Trying to be noticed among a million other offerings, this is good news. After doing my best job writing, I can then try to figure out how to reach my own 1% to tip them toward my work, rather than trying to brute-force popularity.
Not sure if he's the first to think of this but I read a book called The Tipping Point that describes three kinds of people: salesmen, mavens and connectors. He speculates this is a small part of the population that the rest of the population actually relies on.
Some of them you know, like Oprah and her book club. Some of them you might not realize that you have access to like a stay at home mom who talks on the phone or a literature nerd that posts all the time online.
a sample of the Friendster social network can be influenced when only 0.8% of the initial population is seeded.
Friendster? Wow, you could influence, like, 300 people!
Any chance they're just witnessing C&C nodes transmitting spam orders or pagerank gaming links to the remaining 99.2% of Friendster accounts (all of which are hacked and forgotten)?
To each of you, what is your opinion on the current state of science fiction in today's films? Obviously, there's been an increase in all film categories with more movies coming out but what do you like and dislike about films in this era? Care to comment the remake of Total Recall? Or 3D in blockbusters like Avatar?
You need only look at the years leading up to 775 to unravel this mystery. In 773 at the start of the Islamic Golden Age, the number zero was introduced to Baghdad which would, in 775, surpass China's capital of Chang'an as Earth's largest city. Now, we know from the second law of thermodynamics that 'the entropy of an isolated system that is in equilibrium is constant.' Now with all those people suddenly using zero in tons of transactions and writings, Earth experienced a huge decrease in entropy. I'm sure if you analyze the existing works from the time, you'll find that pervasive use of the hot new number zero increased the frequency of numbers at the time by 1.2%. That means that somewhere there had to be an increase in entropy to maintain the balance described by the second law of thermodynamics. Of course, anyone with a mail-order internet degree can tell you the obvious natural source of entropy at the time would be the decay of nitrogen-14. What? Falsifiability? Just watch, the floods in Thailand have lead to a decrease in production of ones and zeros hard drives which means we'll finally get a break from this 'global warming' or (let's just call it for what it really is) the 'entropic energy extravaganza!'
Hidden censorship is worse than obvious censorship. Shame on Google for hiding China's shame.
I don't understand this logic at all. From the summary:
Google will now highlight characters and phrases that are likely to 'break' a user's connection.
Uh so it looks like Google is calling attention to China's censorship and giving users a nod ahead of time that their search is going to be censored. This is far from "hiding" anything and, conversely, lets the user know about the censorship. The other good thing this does is that if I'm interested in censored terms and my IP hits the great firewall with these censored terms, the government might build a dossier on my entire histories to see what else I'm interested in and have dirt on me if they need it. But if Google is warning me ahead of time, this never hits the firewall and China doesn't get to profile their citizens based on search queries. Google will enable you, if you so choose, to appear to keep your nose clean.
First thought: Who's the source on this? Everybody suspected it was the US or the Israelis, but is this reliable?
Well, let's see... would Obama be the kind of person to do this? His track record so far:
Mr. Obama decimated Al Qaeda’s leadership. He overthrew the Libyan dictator. He ramped up drone attacks in Pakistan, waged effective covert wars in Yemen and Somalia and authorized a threefold increase in the number of American troops in Afghanistan. He became the first president to authorize the assassination of a United States citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and played an operational role in Al Qaeda, and was killed in an American drone strike in Yemen. And, of course, Mr. Obama ordered and oversaw the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
Now considering all that, um, I think ordering a speed up of cyberattacks on Iran where no one dies might be something he does on a whim over coffee on a given morning.
Second thought, while reading through the article: Wow, that's pretty badass.
That's what I don't understand. Everyone has this notion that Obama is some peace loving hippie. At his Nobel Prize announcement, he basically justified going to war with anyone who gave USA the stink eye. He has been more aggressive (albeit more subtle) than George W. Bush and will probably cause problems for Romney who wants to paint him as an indecisive leader that let Libya and Syria happen. But the funny thing is that for all everyone sees him as a harbinger of peace, he sure hasn't been acting like it. And it's probably going to be obvious come this next election when people start looking at his track record...
I think your cause and effect logic is deeply flawed.
I had unprotected sex, the govt should pay for my abortion
The government does not propose to pay for abortion because people should be able to have sex. The logic arises from studies conducted that suggest that legalized and subsidized abortion results in fewer unwanted children and therefore less crime. While you might debate that, the reasoning is that it's cheaper for society to pay for an abortion than it is to have a criminal interred on and off for life. Are you against taxpayer dollars being used to teach contraception in schools? What about tax dollars to hand out free condoms to those most at risk? Subsidizing abortions is a step further in that direction. It is not designed to give people the ability to have sex without protection.
I had kids I can't support, the gov't should pay to help me care for them
Are you aware of what a "dependent" is on a tax form? Again, it's cheaper for society to issue welfare and food stamps than to deal with the societal harms that come from malnourished children and the state assuming control over a child. What exactly is your ideal scenario in this case? That we have street urchins that occasionally die in our streets? That we have social services taking care of tens of thousands more children?
I'm an addict, the gov't should pay for my treatment
Again, you seem to imply that the government is being lobbied by the addicts. Instead it is the cost/benefit of dealing with addicts that have already developed dependencies on illegal addictive substances. You implement awareness programs with taxpayer dollars and the final unfortunate step is helping these people control their addictions so they're not mugging or killing people for money. A lot of these people have to support their habits with crime. Our jails are already overcrowded so the alternate step is to try to treat them and keep them from engaging in such behavior. Again, what is your ideal scenario? That you shake your finger at an addict and say "Welcome to the school of hard knocks, now go beat someone for money for your habit so you can spend the rest of your life in jail where I can pay more money for you to live."
I made shitty life choices and now I'm poor, the gov't should pay for me to have a decent life
Right, because everyone who is poor is poor because of shitty life choices and they should starve for those choices. We have the ability to provide them basic food and subsidize their housing but your ideal scenario is what exactly? You do know that they do not live like kinds and queens?
Welcome to your self-designed Nanny State.
If the alternative is crime ridden neighborhoods, I'll take a little bit of a nanny state. You people that demand one extreme over the other are really annoying and short sighted. Did you know that buildings have to make fire code in order to be constructed? God, what a nanny state we've found ourselves in! Why aren't we working to remove any sort of building and safety codes? PROTIP: A happy medium exists somewhere in between the extremes. When society's total cost is drastically lower to implement a nanny state law, we start to weigh the pros and cons.
What will you do to hear the will of those who aren't on the Web? Many seniors aren't (e.g. my father): will their thoughts be selectively excluded from the voting?
It's simple, we solve that problem with the solution. Our first online vote will be on a bill that will solve this very problem. Interestingly enough, over 100% of the population turned out to vote on this particular issue with a surprisingly large number of referral clicks coming from 4chan. As it turns out, the resolution is to grind up individuals who do not have internet connections (like your father) and feed them to the web savvy users and their "lulled cats" in a nice pink slurry. I'm sorry for your loss but the populace has spoken in so strong a voice that it was statically impossible.
Children of parents with low social status are less able to resist the temptations of technological entertainment, a fact that impedes their education and adds to the obstacles such children face in obtaining financial comfort later in life.
I didn't see anywhere in the article where they called that a fact. Conversely, the article seems to explain it to be a correlation and, if this concerned me, I would be more worried about the overall growing trend regardless of social status. From the article:
A study published in 2010 by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that children and teenagers whose parents do not have a college degree spent 90 minutes more per day exposed to media than children from higher socioeconomic families. In 1999, the difference was just 16 minutes.
The study found that children of parents who do not have a college degree spend 11.5 hours each day exposed to media from a variety of sources, including television, computer and other gadgets. That is an increase of 4 hours and 40 minutes per day since 1999.
Children of more educated parents, generally understood as a proxy for higher socioeconomic status, also largely use their devices for entertainment. In families in which a parent has a college education or an advanced degree, Kaiser found, children use 10 hours of multimedia a day, a 3.5-hour jump since 1999. (Kaiser double counts time spent multitasking. If a child spends an hour simultaneously watching TV and surfing the Internet, the researchers counted two hours.)
Perhaps people of a lower social status feel the need to escape more so than people who have an easier life? If you live in a crappy environment, are you surprised that you want to spend 10 hours a day pretending you're a valiant knight in Skyrim or being swept up in "Adventure Time" where anything can happen?
As explained in the article, poor parents and their children often waste both their time and money on heavily marketed entertainment systems.
The funny thing is that if you look it as dollar spent per hour enjoyed, it's not a waste of money. It's actually much more affordable than taking your kid on a field trip or sailing or even to the movies. Hell, football pads and gear probably cost more than a Wii with games. I agree that the kids should spend more time visiting the library but as someone who grew up underneath the poverty line, I feel like this interpretation of this study was pretty shallow. I mean, if you're concerned about poor people spending money on video games, why aren't you demanding we outlaw the lottery and gambling? Numbers-wise it's not rich people who enjoy those stupid, expensive habits.
At the prospect of going from a professor of deterministic systems to someone who will be a part of and responding to an inherently chaotic and non-deterministic system?
Why would someone who feels that their important issue views are a minority ever vote for you? Clearly an opponent of yours could approach the LBGT community and say "Hey, Hansen's going to ask the population if you guys can get married and you're the minority so don't plan on that ever passing." Or the Atheists, the rich businessmen, the greens, the unions, any very specific religious group, etc (the list goes on). And by the time they're done pointing out how the majority are going to "oppress" the minority for all these interest groups, they've covered a large part of the population. How are you going campaign against something like this? Surely you can't even run on a position in response to any of these questions? Your answer will always be "Whatever the most people want." So how will you combat such a strategy?
So ask Hansen whatever questions you'd like about his plans and philosophy;
Throughout history many leaders -- Abraham Lincoln, Harry S. Truman and even George W. Bush -- have made decisions that they felt were "right" but were definitely unpopular. Post hoc, we can see the effects and judge those actions. Now these were all high level actions but similar things do happen at the state and county level. Example: Your county's schools are failing horribly and need money but the only place you have money is vehicle tax that is supposed to go to your roads. You propose (if you are even going to take such actions) to move some money from the road fund to the schools -- sacrificing potential traffic problems in the name of education and staying above backwater Mississippi standards. Your populace (who have completed high school and already make long commutes) disagree with you when their vote fails to pass the proposition. What do you do? Maybe an example closer to home: With soaring copper prices, someone proposes to reopen The Elizabeth Mine but the EPA warns you that clean up from 150 years of abuse hasn't even concluded yet. Unfortunately your populace votes for their jobs and temporary income over the environment, what do you do?
To that end, Hansen says that if he's elected, he'll employ "an accessible online voting platform to allow discussion and voting on bills" for his constituents.
How are you going to stop someone from hacking this system? How will accountability be implemented while protecting voter's anonymity (so that employers or other interested parties with leverage can't influence their vote)?
Hmm. A new program to uniquely track and identify scientists springs up in the middle of an all out war between science and the idiocracy. Totally coincidental. *adjusts tin foil hat*
No need to adjust your tinfoil hat. I read this article and thought "Oh, great, now Virginia's Attorney General can conduct more accurate witch hunts." (he was unable to properly identify over 30 scientists and researchers)
This is a neat study but I feel like the foundational assumptions are subjective and a little flawed.
(civil rights tends Democrat; trade tends Republican)
Could that be simply because Democrats invent/introduce/overuse new phrases and talking points for civil rights and Republicans invent/introduce/overuse new phrases and talking points for trade? For example, you'd probably hear Democrats say "Equal Opportunity Employment" or "Affirmative Action" a lot and you'd probably hear Republicans say "Laissez-faire" or "Free Market" a lot. What would be the antithesis of these phrases for the other side? I would posit that it's entirely possible that these articles are not on average biased and instead are merely explaining and using the phrases that each party has employed to tackle their number one priorities.
On top of that, I didn't see anything that seemed to indicate that they used windowing to determine when a phrase was opposed to the phrase they were using. For example if you found that the acronym ACORN indicates a Democratic slant but there's a whole section on its Wikipedia page full of negative criticism despite them using 'ACORN' frequently in that section. Would this section be identified as a Democratic slant?
Where is this G&S word bank? Where is the list of results so I can look up the ACORN article's scores?
Here's a hint, the article is full of opinion and appears to be the very problem that this peer reviewed letter is warning us about. Your first hint should be the slang for psychologists that they use (trick cyclist, psychohistorians, etc). From the Register article:
Your hierarchical individualist, however, might sneer cynically – first at the prospect of a shower of trick-cyclists managing to change his or her mind on climate change by means of spin rather than hard numbers. The hierarchical individualist might also view the "science of communicating science" push as a rather ignoble attempt by the soft-studies profs to get a share of the climate change research funding bonanza that has poured into the hard science and biology faculties in recent decades.
And anyone at all might be rather alarmed, perhaps, at the prospect of actual success in the matter of developing a working discipline of Psychohistory – which could and would surely be used in other areas than climate change policy, and would surely be a threat to democracy if it worked as advertised.
And you're complaining about "culturally congruent risk perception"? This isn't news. This isn't factual reporting. This is someone framing their interpretation of a scientific letter to try to get you on board with him. I think he's ripping on the academics by way of Asimov's Foundation trilogy.
And here's a news-flash for whoever wrote that summary: Terms like "Culturally congruent risk perception" have no obvious meaning for the general reader.
That's because nearly the entire summary comes directly from a peer reviewed journal made for people who understand that sort of dense speak.
And could you say "culturally" a few more dozen times in your next summary? It really makes you sound smart, and not full of shit at all.
Behold, one of the problems with trying to relay science to the common person.
How is one culture supposed to judge another culture? Everything is relative...
Until you actually get told otherwise by your conscience.
Well, from my philosophy courses in college (as financially useless as they may have been) there's actually been a lot of study and attempts to codify what should be regarded as Universal rights. There's no need for us to rely on our "conscious" or someone else's conscious nor should we sit back if we feel that human rights are being abused in another nation that is sovereign. I'm a very liberal open minded person. If you want to worship some stupid magic person in the sky, go to town. If they start to infringe upon others' life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, then we have issues that must be remedied.
Your lax definition of a 'Conscious' be damned, begin the escalation of political pressure then economic pressure then physical pressure.
Sort of on topic, from your signature:
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
The Nazis were stopped because they blatantly violated (nearly) everyone's rules of Universal Human Rights -- so much so that many of their own detested it. And we should not allow something like the Holocaust to happen again. Communism, on the other hand, is a counter case. We went into Vietnam under the laughable pretenses that a Universal Human Right is capitalism in place of communism (with obvious self interests). Believe it or not, communism does not blatantly violate everyone's rules of Universal Human Rights and so we were kind of lacking on the support and moral high ground for that war. If you think communism has been "ended" and that it has been "ended" by war and not inherent corruption that it can't seem to shake -- you and I must be reading different books by very different authors.
To recap, Universal Human Rights transcend your suggestion of relativity. I'm not sure but if you're attempting to make fun of people who tolerate other cultures by saying it's relative, there's no place for that when you're dealing with a child's life and their attempt to be educated.
He talks mostly in this article about how the focus has been on developing specialized software for solving specific problems and with specialized goals, rather than focusing on general AI. And it's true that this is part of what is holding general AI back.
No, that's not true... that's not at all what is holding "general AI" back. What's holding "general AI" back is that there is no way at all to implement it. Specialized AI is actually moving forward the only way we know how with actual results. Without further research in specialized AI, we would constantly get no closer to "generalized AI" and I keep using quotes around that because it's such a complete misnomer and holy grail that we aren't going to see it any time soon.
When I studied this stuff there were two hot approaches. One was logic engines and expert systems that could be generalized to the point of encompassing all knowledge. Yeah, good luck with that. How does one codify creativity? The other approach was to model neurons in software and then someday when we have a strong enough computers, they will just emulate brains and become a generalized thinking AI. Again, the further we delved into neurons the more we realized how wrong our basic assumptions were -- let alone the infeasibility to emulating the cascading currents across them.
"General AI" is holding itself back in the same way that "there is no such thing as a free lunch" is holding back our free energy dreams.
But there is also something that Loebner is perhaps loathe to discuss, and that's the underlying (and often unspoken) matter of the *fear* of AI.
We're so far from that, it humors to me to hear questions and any semi-serious question regarding it. It is not the malice of an AI system you should fear, it is the manifestation of the incompetence of the people who developed it that results in an error (like sounding an alarm because a sensor misfired and responding by launching all nuclear weapons since that what you perceive your enemy to have just done) that should be feared!
People aren't just indifferent or uninterested in AI. I think there is a part of us, maybe not even part of us that we're always conscious of, that's very scared of it.
People are obsessed by the philosophical and financial prospects of an intelligent computer system but nobody's telling me how to implement it -- that's just hand waving so they can get to the interesting stuff. Right now, rule based systems, heuristics, statistics, Bayes' Theorem, Support Vector Machines, etc will get you far further than any system that is just supposed to "learn" any new environment. All successful AI to this point has been built with the entire environment in mind during construction.
Well after reading the article, I'm lead to believe that that is essentially what was done and that there were actually crew members hurt in the fire so the proposed strategy may have had to wait while they verified they weren't also trapping a human in there with the fire:
Two crew members, three shipyard firefighters and two civilian firefighters were hurt, but their injuries were minor, officials said.
Officials were waiting Thursday to begin venting smoke and noxious fumes so workers could go inside the submarine to assess the damage.
Workers had to let fire-damaged compartments cool enough for fresh air to be safely introduced without risk of another fire.
Also this week, a statement from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs revealed the presence an Al-Qaeda video calling for 'Electronic Jihad.'
In the video, they recommend fighting this in a traditional manner like suicide bombing. First you tape up with explosives, then sit at a computer, then log into a US website visited by millions of users daily and detonate your vest -- thereby sending all of those heathenish packets of Western information to hell.
You do realize that GPS signals are completely passive, yes? The whole system works by computing your location relative to the GPS transmitters whose location are well known - it's impossible to hack something through the GPS signal.
So what happens when someone spams your GPS device with incorrect signals that lead you to believe that you're heading back to point A when in reality you're heading back to point B? Perhaps I should have used the word 'spoof' instead of 'hack' but the post itself is a joke.
Also, no Copbot would ever sample an unknown IP4 address like that, it might link him to malware or compromise his location.
I'm not aware of anyone being able to exploit the ping command in such a way today -- perhaps so in this future universe that will never exist...
A bust has been made in the digital district of NYC. Agent Friedeggs and his partner, Copbot 4X, have a perp handcuffed in the backseat of their cruiser that is now being piloted by Google's driving software to take him back to the precinct where he'll be booked.
They approach the criminal's ancient Cadillac CTS and open the trunk. Inside is a briefcase packed with millions of little strips of white paper, each bearing an IPv4 address. Copbot 4X applies a small strip of multipurpose adhesive to his index finger with his mouth and reaches down to snag one of the strips. As he feeds it into his mouth and the ping trace times out he emits a satisfied Artoo Detoo whistle. "It's pure," he confirms as Friedeggs nods satisfactorily.
"You know, I think we're finally gonna catch these bastards. These addresses belong on display in the Guggenheim, not... " He cuts himself off as a warning light goes off on Copbot's torso. "Jesus H. Tesla, they've hacked the GPS signal to our car!" Copbot morphs into a go a cart as Agent Friedeggs draws his Taser and slides across its hood. Cheesy synth horns flair up over wakka guitars as their silent electric motor spins them off down the street.
NTP is just a protocol that you can implement. There are solutions that you can install internally that don't require internet access. Just stand up your own internal NTP server and have your own internal official time (possibly synced to something more authoritative). I agree with your sentiment about keeping sensitive medical equipment disconnected from the internet but with hospitals becoming more and more interconnected and not having their own physical infrastructure to do so, the internet looks like it's probably the best option. Yes, there are way to protect your traffic and all that but I must be pedantic and point out that NTP does not mean you must use the common servers available on the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Trying to be noticed among a million other offerings, this is good news. After doing my best job writing, I can then try to figure out how to reach my own 1% to tip them toward my work, rather than trying to brute-force popularity.
Not sure if he's the first to think of this but I read a book called The Tipping Point that describes three kinds of people: salesmen, mavens and connectors. He speculates this is a small part of the population that the rest of the population actually relies on.
Some of them you know, like Oprah and her book club. Some of them you might not realize that you have access to like a stay at home mom who talks on the phone or a literature nerd that posts all the time online.
a sample of the Friendster social network can be influenced when only 0.8% of the initial population is seeded.
Friendster? Wow, you could influence, like, 300 people!
Any chance they're just witnessing C&C nodes transmitting spam orders or pagerank gaming links to the remaining 99.2% of Friendster accounts (all of which are hacked and forgotten)?
To each of you, what is your opinion on the current state of science fiction in today's films? Obviously, there's been an increase in all film categories with more movies coming out but what do you like and dislike about films in this era? Care to comment the remake of Total Recall? Or 3D in blockbusters like Avatar?
You need only look at the years leading up to 775 to unravel this mystery. In 773 at the start of the Islamic Golden Age, the number zero was introduced to Baghdad which would, in 775, surpass China's capital of Chang'an as Earth's largest city. Now, we know from the second law of thermodynamics that 'the entropy of an isolated system that is in equilibrium is constant.' Now with all those people suddenly using zero in tons of transactions and writings, Earth experienced a huge decrease in entropy. I'm sure if you analyze the existing works from the time, you'll find that pervasive use of the hot new number zero increased the frequency of numbers at the time by 1.2%. That means that somewhere there had to be an increase in entropy to maintain the balance described by the second law of thermodynamics. Of course, anyone with a mail-order internet degree can tell you the obvious natural source of entropy at the time would be the decay of nitrogen-14. What? Falsifiability? Just watch, the floods in Thailand have lead to a decrease in production of ones and zeros hard drives which means we'll finally get a break from this 'global warming' or (let's just call it for what it really is) the 'entropic energy extravaganza!'
Also, for good measure: Nazis.
But I went back and searched every kindle and cranny to set every instance of the word back to kindle to fix it.
I'm only human.
Hidden censorship is worse than obvious censorship. Shame on Google for hiding China's shame.
I don't understand this logic at all. From the summary:
Google will now highlight characters and phrases that are likely to 'break' a user's connection.
Uh so it looks like Google is calling attention to China's censorship and giving users a nod ahead of time that their search is going to be censored. This is far from "hiding" anything and, conversely, lets the user know about the censorship. The other good thing this does is that if I'm interested in censored terms and my IP hits the great firewall with these censored terms, the government might build a dossier on my entire histories to see what else I'm interested in and have dirt on me if they need it. But if Google is warning me ahead of time, this never hits the firewall and China doesn't get to profile their citizens based on search queries. Google will enable you, if you so choose, to appear to keep your nose clean.
First thought: Who's the source on this? Everybody suspected it was the US or the Israelis, but is this reliable?
Well, let's see ... would Obama be the kind of person to do this? His track record so far:
Mr. Obama decimated Al Qaeda’s leadership. He overthrew the Libyan dictator. He ramped up drone attacks in Pakistan, waged effective covert wars in Yemen and Somalia and authorized a threefold increase in the number of American troops in Afghanistan. He became the first president to authorize the assassination of a United States citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and played an operational role in Al Qaeda, and was killed in an American drone strike in Yemen. And, of course, Mr. Obama ordered and oversaw the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
Now considering all that, um, I think ordering a speed up of cyberattacks on Iran where no one dies might be something he does on a whim over coffee on a given morning.
Second thought, while reading through the article: Wow, that's pretty badass.
That's what I don't understand. Everyone has this notion that Obama is some peace loving hippie. At his Nobel Prize announcement, he basically justified going to war with anyone who gave USA the stink eye. He has been more aggressive (albeit more subtle) than George W. Bush and will probably cause problems for Romney who wants to paint him as an indecisive leader that let Libya and Syria happen. But the funny thing is that for all everyone sees him as a harbinger of peace, he sure hasn't been acting like it. And it's probably going to be obvious come this next election when people start looking at his track record ...
I had unprotected sex, the govt should pay for my abortion
The government does not propose to pay for abortion because people should be able to have sex. The logic arises from studies conducted that suggest that legalized and subsidized abortion results in fewer unwanted children and therefore less crime. While you might debate that, the reasoning is that it's cheaper for society to pay for an abortion than it is to have a criminal interred on and off for life. Are you against taxpayer dollars being used to teach contraception in schools? What about tax dollars to hand out free condoms to those most at risk? Subsidizing abortions is a step further in that direction. It is not designed to give people the ability to have sex without protection.
I had kids I can't support, the gov't should pay to help me care for them
Are you aware of what a "dependent" is on a tax form? Again, it's cheaper for society to issue welfare and food stamps than to deal with the societal harms that come from malnourished children and the state assuming control over a child. What exactly is your ideal scenario in this case? That we have street urchins that occasionally die in our streets? That we have social services taking care of tens of thousands more children?
I'm an addict, the gov't should pay for my treatment
Again, you seem to imply that the government is being lobbied by the addicts. Instead it is the cost/benefit of dealing with addicts that have already developed dependencies on illegal addictive substances. You implement awareness programs with taxpayer dollars and the final unfortunate step is helping these people control their addictions so they're not mugging or killing people for money. A lot of these people have to support their habits with crime. Our jails are already overcrowded so the alternate step is to try to treat them and keep them from engaging in such behavior. Again, what is your ideal scenario? That you shake your finger at an addict and say "Welcome to the school of hard knocks, now go beat someone for money for your habit so you can spend the rest of your life in jail where I can pay more money for you to live."
I made shitty life choices and now I'm poor, the gov't should pay for me to have a decent life
Right, because everyone who is poor is poor because of shitty life choices and they should starve for those choices. We have the ability to provide them basic food and subsidize their housing but your ideal scenario is what exactly? You do know that they do not live like kinds and queens?
Welcome to your self-designed Nanny State.
If the alternative is crime ridden neighborhoods, I'll take a little bit of a nanny state. You people that demand one extreme over the other are really annoying and short sighted. Did you know that buildings have to make fire code in order to be constructed? God, what a nanny state we've found ourselves in! Why aren't we working to remove any sort of building and safety codes? PROTIP: A happy medium exists somewhere in between the extremes. When society's total cost is drastically lower to implement a nanny state law, we start to weigh the pros and cons.
What will you do to hear the will of those who aren't on the Web? Many seniors aren't (e.g. my father): will their thoughts be selectively excluded from the voting?
It's simple, we solve that problem with the solution. Our first online vote will be on a bill that will solve this very problem. Interestingly enough, over 100% of the population turned out to vote on this particular issue with a surprisingly large number of referral clicks coming from 4chan. As it turns out, the resolution is to grind up individuals who do not have internet connections (like your father) and feed them to the web savvy users and their "lulled cats" in a nice pink slurry. I'm sorry for your loss but the populace has spoken in so strong a voice that it was statically impossible.
Children of parents with low social status are less able to resist the temptations of technological entertainment, a fact that impedes their education and adds to the obstacles such children face in obtaining financial comfort later in life.
I didn't see anywhere in the article where they called that a fact. Conversely, the article seems to explain it to be a correlation and, if this concerned me, I would be more worried about the overall growing trend regardless of social status. From the article:
A study published in 2010 by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that children and teenagers whose parents do not have a college degree spent 90 minutes more per day exposed to media than children from higher socioeconomic families. In 1999, the difference was just 16 minutes.
The study found that children of parents who do not have a college degree spend 11.5 hours each day exposed to media from a variety of sources, including television, computer and other gadgets. That is an increase of 4 hours and 40 minutes per day since 1999.
Children of more educated parents, generally understood as a proxy for higher socioeconomic status, also largely use their devices for entertainment. In families in which a parent has a college education or an advanced degree, Kaiser found, children use 10 hours of multimedia a day, a 3.5-hour jump since 1999. (Kaiser double counts time spent multitasking. If a child spends an hour simultaneously watching TV and surfing the Internet, the researchers counted two hours.)
Perhaps people of a lower social status feel the need to escape more so than people who have an easier life? If you live in a crappy environment, are you surprised that you want to spend 10 hours a day pretending you're a valiant knight in Skyrim or being swept up in "Adventure Time" where anything can happen?
As explained in the article, poor parents and their children often waste both their time and money on heavily marketed entertainment systems.
The funny thing is that if you look it as dollar spent per hour enjoyed, it's not a waste of money. It's actually much more affordable than taking your kid on a field trip or sailing or even to the movies. Hell, football pads and gear probably cost more than a Wii with games. I agree that the kids should spend more time visiting the library but as someone who grew up underneath the poverty line, I feel like this interpretation of this study was pretty shallow. I mean, if you're concerned about poor people spending money on video games, why aren't you demanding we outlaw the lottery and gambling? Numbers-wise it's not rich people who enjoy those stupid, expensive habits.
At the prospect of going from a professor of deterministic systems to someone who will be a part of and responding to an inherently chaotic and non-deterministic system?
Why would someone who feels that their important issue views are a minority ever vote for you? Clearly an opponent of yours could approach the LBGT community and say "Hey, Hansen's going to ask the population if you guys can get married and you're the minority so don't plan on that ever passing." Or the Atheists, the rich businessmen, the greens, the unions, any very specific religious group, etc (the list goes on). And by the time they're done pointing out how the majority are going to "oppress" the minority for all these interest groups, they've covered a large part of the population. How are you going campaign against something like this? Surely you can't even run on a position in response to any of these questions? Your answer will always be "Whatever the most people want." So how will you combat such a strategy?
So ask Hansen whatever questions you'd like about his plans and philosophy;
Throughout history many leaders -- Abraham Lincoln, Harry S. Truman and even George W. Bush -- have made decisions that they felt were "right" but were definitely unpopular. Post hoc, we can see the effects and judge those actions. Now these were all high level actions but similar things do happen at the state and county level. Example: Your county's schools are failing horribly and need money but the only place you have money is vehicle tax that is supposed to go to your roads. You propose (if you are even going to take such actions) to move some money from the road fund to the schools -- sacrificing potential traffic problems in the name of education and staying above backwater Mississippi standards. Your populace (who have completed high school and already make long commutes) disagree with you when their vote fails to pass the proposition. What do you do? Maybe an example closer to home: With soaring copper prices, someone proposes to reopen The Elizabeth Mine but the EPA warns you that clean up from 150 years of abuse hasn't even concluded yet. Unfortunately your populace votes for their jobs and temporary income over the environment, what do you do?
To that end, Hansen says that if he's elected, he'll employ "an accessible online voting platform to allow discussion and voting on bills" for his constituents.
How are you going to stop someone from hacking this system? How will accountability be implemented while protecting voter's anonymity (so that employers or other interested parties with leverage can't influence their vote)?
Hmm. A new program to uniquely track and identify scientists springs up in the middle of an all out war between science and the idiocracy. Totally coincidental. *adjusts tin foil hat*
No need to adjust your tinfoil hat. I read this article and thought "Oh, great, now Virginia's Attorney General can conduct more accurate witch hunts." (he was unable to properly identify over 30 scientists and researchers)
(civil rights tends Democrat; trade tends Republican)
Could that be simply because Democrats invent/introduce/overuse new phrases and talking points for civil rights and Republicans invent/introduce/overuse new phrases and talking points for trade? For example, you'd probably hear Democrats say "Equal Opportunity Employment" or "Affirmative Action" a lot and you'd probably hear Republicans say "Laissez-faire" or "Free Market" a lot. What would be the antithesis of these phrases for the other side? I would posit that it's entirely possible that these articles are not on average biased and instead are merely explaining and using the phrases that each party has employed to tackle their number one priorities.
On top of that, I didn't see anything that seemed to indicate that they used windowing to determine when a phrase was opposed to the phrase they were using. For example if you found that the acronym ACORN indicates a Democratic slant but there's a whole section on its Wikipedia page full of negative criticism despite them using 'ACORN' frequently in that section. Would this section be identified as a Democratic slant?
Where is this G&S word bank? Where is the list of results so I can look up the ACORN article's scores?
Your hierarchical individualist, however, might sneer cynically – first at the prospect of a shower of trick-cyclists managing to change his or her mind on climate change by means of spin rather than hard numbers. The hierarchical individualist might also view the "science of communicating science" push as a rather ignoble attempt by the soft-studies profs to get a share of the climate change research funding bonanza that has poured into the hard science and biology faculties in recent decades. And anyone at all might be rather alarmed, perhaps, at the prospect of actual success in the matter of developing a working discipline of Psychohistory – which could and would surely be used in other areas than climate change policy, and would surely be a threat to democracy if it worked as advertised.
And you're complaining about "culturally congruent risk perception"? This isn't news. This isn't factual reporting. This is someone framing their interpretation of a scientific letter to try to get you on board with him. I think he's ripping on the academics by way of Asimov's Foundation trilogy.
And here's a news-flash for whoever wrote that summary: Terms like "Culturally congruent risk perception" have no obvious meaning for the general reader.
That's because nearly the entire summary comes directly from a peer reviewed journal made for people who understand that sort of dense speak.
And could you say "culturally" a few more dozen times in your next summary? It really makes you sound smart, and not full of shit at all.
Behold, one of the problems with trying to relay science to the common person.
How is one culture supposed to judge another culture? Everything is relative...
Until you actually get told otherwise by your conscience.
Well, from my philosophy courses in college (as financially useless as they may have been) there's actually been a lot of study and attempts to codify what should be regarded as Universal rights. There's no need for us to rely on our "conscious" or someone else's conscious nor should we sit back if we feel that human rights are being abused in another nation that is sovereign. I'm a very liberal open minded person. If you want to worship some stupid magic person in the sky, go to town. If they start to infringe upon others' life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, then we have issues that must be remedied.
Your lax definition of a 'Conscious' be damned, begin the escalation of political pressure then economic pressure then physical pressure.
Sort of on topic, from your signature:
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
The Nazis were stopped because they blatantly violated (nearly) everyone's rules of Universal Human Rights -- so much so that many of their own detested it. And we should not allow something like the Holocaust to happen again. Communism, on the other hand, is a counter case. We went into Vietnam under the laughable pretenses that a Universal Human Right is capitalism in place of communism (with obvious self interests). Believe it or not, communism does not blatantly violate everyone's rules of Universal Human Rights and so we were kind of lacking on the support and moral high ground for that war. If you think communism has been "ended" and that it has been "ended" by war and not inherent corruption that it can't seem to shake -- you and I must be reading different books by very different authors.
To recap, Universal Human Rights transcend your suggestion of relativity. I'm not sure but if you're attempting to make fun of people who tolerate other cultures by saying it's relative, there's no place for that when you're dealing with a child's life and their attempt to be educated.
He talks mostly in this article about how the focus has been on developing specialized software for solving specific problems and with specialized goals, rather than focusing on general AI. And it's true that this is part of what is holding general AI back.
No, that's not true ... that's not at all what is holding "general AI" back. What's holding "general AI" back is that there is no way at all to implement it. Specialized AI is actually moving forward the only way we know how with actual results. Without further research in specialized AI, we would constantly get no closer to "generalized AI" and I keep using quotes around that because it's such a complete misnomer and holy grail that we aren't going to see it any time soon.
When I studied this stuff there were two hot approaches. One was logic engines and expert systems that could be generalized to the point of encompassing all knowledge. Yeah, good luck with that. How does one codify creativity? The other approach was to model neurons in software and then someday when we have a strong enough computers, they will just emulate brains and become a generalized thinking AI. Again, the further we delved into neurons the more we realized how wrong our basic assumptions were -- let alone the infeasibility to emulating the cascading currents across them.
"General AI" is holding itself back in the same way that "there is no such thing as a free lunch" is holding back our free energy dreams.
But there is also something that Loebner is perhaps loathe to discuss, and that's the underlying (and often unspoken) matter of the *fear* of AI.
We're so far from that, it humors to me to hear questions and any semi-serious question regarding it. It is not the malice of an AI system you should fear, it is the manifestation of the incompetence of the people who developed it that results in an error (like sounding an alarm because a sensor misfired and responding by launching all nuclear weapons since that what you perceive your enemy to have just done) that should be feared!
People aren't just indifferent or uninterested in AI. I think there is a part of us, maybe not even part of us that we're always conscious of, that's very scared of it.
People are obsessed by the philosophical and financial prospects of an intelligent computer system but nobody's telling me how to implement it -- that's just hand waving so they can get to the interesting stuff. Right now, rule based systems, heuristics, statistics, Bayes' Theorem, Support Vector Machines, etc will get you far further than any system that is just supposed to "learn" any new environment. All successful AI to this point has been built with the entire environment in mind during construction.
Two crew members, three shipyard firefighters and two civilian firefighters were hurt, but their injuries were minor, officials said. Officials were waiting Thursday to begin venting smoke and noxious fumes so workers could go inside the submarine to assess the damage. Workers had to let fire-damaged compartments cool enough for fresh air to be safely introduced without risk of another fire.
Also this week, a statement from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs revealed the presence an Al-Qaeda video calling for 'Electronic Jihad.'
In the video, they recommend fighting this in a traditional manner like suicide bombing. First you tape up with explosives, then sit at a computer, then log into a US website visited by millions of users daily and detonate your vest -- thereby sending all of those heathenish packets of Western information to hell.
You do realize that GPS signals are completely passive, yes? The whole system works by computing your location relative to the GPS transmitters whose location are well known - it's impossible to hack something through the GPS signal.
So what happens when someone spams your GPS device with incorrect signals that lead you to believe that you're heading back to point A when in reality you're heading back to point B? Perhaps I should have used the word 'spoof' instead of 'hack' but the post itself is a joke.
Also, no Copbot would ever sample an unknown IP4 address like that, it might link him to malware or compromise his location.
I'm not aware of anyone being able to exploit the ping command in such a way today -- perhaps so in this future universe that will never exist ...
A bust has been made in the digital district of NYC. Agent Friedeggs and his partner, Copbot 4X, have a perp handcuffed in the backseat of their cruiser that is now being piloted by Google's driving software to take him back to the precinct where he'll be booked.
... " He cuts himself off as a warning light goes off on Copbot's torso. "Jesus H. Tesla, they've hacked the GPS signal to our car!" Copbot morphs into a go a cart as Agent Friedeggs draws his Taser and slides across its hood. Cheesy synth horns flair up over wakka guitars as their silent electric motor spins them off down the street.
They approach the criminal's ancient Cadillac CTS and open the trunk. Inside is a briefcase packed with millions of little strips of white paper, each bearing an IPv4 address. Copbot 4X applies a small strip of multipurpose adhesive to his index finger with his mouth and reaches down to snag one of the strips. As he feeds it into his mouth and the ping trace times out he emits a satisfied Artoo Detoo whistle. "It's pure," he confirms as Friedeggs nods satisfactorily.
"You know, I think we're finally gonna catch these bastards. These addresses belong on display in the Guggenheim, not
So, you're linking a SlashdotBI article to the Slashdot front page?
Well then.
NTP is just a protocol that you can implement. There are solutions that you can install internally that don't require internet access. Just stand up your own internal NTP server and have your own internal official time (possibly synced to something more authoritative). I agree with your sentiment about keeping sensitive medical equipment disconnected from the internet but with hospitals becoming more and more interconnected and not having their own physical infrastructure to do so, the internet looks like it's probably the best option. Yes, there are way to protect your traffic and all that but I must be pedantic and point out that NTP does not mean you must use the common servers available on the internet.