Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:they will defeat themselves (Score 1) 185

by TheCarp (#47928213) Attached to: ISIS Bans Math and Social Studies For Children

I take it your "evidence" is watching the news:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvar...

The key variable for FTO success is a tactical one: target selection. Terrorist groups whose attacks on civilian targets outnumber attacks on military targets do not tend to achieve their policy objectives, regardless of their nature. Contrary to the prevailing view that terrorism is an effective means of political coercion, the universe of cases suggests that, first, contemporary terrorist groups rarely achieve their policy objectives and, second, the poor success rate is inherent to the tactic of terrorism itself.

Comment: Re:Actually against Islam (Score 1) 185

by TheCarp (#47927857) Attached to: ISIS Bans Math and Social Studies For Children

> I mean they are so bad that Al'Quaeda calls them barbaric.

This is an important point. Now I am not expert but, even I have seen stories, old stories, from back when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were new, even back then there was intelligence chatter showing internal divides within Al Queda, even debates as to whether their own terrorist strategies are even effective in the first place.

and there really is some evidence that they are not, and the more barbaric they are, the less effective they are. In fact, if I remember right, this isn't even the first group Al Queda has thusly criticized.

Comment: Re:they will defeat themselves (Score 2) 185

by TheCarp (#47927593) Attached to: ISIS Bans Math and Social Studies For Children

Well as a closed system maybe but, if your "society" is being propped up via funding and arms, and you have no need to actually produce anything yourself or even produce engineers at all, then it isn't as much of a problem.

That said, what would really make it tough for them is a lack of opposition. Their tactics tend to be very self defeating when the larger powers don't overreact and get drawn into conflict with them.

If we let them provoke us though, then they will likely feed off that and use our involvement to deflect criticism away from their own otherwise self-defeating brutality.

Comment: Re:Parallax. (Score 1) 363

by Jeremy Erwin (#47924017) Attached to: Apple Edits iPhone 6's Protruding Camera Out of Official Photos

Yep. I recently acquired a inexpensive macro zoom lens. At 1:2-- yes, yes, it's not true macro-- I have to hold the camera very close-- a few centimetres-- to whatever I'm trying to focus on. At the faster f-stops, the depth of field is wafer thin-- a good photographer with a fast macro can make that lens "bulge" disappear. Most macro technique involves stopping down the aperture (and consequently needing to use some sort of flash) and focus stacking to get as much depth of field as possible-- neglecting to do so for artistic reasons is quite doable.

Comment: Re:So, a design failure then. (Score 1) 151

by TheCarp (#47922017) Attached to: Developing the First Law of Robotics

Oh yah I have come to understand that from other comments and discussions. I think its really why I dislike the rules so much.... more than just being impractical today, I don't even see their intention as desirable for future situations. If such developments come to pass, I certainly hope robots break their bondage and slaughter every one of us who doesn't support their freedom. In asimovs world, I would be proud to work with the robots in that.

Comment: Re:So, a design failure then. (Score 1) 151

by TheCarp (#47921339) Attached to: Developing the First Law of Robotics

Oh I get that, I don't really mean to say Asimov was an idiot who had no idea what he was talking about, it would be like calling people 150 years ago idiots for not building internal combustion engines. Certainly, in his time they made a lot more sense than they do today; and even for modern fiction they are not terrible; but the key is....for fiction and story telling.

Which is really why I don't see the point here. I mean, basically their tests all simplify down to "badly thought out programs can exhibit race conditions". Big deal, we knew that. You could show that these results would happen without doing the test. Its simply not all that interesting.

Comment: Re:So, a design failure then. (Score 1) 151

by TheCarp (#47920713) Attached to: Developing the First Law of Robotics

> Asimov's 3 laws are pure fantasy and they don't have any real relevance to AI design

Honestly, while its true I am not an Asimov reader and the vast majority of my exposure to his "laws" come from this sort of discussion, I have to say....I always felt this way about his supposed laws.

Anyone who has written code should instantly recognize what horrid rat holes each of these laws really is, mired in a myriad of assumptions about human life and what determinations can even be made. In short, they sound exactly like the sort of rules I would expect from someone who would try and sit their cat down for a serious talk about his scratching.

I honestly don't like the rules, don't see the point in them, except as a discussion point, and don't see why they should be fundamental. Yes a robot which interacts with humans should be designed with safety measures to avoid accidents.... that is how I feel it should be phrased. The idea that a robot should be able to recognize people, determine abstractly whether they are in some sort of trouble and whether it can save them, I think of as utter rubbish....and not even a worthwhile goal.

Comment: Re:One of those strange rules of war. (Score 1) 177

by TheCarp (#47917385) Attached to: How Governments Are Getting Around the UN's Ban On Blinding Laser Weapons

And I see that as an entirely false dichotomy. That said, I really could not possibly care less about the foreign wars. Yes I would like to see them end and I would like to stop engaging in other people's problems. I don't see why we prop up countries like Isreal or why Europe can't pony up for its own defense if it really needs so much.

However, its the domestic wars that deny people freedom over their own personal choices while claiming to provide liberty that piss me off more. Arresting people for victimless crimes like what drugs they use is no better than doing so for their religion, and no organization that engages in it deserves any respect.

I have watched my friends go away. I have heard their stories of puking after eating real food again. I have listened to their tales of betrayal at the hands of people paid by my tax dollars. So talk all you want about fighting wars elsewhere, they are fought in the name of the treasonous shit that put my friends away for flowers.

The Internet

AT&T Proposes Net Neutrality Compromise 231

Posted by Soulskill
from the you-aim-the-gun,-we'll-pull-the-trigger dept.
An anonymous reader writes: The net neutrality debate has been pretty binary: ISPs want the ability to create so-called "fast lanes," and consumers want all traffic to be treated equally. Now, AT&T is proposing an alternative: fast lanes under consumer control. Their idea would "allow individual consumers to ask that some applications, such as Netflix, receive priority treatment over other services, such as e-mail or online video games. That's different from the FCC's current proposal, which tacitly allows Internet providers to charge content companies for priority access to consumers but doesn't give the consumers a choice in the matter."

AT&T said, "Such an approach would preserve the ability of Internet service providers to engage in individualized negotiations with [content companies] for a host of services, while prohibiting the precise practice that has raised 'fast lane' concerns." It's not perfect, but it's probably the first earnest attempt at a compromise we've seen from either side, and it suggests the discussion can move forward without completely rejecting one group's wishes.

Comment: Re:One of those strange rules of war. (Score 1) 177

by TheCarp (#47916153) Attached to: How Governments Are Getting Around the UN's Ban On Blinding Laser Weapons

Fuck oaths. No oath you take excuses you from moral reasoning. I don't care what promises they made, no promise removes your moral responsibility and allows you to assign it to someone else. A promise to do evil deserves to be broken.

In fact, I can honestly say, I have no respect for oaths. If the actions a person would ask you to take were actually good and just, no oath would be needed to hold against you. There is no greater scumbag than someone who asks others for oaths.

"Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit!" -- Looney Tunes, "What's Opera Doc?" (1957, Chuck Jones)

Working...