Being gnawed on doesn't sound fun, and could cause, or even worsen bleeding. Maybe, if after their brain went crazy with the "aha" response, they could stimulate the section of the brain that made them feel full.
Actually, robots *could* smell, if they needed to. We have electronic devices out now that attempt to compete with drug dogs. It shouldn't be that difficult (with enough research) to get them to screen for sweat, the smell of fear, microbes in breath...
That's a valid question, though. I wonder how they would deal with that. Do you think rats might have a developed enough emotional system to allow a monitor to discern between happiness at a job well done, as compared to, "cheeeeeeeeeese"?
I have to wonder if we're capable of emulating animal brains and just don't know it yet. It seems to me that we could feasibly create something in a small package, maybe terrier sized (gotta have room for batteries) that uses 400hz power (for efficiency) and instead of a single processor, uses a ton of tiny simple processors with specialized tasks. I'm sure it will take us awhile to create an AI simple and efficient enough to drive that system on a comperable level with a live rat, but an inquisitive bug that relays sensor data while exploring everything around it might be plausible.
Are you confusing probes with robots?
Too many people call mindless automatons robots. A robot, at least in my mind, needs some kind of intelligence. I'm not sure that our current ability to create an AI, in a package small enough to move around under rubble, is even remotely feasible right now.
Rats are light. They are smart enough to do tasks when trained. They are agile enough to have a good chance of not killing themselves on dangerous surfaces. Robots are cool, but let's be realistic. Save a life any way you can.
Sounds like a good idea to me. With our ability to attach sensors to brains in a lab environment, I'm sure that a system can monitor for the reaction a rat has when it considers itself successful at a task. When the monitoring system detects a happy rat, they have an idea of where to search for trapped victims.
And as much as I like dogs, german shephards are a tad large for searching through rubble.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. It isn't so much "being a reporter" as being a reporter doing a story on such and such, which would most likely supply a person with a reason to see information.
I didn't say I was trusting. I know that the government isn't, by some miracle, the only entity in the universe free of idiots and corruption. But if it was my job to second guess every decision ever made, I would be... well... a member of the government, or at least one of the watchdog groups. And the watchdog groups get most of the info they want, anyway.
Plus, when it comes to a lot of our foreign policy, the information is classified, and for good reason. It is difficult to have oversight on an organization when you don't have a clearance. Luckily for me, my senators have the needed access and do the necessary oversight on the white house and their fellow legislators. If they make crazy decisions, their fellow senators are going to make a very public stink or leak just enough information to bring the situation into the public view.
If you don't trust your elected officials, then don't reelect them.
Think about this: Right now people are used to the era before FOIA. They didn't have any access. They fought for the access not only because it could be useful to some people, but also just for the fact that people want what they do not have.
There are countless situations where the wrong people having too much information can lead to disaster, and the wrong people aren't necessarily the ones outside our borders. For one example, imagine a school system that wants to show how much they want to help parents keep track of their children by having school buses report their current position and passenger number to the world wide web? In a time where commercials and news media are pimping cell phones that report a child's location to a parent with just the press of a button, I can imagine such a scenario being excitedly received by overly invasive parents. And I sure most/. readers can imagine several situations where John Q public could use that information wrongly.
Can you imagine the public and media backlash there would be? "Why wasn't the government/police/deity protecting us from ourselves?" The same people that wanted limitless freedoms will be the ones most vocally calling for censorship.
There are people all over that shouldn't be allowed to breed. And their rampant responsibility is dangerous to them and the people around them. It is difficult to consider any object or concept and not find a situation where they can be dangerous, whether from design, misuse, or just bad luck.
Hell, if FOI is the only thing agencies consider carefully, at least they're exercising judgment on SOMETHING.
It is easy to misread the tone of a written message. Ever have a messenger conversation go to hell because of a quick-to-react emotional person on the other end gets a case of teh crazy on you? A conversation that would have gone an entirely different way over the phone or face-to-face?
The tone of his memo may be intentional. Sometimes telling people to be careful isn't enough. Sometimes, to get their attention, you need to use various means to provide emphasis on the message. Or , then again, the person that sent the message to the local goverment agencies was probably in a serious mood (it is, after all, a serious job) and the letter reflected it.
Some people think FOI means that everything should be put out into the public view for all to see. Personally, I would rather there be some judgment used. There is no need for the majority of people to know the exact layout of a sewage system, or the water distribution system, or the GPS coordinates of the government buildings in town, etc. The local government should be required to review each request and say "Oh, you're the contractor that's going to build over there? Sure, here's the info on the sewer and water." And "You're an ex-con and want to know about the power and underground access in the local financial district? Um....no"
Just because some of the loudest people are law abiding citizens doesn't mean everyone else is. I would like to know more than I do, but I realize that I don't have a need to know. And being a reporter doing a story will probably get a person past most FOI issues, so as long as the reporter and watchdog organizations remain responsible they should not have any problems keeping the government honest.
"i think the government... spoon-feeding..."
It isn't up to the public to decide what they need to know. Regardless of the claims that our congress is running blind with no real info from Bush(not likely), your elected officials are the only ones that need to know everything behind every decision.
If you want to second-guess your congressman or senator's decisions, then ask them for the reasons behind what they do. Making enough noise will scare any politician into at least a half-assed reply.
If you disagree to a sufficient degree, then don't reelect them.
However, I do not believe that the typical local government has the needed wisdom to deny FOI requests. Hopefully the state supreme court decision can put a stop to ignorant fear driven decisions made because of the sensationalist FUD being spewed daily.
When I get spammed I swear to myself while pounding . If my voip device rings I can swear at THEM for once! When I get a reputation for blowing out eardrums we'll see how often they sell my name.
Startup time isn't such a big deal for me unless the system is constantly crashing. And since I don't accidentally kill Fedora (quite) as much as I used to, I can handle a 5 minute reboot every now and then.
Your hebrew theory holds some water, but I still have my doubts.
Look at the concepts. If a 5 year old came up with them you would smile and nod, or gently explain why it was unfeasible. When adults do it we try to make excuses for them. If you are going to submit ideas for cities of the future, you need to explore the thought. If a few seconds of playing devil's advocate can vaporize an idea, then maybe a different idea is needed. If I was a judge there I would be insulted. There is nothing with coming up with unconventional ideas, but don't waste my time with trees and question marks.
Your English bit is a tad off-topic for this, but would probably generate a nice discussion if you submitted it.
I wouldn't be s urprised if we find out weeks from now that the entire event was filled with grade-school spawned projects. Then, anyone pimping idiotic ideas like the question mark city will be viciously mocked and humiliated for latching onto something so seemingly stupid that it simply must be genius!
"In nxt 250 yrs cncpts of sustnblty'd mk us thnk'f dffrnt apprches for svng energy. Wstge of papr and ink'd be rducd thru chnging th way v wrte. Th wrds v use rgulry'd b wrttn in shrtst possible way"
Or, we could continue to move towards soft copies and remove ink and paper completely. I have to wonder what influenced that entry. I suppose there is a chance that the submitter's world region is simply less progressive...
Slashdot Mirror
Being gnawed on doesn't sound fun, and could cause, or even worsen bleeding. Maybe, if after their brain went crazy with the "aha" response, they could stimulate the section of the brain that made them feel full.
Actually, robots *could* smell, if they needed to. We have electronic devices out now that attempt to compete with drug dogs. It shouldn't be that difficult (with enough research) to get them to screen for sweat, the smell of fear, microbes in breath...
Thanks for the laugh :)
That's a valid question, though. I wonder how they would deal with that. Do you think rats might have a developed enough emotional system to allow a monitor to discern between happiness at a job well done, as compared to, "cheeeeeeeeeese"?
I have to wonder if we're capable of emulating animal brains and just don't know it yet. It seems to me that we could feasibly create something in a small package, maybe terrier sized (gotta have room for batteries) that uses 400hz power (for efficiency) and instead of a single processor, uses a ton of tiny simple processors with specialized tasks. I'm sure it will take us awhile to create an AI simple and efficient enough to drive that system on a comperable level with a live rat, but an inquisitive bug that relays sensor data while exploring everything around it might be plausible.
hm... time to head to the patent office
Are you confusing probes with robots? Too many people call mindless automatons robots. A robot, at least in my mind, needs some kind of intelligence. I'm not sure that our current ability to create an AI, in a package small enough to move around under rubble, is even remotely feasible right now. Rats are light. They are smart enough to do tasks when trained. They are agile enough to have a good chance of not killing themselves on dangerous surfaces. Robots are cool, but let's be realistic. Save a life any way you can.
Sounds like a good idea to me. With our ability to attach sensors to brains in a lab environment, I'm sure that a system can monitor for the reaction a rat has when it considers itself successful at a task. When the monitoring system detects a happy rat, they have an idea of where to search for trapped victims.
And as much as I like dogs, german shephards are a tad large for searching through rubble.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. It isn't so much "being a reporter" as being a reporter doing a story on such and such, which would most likely supply a person with a reason to see information.
I didn't say I was trusting. I know that the government isn't, by some miracle, the only entity in the universe free of idiots and corruption. But if it was my job to second guess every decision ever made, I would be... well... a member of the government, or at least one of the watchdog groups. And the watchdog groups get most of the info they want, anyway.
Plus, when it comes to a lot of our foreign policy, the information is classified, and for good reason. It is difficult to have oversight on an organization when you don't have a clearance. Luckily for me, my senators have the needed access and do the necessary oversight on the white house and their fellow legislators. If they make crazy decisions, their fellow senators are going to make a very public stink or leak just enough information to bring the situation into the public view.
If you don't trust your elected officials, then don't reelect them.
Think about this: Right now people are used to the era before FOIA. They didn't have any access. They fought for the access not only because it could be useful to some people, but also just for the fact that people want what they do not have.
/. readers can imagine several situations where John Q public could use that information wrongly.
There are countless situations where the wrong people having too much information can lead to disaster, and the wrong people aren't necessarily the ones outside our borders. For one example, imagine a school system that wants to show how much they want to help parents keep track of their children by having school buses report their current position and passenger number to the world wide web? In a time where commercials and news media are pimping cell phones that report a child's location to a parent with just the press of a button, I can imagine such a scenario being excitedly received by overly invasive parents. And I sure most
Can you imagine the public and media backlash there would be? "Why wasn't the government/police/deity protecting us from ourselves?" The same people that wanted limitless freedoms will be the ones most vocally calling for censorship.
There are people all over that shouldn't be allowed to breed. And their rampant responsibility is dangerous to them and the people around them. It is difficult to consider any object or concept and not find a situation where they can be dangerous, whether from design, misuse, or just bad luck. Hell, if FOI is the only thing agencies consider carefully, at least they're exercising judgment on SOMETHING.
It is easy to misread the tone of a written message. Ever have a messenger conversation go to hell because of a quick-to-react emotional person on the other end gets a case of teh crazy on you? A conversation that would have gone an entirely different way over the phone or face-to-face?
The tone of his memo may be intentional. Sometimes telling people to be careful isn't enough. Sometimes, to get their attention, you need to use various means to provide emphasis on the message. Or , then again, the person that sent the message to the local goverment agencies was probably in a serious mood (it is, after all, a serious job) and the letter reflected it.
Some people think FOI means that everything should be put out into the public view for all to see. Personally, I would rather there be some judgment used. There is no need for the majority of people to know the exact layout of a sewage system, or the water distribution system, or the GPS coordinates of the government buildings in town, etc. The local government should be required to review each request and say "Oh, you're the contractor that's going to build over there? Sure, here's the info on the sewer and water." And "You're an ex-con and want to know about the power and underground access in the local financial district? Um....no"
Just because some of the loudest people are law abiding citizens doesn't mean everyone else is. I would like to know more than I do, but I realize that I don't have a need to know. And being a reporter doing a story will probably get a person past most FOI issues, so as long as the reporter and watchdog organizations remain responsible they should not have any problems keeping the government honest.
"i think the government... spoon-feeding..." It isn't up to the public to decide what they need to know. Regardless of the claims that our congress is running blind with no real info from Bush(not likely), your elected officials are the only ones that need to know everything behind every decision.
If you want to second-guess your congressman or senator's decisions, then ask them for the reasons behind what they do. Making enough noise will scare any politician into at least a half-assed reply.
If you disagree to a sufficient degree, then don't reelect them.
However, I do not believe that the typical local government has the needed wisdom to deny FOI requests. Hopefully the state supreme court decision can put a stop to ignorant fear driven decisions made because of the sensationalist FUD being spewed daily.
When I get spammed I swear to myself while pounding . If my voip device rings I can swear at THEM for once! When I get a reputation for blowing out eardrums we'll see how often they sell my name.
I thought that an ap needs to be somewhat smp friendly for hyperthreading to do much for it?
Startup time isn't such a big deal for me unless the system is constantly crashing. And since I don't accidentally kill Fedora (quite) as much as I used to, I can handle a 5 minute reboot every now and then.
Your hebrew theory holds some water, but I still have my doubts. Look at the concepts. If a 5 year old came up with them you would smile and nod, or gently explain why it was unfeasible. When adults do it we try to make excuses for them. If you are going to submit ideas for cities of the future, you need to explore the thought. If a few seconds of playing devil's advocate can vaporize an idea, then maybe a different idea is needed. If I was a judge there I would be insulted. There is nothing with coming up with unconventional ideas, but don't waste my time with trees and question marks. Your English bit is a tad off-topic for this, but would probably generate a nice discussion if you submitted it.
I wouldn't be s urprised if we find out weeks from now that the entire event was filled with grade-school spawned projects. Then, anyone pimping idiotic ideas like the question mark city will be viciously mocked and humiliated for latching onto something so seemingly stupid that it simply must be genius!
"In nxt 250 yrs cncpts of sustnblty'd mk us thnk'f dffrnt apprches for svng energy. Wstge of papr and ink'd be rducd thru chnging th way v wrte. Th wrds v use rgulry'd b wrttn in shrtst possible way" Or, we could continue to move towards soft copies and remove ink and paper completely. I have to wonder what influenced that entry. I suppose there is a chance that the submitter's world region is simply less progressive...