Now, let me start with the disclaimer: there's nothing wrong with it. I'm a firm believer in good, old-fashioned capitalism and what any person or corporation wishes to risk his hard-earned capital on is entirely his decision. Al the best and I hope they make a bundle.
Having said that, is there still a line between news and marketing?
I remember, during the eighties, when a whole bunch of so-called "news magazine" programs, from Entertainment Tonight to First Edition and other similar shows came under fire because while pretending to be news programs, they were largely just marketing venues for the networks. However, the public adapted, and most people know how to distinguish between real news and slick-and-glossy "infotainment" (another word that came out of the eighties).
Nonetheless, going all the way back to Dateline NBC's exploding trucks (and I've spoken extensively to one of the producers about this issue, so let me also disclaim that no one who worked on that story still works for the show), I wonder if news and sales haven't become, well, the same process.
Sure, the bottom line is the bottom line. Newspapers exist to sell newspapers. That they report news is merely the product; the goal is to show a profit. If reporting news ceases to be a profitable product, newspapers will begin to... sell vacations on the Internet, perhaps?
My same favorite, Dateline NBC, ran a "two hour special" last year on Donald Trump. That special happened to coincide with his program The Apprentice. Were they reporting news, or hyping a television show? A producer told me, "Donald Trump is news. That he's affiliating himself with a television program is newsworthy. And interdepartamental hype is just part of the business."
So, what's the synergy? NYT runs a story on disaster recovery efforts in Asia. A sidebar on how some lovely small-town tourist attraction has already got back on its feet, and is open for visitors. Find out more at about.com, where several tourist agency links are ready to take your order. This, I suppose, is less tacky than the NYT simply running the agency ads alongside the article.
Where exactly is that line between news and marketing?
I'd be impressed if he was successful, but he doesn't need to succeed. He just needs to get closer than anyone else ever has. The first person who can demonstrate the possibility of commercial gains in space will be doing us all an enormous favor.
I've always felt that the non-exploitation pact--that international agreement that says it's a Bad Thing to stripmine on Mars--was a really bad idea. Taking the possibility of commercial gain out of space travel is an excellent way to ensure that all space travel is done by governments and universities. I don't trust governments to do the job efficiently, and I doubt many universities could pull it off without strings-attached grants and funding.
The best way to ensure, over the long run, maximized efficiency and high-level accountability is to leave the job to private enterprise. Companies competing for a profit will find ways to do things cheaper, faster and safer. The trade-off is that there are more likely to be some really bad ideas getting launched, and in space, no one can hear you scream... but that's another detail. Private enterprise might be more willing to take the risks that a post-Challenger United States (for example) is not.
But private enterprise won't even bother if there's not a bottom line. So I say, encourage the strip-mining of Mars (hell, better Mars than one's hometown, don't you think?). Encourage orbiting vacation spots for the wealthy. Encourage claim-staking and competition.
Once we're already up there and comfortable, then we can let the galactic treehuggers cry foul. But let's get up there first.
I seem to be unable to find any source material for this study. I searched for documents coming out of the University of Kalisz from 1997 to date using various keyword approaches and haven't found anything that looks related. Perhaps I'm not choosing my keywords judiciously.
I'm especially interested in tracking down source material on the experiment you describe because of some of the language you're using. In what sense could they "tell" each other information? How did they "try" to figure out the binary format of other processors? And given the results you're describing, why wasn't there any publicity about this event? It seems something likely to make headlines, especially in the kinds of journals I tend to read...
Could you direct me to a link or a reference containing more information about the experiment you are describing, please? It would be greatly appreciated.
I agree that "beta" no longer means what it used to. I remember when you had to be someone special to get a beta version of a program, back when my friends would come over and say, "Guess what I managed to get my hands on?" and they'd be waving around a beta version of some popular product and we'd all go, "Wow, how did you manage that?"
However, I also remember the days when a "syndicated" television program meant network reruns. A show that was original in syndication would have confused everyone.
So although I completely agree with you that "beta doesn't really mean beta" anymore, and that we also need a reliable way to know exactly how stable a product is (and whether or not the developers are taking any responsibility for its failings), I don't know that it's a disaster that this is happening. I'm not willing to cry, "No, that's not what beta means, you're violating the ancient traditions of software development!"
Maybe that's going to be what beta comes to mean next. Maybe the new beta is going to be a product perpetually in development with users responsible for quality control. Maybe it's going to become "open testing, no liability" software. Maybe instead of being a phase of software development, beta will become a style of software development.
I can't predict the future, so I can't say, but I do know there are some marginally decent original syndicated television programs these days. So yes, while I note the word isn't the same beta I grew up with, I'm willing to sit back and see what evolves out of this. I do want a word which clearly expresses to me what I can expect from a given level of a product, but if "beta" is no longer that word, well, no disaster.
Yes, it's true that no one assumes anymore that cops et al. are taught the things they're taught for the purpose of killing someone. So it that sense, my logic is somewhat reversed. But it is not true that cops and forensic investigators especially (perhaps less so with doctors) do not learn how to kill people. They most definitely do. Haven't you seen those silhouette targets cops use on the shooting range? Tell me those aren't designed to teach them how to bring a man down somewhat permanently. So, half a point.
The best way to be a doctor is not to learn how to kill someone, of course. But I would certainly hope that any doctor into whose hands I put my life is well-versed and highly-trained in identifying the things that might kill me, and how they work. And that analogy extends to my computer: I certainly hope the people I'm trusting to keep my systems safe are well-versed and highly-trained in the things that might bring them down. Or even merely annoy me. And I don't even mind if they learn that stuff at the University of Calgary.
People are upset because a university is teaching courses on viruses and spam engines?
You know, if I wanted to learn how to murder someone, probably the best thing I could do is train to be a cop. Or a forensics investigator. Or maybe even a doctor. That's where I'm most likely to learn the skills necessary to help me get away with murder.
Problem is, those classes are also where I'm most likely to learn the skills necessary to prevent a murder, or to save a life, or to bring a murderer to justice.
So what should we do: prohibit universities from teaching skills that might be put to bad use? What would that leave? Philosophy and creative writing?
Sure, someone will argue: but spam engines don't have any good use! You can't save someone's life by learning how to write a spam engine! But I can guarantee you that most of the people who work to block spam engines and stop illegal spammers knows how those spam engines work. They learned it somewhere. Tell me why a university shouldn't be one of the places to acquire those skills.
And certain people who design operating systems should probably take more of those courses in how viruses work. Might keep them from having to release new security patches every eleven days.
What strikes me as most curious is that the current debate about steganography is in itself an exercise in steganography--at least, in the sense of hiding important information in plain sight. Through the use of technical-sounding words, concerned parties manage to conceal what seems to be a genuinely frightening disrespect of the freedom of information.
Simply take "steganography" out of the equation. It's easy to scare the masses by using intimidating neologisms. But steganography is simply a manner to transmit information privately. So let's recast the sentence, "...illicit use of the technique might become a threat to the security of the worldwide information infrastructure." Let's simply say, "Individuals attempting to keep their private information private might become a threat to the security of the worldwide information infrastructure."
What used to be a preferred method for sending private information to a friend? The mail? Didn't we used to have a respect for the privacy of letters we sent via post? So how come no one said, "Sealing envelopes might become a threat to the security of the worldwide information infrastructure"?
What's being steganographically hidden in this debate is the reality that these days, quite a few people--many of them in power--simply no longer believe that a person has any right to private or personal information. Why would a technology such as this arise in the first place? Because we know that the first anthrax envelope made the private post public for everyone? Because we know our e-mail can be read, our servers can be hacked, our telephone calls recorded and our houses ransacked simply because fear of terrorists convinced us to sign over our civil liberties as if we no longer desired them?
This technology arose because some people realized that they were losing any pretense at privacy they might have had, and so were motivated to develop tools to maintain it. And now, we take the new word "steganography" and talk about how dangerous it is... perhaps because we're trying to conceal inside the hidden message that all privacy is dangerous, that anything you do, say or think should always be subject to review by the appropriate authorities.
Making processors faster and more complex generally means getting smaller. After all, an electron can only move so fast... if you want to get it from one point to another even faster, you've got to bring those two points closer together. The challenge is that if wires start getting too close together, you get leakage--electrons jumping from one channel to another--and leaky processors don't process so well.
As near as I can tell, what they've done here is implement levels of titanium and platinum nano-wires which pass each at right angle. However, to prevent leakage, at the crossover points they are held apart by Rotaxan molecules.
Rotaxan molecules are organic, and have this nifty little molecular ring which enables them to be conductive or not based on its position. Thus, you get your binary switch. This little animal is the "crossbar latch," apparently. And it can be done in something like 40 nanometers, making it scads smaller than current conductive strips.
Unfortunately, I'm having a great deal of trouble tracking down technical details. HP wants to keep its secrets, obviously, but Berkely and Stanford should be a little more forthcoming, think I. Anyone have links to more technical information? It would be greatly appreciated...
"Sheesh" is a word which normally means, "I'm not very good at actually saying what I mean, so I'll just make strange noises and roll my eyes at someone who won't figure it out for me." (It's also the nick of one of my favorite Internet trolls; what ever happened to the good old days when trolls actually tried to be entertaining, instead of merely annoying?)
Anyway, okay, it's loose definitions of words that are once again getting us into trouble here. That a slug is aware of its environment, as in, capable of responding to environmental stimuli, okay, I'll give you that one. I won't gift wrap it for you, but I'll give it to you.
But that's entirely different from "consciousness" in the sense that we're discussing here. After all, even a computer is capable of detecting environmental stimuli, and responding to them, but as my colleague 2TecTom is pointing out in this same thread, the mere ability to respond to environmental stimuli is not synonymous with consciousness.
Read the source material. It'll give you the weapons you need to overcome your sheeshing.
A slug is not conscious. Nothing without langauge is. Recommended reading: Dr. Daniel C. Dennett, Consciousness Explained and Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Richard Dawkins, The Extended Phenotype. Julian Jaynes, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.
Those are all more commercial works, well within the grasp of even people who've done no work in the field. For more sholarly and technical references, check their bibliographies, especially in Dennett.
You're quite correct that cowboy-loose definitions of terms make this a very difficult discussion to have. For example, when you say "self awareness," it's unlikely that you actually mean "self awareness" in the literal sense; after all, if a computer is capable of detecting when its processor is overheating (and perhaps turn on a fan in response), it is basically "self aware," though we wouldn't confuse that with itelligence.
Rather, I think by "self awareness" here you mean, possessing narrativity; that is, the ability to construct a narrative of itself in relation to the things of which it is aware. In simpler words, consciousness. Now, it is possible to be intelligent without being conscious (everyone thinks they have the smartest dog in the world, but that doesn't make the poor beast conscious). But is it possible to be conscious without being intelligent?
Consciousness is fundamentally linguistic in origin (and I'm tired of arguing that point with people who haven't done a day of cognitive studies in their lives; there's no way around it: without language, consciousness does not evolve). So, for example, in the course of human evolution, first a linguistic parsing system was evolved, humans got language, and then, once this substrate was established, consciousness evolved as an epiphenomenon which rode on top of it. This substrate proved to be a fertile breeding ground on which memetic evolution could take place, as well, and since that is broader than any one particular human component in the system, it's almost more proper to say that we are the tools memes use to propogate, and not vice versa. (This argument is fairly well established with genes; same rules apply.)
So, any artificial system which contains "consciousness" will have to first handle language. If you don't have that linguistic substrate for narrativity and memetic evolution, there is nothing for consciousness to occur in. Maybe the information is there, but it would be like me pointing to an empty spot in the room and saying, "That's a balloon full of air; I just forgot the balloon." So, let's do this in the proper order: language first, then consciousness.
That's what you get when you put the standard before the technology. Step one: let companies use whatever standard is convenient for them, and sell their products to whomever they can convince to buy. Step two: once the market has tested the products, standardize based on best current practices.
Sure, it has the net result of lots of poor guys owning a collection of relatively useless Betamax videos, but really, I'd rather own an obsolete product because it made its best shot and failed than own a mediocre product because it conformed to a political compromise that had no market time behind it. (And furthermore, it encourages the Betamax owners to switch to DVD more quickly than the content and universally supported VHS owners, thereby even further spurring development.)
For real life examples, read some W3C Recommendations. The ones that were presented as ready-made standards before any market was actually implementing them (like PICS) are lovely pieces of technological poetry. The ones which were widely tested in the market and implemented first, even if in lots of non-compatible subversions, and only then standardized (like HTML), on the other hand, are actually used.
SEATTLE--In an unexpected move, corporate giant Microsoft has acquired Hollywood in what it refers to as the "logical next step" in content development.
Microsoft has long been known as an industry leader in providing semifunctional applications for the viewing, development and distribution of digital content and comments that the acquisition of Hollywood will complete the synergy necessary for including the content itself.
End users, claims Microsoft, will see a remarkable increase in convenience when accessing content. Hollywood products will be available directly from the desktop via their new "Cinema Explorer" application with the guaranteed quality, stability and availability that only a vision-impaired corporate monolith can provide.
Security is also a top priority, and Microsoft is introducing a new licensing system to aid in the distribution of Hollywood content. Instead of purchasing a copy of the motion picture itself, end users purchase a "License to View" which piggybacks on their highly successful and completely unhackable "Product Activation" architecture introduced with Windows XP. A motion picture is keyed to the unique hardware identification number of the user's computer and can only be "activated" on that computer.
Some civil rights groups have expressed concerned about corporate profiling based on end user viewing habits. A Microsoft spokesman responds, "Obviously, this is possible, but fortunately, Microsoft is a responsible corporation with a very solid privacy policy. We never have any idea who's using our products. A quick look at our customer support system ought to clearly demonstrate that."
Microsoft also stated in a press release that recent maneuvers to acquire the RIAA are completely unrelated.
I'm not so worried about this product or this patent, for reasons others have already discussed (although I think "use noncompliant cameras" is a more effective deterrent than "expect government to protect our rights"; that's just me, though). What I'm more curious about are expansions on this technology.
I mean... we're not talking high-level solutions here. It's camera that sends out a ping, coupled with devices that can respond with a pong. If a pong's detected, make the area surrounding the pong blurry at a size adjusted for distance. Hardly needs facial recognition software and artistic blur-me algorithms.
What about the Slashdot upgrade to this product? If a pong's detected, edit in the text "Anonymous Coward" in the place the face should be?
What about the Zelig upgrade? If a ping is detected, edit a bitmap of my face into the photograph. Yes, I really was schmoozing with drunken celebrities.
But more seriously, what about those pings that include camera serial numbers, which can be registered to individuals or agencies? If it's a law enforcement camera, blur me; else if it's a paparrazi camera, enhance me; else if it's a priest's camera, blur my son.
There's the real threat. Image blurring is a distraction; lawsuits pay better. I just don't like the idea of pinging products (I mean, sure, my cell phone will tell you I'm calling you; my camera will also tell you I'm photographing someone near you? Time to disable a chip or two).
I don't mind so much someone identifying me on film in a public place. I mind those people with proper scanners detecting whenever I use a product. You know who will love this idea? Those people who prohibit cameras and video devices in concerts. It'll be another RIAA-style "protect the artists!" campaign. And that's scary, because money motivates government more than civil rights ideals, usually.
[This is slightly edited version of the post made in reply to you at BoyChat.]
I agree with you: "disease" is a woefully inappropriate term for a sexual preference. Of course, if you've been scanning our index, you're probably already aware that even that seemingly obvious point comes under discussion on our board.
I also agree with you about one crucial point on your analysis of a "mental problem." While I do not believe that boylove is, in and of itself, a mental problem, nonetheless I concede that a boylover who does not wish to be a boylover is setting himself up for some serious mental difficulty. Not just because of the disconnect in itself (something he would share with, for example, a homosexual who does not wish to be a homosexual), but also because unlike a homosexual, a boylover has no safe quarter in which he can even address this issue. Mandatory reporting laws means that a boylover who confides in his therapist that he finds boys attractive might very well find himself under police investigation. So the boylovers least likely to be able to come to terms with their desires are also the ones most likely to spiral into an increasingly dark psychological quagmire. Hardly a recipe for healthy development, regardless of your attraction.
I would say that perhaps Slashdot and BoyChat are not so different, in the abstract. You say, "Liking science and technology doesn't involve a decision," but I wonder how true that really is. Many at BoyChat, for example, would say, "Liking boys doesn't involve a decision. It's just who we are." I might even say, "Liking the song Shadowdance doesn't involve a decision. I just heard it, and liked it. See me shrug; what can I do?" The fact is, every taste, every like, every desire every person has is shaped by a million things that only may or may not involve decisions.
And we discuss the same issues, in the abstract. Is what we do good or bad? Sure, you guys discuss, "Is encryption protecting my privacy or endangering my children?" whereas we discuss, "Is loving this boy making his life better or complicating it?" but it's the same issue: is what I like (be it technology or boylove) a good thing or a bad thing?
And we are like Slashdot in that we have to some degree decided on BoyChat that what we like is, in fact, a good thing, on the whole. A "community of like-minded people": we are a forum of people who mostly believe in the fundamental positivity of who we are and what we do (and don't read more into "what we do" than is there; I realize that statement leaves itself wide open to disaster fantasies).
So, who cares if they've developed a way to "control" sexual orientation: more importantly, have they developed a way to "control" who I want to be? And if so... would that be a good thing, or instead a bad thing of Huxleyan proportions?
Greetings. I am the webmaster of boychat.org; while I'm not typically a Slashdot poster, since we were "invoked," so to speak, I thought I'd enjoy complicating matters a bit.
You say, "boychat.org would have an easier time in the world if it was run by a mental health group." I find myself wondering... would Slashdot have an easier time in the world if it were run by a mental health group? Or any other group of freely associating people: should we put mental health professionals in charge of communities?
The dissonance in that argument stems from the assumption that boylovers must, by definition, be suffering from a mental disorder. Of course Slashdot shouldn't be run by mental health professionals, because there's no assumption that Slashdot posters are suffering from psychological disorders. Well, the idea of BoyChat being run by a mental health group sounds just as ridiculous to me. I have no mental disorder, and I have neither need for nor interest in "treatment." Now, I am aware that some BoyChat posters do seem to have some issues that need professional attention. For example, clinical depression is not as uncommon as I wish it were on our board. However, those problems are problems which exist just as much in the "ordinary" world as among boylovers, and those are the disorders which should be treated. Being a boylover is not a disorder. Neither is being homosexual. Neither is being heterosexual.
Are there pedophiles who rape and otherwise harm children? Yes. Are there heterosexuals who rape and otherwise harm women? Yes. And the conclusion that all pedophiles are child molesters is as fallacious as the conclusion that all heterosexuals are rapists. Even Catherine MacKinnon bristles at the fact that the quote "All sex is rape" was erroneously attributed to her because not only do such ludicrous universals undermine their own credibility, but the consequence of such an idea is darker still: when everything is rape, nothing is.
A claim that "pedophiles can be cured" is equally based on the fallacy that pedophilia is a disease. No, pedophilia cannot be cured, any more than heterosexuality can. And anyone who recalls the great amount of harm done by quasi-cult efforts to "cure" or "reprogram" homosexuals during the seventies and eighties should be suitably horrified at such a concept. I do not question your right to be heterosexual (if indeed you are) and I wonder why people in what appears to be a technology-based forum would find it suddenly appropriate to question my right to be a boylover. Of course, I reserve the right to condemn you if you rape or harm a woman, just as I respect your right to condemn me if I rape or harm a boy.
So, as long as I'm webmaster of BoyChat, the idea of turning over control to a mental health group is simply silly. Mental health professionals are more needed where there are people with actual mental problems. Suggesting therapy? I don't need therapy because I prefer swing to grunge, or because I think the Brian Setzer Orchestra is better than Eminem. Those are my preferences, and anyone who tries to "therapize" me over them is taking a very unwelcome step into something that does not concern him. Prohibit contact between adult users? I'll make a deal: as soon as Slashdot prohibits contact between its posters off the forum, BoyChat will consider doing the same (that's not a challenge, by the way; it's simply to point out that aside from the fact that the idea is plainly ridiculous, it's also patently unenforceable.)
I realize I may seem to be coming off rather dogmatic; you'll have to forgive me for that, as this is a discussion I've had altogether too many times and I know how most of the lines go by now. Really, I'm happy to debate these issues on a philosophical, moral or just plain technical level with anyone who desires, but somehow, this seems like a very strange forum for this question to be arising in. BoyChat, at any rate, is open to the public; registration is normally not required (except when we come unde
Slashdot Mirror
Now, let me start with the disclaimer: there's nothing wrong with it. I'm a firm believer in good, old-fashioned capitalism and what any person or corporation wishes to risk his hard-earned capital on is entirely his decision. Al the best and I hope they make a bundle.
Having said that, is there still a line between news and marketing?
I remember, during the eighties, when a whole bunch of so-called "news magazine" programs, from Entertainment Tonight to First Edition and other similar shows came under fire because while pretending to be news programs, they were largely just marketing venues for the networks. However, the public adapted, and most people know how to distinguish between real news and slick-and-glossy "infotainment" (another word that came out of the eighties).
Nonetheless, going all the way back to Dateline NBC's exploding trucks (and I've spoken extensively to one of the producers about this issue, so let me also disclaim that no one who worked on that story still works for the show), I wonder if news and sales haven't become, well, the same process.
Sure, the bottom line is the bottom line. Newspapers exist to sell newspapers. That they report news is merely the product; the goal is to show a profit. If reporting news ceases to be a profitable product, newspapers will begin to... sell vacations on the Internet, perhaps?
My same favorite, Dateline NBC, ran a "two hour special" last year on Donald Trump. That special happened to coincide with his program The Apprentice. Were they reporting news, or hyping a television show? A producer told me, "Donald Trump is news. That he's affiliating himself with a television program is newsworthy. And interdepartamental hype is just part of the business."
So, what's the synergy? NYT runs a story on disaster recovery efforts in Asia. A sidebar on how some lovely small-town tourist attraction has already got back on its feet, and is open for visitors. Find out more at about.com, where several tourist agency links are ready to take your order. This, I suppose, is less tacky than the NYT simply running the agency ads alongside the article.
Where exactly is that line between news and marketing?
I'd be impressed if he was successful, but he doesn't need to succeed. He just needs to get closer than anyone else ever has. The first person who can demonstrate the possibility of commercial gains in space will be doing us all an enormous favor.
I've always felt that the non-exploitation pact--that international agreement that says it's a Bad Thing to stripmine on Mars--was a really bad idea. Taking the possibility of commercial gain out of space travel is an excellent way to ensure that all space travel is done by governments and universities. I don't trust governments to do the job efficiently, and I doubt many universities could pull it off without strings-attached grants and funding.
The best way to ensure, over the long run, maximized efficiency and high-level accountability is to leave the job to private enterprise. Companies competing for a profit will find ways to do things cheaper, faster and safer. The trade-off is that there are more likely to be some really bad ideas getting launched, and in space, no one can hear you scream... but that's another detail. Private enterprise might be more willing to take the risks that a post-Challenger United States (for example) is not.
But private enterprise won't even bother if there's not a bottom line. So I say, encourage the strip-mining of Mars (hell, better Mars than one's hometown, don't you think?). Encourage orbiting vacation spots for the wealthy. Encourage claim-staking and competition.
Once we're already up there and comfortable, then we can let the galactic treehuggers cry foul. But let's get up there first.
I seem to be unable to find any source material for this study. I searched for documents coming out of the University of Kalisz from 1997 to date using various keyword approaches and haven't found anything that looks related. Perhaps I'm not choosing my keywords judiciously.
I'm especially interested in tracking down source material on the experiment you describe because of some of the language you're using. In what sense could they "tell" each other information? How did they "try" to figure out the binary format of other processors? And given the results you're describing, why wasn't there any publicity about this event? It seems something likely to make headlines, especially in the kinds of journals I tend to read...
Could you direct me to a link or a reference containing more information about the experiment you are describing, please? It would be greatly appreciated.
I agree that "beta" no longer means what it used to. I remember when you had to be someone special to get a beta version of a program, back when my friends would come over and say, "Guess what I managed to get my hands on?" and they'd be waving around a beta version of some popular product and we'd all go, "Wow, how did you manage that?"
However, I also remember the days when a "syndicated" television program meant network reruns. A show that was original in syndication would have confused everyone.
So although I completely agree with you that "beta doesn't really mean beta" anymore, and that we also need a reliable way to know exactly how stable a product is (and whether or not the developers are taking any responsibility for its failings), I don't know that it's a disaster that this is happening. I'm not willing to cry, "No, that's not what beta means, you're violating the ancient traditions of software development!"
Maybe that's going to be what beta comes to mean next. Maybe the new beta is going to be a product perpetually in development with users responsible for quality control. Maybe it's going to become "open testing, no liability" software. Maybe instead of being a phase of software development, beta will become a style of software development.
I can't predict the future, so I can't say, but I do know there are some marginally decent original syndicated television programs these days. So yes, while I note the word isn't the same beta I grew up with, I'm willing to sit back and see what evolves out of this. I do want a word which clearly expresses to me what I can expect from a given level of a product, but if "beta" is no longer that word, well, no disaster.
Yes, it's true that no one assumes anymore that cops et al. are taught the things they're taught for the purpose of killing someone. So it that sense, my logic is somewhat reversed. But it is not true that cops and forensic investigators especially (perhaps less so with doctors) do not learn how to kill people. They most definitely do. Haven't you seen those silhouette targets cops use on the shooting range? Tell me those aren't designed to teach them how to bring a man down somewhat permanently. So, half a point.
The best way to be a doctor is not to learn how to kill someone, of course. But I would certainly hope that any doctor into whose hands I put my life is well-versed and highly-trained in identifying the things that might kill me, and how they work. And that analogy extends to my computer: I certainly hope the people I'm trusting to keep my systems safe are well-versed and highly-trained in the things that might bring them down. Or even merely annoy me. And I don't even mind if they learn that stuff at the University of Calgary.
People are upset because a university is teaching courses on viruses and spam engines?
You know, if I wanted to learn how to murder someone, probably the best thing I could do is train to be a cop. Or a forensics investigator. Or maybe even a doctor. That's where I'm most likely to learn the skills necessary to help me get away with murder.
Problem is, those classes are also where I'm most likely to learn the skills necessary to prevent a murder, or to save a life, or to bring a murderer to justice.
So what should we do: prohibit universities from teaching skills that might be put to bad use? What would that leave? Philosophy and creative writing?
Sure, someone will argue: but spam engines don't have any good use! You can't save someone's life by learning how to write a spam engine! But I can guarantee you that most of the people who work to block spam engines and stop illegal spammers knows how those spam engines work. They learned it somewhere. Tell me why a university shouldn't be one of the places to acquire those skills.
And certain people who design operating systems should probably take more of those courses in how viruses work. Might keep them from having to release new security patches every eleven days.
What strikes me as most curious is that the current debate about steganography is in itself an exercise in steganography--at least, in the sense of hiding important information in plain sight. Through the use of technical-sounding words, concerned parties manage to conceal what seems to be a genuinely frightening disrespect of the freedom of information.
Simply take "steganography" out of the equation. It's easy to scare the masses by using intimidating neologisms. But steganography is simply a manner to transmit information privately. So let's recast the sentence, "...illicit use of the technique might become a threat to the security of the worldwide information infrastructure." Let's simply say, "Individuals attempting to keep their private information private might become a threat to the security of the worldwide information infrastructure."
What used to be a preferred method for sending private information to a friend? The mail? Didn't we used to have a respect for the privacy of letters we sent via post? So how come no one said, "Sealing envelopes might become a threat to the security of the worldwide information infrastructure"?
What's being steganographically hidden in this debate is the reality that these days, quite a few people--many of them in power--simply no longer believe that a person has any right to private or personal information. Why would a technology such as this arise in the first place? Because we know that the first anthrax envelope made the private post public for everyone? Because we know our e-mail can be read, our servers can be hacked, our telephone calls recorded and our houses ransacked simply because fear of terrorists convinced us to sign over our civil liberties as if we no longer desired them?
This technology arose because some people realized that they were losing any pretense at privacy they might have had, and so were motivated to develop tools to maintain it. And now, we take the new word "steganography" and talk about how dangerous it is... perhaps because we're trying to conceal inside the hidden message that all privacy is dangerous, that anything you do, say or think should always be subject to review by the appropriate authorities.
As near as I can tell, what they've done here is implement levels of titanium and platinum nano-wires which pass each at right angle. However, to prevent leakage, at the crossover points they are held apart by Rotaxan molecules.
Rotaxan molecules are organic, and have this nifty little molecular ring which enables them to be conductive or not based on its position. Thus, you get your binary switch. This little animal is the "crossbar latch," apparently. And it can be done in something like 40 nanometers, making it scads smaller than current conductive strips.
Unfortunately, I'm having a great deal of trouble tracking down technical details. HP wants to keep its secrets, obviously, but Berkely and Stanford should be a little more forthcoming, think I. Anyone have links to more technical information? It would be greatly appreciated...
"Sheesh" is a word which normally means, "I'm not very good at actually saying what I mean, so I'll just make strange noises and roll my eyes at someone who won't figure it out for me." (It's also the nick of one of my favorite Internet trolls; what ever happened to the good old days when trolls actually tried to be entertaining, instead of merely annoying?)
Anyway, okay, it's loose definitions of words that are once again getting us into trouble here. That a slug is aware of its environment, as in, capable of responding to environmental stimuli, okay, I'll give you that one. I won't gift wrap it for you, but I'll give it to you.
But that's entirely different from "consciousness" in the sense that we're discussing here. After all, even a computer is capable of detecting environmental stimuli, and responding to them, but as my colleague 2TecTom is pointing out in this same thread, the mere ability to respond to environmental stimuli is not synonymous with consciousness.
Read the source material. It'll give you the weapons you need to overcome your sheeshing.
A slug is not conscious. Nothing without langauge is. Recommended reading: Dr. Daniel C. Dennett, Consciousness Explained and Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Richard Dawkins, The Extended Phenotype. Julian Jaynes, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.
Those are all more commercial works, well within the grasp of even people who've done no work in the field. For more sholarly and technical references, check their bibliographies, especially in Dennett.
You're quite correct that cowboy-loose definitions of terms make this a very difficult discussion to have. For example, when you say "self awareness," it's unlikely that you actually mean "self awareness" in the literal sense; after all, if a computer is capable of detecting when its processor is overheating (and perhaps turn on a fan in response), it is basically "self aware," though we wouldn't confuse that with itelligence.
Rather, I think by "self awareness" here you mean, possessing narrativity; that is, the ability to construct a narrative of itself in relation to the things of which it is aware. In simpler words, consciousness. Now, it is possible to be intelligent without being conscious (everyone thinks they have the smartest dog in the world, but that doesn't make the poor beast conscious). But is it possible to be conscious without being intelligent?
Consciousness is fundamentally linguistic in origin (and I'm tired of arguing that point with people who haven't done a day of cognitive studies in their lives; there's no way around it: without language, consciousness does not evolve). So, for example, in the course of human evolution, first a linguistic parsing system was evolved, humans got language, and then, once this substrate was established, consciousness evolved as an epiphenomenon which rode on top of it. This substrate proved to be a fertile breeding ground on which memetic evolution could take place, as well, and since that is broader than any one particular human component in the system, it's almost more proper to say that we are the tools memes use to propogate, and not vice versa. (This argument is fairly well established with genes; same rules apply.)
So, any artificial system which contains "consciousness" will have to first handle language. If you don't have that linguistic substrate for narrativity and memetic evolution, there is nothing for consciousness to occur in. Maybe the information is there, but it would be like me pointing to an empty spot in the room and saying, "That's a balloon full of air; I just forgot the balloon." So, let's do this in the proper order: language first, then consciousness.
That's what you get when you put the standard before the technology. Step one: let companies use whatever standard is convenient for them, and sell their products to whomever they can convince to buy. Step two: once the market has tested the products, standardize based on best current practices.
Sure, it has the net result of lots of poor guys owning a collection of relatively useless Betamax videos, but really, I'd rather own an obsolete product because it made its best shot and failed than own a mediocre product because it conformed to a political compromise that had no market time behind it. (And furthermore, it encourages the Betamax owners to switch to DVD more quickly than the content and universally supported VHS owners, thereby even further spurring development.)
For real life examples, read some W3C Recommendations. The ones that were presented as ready-made standards before any market was actually implementing them (like PICS) are lovely pieces of technological poetry. The ones which were widely tested in the market and implemented first, even if in lots of non-compatible subversions, and only then standardized (like HTML), on the other hand, are actually used.
SEATTLE--In an unexpected move, corporate giant Microsoft has acquired Hollywood in what it refers to as the "logical next step" in content development.
Microsoft has long been known as an industry leader in providing semifunctional applications for the viewing, development and distribution of digital content and comments that the acquisition of Hollywood will complete the synergy necessary for including the content itself.
End users, claims Microsoft, will see a remarkable increase in convenience when accessing content. Hollywood products will be available directly from the desktop via their new "Cinema Explorer" application with the guaranteed quality, stability and availability that only a vision-impaired corporate monolith can provide.
Security is also a top priority, and Microsoft is introducing a new licensing system to aid in the distribution of Hollywood content. Instead of purchasing a copy of the motion picture itself, end users purchase a "License to View" which piggybacks on their highly successful and completely unhackable "Product Activation" architecture introduced with Windows XP. A motion picture is keyed to the unique hardware identification number of the user's computer and can only be "activated" on that computer.
Some civil rights groups have expressed concerned about corporate profiling based on end user viewing habits. A Microsoft spokesman responds, "Obviously, this is possible, but fortunately, Microsoft is a responsible corporation with a very solid privacy policy. We never have any idea who's using our products. A quick look at our customer support system ought to clearly demonstrate that."
Microsoft also stated in a press release that recent maneuvers to acquire the RIAA are completely unrelated.
I'm not so worried about this product or this patent, for reasons others have already discussed (although I think "use noncompliant cameras" is a more effective deterrent than "expect government to protect our rights"; that's just me, though). What I'm more curious about are expansions on this technology.
I mean... we're not talking high-level solutions here. It's camera that sends out a ping, coupled with devices that can respond with a pong. If a pong's detected, make the area surrounding the pong blurry at a size adjusted for distance. Hardly needs facial recognition software and artistic blur-me algorithms.
What about the Slashdot upgrade to this product? If a pong's detected, edit in the text "Anonymous Coward" in the place the face should be?
What about the Zelig upgrade? If a ping is detected, edit a bitmap of my face into the photograph. Yes, I really was schmoozing with drunken celebrities.
But more seriously, what about those pings that include camera serial numbers, which can be registered to individuals or agencies? If it's a law enforcement camera, blur me; else if it's a paparrazi camera, enhance me; else if it's a priest's camera, blur my son.
There's the real threat. Image blurring is a distraction; lawsuits pay better. I just don't like the idea of pinging products (I mean, sure, my cell phone will tell you I'm calling you; my camera will also tell you I'm photographing someone near you? Time to disable a chip or two).
I don't mind so much someone identifying me on film in a public place. I mind those people with proper scanners detecting whenever I use a product. You know who will love this idea? Those people who prohibit cameras and video devices in concerts. It'll be another RIAA-style "protect the artists!" campaign. And that's scary, because money motivates government more than civil rights ideals, usually.
Much Love,
Dylan Thomas
[This is slightly edited version of the post made in reply to you at BoyChat.]
I agree with you: "disease" is a woefully inappropriate term for a sexual preference. Of course, if you've been scanning our index, you're probably already aware that even that seemingly obvious point comes under discussion on our board.
I also agree with you about one crucial point on your analysis of a "mental problem." While I do not believe that boylove is, in and of itself, a mental problem, nonetheless I concede that a boylover who does not wish to be a boylover is setting himself up for some serious mental difficulty. Not just because of the disconnect in itself (something he would share with, for example, a homosexual who does not wish to be a homosexual), but also because unlike a homosexual, a boylover has no safe quarter in which he can even address this issue. Mandatory reporting laws means that a boylover who confides in his therapist that he finds boys attractive might very well find himself under police investigation. So the boylovers least likely to be able to come to terms with their desires are also the ones most likely to spiral into an increasingly dark psychological quagmire. Hardly a recipe for healthy development, regardless of your attraction.
I would say that perhaps Slashdot and BoyChat are not so different, in the abstract. You say, "Liking science and technology doesn't involve a decision," but I wonder how true that really is. Many at BoyChat, for example, would say, "Liking boys doesn't involve a decision. It's just who we are." I might even say, "Liking the song Shadowdance doesn't involve a decision. I just heard it, and liked it. See me shrug; what can I do?" The fact is, every taste, every like, every desire every person has is shaped by a million things that only may or may not involve decisions.
And we discuss the same issues, in the abstract. Is what we do good or bad? Sure, you guys discuss, "Is encryption protecting my privacy or endangering my children?" whereas we discuss, "Is loving this boy making his life better or complicating it?" but it's the same issue: is what I like (be it technology or boylove) a good thing or a bad thing?
And we are like Slashdot in that we have to some degree decided on BoyChat that what we like is, in fact, a good thing, on the whole. A "community of like-minded people": we are a forum of people who mostly believe in the fundamental positivity of who we are and what we do (and don't read more into "what we do" than is there; I realize that statement leaves itself wide open to disaster fantasies).
So, who cares if they've developed a way to "control" sexual orientation: more importantly, have they developed a way to "control" who I want to be? And if so... would that be a good thing, or instead a bad thing of Huxleyan proportions?
Much Love,
Dylan Thomas
You say, "boychat.org would have an easier time in the world if it was run by a mental health group." I find myself wondering... would Slashdot have an easier time in the world if it were run by a mental health group? Or any other group of freely associating people: should we put mental health professionals in charge of communities?
The dissonance in that argument stems from the assumption that boylovers must, by definition, be suffering from a mental disorder. Of course Slashdot shouldn't be run by mental health professionals, because there's no assumption that Slashdot posters are suffering from psychological disorders. Well, the idea of BoyChat being run by a mental health group sounds just as ridiculous to me. I have no mental disorder, and I have neither need for nor interest in "treatment." Now, I am aware that some BoyChat posters do seem to have some issues that need professional attention. For example, clinical depression is not as uncommon as I wish it were on our board. However, those problems are problems which exist just as much in the "ordinary" world as among boylovers, and those are the disorders which should be treated. Being a boylover is not a disorder. Neither is being homosexual. Neither is being heterosexual.
Are there pedophiles who rape and otherwise harm children? Yes. Are there heterosexuals who rape and otherwise harm women? Yes. And the conclusion that all pedophiles are child molesters is as fallacious as the conclusion that all heterosexuals are rapists. Even Catherine MacKinnon bristles at the fact that the quote "All sex is rape" was erroneously attributed to her because not only do such ludicrous universals undermine their own credibility, but the consequence of such an idea is darker still: when everything is rape, nothing is.
A claim that "pedophiles can be cured" is equally based on the fallacy that pedophilia is a disease. No, pedophilia cannot be cured, any more than heterosexuality can. And anyone who recalls the great amount of harm done by quasi-cult efforts to "cure" or "reprogram" homosexuals during the seventies and eighties should be suitably horrified at such a concept. I do not question your right to be heterosexual (if indeed you are) and I wonder why people in what appears to be a technology-based forum would find it suddenly appropriate to question my right to be a boylover. Of course, I reserve the right to condemn you if you rape or harm a woman, just as I respect your right to condemn me if I rape or harm a boy.
So, as long as I'm webmaster of BoyChat, the idea of turning over control to a mental health group is simply silly. Mental health professionals are more needed where there are people with actual mental problems. Suggesting therapy? I don't need therapy because I prefer swing to grunge, or because I think the Brian Setzer Orchestra is better than Eminem. Those are my preferences, and anyone who tries to "therapize" me over them is taking a very unwelcome step into something that does not concern him. Prohibit contact between adult users? I'll make a deal: as soon as Slashdot prohibits contact between its posters off the forum, BoyChat will consider doing the same (that's not a challenge, by the way; it's simply to point out that aside from the fact that the idea is plainly ridiculous, it's also patently unenforceable.)
I realize I may seem to be coming off rather dogmatic; you'll have to forgive me for that, as this is a discussion I've had altogether too many times and I know how most of the lines go by now. Really, I'm happy to debate these issues on a philosophical, moral or just plain technical level with anyone who desires, but somehow, this seems like a very strange forum for this question to be arising in. BoyChat, at any rate, is open to the public; registration is normally not required (except when we come unde