I remember Einstein saying that war had never proved itself creative. But in our society, it seems like the inventors of millitary weapons, the NSA etc. are some of the most creative folks out there. They have the funding to be so.
As long as America lives in dread of the millitary strength of its rivals, there will be millitary innovation.
I really don't buy the 'innovation is slowing' argument to begin with. Back in the early 1900s you could make a discovery in physics with a cloud chamber and a few research assistants. Now? You need a team of several dozen physicists at the least and a few million dollars worth of equipment. So if discoveries require more people and more money to make, of course you'll have fewer (per person) but as has been mentioned elsewhere, you have more total innovations for the whole population.
How do you mix landmines with AI? "Smart" landmines don't have any AI, they just have a timer or a radio frequency reciever so they can be safety disarmed after the war.
The US position on landmines was the first policy that came to mind to answer the question; what rules of engagement would the US government follow if the decision to kill were taken out of a human's hands. How careful would they be?
I would have explained it in more detail, but the other poster on this thread seemed like he was just looking for an argument (and was, apparently) and I didn't feel like getting into a conversation with him.
Are they deactivating mines now? It was recent memory that they were saying that kind of thing would be too expensive, that they just wouldn't do it, etc. That may have just been an excuse to inflict further damage on a country's civilian population. Automating a kill decision tends to absolve people of too much responsibility. Nobody ever says "The landmine you placed killed a civilian. We're holding you accountable."
I'd be fine with AI being used as a tool, with a human decisionmaker. It's when they take the decision to kill out of a human's hand that I get edgy, because people aren't held properly accountable if somthing goes wrong.
I'm going to be harder on you than I would/will be on the OP, since you decided to jump in.
I don't care how "hard" you think you are.
I'm sure that you think that link is a slam dunk, but I think that it is telling that you haven't a single word of your own on the topic.
You have no clue what I think, as you've made quite obvious.
These weren't guys who had been "in country" for weeks and months, and had developed an instinct for differentiating an RPG hit from enemy cannon fire. This was some 20-something guy, maybe a year out of West Point, or two out of ROTC, and some enlisted men, maybe 19 or 20. If they had the presence of mind to formulate a though more complex than, "Fuck! Those bastards are trying to kill me!" then they are probably better men than you or me.
Which means that you agree with the original poster that people are pretty bad at differentiating friendly from enemy fire.
In the past, AI has not allowed people to make calmer, more objective decisions. Landmines, to take one example, kill civilians more easily than they kill soldiers, and without the accountability.
Now, I'm in favor of any technique or technology that you can come up with that reduces fratricide. But smug, flippant comments that show no application for the realities of combat make me sick.
Are you blind?
I didn't make a 'comment' at all and let the facts speak for themselves. You're wandering around these messageboards looking for an argument, despite your earlier talk to the contrary.
There was some info a little while back about how CO2 could be reduced by seeding the oceans with small amounts of micronutrients. I assume that this would help with declining fish populations as well. There was another suggestion for harvetsting the crop, particularly if it produced some kind of oil as I believe some diatoms can be made to do.
IIRC, Thalidomide was delayed for use in pregnant women in the US because it was feared to induce abortions. It turned out to do the opposite, it was an anti-abortifactant (and teratogenic as well. A bad combination.)
Thalidomide was never actually denied approval, though. No decision had been made, and the need for one was pre-empted by the occurance of numerous birth defects in Europe.
My point was that the whole idea of these laws is absurd.
I agree.
I don't see how the wikipedia article is contrary to anything I've said, though. I've attended speeches on Megan's law before, though it may have been an earlier version. (back in 2000)
My points were that;
1. Megan's law(s) are politically rather than rationally motivated. Their existance shouldn't be used as evidence for any particular view. Political motivation was, in part, the purpose in choosing sexual predators as opposed to violent criminals or thieves, as the wiki page you linked to corroborates.
2. The assumption in your previous posts was that longer incarceration decreases risk of repeat offenses. (I assume this was your point, or what does 'incarcerate for as long as necessary imply?) However I'm not convinced that longer incarceration times, beyond a certain point, are the most cost effective means to reduce crimes. Our modern penal system is near 100% punative and doesn't effectivly rehabilitate criminals. I could see longer incarceration times used as a bargaining chip (i.e. We'll cut your sentance by 80% if you agree to chemical castration.) But that has its own share of ethical diellemas.
I wish I had mod points for you. As disturbing as the grandparent post is, I can't count the number of times I've heard it; "if everyone can't have the device, noone should." Perhaps that's not what the grandparent meant, but it certainly sounds like what he said.
It seems to me that 'megan's laws' are an admission by the powers that be that the regression rate is too high,
Perhaps, though with politics it seems worthwhile asking "were they trying to be effective, or were they just trying to look like they cared (or make their opponents look like they didn't.)"
Lets have some numbers here. Are either of these low enough for us as a society to live with? Probably not. But why just sexual predators? If we're going this way, why not make everyone's criminal record public?
>>If the people who make this site are losing money (and they are not wealthy enough to keep it going) the site will be lost.Blocking ad's will only lead to innovation in terms of people trying to circumvent the pop-ups, and other people trying to figure ways to prevent that. In the end - it is a cat and dog chase and it is a waste of our resources.
I see a more ominous outcome, the increasing integration of ads and content (like posting movie hype as a story on slashdot... for a fee.)
If it's any cheer to you, I was let go from my job too. Of course, I knew it was temporary to begin with and I just wanted to travel. I took some comfort in the fact that the company wasn't competing with the US as much as with India.
The management were a bit rogueish though. They brought in a ton of expat managers for the IPO, and then fired them after the IPO.
there is always more stuff to buy even when you are a millionaire.
True, but greed is universal. My point was that people in call centers in 3rd world countries are not as desperate as they're made out to be. They are essentially part of a rare middle class.
And of course, it's better to be 'middle class' in America, but the folks in the Philippines have 'somthing to lose' if they commit a crime. As opposed to the truly poor, for whom jail may not be as much of a threat.
I've worked in a call center in the Philippines. For background, the Philippines is another popular call center location for US companies since there are fewer accent problems and the culture is remarkably American. The Phils is a better location for call centers than India, excepting the technology related fields, though the pool of workers with the proper skills is close to exhausted for the time being.
Anyway, at one point, a guy used someone's credit card to buy roses for his girlfriend. That's below criminal, and into the "just plain stupid" range.
After that, the company locked down everything. No cell phones on the floor, etc. Reps who regularly deal with sensitive e-mail don't even have access to e-mail. Access to sites like Yahoo is blocked from their computer and I'm not sure what else
While all activity is monitored, last I heard they were looking for a way to automate their search for suspicious behavior. (scanning logs for when a user opens notepad and types a credit card number. Probably not too hard in Perl, but I don't know the language.)
People talk about lower standards of living in other countries, forgetting that this is partly made up for by the fact that it's a lot CHEAPER to live overseas than in the United states. So while poverty in 3rd world countries is rampant, if you pay someone a halfway decent wage, the money goes a long way there.
And when you get down to it, it would be pretty tough to run a call center in the US staffed with college grads, like you could do in the Philippines, and keep it open 24 hours a day.
The fact that it's harder to prosecute people overseas is a problem. The company I worked for was based in the US, though, so it was still liable under US law. And I think that the company's potential liability was a selling point with potential clients.
Of course, one element in every crime is opportunity. The black market in the Philippines seemed much bigger than in the states which should increase the opportunity to sell things a person shouldn't be selling, be they pirated DVDs or CC#s
I can guarantee you that NYC emergency medicine didn't get 300% better between 1990 and 1998.
The dramatic drop in crime in NYC is an outlier compared to the rest of the nation, so it would be reasonable to assume that NYC had some kind of local effect which caused the deviation. In this case, I think Guiliani is the most likely cause. If you think it's somthing else, I'm open to suggestions.
As much of a fan as I am of privacy and a person's right to choose, I think that "legalized abortion reduces crime" assertion is based on pretty weak evidence.
Bear in mind that most of the reduction in murders, from what I understand, can be attributed to better emergency practices which cause assault not to become murder because the victim doesn't die.
Most of Sci-fi is 'looking at our own condition using advanced tech as a setting.
It creates tech for the sake of plot devices.
The 'transporters' on Star Trek were there to get people into the middle of the action more quickly, for example.
They need a word for Sci-Fi which endevors to extrapolate realistically on current technology and deal with the social and tech landscape of the near future. They have things like 'space opera' etc. and the 'cyber-punk' genre often comes close to this description. Speculative Sci Fi, maybe?
Slashdot Mirror
1899 "Everything that can be invented has already been invented.", Charles H. Duell, director of the U.S. Patent Office
if the robots ever got caught in those sticky traps.
I'd have the terrible urge to smash his invention with a rolled up newspaper.
I remember Einstein saying that war had never proved itself creative. But in our society, it seems like the inventors of millitary weapons, the NSA etc. are some of the most creative folks out there. They have the funding to be so.
As long as America lives in dread of the millitary strength of its rivals, there will be millitary innovation.
I really don't buy the 'innovation is slowing' argument to begin with. Back in the early 1900s you could make a discovery in physics with a cloud chamber and a few research assistants. Now? You need a team of several dozen physicists at the least and a few million dollars worth of equipment. So if discoveries require more people and more money to make, of course you'll have fewer (per person) but as has been mentioned elsewhere, you have more total innovations for the whole population.
1. Purchase a large quantity of a particular stock.
2. Publicly announce, via several news sources, that it was all a horrible mistake.
3. Fire someone, just to make the whole thing believable.
4. Wait for millions to short sell what they assume is now a horribly overvalued stock.
5. Profit!!
How do you mix landmines with AI? "Smart" landmines don't have any AI, they just have a timer or a radio frequency reciever so they can be safety disarmed after the war.
The US position on landmines was the first policy that came to mind to answer the question; what rules of engagement would the US government follow if the decision to kill were taken out of a human's hands. How careful would they be?
I would have explained it in more detail, but the other poster on this thread seemed like he was just looking for an argument (and was, apparently) and I didn't feel like getting into a conversation with him.
Are they deactivating mines now? It was recent memory that they were saying that kind of thing would be too expensive, that they just wouldn't do it, etc. That may have just been an excuse to inflict further damage on a country's civilian population. Automating a kill decision tends to absolve people of too much responsibility. Nobody ever says "The landmine you placed killed a civilian. We're holding you accountable."
Okay, a quick google search; I guess there was a policy shift about a year ago. They're phasing out persistant landmines by 2010.
I'd be fine with AI being used as a tool, with a human decisionmaker. It's when they take the decision to kill out of a human's hand that I get edgy, because people aren't held properly accountable if somthing goes wrong.
I'm going to be harder on you than I would/will be on the OP, since you decided to jump in.
I don't care how "hard" you think you are.
I'm sure that you think that link is a slam dunk, but I think that it is telling that you haven't a single word of your own on the topic.
You have no clue what I think, as you've made quite obvious.
These weren't guys who had been "in country" for weeks and months, and had developed an instinct for differentiating an RPG hit from enemy cannon fire. This was some 20-something guy, maybe a year out of West Point, or two out of ROTC, and some enlisted men, maybe 19 or 20. If they had the presence of mind to formulate a though more complex than, "Fuck! Those bastards are trying to kill me!" then they are probably better men than you or me.
Which means that you agree with the original poster that people are pretty bad at differentiating friendly from enemy fire.
In the past, AI has not allowed people to make calmer, more objective decisions. Landmines, to take one example, kill civilians more easily than they kill soldiers, and without the accountability.
Now, I'm in favor of any technique or technology that you can come up with that reduces fratricide. But smug, flippant comments that show no application for the realities of combat make me sick.
Are you blind?
I didn't make a 'comment' at all and let the facts speak for themselves. You're wandering around these messageboards looking for an argument, despite your earlier talk to the contrary.
There was some info a little while back about how CO2 could be reduced by seeding the oceans with small amounts of micronutrients. I assume that this would help with declining fish populations as well. There was another suggestion for harvetsting the crop, particularly if it produced some kind of oil as I believe some diatoms can be made to do.
http://www.poconorecord.com/report/iraqwar/000092. htm
I'm not sure that Blackberry has really penetrated the tech crowd so much. It was supposed to be very popular around Washington, I'd heard.
Or maybe this is marketing hype after all. We do seem to be getting a lot of that lately. Slashdot editors trying to earn some extra cash, perahps?
IIRC, Thalidomide was delayed for use in pregnant women in the US because it was feared to induce abortions. It turned out to do the opposite, it was an anti-abortifactant (and teratogenic as well. A bad combination.)
Thalidomide was never actually denied approval, though. No decision had been made, and the need for one was pre-empted by the occurance of numerous birth defects in Europe.
My point was that the whole idea of these laws is absurd.
I agree.
I don't see how the wikipedia article is contrary to anything I've said, though. I've attended speeches on Megan's law before, though it may have been an earlier version. (back in 2000)
My points were that;
1. Megan's law(s) are politically rather than rationally motivated. Their existance shouldn't be used as evidence for any particular view.
Political motivation was, in part, the purpose in choosing sexual predators as opposed to violent criminals or thieves, as the wiki page you linked to corroborates.
2. The assumption in your previous posts was that longer incarceration decreases risk of repeat offenses. (I assume this was your point, or what does 'incarcerate for as long as necessary imply?) However I'm not convinced that longer incarceration times, beyond a certain point, are the most cost effective means to reduce crimes. Our modern penal system is near 100% punative and doesn't effectivly rehabilitate criminals. I could see longer incarceration times used as a bargaining chip (i.e. We'll cut your sentance by 80% if you agree to chemical castration.) But that has its own share of ethical diellemas.
I wish I had mod points for you. As disturbing as the grandparent post is, I can't count the number of times I've heard it; "if everyone can't have the device, noone should." Perhaps that's not what the grandparent meant, but it certainly sounds like what he said.
But what if he wants to reuse the clips. I think he needs a lossless format like HUFFYUV, and that's not going to compress much.
It seems to me that 'megan's laws' are an admission by the powers that be that the regression rate is too high,
Perhaps, though with politics it seems worthwhile asking "were they trying to be effective, or were they just trying to look like they cared (or make their opponents look like they didn't.)"
Lets have some numbers here. Are either of these low enough for us as a society to live with? Probably not. But why just sexual predators? If we're going this way, why not make everyone's criminal record public?
>>If the people who make this site are losing money (and they are not wealthy enough to keep it going) the site will be lost.Blocking ad's will only lead to innovation in terms of people trying to circumvent the pop-ups, and other people trying to figure ways to prevent that. In the end - it is a cat and dog chase and it is a waste of our resources.
I see a more ominous outcome, the increasing integration of ads and content (like posting movie hype as a story on slashdot... for a fee.)
If it's been shown that these people are a danger to society following their terms and that they are incapable of reform
Actually, they're less likely to regress than violent criminals are, if that means anything to you.
The thing is, the US already has the longest incarceration rates in the US, and incarceration costs money.
Maybe we should just go back to "50 lashes and on your way." It's not like the US penal system puts any emphasis on reform anyways.
Well, if you have to stalk someone, sex offenders are probably the most socially acceptable target.
If it's any cheer to you, I was let go from my job too. Of course, I knew it was temporary to begin with and I just wanted to travel. I took some comfort in the fact that the company wasn't competing with the US as much as with India.
The management were a bit rogueish though. They brought in a ton of expat managers for the IPO, and then fired them after the IPO.
Just a little dog and pony show, I guess.
there is always more stuff to buy even when you are a millionaire.
True, but greed is universal. My point was that people in call centers in 3rd world countries are not as desperate as they're made out to be. They are essentially part of a rare middle class.
And of course, it's better to be 'middle class' in America, but the folks in the Philippines have 'somthing to lose' if they commit a crime. As opposed to the truly poor, for whom jail may not be as much of a threat.
I've worked in a call center in the Philippines. For background, the Philippines is another popular call center location for US companies since there are fewer accent problems and the culture is remarkably American. The Phils is a better location for call centers than India, excepting the technology related fields, though the pool of workers with the proper skills is close to exhausted for the time being.
Anyway, at one point, a guy used someone's credit card to buy roses for his girlfriend. That's below criminal, and into the "just plain stupid" range.
After that, the company locked down everything. No cell phones on the floor, etc. Reps who regularly deal with sensitive e-mail don't even have access to e-mail. Access to sites like Yahoo is blocked from their computer and I'm not sure what else
While all activity is monitored, last I heard they were looking for a way to automate their search for suspicious behavior. (scanning logs for when a user opens notepad and types a credit card number. Probably not too hard in Perl, but I don't know the language.)
People talk about lower standards of living in other countries, forgetting that this is partly made up for by the fact that it's a lot CHEAPER to live overseas than in the United states. So while poverty in 3rd world countries is rampant, if you pay someone a halfway decent wage, the money goes a long way there.
And when you get down to it, it would be pretty tough to run a call center in the US staffed with college grads, like you could do in the Philippines, and keep it open 24 hours a day.
The fact that it's harder to prosecute people overseas is a problem. The company I worked for was based in the US, though, so it was still liable under US law. And I think that the company's potential liability was a selling point with potential clients.
Of course, one element in every crime is opportunity. The black market in the Philippines seemed much bigger than in the states which should increase the opportunity to sell things a person shouldn't be selling, be they pirated DVDs or CC#s
I can guarantee you that NYC emergency medicine didn't get 300% better between 1990 and 1998.
The dramatic drop in crime in NYC is an outlier compared to the rest of the nation, so it would be reasonable to assume that NYC had some kind of local effect which caused the deviation. In this case, I think Guiliani is the most likely cause. If you think it's somthing else, I'm open to suggestions.
As much of a fan as I am of privacy and a person's right to choose, I think that "legalized abortion reduces crime" assertion is based on pretty weak evidence.
Bear in mind that most of the reduction in murders, from what I understand, can be attributed to better emergency practices which cause assault not to become murder because the victim doesn't die.
Wasn't thinking. Yeah, you don't need to cite your sources if you plagarize somthing in the public domain.
Most of Sci-fi is 'looking at our own condition using advanced tech as a setting.
It creates tech for the sake of plot devices.
The 'transporters' on Star Trek were there to get people into the middle of the action more quickly, for example.
They need a word for Sci-Fi which endevors to extrapolate realistically on current technology and deal with the social and tech landscape of the near future. They have things like 'space opera' etc. and the 'cyber-punk' genre often comes close to this description. Speculative Sci Fi, maybe?
Do you really see a conflict here?
In this case, respecting copyright is "letting information be free."
Just because a work is in the public domain you still have to cite it if you use it as a source.