We need to remember that most of us would not know how to create a financial derivative wrapping up bad mortgages into a pretty package and then selling them to banks who then get the government to cover the losses at the high end leaving the luzr$ holding underwater assets that they have to just give up. $12T worth of equity vanishing in the process. Yet these are the guys who pay us the best. The "techs" who lurk at the fringe, and who do not really know a packet from a pickle should be treated like physician's assistants or paralegals. Useful to do the routine stuff, but needing tech supervision or nudging aside when the going gets tough. They might be the hardware guys opening the hood and putting in the parts, while we wait at the keyboard to make it work. In a repair shop, it makes sense to form these sorts of teams, but for on-site delivery it is usually a one-man team, and in that case, we need to be careful to send in the paratechs only when called for, sending in the true techs when necessary. In the end, it is about education. Educate the users about why they sometimes only need the power user, sometimes the paratech and sometimes the tech. Educate the support spectrum to have proper (if limited) respect for each other and keeping each level engaged.

Sheesh, you'd think we thought being techie qualified us to do brain surgery, for crying out loud.

The sound I use to indicate that the system is shutting down (the "that's it man, game over (NSFW)") sound bite from Aliens. Icons could be the same way, I would think, sort of like themes. But ultimately icons are shortcuts to replace long words like "Save" or "Stop". And look how far the Egyptians of 4,000 years ago got with their icon-based language. And cross cultural issues abound. The red "X" used in 1990's German software caught me off guard, compared to common English usage to indicate "Delete".

In the final analysis, icons are like standards ... everyone has their own, sometimes just for marketing.

Only if let them get and stay ahead of you ...

I was putting pressure on my Representative (R) though I had no influence with my two Senators since they are both from the (D) party. I pushed for the "the Internet is a utility" based on first principles in the Republican party, which does not always lead to wanting private ownership of public goods.

I thought ad hominum attacks were the preferred tool of the people with no science to use.

A friend told me that in China the elevator door etiquette was for in-bounds to stand in the door and, similar to the German train behavior, block the door. He is big, and would stand in the elevator with his nose almost touching the door waiting for it to open. Startled a few people, for cure. Social interaction rules are learned behavior, and we are all both teacher and student, if it is done right. Unfortunately, as a child of the 60's, I know that many of my peers refused to be bound by cultural customs, leading to a ruder world, IMNSHO.

A vessel at anchor always has right of way (though I would not try this with a small boat and a big tanker). So I sometimes stop, take out cell phone and pretend to be answering a call. Since I am stopped, I have the right of way under most social rules of traffic in common spaces.

Turing's test was about the ability to imitate human behavior/knowledge. The real question we need to answer I will call the Mycroft test. The purpose of the test is to determine if the program has earned the right to not be turned off, that is, does it have a right to a trial before it is "terminated"? A program that has earned that right has crossed the blurry line between inanimate and "human" in a way that should be important to us. Defining a test that can measure this is at the heart of deciding what makes us us, vs what makes us tick.

They keep pushing these programs because they never heard of black markets, did not get the lesson in "life finding a way" in Jurassic Park, and for some reason while they believe in evolution vs creationism, they do not think the basic law of the genetic algorithm applies to behaviors (memes). The Soviets had almost 70 years to stamp out superstition and religion, but failed, in spite of some pretty horrific "scientifically justified" methods (not counting their flawed biological science models, thinking mostly of their flawed economic models).

While no one has ever suggested that science is subject to voting, it is naive to claim that opinion does not guide publication. If I wanted to argue data that showed the speed of light in vacuum was much different from the current estimate, my evidence has to be much better than if I were simply confirming a widely held number. AND, it is perfectly reasonable for a political body to declare that pi is 3.1416 for all calculations used in contracts and surveying. Not so reasonable is to hold that planning commissions cannot use the best science when planning for long terms (which they do, by their nature). See North Carolina's actions, which blocked use of the science.

But, in my opinion the best hedge we have is banks and insurance companies. As long as they are permitted to do the math, we will be safe (unless they are prevented from using their best estimates by social engineering in the "democratic" body politic). For example, in New Orleans I bet rational assessment of long term risk would hurt the poor the most, making for irrational attempts to legislate away risk by blocking its use in assessing mortgages, etc. Think of the whole real estate bubble and the good intentions but bad ideas that made home ownership a right, not to be denied just because the owner could not afford it.

How about a Google-enhancement to human driven cars that beeps, whistles or otherwise sound signals a human or large animal only when they are near the car or in the path thereof?

The ability to think meta is important. Some once pointed out that the US Constitution is not a suicide pact, even though without meta-thinking it appears to be so. This is a variation on the idea that the only thing we must not tolerate is intolerance. Do not be afraid to embrace this conflict.

The ACLU says

So, I think the Stingray is used to track who and where, very similar to having a beat cop standing on the corner who recognizes you and notes that you just walked by. All the discussion here about wiretapping is just FUD.

Outlaw bats and only criminals will have bats!

What? Not the wooden kind but rather the furry kind?

Nevermind.

Amazingly, this is the premise for my next SciFi novella - "StarEaters of Erdition", about a species of non-sentient astrophages. I think I'll use a plucky 70yo trans-species cyborg who's sentient self (hence, "who's") detects their existence and maps their trajectory from peta-peta-bytes of old Hubble data. Throw in a bit of a Cassandra complex (no one believes its (gender neutral pronoun) pronouncements). I think I'll cast Brent Spiner ("Data") as the carbon-based-component of the cyborg and George Takai ("Mr. Sulu") for the voice of the (nominally) silicone-based-component of the cyborg).