I get the idea (and agree), but I guess "Health/Education" will come in earlier, along the lines of "telepresence enhanced robotic care", assuming that it will save^H^H^H^Himprove profits.
Personally, I think you're more likely to get funding to build sexbots.
Really?
Quote: "Telepresence can be defined as a human-computer-machine condition in which a user (a Soldier) receives sufficient information about a remote, real-world site (a battlefield) through a machine (a robot) so that the user feels physically present at the remote, real-world site."
ad paragraph 1: You may argue as much as you want (and I appreciate the argument that there is methods/methodology built to reduce perceived bias in human decision making), but in the end you will always come to a point (actually a hierarchy of breakpoints) when humans make decisions, all the way down (roughly) from a political consensus on 'important' research down to decisions about tweaking parameters/models in (say) a lab setting.
ad paragraph 2: The problem that you touch here ever since plagued psychologists when it came to removing bias from testing procedures. An early example of a collection of approaches is given in "Holtzman, W. H. (ed.), Computer-Assisted Instruction, Testing and Guidance, Harper and Row, New York, 1970"
ad paragraph 3: The question here is whether the localizations are indeed appropriate, and I always had my doubts. Just two examples that give the scope: "Artificial intelligence meets natural stupidity by D. McDermott - 1976"; "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) by Thomas Kuhn" may also give hints to the problems of proper localization (as well as the above mentioned consensus). Besides, especially when it comes to social research, I quite well remember the knee jerk methodology applied when a common PCFA 'does not seem right' (non-orthogonal solutions, whatever).
ad paragraph 4: above applies even more,
ad final sentence: Not so sure if I understand right, my interpretation would be that 'decisions' are not 'correlated' to the usefulness of statistical theory (which, from my point of view, is true, since statistical theory is math, which is not related to the world).
Wrong guess/decision, as you rather broadly replied to 'probability' (not statistics) working well.
Back to your original post, where you mention: "Localization and abstraction". I wonder how you do this without humans making decisions. Further: "restrict our viewpoint" - no place for "experts in human behavior" to have a say? Further: "assign probabilities to the outcome" - not a case for game theory?
Could you please explain how to prove somthing within the context of empirical science? As always, I am ready to learn about progress regards epistemology and related fields.
There is no such thing as unblockable communication.
Quite broad a statement (let aside technical arguments, though I agree with your conclusion — in this world).
Think of a sort of (self imposed? — clever social engineered?) solitary confinement along the lines of "The Naked Sun" (Asimov) which prevents people to form mobs at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Another fucktard. Too glad I need not post here.
CC.
Must have been a real American fucktard with no sense of history who modded this down.
CC.
Yes, a global law.
CC.
Göbekli Tepe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
11,500 years ago
9000 years? phhh;
Boston Tea Party: December 16, 1773
age of the universe:13.75 ±0.17 billion years
Just to keep things in perspective?
CC.
And seriously slashdot, still no italics? WTF.
Nerd.
CC.
Nor do I understand why anyone believes they can perform a task at which they are incompetent and expect good results
They are told so, e.g. "there is an app for it".
CC.
I get the idea (and agree), but I guess "Health/Education" will come in earlier, along the lines of "telepresence enhanced robotic care", assuming that it will save^H^H^H^Himprove profits.
CC.
Not to forget the common means of transport.
CC.
Overlords ...how many are there then?
Consider 170 billion galaxies out there, assume one per galaxy to come to the conclusion: E_N_O_U_G_H.
CC.
Personally, I think you're more likely to get funding to build sexbots.
Really?
Quote: "Telepresence can be defined as a human-computer-machine condition in which a user (a Soldier) receives sufficient information about a remote, real-world site (a battlefield) through a machine (a robot) so that the user feels physically present at the remote, real-world site."
CC.
Sure, there lie alternate universe magic monsters.
Surely you will not realize that remarks are self-referential.
CC.
ad paragraph 1: You may argue as much as you want (and I appreciate the argument that there is methods/methodology built to reduce perceived bias in human decision making), but in the end you will always come to a point (actually a hierarchy of breakpoints) when humans make decisions, all the way down (roughly) from a political consensus on 'important' research down to decisions about tweaking parameters/models in (say) a lab setting.
ad paragraph 2: The problem that you touch here ever since plagued psychologists when it came to removing bias from testing procedures. An early example of a collection of approaches is given in "Holtzman, W. H. (ed.), Computer-Assisted Instruction, Testing and Guidance, Harper and Row, New York, 1970"
ad paragraph 3: The question here is whether the localizations are indeed appropriate, and I always had my doubts. Just two examples that give the scope: "Artificial intelligence meets natural stupidity by D. McDermott - 1976"; "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) by Thomas Kuhn" may also give hints to the problems of proper localization (as well as the above mentioned consensus). Besides, especially when it comes to social research, I quite well remember the knee jerk methodology applied when a common PCFA 'does not seem right' (non-orthogonal solutions, whatever).
ad paragraph 4: above applies even more,
ad final sentence: Not so sure if I understand right, my interpretation would be that 'decisions' are not 'correlated' to the usefulness of statistical theory (which, from my point of view, is true, since statistical theory is math, which is not related to the world).
CC.
I gather you replied to the wrong post, ...
Wrong guess/decision, as you rather broadly replied to 'probability' (not statistics) working well.
Back to your original post, where you mention: "Localization and abstraction". I wonder how you do this without humans making decisions. Further: "restrict our viewpoint" - no place for "experts in human behavior" to have a say? Further: "assign probabilities to the outcome" - not a case for game theory?
CC.
... it by definition is part of this universe and not some alternate universe
Well, probably part of multiple entities?
CC.
It crashed Firefox 3.6.13 (LMDE, 2.6.32-5-amd64) as well, but only the browser.
CC.
I wrote a fractal viewer in TeX, in 1995.
...") is still around.
On a side note, fractint (Quote: "Sometime in the spring of 1988 Bert Tyler bought a brand-new IBM PS/2 386/16.
CC.
probability work so well
Does it? Kahnemann and Tversky might have thought otherwise.
CC.
impossible to prove
Could you please explain how to prove somthing within the context of empirical science? As always, I am ready to learn about progress regards epistemology and related fields.
CC.
unobservables
Irrespective of whether I agree with Green or not — these can be inferred. Dark matter and dark energy come to mind.
CC.
Now tell me about a scientific fact, proposing that we talk about empirical science here.
CC.
In the computer industry, the most impressive displays of stupidity generally result from linear extrapolation.
This is not confined to the computer industry (and not news as well).
See "The Logic of Failure", 1996 (with roots back to TANALAND, appr. 1980?)
CC.
There is no such thing as unblockable communication.
Quite broad a statement (let aside technical arguments, though I agree with your conclusion — in this world).
Think of a sort of (self imposed? — clever social engineered?) solitary confinement along the lines of "The Naked Sun" (Asimov) which prevents people to form mobs at all.
CC.
"If you make less than a million a year, you are what a rich person would call a peasant."
True.
CC.
Yes. THNX.
CC.
And that "no immersion for 3D" is utter nonsense.
Agreed; Startrek had a proof.
CC.