Besides, this program is not designed to be given as a test to everyone. It is designed to rate a threat. That is, if someone says "I am going to kill you" the idea of this program is to see if that threat is real or not. So, if you do not going around threating people (an action) then you would not be given this test. Once you voice your thoughts they cease to be yours- and are open to interpreation. Depending on the danger inherent in your voiced thoughts dictates the rights that society has in protecting itself.
Like the website says, this program is used by many organizations. I personally have never take a test like this have you? Thus it shows that if you do not do an action (like threaten someone) then you never have to be subjected to the test. However if you do, it will rate the reality of that threat.
Personally, I would much rather have the experienc of several pschicatrist in a program rate the reality of one of my rants over a zealot school Principal.
Exactly! The other problem is that there are varying levels of violence. I worry more about the reaction of the humans than the answer of the computer. Ok, lets say the computer decides that child A taking the test is violent. Does that mean he likes to hit his brothers and sisters, and occasionally kick the dog? Or does it mean that we need to get him some serious immediate counseling because said child is about to go on a three day killing spree at the local high school?
We don't really know, and to be honest at this point the computer is being asked to differentiate on a smaller segment of data (most people are not killers, and thus there is less data to find deviances from). So, what do the humans do? They over react and lock the poor sister hitting kid up. Or on the other side the parents down play the situation and the kid goes on a killing spree at the next pep rally. Neither situation is the fault of the computer, but instead the error prone humans.
I worry that the school administrators and teachers will not know what kind of tool they have here. They will misunderstand it and make wild assumptions about its abilities. Then the minute there is an error they will blame it on the computer when in reality it was the reactions by the humans. If you want to see evidence of this simple read the/. responses and see how few really read and understood the article and took the time to understand the premise of the program. Instead most made knee-jerk reactions- and then denounced others for doing just that!
Ok, lets look at this from a scientific perspective. It has been shown that we can look at people and from profiles we can place them in certain patters. Many people have taken the so-called "Personality" test that many companies require before hiring. You would be surprised how accurate they are- even with those outside of the so-called norm.
I have seen many people who would most likely not be hired (because they are out of the norm) be hired because the test caused the company/ interviewer to look at something they might have otherwise missed or ignored.
Also, it has been shown that it is possible to (with 97% accuracy) look at an adolescent's life and see if that child fits the profile of a future serial killer. Like it or not, many of these 'violent' people and children fit profiles, and while they are not sure fire they do raise a flag.
Most profiles are not decided upon by what music you listen too, or how much time you spend on the net. Also profiles are not usually based on your relation ship with others or parents, but instead how you relate to yourself. Yes, the do look at how you view certain situations or how you respond. However, the good ones (i.e. the ones used by the a psychiatrist) do not have certain questions that when answered a certain way say something. Instead they look at the aggregate of answers.
So yes, a computer program could potentially be capable of finding people who are at the time predisposed toward violence. So the computer program and the idea itself do not bother me. What I worry about is how such information would and could be put to use by school administrators. With most schools incapable of handling properly the precursor information they already get, I can only imagine what they would do with this kind of tool.
For me, I think the money on this project would be better spent educating the counselors, teachers and administrators at schools about how things really are. With that said, I am also sure that this program will spread like wildfire and the creators will get their asses sued off the first time it misses a person an they go on a killing rampage.
Ok, something to know and understand here is that the USPTO has taken a lot of crap over the last 30 years. Repeatedly the courts have blasted and reversed decisions by the USPTO office. I personally know of two a case where patents were denied, the USPTO was taken to court, and the plaintiff won. Not only did the take up USPTO time, but it also whittled away at the authority the office holds.
In addition to the effect that the courts have had on the system, the number of patents has been growing at an incredible rate. I mean you have to realize something, prior to computers and programming it was a big hassle to develop something new, build it and then prove it worked. Now days you can write a few lines of code, do something new and different, and then file. This means the USPTO has seen the same increase in users and fillings that the NYSE has seen. Computers have brought the actions and powers previously open only to the few to the masses.
The USPTO used to require that if something new was "devised" you either had to build it and prove that it worked. Or, develop detailed drawings and have engineers and others review them for "accuracy and operability". Now days it is hard to find and hire enough well trained programmers who are willing to spend their time just reviewing code.
So what does this mean? Well, quite simply the USPTO is tired of being reversed it court and flooded with administrative issues in the middle of the largest increase in fillings in history. So, they have turned the power to review patents over to the courts to decide. The USPTO rarely even checks patents to see if they are repeats or overlap others. This is the responsibility of the filler- and if he/she screws it up, then they have to pay up (in court). While the USPTO has removed most all of this administrative review functions- they have passed them along to the courts. So, if you file for something that already exist, it may be "covered", but you will be required to defend it in court.
Now, true some reviewers of patents simply refuse the ridiculous and ludicrous- especially in the trademark office. However, if the item is technical in any way they just let the individuals (or corporations) battle it out in court.
So, the real issue here is not that Doubleclick got a patent(s) for their design(s)- but whether or not they can hold on to and defend the patent(s). Most likely they will lose- not only do you have to be first, but you also have to prove that it is not "similar" to an existing media advertising form. That could be very difficult to prove- and thus the Doubleclick thing seems silly.
IMHO someone at Doubleclick said- "lets give this a try, if nothing else we get a lot of good frontage coverage (read advertising) on the web and in print. More than likely this thing will be challenged in court, by one of the heavy weights. Doubleclick will fail in its defense (if there is even one) and things will be back to 'normal'.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, this program is not designed to be given as a test to everyone. It is designed to rate a threat. That is, if someone says "I am going to kill you" the idea of this program is to see if that threat is real or not. So, if you do not going around threating people (an action) then you would not be given this test. Once you voice your thoughts they cease to be yours- and are open to interpreation. Depending on the danger inherent in your voiced thoughts dictates the rights that society has in protecting itself.
Like the website says, this program is used by many organizations. I personally have never take a test like this have you? Thus it shows that if you do not do an action (like threaten someone) then you never have to be subjected to the test. However if you do, it will rate the reality of that threat.
Personally, I would much rather have the experienc of several pschicatrist in a program rate the reality of one of my rants over a zealot school Principal.
Exactly! The other problem is that there are varying levels of violence. I worry more about the reaction of the humans than the answer of the computer. Ok, lets say the computer decides that child A taking the test is violent. Does that mean he likes to hit his brothers and sisters, and occasionally kick the dog? Or does it mean that we need to get him some serious immediate counseling because said child is about to go on a three day killing spree at the local high school?
/. responses and see how few really read and understood the article and took the time to understand the premise of the program.
We don't really know, and to be honest at this point the computer is being asked to differentiate on a smaller segment of data (most people are not killers, and thus there is less data to find deviances from). So, what do the humans do? They over react and lock the poor sister hitting kid up. Or on the other side the parents down play the situation and the kid goes on a killing spree at the next pep rally. Neither situation is the fault of the computer, but instead the error prone humans.
I worry that the school administrators and teachers will not know what kind of tool they have here. They will misunderstand it and make wild assumptions about its abilities. Then the minute there is an error they will blame it on the computer when in reality it was the reactions by the humans. If you want to see evidence of this simple read the
Instead most made knee-jerk reactions- and then denounced others for doing just that!
Ok, lets look at this from a scientific perspective. It has been shown that we can look at people and from profiles we can place them in certain patters. Many people have taken the so-called "Personality" test that many companies require before hiring. You would be surprised how accurate they are- even with those outside of the so-called norm.
I have seen many people who would most likely not be hired (because they are out of the norm) be hired because the test caused the company/ interviewer to look at something they might have otherwise missed or ignored.
Also, it has been shown that it is possible to (with 97% accuracy) look at an adolescent's life and see if that child fits the profile of a future serial killer. Like it or not, many of these 'violent' people and children fit profiles, and while they are not sure fire they do raise a flag.
Most profiles are not decided upon by what music you listen too, or how much time you spend on the net. Also profiles are not usually based on your relation ship with others or parents, but instead how you relate to yourself. Yes, the do look at how you view certain situations or how you respond. However, the good ones (i.e. the ones used by the a psychiatrist) do not have certain questions that when answered a certain way say something. Instead they look at the aggregate of answers.
So yes, a computer program could potentially be capable of finding people who are at the time predisposed toward violence. So the computer program and the idea itself do not bother me. What I worry about is how such information would and could be put to use by school administrators. With most schools incapable of handling properly the precursor information they already get, I can only imagine what they would do with this kind of tool.
For me, I think the money on this project would be better spent educating the counselors, teachers and administrators at schools about how things really are. With that said, I am also sure that this program will spread like wildfire and the creators will get their asses sued off the first time it misses a person an they go on a killing rampage.
"I say we feed them all to the lawyers!"
Ok, something to know and understand here is that the USPTO has taken a lot of crap over the last 30 years. Repeatedly the courts have blasted and reversed decisions by the USPTO office. I personally know of two a case where patents were denied, the USPTO was taken to court, and the plaintiff won. Not only did the take up USPTO time, but it also whittled away at the authority the office holds.
In addition to the effect that the courts have had on the system, the number of patents has been growing at an incredible rate. I mean you have to realize something, prior to computers and programming it was a big hassle to develop something new, build it and then prove it worked. Now days you can write a few lines of code, do something new and different, and then file. This means the USPTO has seen the same increase in users and fillings that the NYSE has seen. Computers have brought the actions and powers previously open only to the few to the masses.
The USPTO used to require that if something new was "devised" you either had to build it and prove that it worked. Or, develop detailed drawings and have engineers and others review them for "accuracy and operability". Now days it is hard to find and hire enough well trained programmers who are willing to spend their time just reviewing code.
So what does this mean? Well, quite simply the USPTO is tired of being reversed it court and flooded with administrative issues in the middle of the largest increase in fillings in history. So, they have turned the power to review patents over to the courts to decide. The USPTO rarely even checks patents to see if they are repeats or overlap others. This is the responsibility of the filler- and if he/she screws it up, then they have to pay up (in court). While the USPTO has removed most all of this administrative review functions- they have passed them along to the courts. So, if you file for something that already exist, it may be "covered", but you will be required to defend it in court.
Now, true some reviewers of patents simply refuse the ridiculous and ludicrous- especially in the trademark office. However, if the item is technical in any way they just let the individuals (or corporations) battle it out in court.
So, the real issue here is not that Doubleclick got a patent(s) for their design(s)- but whether or not they can hold on to and defend the patent(s). Most likely they will lose- not only do you have to be first, but you also have to prove that it is not "similar" to an existing media advertising form. That could be very difficult to prove- and thus the Doubleclick thing seems silly.
IMHO someone at Doubleclick said- "lets give this a try, if nothing else we get a lot of good frontage coverage (read advertising) on the web and in print. More than likely this thing will be challenged in court, by one of the heavy weights. Doubleclick will fail in its defense (if there is even one) and things will be back to 'normal'.
Just my 1½ cents