:::the last thing the software industry needs is consumer-electronics/telecom style government mandated standards.
Agreed. Government-mandated standards are really bad ideas because they suppress (in terms of market viability) alternatives more strongly than industry consensus-based standards. Plus, it's easier to get industry players to change their minds later when they realize it's in their best interest to do so, whereas the government may not necessarily have any clear interests in the matter (and this doesn't even address bureaucratic speed/inefficiency).
So while I agree the government shouldn't mandate standards, I don't see a problem with committees creating standards as long as (a) the committee consists of all or nearly all potential producers in that market [so no one gets shafted] and (b) the individuals on the committee must change at prescribed periods [I believe anyone can innovate, but I also believe that there is a limited per-person ability to produce useful innovations].
:::Thanks, but I'll take a Microsoft standard, which at least is answerable to market forces; over stuff published by unimaginative committees anyday.:::
You do realize that one of the defining characteristics of monopolies is their implicit resistance to market demands (which is due to the lack of competition caused by barriers to market entry).
And remember that the medium you are currently using was designed by such a committee of tenured bureaucrats in 1989 (going with html proposal here, I know the choice is debatable) and has penetrated to the point where roughly 2/3 of the adult population has access to it at home. Yeah, obviously this rather dull group of people, er... tenured bureaucrats, wasn't able to develop a flexible, robust, and extensible solution.
Neither of those two agencies are law enforcement or military. They do not have armed men to send knocking on your door.
I do agree in general with more open government, but in this case I can't think of a compelling reason (or potentially compelling reason) for including the census bureau. Unless those two agencies start data mining and handing the results to the FBI, CIA, NSA, AG, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of Homeland Security. Oh wait, this might be a compelling reason to... yeah... OK... nevermind.
"Liberals" in the common US political usage is not the same ideology as classical liberalism, which set forth the founding principles of the US Constitution.
For example, read any treatise of Locke's and compare the explicit moral/social statements as well as those beliefs that can be inferred by unstated premises. John Locke and Adam Smith are two of the most well-known liberal philosophers, and neither paradigm bares much resemblance to those people who are identified as liberals in modern US culture.
This is a situation where one word has been bastardized in such a way as to necessitate a second definition. On average, your classical liberal philosopher will be closest to a moderate conservative (although admittedly Hobbes, if you count him, would likely be far right-wing).
Learned Professionals? (Score:5, Insightful)
by drinkypoo (153816) on Friday June 27, @08:23PM (#6316114)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Monday May 05, @11:59AM)
So let me get this straight. The more you know, the less likely you are to get overtime? This is just the incentive that millions of Americans need to go out and get the training they need for the jobs of today.
Is it just me or does it seem like almost everything Dubya does is intended to lower the quality of life for the average American?
Yeah, but if the average person doesn't realize it until it's too late, then your policy succeeded. Reference: DMCA, PATRIOT Act, Bible.
***prisons are agents of the state, and to tacitly permit rape, murder, and assault on people under the control of the state is hideously wrong***
We already explicitly permit coercion (good behavior = early release), theft (confiscation), and homicide (death penalty) as punishments, so what's wrong with implicitly permitting the above?
You don't go to maximum security state or federal prisons for running over your neighbor's dog or shoplifting a candy bar. Besides, as long as people *know* that those things go on, they're accepting the risk when they commit a felony anyway.
Besides, I have a family member who is a retired prison guard (though it wasn't a maximum security facility)... trust me, they have enough to worry about without managing quality-of-life for felons, many of whom are dangerous in close quarters... at least the ones who would try the above-mentioned activities. Prison guards *never* forget that they are severely outnumbered from the time they step in the building until the time they leave.
***People couldn't flash their Xbox without opening it and voiding their warranty***
Warranty is only 90 days anyway. Less than 3 months before you can mod it without any real consequences.
Re:Digitization means loss of data, no?
on
Altered Carbon
·
· Score: 1
No one is completely sure how data (such as memories) and personality traits (such as emotional reactions to X, Y, and Z) are stored. Current research suggests that both the condition of each neuron as well as the number and strength of its connections to other neurons play a role.
Given this, the "data" is not separate from the storage medium. This is a marked difference from digital techonology where your Bon Jovi mp3s are the same files whether they're on your HD, on your CD-R, or on your friend's HD (barring reencoding or copying errors). Even with our admittedly primitive understanding of human cognitive functioning, it would not be possible to simply "download" someone into a new body whenever they want. Not unless you can "reencode" their entire neural network for the new structure.
And that would involve billions of neurons, each with thousands of connections to other neurons, along with an indeterminate number of internal characteristics that govern their functionality with respect to those connections. Plus, we don't even have the medical technology to map all of the connections from an individual neruon (at least not without killing a person before you're even close to finished).
Mapping and storing the "system state" of a human mind isn't anywhere near viable at this time. And I've intentionally ignored anything that might be involved beyond simple Newtonian physics.
And then for transferring the mind to another body. I tried to think of an analogy to express how incredibly difficult this would be in terms of both computational requirements as well as knowledge prerequisites, and I couldn't come up with a very good one. Imagine that right now we're sitting in the 386/486 looking at bitmap-type sprite graphics generated via a program written in basic, and someone stops by and wants you to reencode DVD.ifo/.vob files into a divx file.
---
Another issue: the fact that humans only use a small portion of their brain at any given time isn't a performance problem. This is actually quite beneficial. Improving expertise within a field usually results in decreased usage of various parts of the brain (when engaged in activities wtihin that field of expertise, of course). Increasing the usage of the brain in the way that people typically mean when saying "we only use X% of our brains" would be detrimental unless neural functioning were to be redesigned from the ground up. This is insurmountably difficult because DNA codes for this type of structure in all known animals. In other words, you'd have to go back millions of years to get to the code before its current branch.
Moral: be glad that you can only use a fraction of your brain.
PS: This same trend does hold true for "creative" people as well, as counter-intuitive as it may be.
Uh, yeah. You are paying the upgrade price.
See, since you can't build an Apple computer, you must buy a complete system, which includes an OS.
Since everyone who runs Apple computers already has their OS licenses, Apple only ever needs to sell their retail distros at upgrade prices (and it is an upgrade price if you compare it to M$, who charges $199.99 for a Windows XP Professional upgrade).
As far as curving roads and whatnot go, I would assume the radar system is able to monitor the steering wheel's degree of rotation (or just measure the distance off of center with sensors on the rack and pinion). If the vehicle is turning or moving around a curve, use a different set of collision prediction rules than you would use if it were driving straight (or nearly straight).
As far as locking onto a given vehicle is concerned, acoustics as they pertain to radar tracking is not an area of expertise for me personally. Wouldn't there be some sort of pattern to the way in which the ground or large buildings echo the radar pulse? Healthy bats and dolphins don't general fly or swim into walls. Does anyone know how well technological radar sensitivity compares to biological radar sensitivity?
RTFA. This applies to customers who outsource their IT to HP. If you actually own the hardware then this article doesn't directly affect you.
so, does this lower the cost of service contracts becasue companies that push their servers harder require more service than those who have low or moderate useage?
In theory, yes. However, this wouldn't be the first time that a company used obsfucation as a sly means of increasing its revenues.
Pounds and kilograms have nothing to do with each other. One is a measure of force, and the other is a measure of mass. You can only compare them directly when gravity and electromagnetism are assumed to exert the same influence in all cases (which they generally won't dp if you vary either the time or place of measurement).
Hmm... in light of his involvement with AI and his criticism of an AI program for dropping the pursuit of true AI, I assumed the quote referred to his rival's methodology. The article was/.ed so I hadn't read it yet.
///And when a robot actually does succeed and walk down the hall and through the door, or whatever it's supposed to do, you've learned absolutely nothing because it may not do it again the next time.///
To me, this is telling. Replace the word "robot" with "human" and you've essentially described the training process for infants and young children.
We have learned quite a bit about predicting unpredictable behavior (and even modifying it) for closed source intelligences (us).
Slashdot Mirror
:::the last thing the software industry needs is consumer-electronics/telecom style government mandated standards.
Agreed. Government-mandated standards are really bad ideas because they suppress (in terms of market viability) alternatives more strongly than industry consensus-based standards. Plus, it's easier to get industry players to change their minds later when they realize it's in their best interest to do so, whereas the government may not necessarily have any clear interests in the matter (and this doesn't even address bureaucratic speed/inefficiency).
So while I agree the government shouldn't mandate standards, I don't see a problem with committees creating standards as long as (a) the committee consists of all or nearly all potential producers in that market [so no one gets shafted] and (b) the individuals on the committee must change at prescribed periods [I believe anyone can innovate, but I also believe that there is a limited per-person ability to produce useful innovations].
:::Thanks, but I'll take a Microsoft standard, which at least is answerable to market forces; over stuff published by unimaginative committees anyday.:::
You do realize that one of the defining characteristics of monopolies is their implicit resistance to market demands (which is due to the lack of competition caused by barriers to market entry).
And remember that the medium you are currently using was designed by such a committee of tenured bureaucrats in 1989 (going with html proposal here, I know the choice is debatable) and has penetrated to the point where roughly 2/3 of the adult population has access to it at home. Yeah, obviously this rather dull group of people, er... tenured bureaucrats, wasn't able to develop a flexible, robust, and extensible solution.
Yeah. Great. My open response to Congress can be found at www.wtf.com
Neither of those two agencies are law enforcement or military. They do not have armed men to send knocking on your door.
I do agree in general with more open government, but in this case I can't think of a compelling reason (or potentially compelling reason) for including the census bureau. Unless those two agencies start data mining and handing the results to the FBI, CIA, NSA, AG, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of Homeland Security. Oh wait, this might be a compelling reason to... yeah... OK... nevermind.
"Liberals" in the common US political usage is not the same ideology as classical liberalism, which set forth the founding principles of the US Constitution. For example, read any treatise of Locke's and compare the explicit moral/social statements as well as those beliefs that can be inferred by unstated premises. John Locke and Adam Smith are two of the most well-known liberal philosophers, and neither paradigm bares much resemblance to those people who are identified as liberals in modern US culture. This is a situation where one word has been bastardized in such a way as to necessitate a second definition. On average, your classical liberal philosopher will be closest to a moderate conservative (although admittedly Hobbes, if you count him, would likely be far right-wing).
Yeah, but if the average person doesn't realize it until it's too late, then your policy succeeded. Reference: DMCA, PATRIOT Act, Bible.
We already explicitly permit coercion (good behavior = early release), theft (confiscation), and homicide (death penalty) as punishments, so what's wrong with implicitly permitting the above?
You don't go to maximum security state or federal prisons for running over your neighbor's dog or shoplifting a candy bar. Besides, as long as people *know* that those things go on, they're accepting the risk when they commit a felony anyway.
Besides, I have a family member who is a retired prison guard (though it wasn't a maximum security facility)... trust me, they have enough to worry about without managing quality-of-life for felons, many of whom are dangerous in close quarters... at least the ones who would try the above-mentioned activities. Prison guards *never* forget that they are severely outnumbered from the time they step in the building until the time they leave.
***People couldn't flash their Xbox without opening it and voiding their warranty*** Warranty is only 90 days anyway. Less than 3 months before you can mod it without any real consequences.
No one is completely sure how data (such as memories) and personality traits (such as emotional reactions to X, Y, and Z) are stored. Current research suggests that both the condition of each neuron as well as the number and strength of its connections to other neurons play a role. Given this, the "data" is not separate from the storage medium. This is a marked difference from digital techonology where your Bon Jovi mp3s are the same files whether they're on your HD, on your CD-R, or on your friend's HD (barring reencoding or copying errors). Even with our admittedly primitive understanding of human cognitive functioning, it would not be possible to simply "download" someone into a new body whenever they want. Not unless you can "reencode" their entire neural network for the new structure. And that would involve billions of neurons, each with thousands of connections to other neurons, along with an indeterminate number of internal characteristics that govern their functionality with respect to those connections. Plus, we don't even have the medical technology to map all of the connections from an individual neruon (at least not without killing a person before you're even close to finished). Mapping and storing the "system state" of a human mind isn't anywhere near viable at this time. And I've intentionally ignored anything that might be involved beyond simple Newtonian physics. And then for transferring the mind to another body. I tried to think of an analogy to express how incredibly difficult this would be in terms of both computational requirements as well as knowledge prerequisites, and I couldn't come up with a very good one. Imagine that right now we're sitting in the 386/486 looking at bitmap-type sprite graphics generated via a program written in basic, and someone stops by and wants you to reencode DVD .ifo/.vob files into a divx file.
---
Another issue: the fact that humans only use a small portion of their brain at any given time isn't a performance problem. This is actually quite beneficial. Improving expertise within a field usually results in decreased usage of various parts of the brain (when engaged in activities wtihin that field of expertise, of course). Increasing the usage of the brain in the way that people typically mean when saying "we only use X% of our brains" would be detrimental unless neural functioning were to be redesigned from the ground up. This is insurmountably difficult because DNA codes for this type of structure in all known animals. In other words, you'd have to go back millions of years to get to the code before its current branch.
Moral: be glad that you can only use a fraction of your brain.
PS: This same trend does hold true for "creative" people as well, as counter-intuitive as it may be.
Uh, yeah. You are paying the upgrade price. See, since you can't build an Apple computer, you must buy a complete system, which includes an OS. Since everyone who runs Apple computers already has their OS licenses, Apple only ever needs to sell their retail distros at upgrade prices (and it is an upgrade price if you compare it to M$, who charges $199.99 for a Windows XP Professional upgrade).
As far as curving roads and whatnot go, I would assume the radar system is able to monitor the steering wheel's degree of rotation (or just measure the distance off of center with sensors on the rack and pinion). If the vehicle is turning or moving around a curve, use a different set of collision prediction rules than you would use if it were driving straight (or nearly straight). As far as locking onto a given vehicle is concerned, acoustics as they pertain to radar tracking is not an area of expertise for me personally. Wouldn't there be some sort of pattern to the way in which the ground or large buildings echo the radar pulse? Healthy bats and dolphins don't general fly or swim into walls. Does anyone know how well technological radar sensitivity compares to biological radar sensitivity?
I like to own them!!!
RTFA. This applies to customers who outsource their IT to HP. If you actually own the hardware then this article doesn't directly affect you.
so, does this lower the cost of service contracts becasue companies that push their servers harder require more service than those who have low or moderate useage?
In theory, yes. However, this wouldn't be the first time that a company used obsfucation as a sly means of increasing its revenues.
Pounds and kilograms have nothing to do with each other. One is a measure of force, and the other is a measure of mass. You can only compare them directly when gravity and electromagnetism are assumed to exert the same influence in all cases (which they generally won't dp if you vary either the time or place of measurement).
Hmm... in light of his involvement with AI and his criticism of an AI program for dropping the pursuit of true AI, I assumed the quote referred to his rival's methodology. The article was /.ed so I hadn't read it yet.
///And when a robot actually does succeed and walk down the hall and through the door, or whatever it's supposed to do, you've learned absolutely nothing because it may not do it again the next time.///
To me, this is telling. Replace the word "robot" with "human" and you've essentially described the training process for infants and young children.
We have learned quite a bit about predicting unpredictable behavior (and even modifying it) for closed source intelligences (us).