Unobtrusive to me means that the technology does only what I want it to but we all know that technology today serves its master, which is NOT the end user. This is an invasion.

Show us all where I have accused people of outright lying, where I don't have good reason to believe that it is, in fact, a lie.

I have certainly disagreed with some things. But where have I accused anyone of specific lies that aren't actually lies?

I would be interested to know. It isn't wrong to accuse someone of lies, if in fact I have good reason to believe they are lying. That's called "telling the truth".

Not only is this statement false, if you know anything at all about tort law you should reasonably know it to be false. This would be hilarious if it were not such an alarming public accusation. Even when I was wrong (which was not as often as you imply), my comments were far from "baseless", and I have not libeled you or any of your "colleagues".

Do you even know what libel IS? Evidence strongly suggests not. You think you are mimicking my own behavior but I assure you, there are some very large differences.

I see no reason to further reply to your ranting. I tire of having had to constantly defend myself against your emotional and irrational tirades.

So... you are saying your rather blatant, repeated attempts at character assassination are due to your sense of insult to scientific objectivity? Why do you not see the obvious hypocrisy in this?

You posted your comment as a reply to something that had absolutely nothing to do with any of that, which suggests yet again that reason is a lie. You have been stalking my comments for the singular purpose of insulting me and trying to damage my character. The evidence is overwhelming that you are harassing me for personal reasons, nothing more and nothing less.

You have been doing this to the extent that it is damaging my ability to participate here on Slashdot. And you are doing it for reasons you have already admitted were personal (and rather strongly implied it yet again just above). In fact your claims to discredit me have repeatedly stepped far beyond the bounds of any pretense at scientific objectivity or integrity, so scientific integrity logically cannot be the true reason. Not that I think you have been very logical anyway.

The evidence says either the excuse you give above is untrue, or you simply don't understand the motivations of your own actions.

Why would you think that? I didn't give you any reason to think that was what I was saying. But then, we already know you have a tendency to claim people said things they didn't actually say. I've demonstrated it many times.

Why would I do that? Because you are pestering me about my identity (nobody else is)? Is that justification? I don't think so.

I use the name I use for reasons of my own. Those reasons are none of your damned business. I don't owe you anything.

Further, the use of pseudonyms are a time-honored tradition, and you have been quite deliberately stepping on my ability to try to function normally in this SOCIAL forum, for entirely personal reasons of your own. That is not reasonable behavior.

And I already explained it to you more than once now that you assigned a meaning of your own to those words that didn't actually exist when I wrote them. That's your problem (and it DOES seem to be a problem), but your failure to understand is not my problem, except to the extent you have been making it my problem. YOUR claim about those words in fact turned out to be a "sexist stereotype"... exactly the thing you accused me of.

You just don't seem to get it, and I am pretty goddamned tired of you trying to make that my problem.

And again you make it clear that your issue with me is personal, and apparently based on some kind of slight that you have wholly imagined, or perhaps invented. Yet again, that is not my problem, except to the extent that you have been making it a problem. And I repeat: it is a genuine cause of concern for me that you don't see that. In my opinion, your behavior has been that of a dangerously obsessed person.

The fact that you stated it before, buried somewhere in one of your ridiculous rambling posts, does not mean that I saw what was in the links. Really... do you expect me to take the time of day to follow all the links to links that you post?

The fact remains that I hadn't seen the full figure before. So that was a true statement.

That doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to assert. But that is very different from what you wrote before.

The statement is false because I explained here on Slashdot not just once but several times that I am not a "birther", and don't pretend to know where Obama was born. My arguments have been about a document from the White House that is publicly available.

You know these statements of yours are simply not true. So why are you posting them? What could be your real reason?

Further, I will state that this appears to be a blatant attempt to "besmirch my character", as the saying goes, by making such statements about me online. Why would you do such a thing?

Could it be because your accusations appear publicly on Google and other search engines?

I will ask you again where comments like yours come from. Try as you might, you have not managed to show that I even lied. Where are these statements you accuse me of?

You can call it "pedantry" if you want, but I call it "taking your words at face value, and refusing to assume you meant something else when you wrote them". That is a pretty obvious difference between you and me.

There you go. If this doesn't meet the definition of libel, I don't know what does.

You know that statement to be false, or at the very least have very good reason to believe it to be false. And my own words here on Slashdot, several times and in several places, show it to be. Yet you present it to the public as truth anyway.

What does that make YOU?

You forgot one, from OP:

I think OP should have ended with the word "DUH."

Pardon me? I don't dispute the moon landing bit of course, but who showed Obama's birth certificate to be real? I do recall claims that artifacts were due to scanning, but that in fact has been proven false.

Now, don't get the idea that I am a "birther", as a certain other person has tried to claim here on Slashdot. I have stated before here at least several times that I do not pretend to know where Obama was or was not born. And Hawaiian authorities have claimed that the information on the certificate copy presented by the White House is accurate. (You will note, however, that none of those statements actually states that the White House document is a genuine copy of it.)

But none of that has any bearing on the fact that the document presented by the White House (and still available online) as his "birth certificate" is indeed fake. That is all I am saying here... I don't claim Obama is not an American. I'm just saying that the White House, for reasons of its own, has put up a faked document.

Numerous attempts to "debunk" the accusations of a faked document have failed to address some of the key evidence of forgery (which is very strong indeed). Nor does it explain the problems with numerous other identification documents that have come to light.

BUT, this is the key thing: even if the presences of a faked document or documents was proven beyond doubt, that does not in itself prove he's not an American citizen. There could be a number of explanations.

It does prove once again, though, that he IS a manipulative liar.

Let's apply this towards eventually getting Matrix-styled learning models. Eventually we could implant memories of how to perform any skill. We could enable permanent muscle-memory learning instantaneously. Not only learning karate but being able to apply the lessons with strength and precision. Never having to work out to be in shape. Understanding advanced physics without ever taking a course at a university or even having any partial interest in the subject. That's a step towards singularity.

To what extent are we able to compute safety related human dynamics issues and what is slowing us down in this particular programming area?

Can we ever come up with a safety system for a workplace that would be able to overcome employee buy-in issues early on, especially if the typical large corporation is in a constant tug of war with profit and employee needs?

You see whenever we introduce changes in policy in the workplace, employees assume they are going to be required to do MORE but they are not getting more money for the work so this tends at times to cause resistance from employees to safety policies. Management doesn't often understand the issues at hand so they tend to make contradictory safety policies as well, saying that things need to be addressed in a timely fashion.

But in the aftermath of this complexity, companies are often just faking safety in order to appear to be safe when in fact they are running at a significant moral hazard to everyone (their staff, the general public and anyone else for that matter).

This particular problem is of great interest to me and I find that whenever there is an imbalance between management and employee needs there is a systemic problem that is solvable but yet only once all the variables are on the table. The problem with human safety is that most of the variables are unknown.

The general equation for solving safety related issues is:

For every task an employee is required to do or will reasonably be presented with, the employee must be trained to perform the task safely within prescribed safety policy. This idea is fundamentally at odds with bravado in the workplace, hero complexes, profit margins and it goes directly against human psychopathy that is prevalent in modern corporate culture.

What's the best approach to stabilizing a safety model?