The difference is that because they're mistakenly projecting human-like intentionality onto the robot, the observers are likely to expect it to act human-like in other ways. Basically, the fact that they think the robot is "trying" is a good indication of how they think the robot works, and how they will expect it to behave in other situations.
Since we're wired to relate with and react to other animals, it's much easier for us to think "Oh, that thing's movements are similar to an animal's, so it probably behaves like an animal" than "Oh, that thing is making alternating 60 degree turns with a 2 second pause between them, it must have an instruction set that is looping." However the latter analysis gives a much better basis for predicting how the robot will behave in general.
Outsourcing is shitty, but the solution isn't to keep third world kids stupid and computer-illiterate. We need to demand that US corporations take more responsibility for the local workers and towns who have carried them this far. Big business will screw over local workers as much as they can get away with, but we can reign them in as a society simply by demanding more than low, low prices. Support local businesses, boycott unethical/irresponsible companies. We don't need to resort to sabotaging the educational systems of other countries.
"Trying" sort of implies intentionality, like the robot has a desire to get out of the corner, and it's ineffectively trying to accomplish whatever goal humans want it to. In reality, the robot is doing exactly what it was designed to do, and doesn't have any opinions or feelings whatsoever about being stuck in the corner.
feel free to use what you want. Only don't preach, please...
This comes up a lot, this idea of "preaching". How is advising - even demanding - people to make ethical decisions "preaching"? Simply put: Technical superiority and cost aren't the only considerations that should be made when you decide which product to purchase and use.
Microsoft is an unethical business. They use monopolistic practices to distort the market to their advantage, and they lobby for and exploit restrictive laws to prevent threatening innovation in software development. Because they are such a huge business, the impact and severity of this behavior is similarly huge. It's very important as an ethical human being not to give them money or other forms of support, because if you do, you're actively aiding in their activities which harm the rest of us.
It seems to me "don't preach" is a slightly obfuscated way of saying "Don't tell me what to do". Nobody here can make you do anything, but that doesn't give you an excuse to do whatever you like, without regard to ethical considerations. And offering advice and commentary on what seems like an unethical action is far from preaching, unless "offering an analysis which takes into consideration right and wrong" falls under your definition of preaching.
I wanted the Doritos more than I wanted the dollar, and they wanted the dollar more than they wanted the Doritos.... So why not let those whom we've already voted into power have a large impact on elections?
Just because an institution is good at making delicious snacks doesn't mean they're competent or trustworthy enough to control - or even disproportionately influence - our entire political system.
When we "vote with our dollars", we're voting on very particular issues. "I like this kind of chips", or maybe "I think the Doritos brand is cool" or at the best "I agree with the business practices of Doritos Inc.". None of these have anything to do with whether I want Doritos Inc. to run my society. Maybe they should be President of Corn Chips, but I wouldn't want them to be muddling around in politics any more than I'd want the Secretary of Agriculture muddling around in the Defense Department.
Greenpeace and PETA are on my list of unethical extremist organizations,
While it's good that you refuse to "believe the hype", it's concerning when people are excessively enthusiastic about disbelieving hype that's not in line with what they want to believe, and oddly silent about the hype that conforms to their attitudes and beliefs.
It's absolutely fair and responsible to call Greenpeace out for dishonest/unethical behavior, but calling only Greenpeace out specifically carries with it a questionable implication: that the argument on the other side is genuine and trustworthy.
I think it's important to remember that all massive bureaucratic, money-seeking institutions behave like this. Neither Apple nor Greenpeace is an exception, but it's possible that Greenpeace may sometimes make some valid and important points in spite of its institutional nature. Those points should be dealt with rationally, as opposed to discarded outright simply because of who said them.
Using 1337speak for passwords is not as clever as it seems, simply because cryptanalysts have thought of it before you. There are many dictionary crackers which do an explicit check for number/symbol substitutions for letters. For example, they check for "clever", "c1ever", "c13\/3r", etc.
Better to use a more complex language filter that only you understand, or that requires some degree of intelligence to interpret, rather than a simple "substitution cipher" which can be automated.
the password hash itself should be guarded as much as possible. If done properly...
I agree! Also, programmers should avoid writing code with security vulnerabilities in it, and sysadmins should make sure that nobody can break into their servers. If done properly, we won't have to worry about attackers at all!
IMO if software was free by law, virtually no one would go into computer science
First of all, even if it would be nice idealistically to have a law making all software free, I don't think anybody's realistically trying to make that happen. That's not what the GPL is about.
Secondly, you may be interested to know that many, many programmers write code for free already, therefore a law would not deter them from writing code. You assume that a law requiring code to be free would make programming unprofitable, but that's not necessarily the case. One of the primary advantages of open source code is that it can be modified and expanded to meet the user's custom needs. Who's going to do that? Lots and lots of programmers. And it doesn't matter that the code they write becomes free, because it's really only of use to the people who commissioned it.
You assume that freeing code by law would make computer programs no longer a scare commodity, because everyone could get the programs they wanted for free. But that's not true. There are a virtually infinite number of features and pieces of software that have not yet been written that many people want really badly. People would pay to have this code written, and it'd be created faster and better because it would be able to draw without restriction from the pool of all existing source code.
I personally don't think code should be free by law, but if it was, it'd mean that rather than making money from holding copyrights, programmers could only make money from writing new, useful code that has inherent value to people.
No disrespect to Mr. Paul, but it's a stretch to say he's the sole, lone decent politician in the running. You can take a look at someone like Mike Gravel on the Democrat side and see pretty easily that the guy's genuine, and his actions and positions are based on principle rather than politics or money.
I think the more important point is that we haven't heard of any of the decent candidates in either major party because they're being very deliberately marginalized. The major parties don't like people who stand on principle, they like people who bend to power and wealth.
Making as much money as possible off the public, whether or not they've actually earned that money by providing a useful service definitely == Greed. I think the argument you're aiming for is the old hackneyed 80's mantra: Greed is good!
In fact, Apple would be negligent and unethical if they did not act in the best interests of their stockholders.
This is just a rehashed version of the "just doing their job" reasoning that justifies pretty much anything. Yeah, the Apple corporation is just doing its job. That job happens to be to do everything in its power to extract the maximum amount of money from you while giving you as little freedom as possible to ever take your business elsewhere. But hey, who can begrudge them that? It's their job after all. Apple got to do what Apple got to do.
Here's an idea: Don't set up a corporation which depends on doing unethical things to succeed. It's that simple. Just as you wouldn't set up a business that depends on slavery, don't base your corporate success on sabotaging and exerting remote control over your customers' property.
There's actually a technique for this, called MOFIBA: Mineral Oil Followed Immediately By Alcohol. Basically, rub oil over your hands like you suggested, and then wipe them off thoroughly with rubbing alcohol (or vodka i guess). The most important part of this operation is to be extremely, EXTREMELY thorough with the alcohol wipe-down. Otherwise the oil will trap the capsaicin right against your skin (or contact) and cause even more pain, since it won't be able to be flushed out with watery tears or sweat.
I know it's fun to say "Wrong." but I don't think you disagree with me, really. The only thing I'd point out is that although they may have a "genuine" (aka financial) incentive to use an open architecture now, it's inevitable that the moment that incentive isn't strong enough, or more likely the moment a stronger "genuine" incentive comes along to abandon open architecture, they will. If a company's reputation is built on consistently embracing the "flimsy ideals" of tech openness, they're a lot more likely to stick with it than if they realized they could make a quick buck by opening up a few of their products. Neither is guaranteed of course, since like you said, we can't really trust businesses to do much except pursue profit.
why should I care why Nokia made it an open platform?
Because if they're doing it for cynical, cutthroat competitive reasons, it's not likely they'll stay true to an open model in the future. Of course it's good that they're doing it now, and it doesn't really matter why right now...But we should remember that just because a particular company is embracing open standards or open source now, it doesn't mean they're our BFF. Most likely, they're just doing what's most profitable for them at the moment, and when the wind changes slightly it'll be DMCA lawsuits and DRM all over the place. Basically, just don't drink the kool-aid and become a Company X fanboy simply because they made some gestures to the open source world.
Yeah, facts and reason, and also logic! For example, logically why should we care about those people when they're way over in some other country and don't even speak American? And what's reasonable about withholding funding from institutions who rely on funding to do unethical things? If people just looked at facts more, they'd see that all the facts say I should buy whatever I want from China, supplying their government with tax money to build up their oppressive military and propaganda efforts! Factually! Furthermore, people who take personal responsibility to do their part to end fascism and repression are air-headed hippies, and probably smoke the dope!
See? I can sarcastically mis-characterize and exaggerate your argument too. And no, it doesn't add anything to the discussion because we're just inventing caricatured positions to argue against. It may be easier and more fun to diss imaginary "nutjobs", but it doesn't accomplish anything but turning what could be reasonable, constructive discourse into an episode of the Jerry Springer show.
"Voting with your wallet" works on a local scale, but not on an international scale.
Yeah, that whole movement to divest from South Africa was a total waste of time. As if we could end apartheid in a foreign nation just by being responsible and ethical about who we give our money!
every government project has negative unintended consequences all out of proportion to what it as to accomplish
As opposed to private sector projects, which always accomplish exactly what they set out to do without any problems or failures. Such as all the WiFi networks TFA mentions are collapsing in mid-construction. And the interesting thing is that they're collapsing specifically because they're private projects. If there's not enough profit coming in, they're gone faster than you can blink.
It's true that government projects are often fraught with fuckups and "boondoggles", but the implicit claim that the private sector is an ideal alternative is highly suspect.
The population of the area should just move to areas where there already is development, instead of wasting large amounts of money rebuilding unnecessary infrastructure.
Sure, and people on the poor side of town should just move into the rich neighborhoods, since private industry certainly isn't going to waste money wiring areas where the demand and ability to pay isn't high enough.
While you may be right that encouraging urban sprawl should be avoided, you're proposing that private industry can just build infrastructure wherever it's most profitable, and then we can expect everyone who wants to enjoy that service to relocate to those areas. Not going to happen. There are certain services that may not be profitable to provide, but are nevertheless overwhelmingly in the public interest to provide. It's debatable whether internet access is one of those things now, but it certainly will be in the future.
Verizon wasn't reading the text messages or filtering them - they were refusing to sell NARAL a mailing list server that would accept short-number messages and sign up the sender for the list.
True but the basis for their decision was the political viewpoints that would be expressed through the server. They may not have been using spam-style filtering the way you're thinking of it, but they were definitely attempting to prevent a specific type of political message (abortion-related) from being distributed on their network while allowing all other messages, which is effectively filtering their network.
'cause anyone not from the west coast thinks of Washington DC when you just say "Washington".
But the funny thing is that people actually from Washington, DC simply call it "DC". To residents, "Washington" is usually used only in the context of national politics (The Russian ambassador visited Washington...), and so refers to capitol hill, politicians, and the federal institutions in the city. "DC" is how they refer to the city where they actually live, which is both shorter and unambiguous.
It's not about our messages being read though, it's about them being filtered. This is a censorship issue, not a privacy one. Even if "privacy is dead", and even if people trust their government and corporate institutions so much that they don't think that's a problem, access to unfiltered information channels is absolutely vital. Invasion of privacy can cause people to be fearful to speak out, but censorship makes it flat out impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that because they're mistakenly projecting human-like intentionality onto the robot, the observers are likely to expect it to act human-like in other ways. Basically, the fact that they think the robot is "trying" is a good indication of how they think the robot works, and how they will expect it to behave in other situations.
Since we're wired to relate with and react to other animals, it's much easier for us to think "Oh, that thing's movements are similar to an animal's, so it probably behaves like an animal" than "Oh, that thing is making alternating 60 degree turns with a 2 second pause between them, it must have an instruction set that is looping." However the latter analysis gives a much better basis for predicting how the robot will behave in general.
Outsourcing is shitty, but the solution isn't to keep third world kids stupid and computer-illiterate. We need to demand that US corporations take more responsibility for the local workers and towns who have carried them this far. Big business will screw over local workers as much as they can get away with, but we can reign them in as a society simply by demanding more than low, low prices. Support local businesses, boycott unethical/irresponsible companies. We don't need to resort to sabotaging the educational systems of other countries.
"Trying" sort of implies intentionality, like the robot has a desire to get out of the corner, and it's ineffectively trying to accomplish whatever goal humans want it to. In reality, the robot is doing exactly what it was designed to do, and doesn't have any opinions or feelings whatsoever about being stuck in the corner.
feel free to use what you want. Only don't preach, please...
This comes up a lot, this idea of "preaching". How is advising - even demanding - people to make ethical decisions "preaching"? Simply put: Technical superiority and cost aren't the only considerations that should be made when you decide which product to purchase and use.
Microsoft is an unethical business. They use monopolistic practices to distort the market to their advantage, and they lobby for and exploit restrictive laws to prevent threatening innovation in software development. Because they are such a huge business, the impact and severity of this behavior is similarly huge. It's very important as an ethical human being not to give them money or other forms of support, because if you do, you're actively aiding in their activities which harm the rest of us.
It seems to me "don't preach" is a slightly obfuscated way of saying "Don't tell me what to do". Nobody here can make you do anything, but that doesn't give you an excuse to do whatever you like, without regard to ethical considerations. And offering advice and commentary on what seems like an unethical action is far from preaching, unless "offering an analysis which takes into consideration right and wrong" falls under your definition of preaching.
I wanted the Doritos more than I wanted the dollar, and they wanted the dollar more than they wanted the Doritos. ... So why not let those whom we've already voted into power have a large impact on elections?
Just because an institution is good at making delicious snacks doesn't mean they're competent or trustworthy enough to control - or even disproportionately influence - our entire political system.
When we "vote with our dollars", we're voting on very particular issues. "I like this kind of chips", or maybe "I think the Doritos brand is cool" or at the best "I agree with the business practices of Doritos Inc.". None of these have anything to do with whether I want Doritos Inc. to run my society. Maybe they should be President of Corn Chips, but I wouldn't want them to be muddling around in politics any more than I'd want the Secretary of Agriculture muddling around in the Defense Department.
Greenpeace and PETA are on my list of unethical extremist organizations,
While it's good that you refuse to "believe the hype", it's concerning when people are excessively enthusiastic about disbelieving hype that's not in line with what they want to believe, and oddly silent about the hype that conforms to their attitudes and beliefs.
It's absolutely fair and responsible to call Greenpeace out for dishonest/unethical behavior, but calling only Greenpeace out specifically carries with it a questionable implication: that the argument on the other side is genuine and trustworthy.
I think it's important to remember that all massive bureaucratic, money-seeking institutions behave like this. Neither Apple nor Greenpeace is an exception, but it's possible that Greenpeace may sometimes make some valid and important points in spite of its institutional nature. Those points should be dealt with rationally, as opposed to discarded outright simply because of who said them.
Using 1337speak for passwords is not as clever as it seems, simply because cryptanalysts have thought of it before you. There are many dictionary crackers which do an explicit check for number/symbol substitutions for letters. For example, they check for "clever", "c1ever", "c13\/3r", etc.
Better to use a more complex language filter that only you understand, or that requires some degree of intelligence to interpret, rather than a simple "substitution cipher" which can be automated.
the password hash itself should be guarded as much as possible. If done properly...
I agree! Also, programmers should avoid writing code with security vulnerabilities in it, and sysadmins should make sure that nobody can break into their servers. If done properly, we won't have to worry about attackers at all!
IMO if software was free by law, virtually no one would go into computer science
First of all, even if it would be nice idealistically to have a law making all software free, I don't think anybody's realistically trying to make that happen. That's not what the GPL is about.
Secondly, you may be interested to know that many, many programmers write code for free already, therefore a law would not deter them from writing code. You assume that a law requiring code to be free would make programming unprofitable, but that's not necessarily the case. One of the primary advantages of open source code is that it can be modified and expanded to meet the user's custom needs. Who's going to do that? Lots and lots of programmers. And it doesn't matter that the code they write becomes free, because it's really only of use to the people who commissioned it.
You assume that freeing code by law would make computer programs no longer a scare commodity, because everyone could get the programs they wanted for free. But that's not true. There are a virtually infinite number of features and pieces of software that have not yet been written that many people want really badly. People would pay to have this code written, and it'd be created faster and better because it would be able to draw without restriction from the pool of all existing source code.
I personally don't think code should be free by law, but if it was, it'd mean that rather than making money from holding copyrights, programmers could only make money from writing new, useful code that has inherent value to people.
if such regulations werent around, united states would be controlled by around 4-5 big robber barons as of now.
Whew! Good thing that's not the case!
Your alignment: Lawful Neutral
No disrespect to Mr. Paul, but it's a stretch to say he's the sole, lone decent politician in the running. You can take a look at someone like Mike Gravel on the Democrat side and see pretty easily that the guy's genuine, and his actions and positions are based on principle rather than politics or money.
I think the more important point is that we haven't heard of any of the decent candidates in either major party because they're being very deliberately marginalized. The major parties don't like people who stand on principle, they like people who bend to power and wealth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Requested_Articles
Profit Optimization != Greed*
Making as much money as possible off the public, whether or not they've actually earned that money by providing a useful service definitely == Greed. I think the argument you're aiming for is the old hackneyed 80's mantra: Greed is good!
In fact, Apple would be negligent and unethical if they did not act in the best interests of their stockholders.
This is just a rehashed version of the "just doing their job" reasoning that justifies pretty much anything. Yeah, the Apple corporation is just doing its job. That job happens to be to do everything in its power to extract the maximum amount of money from you while giving you as little freedom as possible to ever take your business elsewhere. But hey, who can begrudge them that? It's their job after all. Apple got to do what Apple got to do.
Here's an idea: Don't set up a corporation which depends on doing unethical things to succeed. It's that simple. Just as you wouldn't set up a business that depends on slavery, don't base your corporate success on sabotaging and exerting remote control over your customers' property.
perhaps you mean this: http://www.cs.unm.edu/~dlchao/flake/doom/
There's actually a technique for this, called MOFIBA: Mineral Oil Followed Immediately By Alcohol. Basically, rub oil over your hands like you suggested, and then wipe them off thoroughly with rubbing alcohol (or vodka i guess). The most important part of this operation is to be extremely, EXTREMELY thorough with the alcohol wipe-down. Otherwise the oil will trap the capsaicin right against your skin (or contact) and cause even more pain, since it won't be able to be flushed out with watery tears or sweat.
I know it's fun to say "Wrong." but I don't think you disagree with me, really. The only thing I'd point out is that although they may have a "genuine" (aka financial) incentive to use an open architecture now, it's inevitable that the moment that incentive isn't strong enough, or more likely the moment a stronger "genuine" incentive comes along to abandon open architecture, they will. If a company's reputation is built on consistently embracing the "flimsy ideals" of tech openness, they're a lot more likely to stick with it than if they realized they could make a quick buck by opening up a few of their products. Neither is guaranteed of course, since like you said, we can't really trust businesses to do much except pursue profit.
why should I care why Nokia made it an open platform?
Because if they're doing it for cynical, cutthroat competitive reasons, it's not likely they'll stay true to an open model in the future. Of course it's good that they're doing it now, and it doesn't really matter why right now...But we should remember that just because a particular company is embracing open standards or open source now, it doesn't mean they're our BFF. Most likely, they're just doing what's most profitable for them at the moment, and when the wind changes slightly it'll be DMCA lawsuits and DRM all over the place. Basically, just don't drink the kool-aid and become a Company X fanboy simply because they made some gestures to the open source world.
Yeah, facts and reason, and also logic! For example, logically why should we care about those people when they're way over in some other country and don't even speak American? And what's reasonable about withholding funding from institutions who rely on funding to do unethical things? If people just looked at facts more, they'd see that all the facts say I should buy whatever I want from China, supplying their government with tax money to build up their oppressive military and propaganda efforts! Factually! Furthermore, people who take personal responsibility to do their part to end fascism and repression are air-headed hippies, and probably smoke the dope!
See? I can sarcastically mis-characterize and exaggerate your argument too. And no, it doesn't add anything to the discussion because we're just inventing caricatured positions to argue against. It may be easier and more fun to diss imaginary "nutjobs", but it doesn't accomplish anything but turning what could be reasonable, constructive discourse into an episode of the Jerry Springer show.
"Voting with your wallet" works on a local scale, but not on an international scale.
Yeah, that whole movement to divest from South Africa was a total waste of time. As if we could end apartheid in a foreign nation just by being responsible and ethical about who we give our money!
every government project has negative unintended consequences all out of proportion to what it as to accomplish
As opposed to private sector projects, which always accomplish exactly what they set out to do without any problems or failures. Such as all the WiFi networks TFA mentions are collapsing in mid-construction. And the interesting thing is that they're collapsing specifically because they're private projects. If there's not enough profit coming in, they're gone faster than you can blink.
It's true that government projects are often fraught with fuckups and "boondoggles", but the implicit claim that the private sector is an ideal alternative is highly suspect.
The population of the area should just move to areas where there already is development, instead of wasting large amounts of money rebuilding unnecessary infrastructure.
Sure, and people on the poor side of town should just move into the rich neighborhoods, since private industry certainly isn't going to waste money wiring areas where the demand and ability to pay isn't high enough.
While you may be right that encouraging urban sprawl should be avoided, you're proposing that private industry can just build infrastructure wherever it's most profitable, and then we can expect everyone who wants to enjoy that service to relocate to those areas. Not going to happen. There are certain services that may not be profitable to provide, but are nevertheless overwhelmingly in the public interest to provide. It's debatable whether internet access is one of those things now, but it certainly will be in the future.
Verizon wasn't reading the text messages or filtering them - they were refusing to sell NARAL a mailing list server that would accept short-number messages and sign up the sender for the list.
True but the basis for their decision was the political viewpoints that would be expressed through the server. They may not have been using spam-style filtering the way you're thinking of it, but they were definitely attempting to prevent a specific type of political message (abortion-related) from being distributed on their network while allowing all other messages, which is effectively filtering their network.
'cause anyone not from the west coast thinks of Washington DC when you just say "Washington".
But the funny thing is that people actually from Washington, DC simply call it "DC". To residents, "Washington" is usually used only in the context of national politics (The Russian ambassador visited Washington...), and so refers to capitol hill, politicians, and the federal institutions in the city. "DC" is how they refer to the city where they actually live, which is both shorter and unambiguous.
It's not about our messages being read though, it's about them being filtered. This is a censorship issue, not a privacy one. Even if "privacy is dead", and even if people trust their government and corporate institutions so much that they don't think that's a problem, access to unfiltered information channels is absolutely vital. Invasion of privacy can cause people to be fearful to speak out, but censorship makes it flat out impossible.