I fully agree. And, since the article on the FP of/. kindly included the link to the RFC page of the NOAA... I wrote them this nice comment. Feel free to use any or all of it in YOUR comments. Make Mr. Meyer feel realllly bad that his little story made the news here.
[The following text is public domain and may be used without attribution]
I have just read over your proposed policy change, as well as Barry Meyer's response, available at this address: http://www.weatherindustry.org/BARRYMYERS-AMS-0318 04.doc .
I must say that I cannot possibly disagree with Mr. Meyer more. The NOAA is a publicly funded institution providing data that could never possibly contain anything that would be classified.
Accordingly, I am of the firm belief that any data collected by the NOAA should be made available for public (i.e. the general population, not merely other agencies) as soon as is practicable, in whatever format is easiest for the public to consume.
Mr. Meyer, and for that matter, the rest of the private weather sector, need to realize that they should never be the sole beneficiaries of the collective tax dollars spent each year by the U.S. in providing such a vitally important service.
I am tempted to make the comparison of the difficulties that the RIAA and MPAA are currently having with the digital revolution. Mr. Meyer and the PWS need to update their business models, not attempt to change the law.
Note: I'm not singling you out for this, there are a bunch of such statements in the threads below, you were just the first.
You aren't serious are you? I simply cannot believe that you got modded up as 'insightful'. Where would you be without the vikings or Columbus? (I'm assuming that you live in the U.S., if not, please insert appropriate exploratory hero). Exploration is central to what it means to be human. Not exploring is not an option. The only question that remains is 'How?'
One of the things that you cannot avoid when exploring is changing an environment, not to mention that no environment on Earth (or anywhere else, for that matter) is static, it's going to change anyway. From quantum mechanics to sociology, the mere presence of an observer changes the environment to be studied.
It is the job of scientists who are exploring previously shut off or shut in environments to do what they can to minimize the change caused by their presence. That's what guidlines and ethics committees are for. Do you for one instant think that any plan for exploration of this previously unknown ecology is not going to pass through the hands of some ethical authority?
You, sir, have no idea of how science really works. For a wonderful example of how science is really done around fragile and unexplored ecosystems, feel free to educate yourself by googling for Lake Vostock. Scientists have put off their attempts to explore the lake for years because of fear of overt contamination (specifically the micro-organisms that live in the gasoline used to lubricate the drill-bits, amongst a host of others). Here is another good article that explains just how acutely aware of the ethical decisions scientists are.
Reactionary attitudes like yours serve absolutely no one and simply prove that you haven't bothered to learn how real scientists go about their work before posting smarmy comments.
"First of all...Thanks for actually taking the time to post a reply that was informative, interesting, relevant and didn't really even get negative until the last couple of sentences.
Thank you.:) Seriously. I'm beginning to really dislike pure text as a medium for interactive discussion, those last two lines were supposed to be pointedly funny, oh well. Looks like I still haven't learnt that smirks don't go over well textually. grrr...
Ok, I'm going to try and answer you in a rather roundabout way, it's the way that I personally understand it, so it's the easiest way for me to explain, please, let me know if I'm unclear and I can reiterate differently.
The english language is a tricky thing, I can 'create' a concept that is patently absurd, like say, 'Invisible Pink Unicorns', and anyone of typical intelligence will immediately 'get it'.
The above isn't an entirely salient statement, apparently, (but there are a couple of rather convincing arguments against theistic interpretations of knowledge that use something of similar construction as their basis), but it's something that you should keep in mind as you read along...
Ok, the sum total of human existence can be described in two simple, but unbelievably deep, words:
Observation
and
Interpretation
That's it. All interactions, physical or mental, are one of those two processes. Think about it.
So far so good. We now have (barely) enough grounding to dismiss soliphism as a viable world view. Here's why: Soliphism states that one can never be sure that one's senses aren't being fooled in some manner and makes accurate interpretation quite impossible. A true soliphist quite literally can't do anything, because he doesn't trust his senses to give him enough accurate information to do any interpretation. Soliphism denies the viablilty of a full 50% of the human experience, so while it's 'not provably false', it is also so useless in the real world as to be nothing more than a passing curiosity. This you can discover in almost any basic philosophy text.
That last paragraph was important, but now I'm going to switch tacks a bit:
'Logic' (here used in it's most general sense, there are many, many types of logic) is the study of interpretation. Not many people realize this, and it trips them up constantly. That's all it is. To be something other than a completely passive observer (i.e. utterly indistinguishable from a soliphist) one must interpret, and all accurate interpretations must, by definition follow the rules of logic. It is a simple artifact of the human ability for abstract thought that you can construct non-sensical but seemingly meaningful patterns like 'Invisible Pink Unicorns'.
Or concepts like omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient beings. Think about that.
My personal problem with religion is that, to me, it is indistinguishable from soliphism. It's worse than wrong, it's useless. It observes all and explains nothing, nothing at all. It short circuts that full half of human existence that is interpretation, because once you accept the existence of Invisi...err...omnicient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent beings, there are no answers to anything other than "God did it."
"God did it." is the most intellectually abhorrent phrase in existence. Every time that phrase is uttered, another person says: "I choose to know no more about my universe than I did before." That's not just wrong, to me, that's disgusting. Where is your sense of self-worth when you utter a phrase like that? Where is your sense of wonder, of awe? If (taking the Xian perspective) Jesus was the Son of God, less than one fiftieth of our own mediocre galaxy could even concievably know about it, or his death and ressurection (Given that the galaxy is 100,000 light years across). There's no wonder in Xianity to compar
Perhaps the absolute insistence that "logic" must always be the ONLY valid tool for knowing anything is the limiting assumption?
Ummm... name another? Really, deduction and inferrence are the only tools available to any and all humans for the gathering of knowledge of any sort. To have any "others" one must subscribe to the various subsets of religion that 'declare' that they exist.
You see, the problem you're running into is quite subtle: Let's posit for a moment that some form of aquiring knowledge does exist, aside and outside from logic. What's it good for? Logic encompasses all of natural existence, so for something to operate outside of logic, it must be extra-natural, i.e. outside of natural existence. Whoops! Now we've run into a HUGE problem... we've just entered into the realm of 'faith' and 'mystery' and 'mumbo-jumbo'. What are the rules for this extra-natural aquisition of knowledge? Unfortunately for you, you don't ever get to tell me, because of the simple fact that these rules are extra-natural, they simply don't exist in the natural realm. If you were somehow able to explain cogently about this supernatural realm, then by definition it would no longer be extra-natural and you would have re-entered the realm of logic and would lose this argument by default.
Some things to think about, maybe put one of them in your.sig file to remind yourself for when you start to think that there's anything to this religion stuff other than 'feel goodiness':
When you are able to comprehend why no one believes in Zeus any longer (or why you aren't Hindi for that matter), you will find that religion's usefulness in your life has come to an end.
Logic isn't the best way, it's the only way. Doubt me? Give me another means of aquiring knowledge that is both: 1. Egalitarian and 2. Produces reproducable results without regard to creed.
On to the second salient point:
"As effective a tool as logic is, it's clear that it's so far been incapable of adequately describing our experience of existence."
Umm, no. Religions are easier to follow because they require no thought on the part of the participants. Humans don't like accountability, they prefer to fob it off on a whole variety of invisible, unknowable, ineffable 'beings' in the sky (or underground, anywhere but where they are, actually). Is belief in a sun-god any more useful to your average human being than the knowledge of the nuclear processes that dictate fusion? No, not really, especially since detailed knowledge requires years, if not decades of dedicated study. Is it more accurate? No. Is it 'good enough' for a simple tribe out in the middle of nowhere? You bet it is.
The statement 'Religion is the opiate of the masses' is deeper than you probably suspect. For those who don't personally need or for those who don't want to spend the time, effort and energy to know, religion is perfectly acceptable. It gives them 'answers' easily, without the need for anything remotely resembling knowledge, hard work or personal integrity, except in the most superficial of fashions. Most people profess to a 'belief' in God because they have not taken the simple expidient of taking the time to forthrightly examine their beliefs or even bothering to question why such a self-perpetuating culture exists in the first place. It should really tell you something that there is a direct correlation between level of education and lack of religious inclination.
I've said my two cents, and if I haven't caused you to accept that you need to seriously question why you seem to have to believe that there are 'questions' to life that need 'answers' (gah! Question begging at it's most blatant!), then I can do nothing for you, you are beyond hope of salvation and eternal freedom from the tyranny of being told what to think. Have fun smoking your opium.
There are a number of factors that go into the size of an impact crater, not just the mass of the object. F=mv^2 is a simple example (and it also explains why it suxor worse to get hit by that superfast tight end in U.S. Football than the massive, but slow, lineman).
IAOAPS, so feel free to correct me ifn' I got that equation a bit wrong. The essence is correct though.
There was a good site mentioned about a month ago here on/.: Impact Effects
There's a problem with this, and it's a definitional one. You're applying different, though similar, definitions of 'interpret' to each class of objects (humans, computers). This is leading you to an artifical separation when it comes to the comparison of the two.
You were quite a bit closer to the definiton in the parent post. Interpretation is calculation, but it is more than that. One cannot be said to have interpreted anything unless there is action involved (even if that action is just a change in mental state that is communicated to someone else). Notice how that little change effectively separates 'interpretation' from other, non-motive based words like 'cognition'.
Getting back to the point, interpretation is nothing more than action based upon information recieved. Humans, being more computationally complex than machines, are able to use processing power for things like self-reference, but bugs and most other animals cannot. They simply receive information and react to it, but nobody will argue that they aren't intelligent in some sense of the word (bonobos, for instance).
A roomba interprets it's surroundings, meaning that it gathers data, and then acts upon that data, in no way differently (conceptually) than a human does it. A human just has more power and ability to consider other things, like concequences.
Hehehe, it's also a faction of the Virtual Adepts in White Wolf's Mage: The Ascension game. A quote from the game: "Cypherpunks enjoy collecting collecting random trivia, esoteric data and hidden secrets [...] and they force people with whom they associate to examine all sides of a problem."
Heh, nah, I get my oil changed every 6k miles at Jiffy Lube, and replace the alternator and solenoid whenever they act up, and ummm, that's about it really. I don't get 'engine flushes' or anything, just tune ups whenever my milage starts to drop noticeably. Maybe I got lucky, but somehow I don't think so, just look at all of the old camaros still on the road.
Anyhoo, let us return to our regularly scheduled topic...
Yes, IT jobs seem to be outsourced to foriegn countries, but specifically what sectors of IT, and for what purpose? Not for what gain, as that is fairly obvious - saving money - but what is the function that these outsourced jobs fill? For call centers, this is fairly obvious, but what about for programming? What kind of programming is being done off-shore? What kind of programming cannot for saftey reasons, intellectual property reasons and other reasons be moved out of the US?
Similarly for other sectors of the IT field - what are the limits, and why?
Well, that's why you put your stuff behind a firewall, change your passwords often and use anti-viral medicine.
Anyone who knows her stuff well enough is going to make it very difficult to trace malicious code back to her anyways, regardless of where she uploads it.
Remember, security is/your/ responsibility, not 'the internet's'; the old maxim 'ignorance is no excuse' is never more appropriate than when online.
You know, there are great games out there that teach programming, there are ones that teach Java (Robocode), critical problem solving (Mindrover) and (Roboforge), and you can find games that use their own, c++ - like languages (Colobot), and you can even find games that allow you to compete by writing assemly-like code: (Robocom) .
The point that I think you're missing is that people feel that the *AA's are
A) gouging them and immorally escalating prices far beyond what is an appropriate markup
and
B) are artificially limiting both the quantity and quality of the entertainment available so that they have more control over it.
How else do you expect people to react when they don't have millions of dollars to throw at their local congresscritter to get the legislation enacted that actually provides for these things. And don't feel like their vote really matters?
This is non-violent protest at it's best.
People are voting w/ their actions and it's not going to stop until some fundamental changes are made in the system that provides entertainment.
Slashdot Mirror
I fully agree. And, since the article on the FP of /. kindly included the link to the RFC page of the NOAA... I wrote them this nice comment. Feel free to use any or all of it in YOUR comments. Make Mr. Meyer feel realllly bad that his little story made the news here.
8 04.doc .
I must say that I cannot possibly disagree with Mr. Meyer more. The NOAA is a publicly funded institution providing data that could never possibly contain anything that would be classified.
[The following text is public domain and may be used without attribution]
I have just read over your proposed policy change, as well as Barry Meyer's response, available at this address: http://www.weatherindustry.org/BARRYMYERS-AMS-031
Accordingly, I am of the firm belief that any data collected by the NOAA should be made available for public (i.e. the general population, not merely other agencies) as soon as is practicable, in whatever format is easiest for the public to consume.
Mr. Meyer, and for that matter, the rest of the private weather sector, need to realize that they should never be the sole beneficiaries of the collective tax dollars spent each year by the U.S. in providing such a vitally important service.
I am tempted to make the comparison of the difficulties that the RIAA and MPAA are currently having with the digital revolution. Mr. Meyer and the PWS need to update their business models, not attempt to change the law.
[End of Public Domain Section]
Note: I'm not singling you out for this, there are a bunch of such statements in the threads below, you were just the first.
You aren't serious are you? I simply cannot believe that you got modded up as 'insightful'. Where would you be without the vikings or Columbus? (I'm assuming that you live in the U.S., if not, please insert appropriate exploratory hero). Exploration is central to what it means to be human. Not exploring is not an option. The only question that remains is 'How?'
One of the things that you cannot avoid when exploring is changing an environment, not to mention that no environment on Earth (or anywhere else, for that matter) is static, it's going to change anyway. From quantum mechanics to sociology, the mere presence of an observer changes the environment to be studied.
It is the job of scientists who are exploring previously shut off or shut in environments to do what they can to minimize the change caused by their presence. That's what guidlines and ethics committees are for. Do you for one instant think that any plan for exploration of this previously unknown ecology is not going to pass through the hands of some ethical authority?
You, sir, have no idea of how science really works. For a wonderful example of how science is really done around fragile and unexplored ecosystems, feel free to educate yourself by googling for Lake Vostock. Scientists have put off their attempts to explore the lake for years because of fear of overt contamination (specifically the micro-organisms that live in the gasoline used to lubricate the drill-bits, amongst a host of others). Here is another good article that explains just how acutely aware of the ethical decisions scientists are.
Reactionary attitudes like yours serve absolutely no one and simply prove that you haven't bothered to learn how real scientists go about their work before posting smarmy comments.
God, I hope so! :)
Bah! there go my mod points, you all better appreciate this...
Prime Obsession Full Text
that's a link to the full text of the book. Online, for free. Brought to you courtesy of the nice people at National Acadamy (of Science) Press.
Ok, I'm going to try and answer you in a rather roundabout way, it's the way that I personally understand it, so it's the easiest way for me to explain, please, let me know if I'm unclear and I can reiterate differently.
The english language is a tricky thing, I can 'create' a concept that is patently absurd, like say, 'Invisible Pink Unicorns', and anyone of typical intelligence will immediately 'get it'.
The above isn't an entirely salient statement, apparently, (but there are a couple of rather convincing arguments against theistic interpretations of knowledge that use something of similar construction as their basis), but it's something that you should keep in mind as you read along...
Ok, the sum total of human existence can be described in two simple, but unbelievably deep, words:
and
That's it. All interactions, physical or mental, are one of those two processes. Think about it.
So far so good. We now have (barely) enough grounding to dismiss soliphism as a viable world view. Here's why: Soliphism states that one can never be sure that one's senses aren't being fooled in some manner and makes accurate interpretation quite impossible. A true soliphist quite literally can't do anything, because he doesn't trust his senses to give him enough accurate information to do any interpretation. Soliphism denies the viablilty of a full 50% of the human experience, so while it's 'not provably false', it is also so useless in the real world as to be nothing more than a passing curiosity. This you can discover in almost any basic philosophy text.
That last paragraph was important, but now I'm going to switch tacks a bit: 'Logic' (here used in it's most general sense, there are many, many types of logic) is the study of interpretation. Not many people realize this, and it trips them up constantly. That's all it is. To be something other than a completely passive observer (i.e. utterly indistinguishable from a soliphist) one must interpret, and all accurate interpretations must, by definition follow the rules of logic. It is a simple artifact of the human ability for abstract thought that you can construct non-sensical but seemingly meaningful patterns like 'Invisible Pink Unicorns'.
Or concepts like omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient beings. Think about that.
My personal problem with religion is that, to me, it is indistinguishable from soliphism. It's worse than wrong, it's useless. It observes all and explains nothing, nothing at all. It short circuts that full half of human existence that is interpretation, because once you accept the existence of Invisi...err...omnicient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent beings, there are no answers to anything other than "God did it."
"God did it." is the most intellectually abhorrent phrase in existence. Every time that phrase is uttered, another person says: "I choose to know no more about my universe than I did before." That's not just wrong, to me, that's disgusting. Where is your sense of self-worth when you utter a phrase like that? Where is your sense of wonder, of awe? If (taking the Xian perspective) Jesus was the Son of God, less than one fiftieth of our own mediocre galaxy could even concievably know about it, or his death and ressurection (Given that the galaxy is 100,000 light years across). There's no wonder in Xianity to compar
Ummm... name another? Really, deduction and inferrence are the only tools available to any and all humans for the gathering of knowledge of any sort. To have any "others" one must subscribe to the various subsets of religion that 'declare' that they exist.
You see, the problem you're running into is quite subtle: Let's posit for a moment that some form of aquiring knowledge does exist, aside and outside from logic. What's it good for? Logic encompasses all of natural existence, so for something to operate outside of logic, it must be extra-natural, i.e. outside of natural existence. Whoops! Now we've run into a HUGE problem... we've just entered into the realm of 'faith' and 'mystery' and 'mumbo-jumbo'. What are the rules for this extra-natural aquisition of knowledge? Unfortunately for you, you don't ever get to tell me, because of the simple fact that these rules are extra-natural, they simply don't exist in the natural realm. If you were somehow able to explain cogently about this supernatural realm, then by definition it would no longer be extra-natural and you would have re-entered the realm of logic and would lose this argument by default.
Some things to think about, maybe put one of them in your
On to the second salient point: "As effective a tool as logic is, it's clear that it's so far been incapable of adequately describing our experience of existence."
Umm, no. Religions are easier to follow because they require no thought on the part of the participants. Humans don't like accountability, they prefer to fob it off on a whole variety of invisible, unknowable, ineffable 'beings' in the sky (or underground, anywhere but where they are, actually). Is belief in a sun-god any more useful to your average human being than the knowledge of the nuclear processes that dictate fusion? No, not really, especially since detailed knowledge requires years, if not decades of dedicated study. Is it more accurate? No. Is it 'good enough' for a simple tribe out in the middle of nowhere? You bet it is.
The statement 'Religion is the opiate of the masses' is deeper than you probably suspect. For those who don't personally need or for those who don't want to spend the time, effort and energy to know, religion is perfectly acceptable. It gives them 'answers' easily, without the need for anything remotely resembling knowledge, hard work or personal integrity, except in the most superficial of fashions. Most people profess to a 'belief' in God because they have not taken the simple expidient of taking the time to forthrightly examine their beliefs or even bothering to question why such a self-perpetuating culture exists in the first place. It should really tell you something that there is a direct correlation between level of education and lack of religious inclination. I've said my two cents, and if I haven't caused you to accept that you need to seriously question why you seem to have to believe that there are 'questions' to life that need 'answers' (gah! Question begging at it's most blatant!), then I can do nothing for you, you are beyond hope of salvation and eternal freedom from the tyranny of being told what to think. Have fun smoking your opium.
Roger.
There are a number of factors that go into the size of an impact crater, not just the mass of the object. F=mv^2 is a simple example (and it also explains why it suxor worse to get hit by that superfast tight end in U.S. Football than the massive, but slow, lineman).
/.: Impact Effects
IAOAPS, so feel free to correct me ifn' I got that equation a bit wrong. The essence is correct though.
There was a good site mentioned about a month ago here on
Politeness!? On /.!? We are about to get whacked by another meteor!
in a word: Yes.
Read some books by Stephen J. Gould.
He he he, nope, then the article would have mentioned a 2 Gy/o murderer. :)
umm... the term rhinovirus comes to mind.
:)
rhino (greek for nose) + virus (same latin roots as the words viril, vivacious and vitality)
The common cold is a virus.
Go Here for more info.
Call me when he's managed to get the RIAA to stop being jerks... then I'll be impressed.
This could be the start of "Say something nice about Microsoft day!"
Now now, I wouldn't go quite that far.
How about: "Breathe a huge sigh of relief day"?
So, what does this mean for 'Trusted Computing'?
There's a problem with this, and it's a definitional one. You're applying different, though similar, definitions of 'interpret' to each class of objects (humans, computers). This is leading you to an artifical separation when it comes to the comparison of the two.
You were quite a bit closer to the definiton in the parent post. Interpretation is calculation, but it is more than that. One cannot be said to have interpreted anything unless there is action involved (even if that action is just a change in mental state that is communicated to someone else). Notice how that little change effectively separates 'interpretation' from other, non-motive based words like 'cognition'.
Getting back to the point, interpretation is nothing more than action based upon information recieved. Humans, being more computationally complex than machines, are able to use processing power for things like self-reference, but bugs and most other animals cannot. They simply receive information and react to it, but nobody will argue that they aren't intelligent in some sense of the word (bonobos, for instance).
A roomba interprets it's surroundings, meaning that it gathers data, and then acts upon that data, in no way differently (conceptually) than a human does it. A human just has more power and ability to consider other things, like concequences.
My $0.50.
Roger.
Are they going to read Da Vinci's notbooks backwards?
Hehehe, it's also a faction of the Virtual Adepts in White Wolf's Mage: The Ascension game.
/.er to me....
A quote from the game:
"Cypherpunks enjoy collecting collecting random trivia, esoteric data and hidden secrets [...]
and they force people with whom they associate to examine all sides of a problem."
Sounds like a typical
Heh, nah, I get my oil changed every 6k miles at Jiffy Lube, and replace the alternator and solenoid whenever they act up, and ummm, that's about it really. I don't get 'engine flushes' or anything, just tune ups whenever my milage starts to drop noticeably. Maybe I got lucky, but somehow I don't think so, just look at all of the old camaros still on the road.
Anyhoo, let us return to our regularly scheduled topic...
Tell that to my 210K mile Chevy Camaro... :)
The question I would like most answered is this:
Yes, IT jobs seem to be outsourced to foriegn countries, but specifically what sectors of IT, and for what purpose? Not for what gain, as that is fairly obvious - saving money - but what is the function that these outsourced jobs fill? For call centers, this is fairly obvious, but what about for programming? What kind of programming is being done off-shore? What kind of programming cannot for saftey reasons, intellectual property reasons and other reasons be moved out of the US?
Similarly for other sectors of the IT field - what are the limits, and why?
Well, that's why you put your stuff behind a firewall, change your passwords often and use anti-viral medicine.
/your/ responsibility, not 'the internet's'; the old maxim 'ignorance is no excuse' is never more appropriate than when online.
Anyone who knows her stuff well enough is going to make it very difficult to trace malicious code back to her anyways, regardless of where she uploads it.
Remember, security is
You know, there are great games out there that teach programming, there are ones that teach Java (Robocode), critical problem solving (Mindrover) and (Roboforge), and you can find games that use their own, c++ - like languages (Colobot), and you can even find games that allow you to compete by writing assemly-like code: (Robocom) .
Great!
My vision's bad enough without having to separate my eyes to play a game.
Someone needs to hack this thing so that it displays grits on one screen and Natalie Portman on the other... mmm...
There's always the one and only true bible:
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
You want insight into religion, you should study what non-believers have to say about it.
The point that I think you're missing is that people feel that the *AA's are
A) gouging them and immorally escalating prices far beyond what is an appropriate markup
and
B) are artificially limiting both the quantity and quality of the entertainment available so that they have more control over it.
How else do you expect people to react when they don't have millions of dollars to throw at their local congresscritter to get the legislation enacted that actually provides for these things. And don't feel like their vote really matters?
This is non-violent protest at it's best.
People are voting w/ their actions and it's not going to stop until some fundamental changes are made in the system that provides entertainment.