of entirely unrelated topics about H1B visas, oil pipelines, obamacare, and no doubt things I care even less about. I won't bet a dollar on how the deck is going to be split, only that it will be split.
The standoff can't continue: if the republicans keep doing nothing they're going to hurt in 2016. If Obama veto's everything the democrats will hurt in 2016. Something will happen in the next 2 years, I'm just afraid of what it will be.
Foundation was not really prudish, but Asimov really didn't include (any that I recall) blatant sex scenes or sexual themes in his books, at least directly. It was always between the lines, as a means to advance the plot. Similarly the language was pretty clean most of the time. I'm not sure how this fits HBO's M.O. I mean they added MORE sex to Game of Thrones, and the books I think covered almost every variety and perversion attainable without giving characters internet access.
Foundation to me was always more Star Trek style science fiction, geared towards dreamers and full of hope (even in spite of what psychohistory predicted, and why Foundation existed). In contrast, HBOs other series, though well done, tend to focus on our seedier side. HBO can make a good show, but I wonder if the end product will resemble the series it's based on. Sex won't ruin it, but done the way HBO does it, will certainly be distracting.
Yet by purchasing slaves you are increasing demand for slaves, which prompts the slave industry to acquire more. This doesn't strike me as morally pragmatic, it strikes me as wrong. The slaves did not volunteer for their duty, it was not their choice to leave their savagery, I see no way to argue that as being right. The best way to be the positive drop in the bucket is first and foremost to take the money out of the industry: don't buy slaves.
Moral pragmatism is coming in to possession of the slaves second hand (i.e. saving them from death), treating them well and releasing them and ideally giving them a paying job (given that released slaves in the US would likely have a rough go). Given the laws and social conditions, releasing them may actually have caused them greater harm, I can see having to make a less than ideal choice on this one for the greater good.
The harder choice is one more like what we face today (H1B) and more like what might be driving the cheating in India. These people choose their indentured servitude here, and you can't argue it's a step up, yet is entirely destructive and unfair. What we should be doing is giving them green cards. That will take the money out of the system and cut much of the cheating. The rest I would argue should be handled through testing that is more standardized and much harder to cheat on (with real legal penalties). Universities ultimately are not about qualifying people for a job, they're about education, it's on the student to use his time there productively. They should not also be the gatekeepers of qualification.
I actually found and still find people that think they should be forced to do it the right way even while complaining about the abuse.
I've found it's worse still, that in the corporate world if you CAN do it the wrong way, and the wrong way is profitable, you MUST do it the wrong way. I'm not even talking about the usual issues we moan about on /. (environmental abuse, consumer abuse, short-term thinking, etc). Even things as simple as reporting status and which emails you answer seem to be more subject to what you strictly have to do versus what the right thing is.
I agree with Gandhi, but I think a lot of good people would starve to death if they followed his example.
I think, particularly given the basis of memorial day, that the analogy is especially terrible.
Not if you have kids... time loses meaning, each day mostly an olympic dash to microobjectives and periodic unconsciousness. Some people choose to fight the inevitable, by estbalishing a date night, sort of like a repository tag, to put a stake in the in shifting sea of time. On this date, the children are given to a baby sitter of dubious repute (sometimes chosen intentionally so) and the adults are set loose on the world.
On this night there is a date. There is no date on the quicksand of parenthood, but this is a date.
this is actually a really bad one to select to celebrate rampant consumerism.
Unlike the yearly observance of the notional birth of the messiah, or the day after a day intended to be used to express gratitude for the sacrifice of the pilgrims, or hte day that bunnies lay chocolate eggs and you actually eat them...
Really I'm not sure I know of a holiday that we haven't turned in to some sort of circus. Even memorial day is mostly about cooking meat on a grill, and the families of the people being honored are still around.
Let's just ignore it because it's China and Alibaba and not look for some excuse.
The conclusion presented in the article however, is not that, I can agree with that (even if it's obvious). Their conclusion is that people stop believing in the problem. Probably not true, probably not even the right conclusion to draw from the data presented. If you present a "fact" and then *a* solution that may or may not address the problem, may or may not be optimal, and may reveal you as having a controversial political bias then you are basically asking for people to screw up your experiment.
First, upon deciding you have a political bias that opposes mine, I immediately doubt or question your "facts". I may think there's a problem, but I am going to assume you are lying or being intentionally deceptive. Rather than internalize your facts, I will replace them with my own (possibly wrong) facts.
Second, I assume that the purpose of the test is to lie/mislead/misrepresent truths for the purposes of accomplishing a goal I may not agree with.
Third, even if I believe your facts, even if I don't care about motives, if I believe the solution causes more problems than it solves, I will choose instead to let the problem continue. If I have chicken pox and the cure might cause cancer 10% of the time, but will definitely heal me, I would just suffer in silence. This is a no brainer, but the issues behind politics are far more complicated and have much more significant impacts and unintended consequences, not to mention that different people will weigh the solutions differently.
Maybe the paper was smarter than all that, I'm not going to pay good money to read soft science. I spent enough time with academics to distrust the paper factory even in hard sciences, in the soft sciences it's just utter bullshit to the core, and the article more or less confirms it.
If you give a survey like this, I will probably answer in a way intended to piss the person who wrote it off. If someone presents me with something I don't believe, and with narrow minded and/or politically charged options to solve it, I stop caring and start being angry.
If they really wanted to understand human behavior present facts that most people don't know, and solutions that we're not emotionally involved with. Attempt to do science while toying with people's emotions, they will toy back.
How do you know kuzb wasn't trying to spell "flamingo"?