Yes, the military has had ideas about the application of technology that could create 'kill-bots', however, one has to realize that using sensors to determine terain is still a long way off from enemy/ally recognition. What's the use of making some Mechwarrior-type missle launching autonomous robot if it can only recognize moving targets? Anyone can be killed by that.
Besides, not everything is black and white as a lot of people would like to make it seem. There are offensive capabilities granted by autonomous machines, but there are also defensive/rescue/supply/whatever options to explore as well.
Just because we can make something autonomous for one task doesn't mean we automatically have Gundams on autopilot destroying entire nations. The technology will most likey integrate with the military tech we already have, not replace everything overnight.
So we've all talked about the foibles of the Microsoft products and Windows opperating systems and still we question if they're going for a 'softer image'.
Does 'soft image' include floating Sun Microsystems (who was about to go under) a $2 billion dollar check with an attached note that reads "I'll let you live as long as you agree to never bad-mouth us again. EVER." Or how about then using their newly purchased ally to jointly bash IBM and Linux after realizing that MS is starting to lose some of its grip on the server market?
Bill Gates is much less of a coder than he is a businessman. He knows how to protect his assets, and I wouldn't put much of anything past him in terms of the lengths he would go to for the sake of deceiving who he has to to keep the company alive. Donating to charity is a great thing overall, but I have to wonder about the motives. Bill Gates has an extremely intelligent business model for the long haul, part of which has been unoficially 'buying' competitors to keep them afloat just so they don't get more antritrust issues than they should for about 20 years now.
Back to the topic, last I heard, Ballmer was still trying to convince server opperators to run Windows Server 2003 because it was more secure than Red Hat 6 (not mentioning that RH6 is over 5-6 years old by now).
Actually, though, I like the pre 10-02 mission statement. It actually helps describe how things are starting to change on the front of 'any place'. True, Windows CE is still running a lot of handheld devices, but there are quite a few companies that are starting to sell PDA's, compact PC's and other small gadgets with modified Linux distros on them due to the mutability of the *nix systems and lack of code bloat.
So while it is true, that if your company makes a portable electronic device with a winmodem, you're probably dealing with CE, some people are slowly starting to see the advantage that MS does empower people to run great software any place. When they can only use X amount of space to install a system, CE may end up being too bulky and cumbersome, hence comes great software.
I, personally agree to the idea that by the age of 17, he should be held accountable for his actions, but there's something else to consider:
While his parents probably wouldn't have known what he was doing if they were watching (lord knows my mom asks me to be the family tech support because she doesn't understand computers that well), as long as the court is going to put him behind the shield of his parents, they should share some of the sentence. If the case decides that the parenting is to blame for some of it and it even takes off some of the final sentencing, then they should be held accountable. To do otherwise would be like getting arrested for possession of marijuana, getting off because it actually belonged to your friend, but then your friend doesn't get busted like they should (according to law, I'm not making a personal opinion on that).
I believe I should have made my point clearer. Yes, Americans have created many great things in the world of technology and some still do. However, the problem lies in the fact that the mindset and degenerating work ethic a large number (large number does not include all) of people here are content to create something good or even great and then let it collect dust.
While not to be taken too literally, many companies now create one or two great products and get a great deal of success from it. After that point, many (once again, not all) give up on future innovation and simply update the product often enough to maintain the complacency of the general user base. From here on out the users, most often think "Well, it ain't broke, and I don't want to have to get used to a new Interface/Commands/Features/etc.")
And as far as working more hours than any industrialized nation, bigger isn't always better. Lately, many software engineers are losing productivity when compared to, for example, (dare I say it) India.
A great example of where more input doesn't always yield proprotionate output is in the American public school system: We spend more money on public schooling than any nation in the world and yet our public schools rank only 53rd best out of all industrialized nations in terms of accademic performace and that number is dropping still.
What worries more than anything is when US companies rest on the laurels of their achievments and ultimately stagnate. Where others may be more concerned about making new or better products, many companies in America are starting (keyword: starting) to fall into the trap of creating one good thing and spending too much of their time defending the intellectual property rights on unreasonable levels (see also: rights to domain names fought by the likes of Microsoft and Dell).
Not to be ignored is the point I'd like to rephrase that there are still many good innovators and creators in the US as there are everywhere. If you are one of those, then I make no claim that you belong to the growing majority of the people that don't even need to be happy with something, as long as they're used to 'good enough'.
It is unlikely that Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux, ever intended this open-source operating system to be put to military use.
Then again, what was created to entertain the Chinese became a staple tool of warfare. (see also, Gunpowder)
But taking good with bad applications is what you must be prepared for when creating anything. However, I keep reading these article replies speaking of the advantage it gives India over the US unless we 'get on the wagon' but it doesn't seem to be happening. Why? The majority of American people are lazy. Even people that I told about the new Windows Genuine Scam to get everyone buying Windows XP refuse to learn something new once they've become comfortable with their system that they know how to work...sort of (Yelling to kids: How do I fix this?). It's that sort of mentality that makes the majority of America's technology practices a relic.
Besides, while other countries lead the way in developing new technology, America seems to be changing its focus to that of arbitrating everything possible on the internet. Afterall, What good is having a website with your last name in the domain if your last name is Dell? None, Dell jumped onto the wagon like MS to covet domains.
Don't feel bad America, stay lazy, make sloppy code, and become a virtual despot. But one the bright side, you'll own the rights to every URL you can think of.
If I can remember my research correctly, the size of the brain is not what matters but how it is...assembled, if you will. The human brain is actally more like a big (approximately) 5ft by 5ft sheet that is about 2-4 millimeters thick. What gives our brains some of the 'higher thinking' capability and overall workings is the way it is folded. These folds allow more more neuron connections in many more ways than if the brain was simply one large solid lump. Again, this is still somewhat of a simplification, but a more researched one albiet. I hope that can clear something up.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the military has had ideas about the application of technology that could create 'kill-bots', however, one has to realize that using sensors to determine terain is still a long way off from enemy/ally recognition. What's the use of making some Mechwarrior-type missle launching autonomous robot if it can only recognize moving targets? Anyone can be killed by that.
Besides, not everything is black and white as a lot of people would like to make it seem. There are offensive capabilities granted by autonomous machines, but there are also defensive/rescue/supply/whatever options to explore as well.
Just because we can make something autonomous for one task doesn't mean we automatically have Gundams on autopilot destroying entire nations. The technology will most likey integrate with the military tech we already have, not replace everything overnight.
So we've all talked about the foibles of the Microsoft products and Windows opperating systems and still we question if they're going for a 'softer image'.
Does 'soft image' include floating Sun Microsystems (who was about to go under) a $2 billion dollar check with an attached note that reads "I'll let you live as long as you agree to never bad-mouth us again. EVER." Or how about then using their newly purchased ally to jointly bash IBM and Linux after realizing that MS is starting to lose some of its grip on the server market?
Bill Gates is much less of a coder than he is a businessman. He knows how to protect his assets, and I wouldn't put much of anything past him in terms of the lengths he would go to for the sake of deceiving who he has to to keep the company alive. Donating to charity is a great thing overall, but I have to wonder about the motives. Bill Gates has an extremely intelligent business model for the long haul, part of which has been unoficially 'buying' competitors to keep them afloat just so they don't get more antritrust issues than they should for about 20 years now.
Softer Image? I'm not buying it.
Back to the topic, last I heard, Ballmer was still trying to convince server opperators to run Windows Server 2003 because it was more secure than Red Hat 6 (not mentioning that RH6 is over 5-6 years old by now).
Actually, though, I like the pre 10-02 mission statement. It actually helps describe how things are starting to change on the front of 'any place'. True, Windows CE is still running a lot of handheld devices, but there are quite a few companies that are starting to sell PDA's, compact PC's and other small gadgets with modified Linux distros on them due to the mutability of the *nix systems and lack of code bloat.
So while it is true, that if your company makes a portable electronic device with a winmodem, you're probably dealing with CE, some people are slowly starting to see the advantage that MS does empower people to run great software any place. When they can only use X amount of space to install a system, CE may end up being too bulky and cumbersome, hence comes great software.
I, personally agree to the idea that by the age of 17, he should be held accountable for his actions, but there's something else to consider:
While his parents probably wouldn't have known what he was doing if they were watching (lord knows my mom asks me to be the family tech support because she doesn't understand computers that well), as long as the court is going to put him behind the shield of his parents, they should share some of the sentence. If the case decides that the parenting is to blame for some of it and it even takes off some of the final sentencing, then they should be held accountable. To do otherwise would be like getting arrested for possession of marijuana, getting off because it actually belonged to your friend, but then your friend doesn't get busted like they should (according to law, I'm not making a personal opinion on that).
I believe I should have made my point clearer. Yes, Americans have created many great things in the world of technology and some still do. However, the problem lies in the fact that the mindset and degenerating work ethic a large number (large number does not include all) of people here are content to create something good or even great and then let it collect dust.
While not to be taken too literally, many companies now create one or two great products and get a great deal of success from it. After that point, many (once again, not all) give up on future innovation and simply update the product often enough to maintain the complacency of the general user base. From here on out the users, most often think "Well, it ain't broke, and I don't want to have to get used to a new Interface/Commands/Features/etc.")
And as far as working more hours than any industrialized nation, bigger isn't always better. Lately, many software engineers are losing productivity when compared to, for example, (dare I say it) India.
A great example of where more input doesn't always yield proprotionate output is in the American public school system: We spend more money on public schooling than any nation in the world and yet our public schools rank only 53rd best out of all industrialized nations in terms of accademic performace and that number is dropping still.
What worries more than anything is when US companies rest on the laurels of their achievments and ultimately stagnate. Where others may be more concerned about making new or better products, many companies in America are starting (keyword: starting) to fall into the trap of creating one good thing and spending too much of their time defending the intellectual property rights on unreasonable levels (see also: rights to domain names fought by the likes of Microsoft and Dell).
Not to be ignored is the point I'd like to rephrase that there are still many good innovators and creators in the US as there are everywhere. If you are one of those, then I make no claim that you belong to the growing majority of the people that don't even need to be happy with something, as long as they're used to 'good enough'.
It is unlikely that Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux, ever intended this open-source operating system to be put to military use.
Then again, what was created to entertain the Chinese became a staple tool of warfare. (see also, Gunpowder)
But taking good with bad applications is what you must be prepared for when creating anything. However, I keep reading these article replies speaking of the advantage it gives India over the US unless we 'get on the wagon' but it doesn't seem to be happening. Why? The majority of American people are lazy. Even people that I told about the new Windows Genuine Scam to get everyone buying Windows XP refuse to learn something new once they've become comfortable with their system that they know how to work...sort of (Yelling to kids: How do I fix this?). It's that sort of mentality that makes the majority of America's technology practices a relic.
Besides, while other countries lead the way in developing new technology, America seems to be changing its focus to that of arbitrating everything possible on the internet. Afterall, What good is having a website with your last name in the domain if your last name is Dell? None, Dell jumped onto the wagon like MS to covet domains.
Don't feel bad America, stay lazy, make sloppy code, and become a virtual despot. But one the bright side, you'll own the rights to every URL you can think of.
If I can remember my research correctly, the size of the brain is not what matters but how it is...assembled, if you will. The human brain is actally more like a big (approximately) 5ft by 5ft sheet that is about 2-4 millimeters thick. What gives our brains some of the 'higher thinking' capability and overall workings is the way it is folded. These folds allow more more neuron connections in many more ways than if the brain was simply one large solid lump. Again, this is still somewhat of a simplification, but a more researched one albiet. I hope that can clear something up.