Recent posts by vikaTae on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Challenges of Online Communication

Originally posted by ImplosionOfDoom:

Perhaps an internet equivalent could consist of certain types of closed channel communications, such a private messaging systems on the site, or programs that only allow interface between a limited number of people, such as Skype.

I’ve seen a good analogue of that in some online educational virtual environments, which seems to work quite well. The doors of the rooms are encoded to only accept people through them that are on a specific list of usernames. The rooms are zoned so that no chat carried on inside them can be detected outside.

It gives you a standing, permanent structure which has exclusive membership priviledges to only those accounts who are supposed to be there. When it’s time for a new class, the console program deletes the door object and replaces it with a new one with a different list. There’s no collision detection on the interior side of the door, so students can leave the room to log out at any time, but if their name isn’t on the invite list for the new session they cannot get back in. Add in staffmembers with the power to boot any unwelcome persons out of the current room, and it’s fairly effective.

Lets multiple sessions take place simultaneously on the same server, in complete privacy from one another, whilst increasing the feeling of being physically on campus.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Christians and Atheists have one thing in common.

Originally posted by Pleasedonot5:

You can stand by personal observation; everyone does. However you know that personal observation means nothing to everyone else, simply because we do not have access to your experiences, right?

Personal observation of your own internal thought processes is however, the main metric we can use, precisely because it is extremely rare for someone to be in the position where their full internal thought processes can be studied and catalogued externally. It doesn’t help in the least of course, that we’re still not in a position to fully do so.


Originally posted by WorthoftheGirth:

TL;DR: I’m salty because I got wrecked by creationists

The creationist argument is no different than than any other denomination of Christian or pseudo-christian faith, in that they are constructing their god out of whole cloth in their heads. Creationism differs from the others in that they attempt to reverse engineer the world around them by cherry picking scientific research that they can adjust to fit the bible, and discarding that which they cannot adjust to fit the bible, as well as discarding that which disagrees with the bible.

In short, they are creating the nature of their deity themselves, through rose-tinted glasses and sheer force of will.

Still a valid deity, and objectively it does exist – as a collection of mental engrams in the minds of the followers. Without them that deity is completely without power, and without existence.

In short, the creationist deity owes its very existence to its followers and is literally nothing without them. I agree that it does exist, under those terms.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Challenges of Online Communication

Depends on context I suppose.

When your purpose is to work together on a project, such inane questions are a blessing. Usually you nominate one person to prepare for the meeting with a slew of ‘idiot questions’. But if anyone else wishes to chime in with them, it’s fine. Idiot questions are the most inane, stupid, or downright braindead queries imaginable, but they’re all going to be asked by outsiders at some point, and if we address them early in the project, we can design round them.

Other than that a meeting is basically a ‘meet up’ and they are essential when you’re working as part of a team, to ensure you’re all on the same page with your own tasks and your expectations of the other team members. The project leader additionally has a meeting with management to make sure they’re all on the same page as well.

Meetings are basically focussed group communication and they are essential to teamwork on any project that is bigger than a single person. We cannot eliminate them without losing the common ground aspect of teamwork.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Christians and Atheists have one thing in common.

Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

if God doesnt exist, then who wrote the Bible?

God does exist, but as an emergent property of human minds. Thus the same people wrote the bible as created the mainstream version of him.

In a nutshell, the bible was written by a great many people, then a grueling human editorial process stripped much of the content out. It was humans all the way.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Christians and Atheists have one thing in common.

Originally posted by WorthoftheGirth:

anyone who ever argues with you is wrong because they’re shoving their views down your throat therefore they don’t know what they’re talking about and you can ignore them because of that fact. Am I right?

From experience discussing with him, Aleazor doesn’t work like that. Sure his statement could mean that, but discussing a concept with Aleazor, it is just necessary to know what you are talking about, and to have your bases covered before you try to convince him of anything.

If there’s a potential hole in your argument, it’ll be found. Typically a concept is only ‘dismissed entirely’ if it’s way above his level, and then it’s the duty of the person making the argument to try and make it as accessible as possible if they wish it to be understood.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Challenges of Online Communication

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

This doesn’t include the bad results of meeting going on&on&on&on because the “little people” want to find a place in the sun by interjecting the most inane questions possible.
0¿~

Those people are more than welcome to ask the most inane questions possible. It might be tedious, but it’s the only way we can flush failings out of the system prior to full implementation. I will note however, that it’s only useful when the meeting is for a project we all have control on shaping; they’re pointless when none of us have any actual control over the minutae of the project.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Originally posted by Zachary_Greene:

Yes, however, people seem to feel happier and better when interacting with other humans, rather than robots.
While a robot can do almost if not every service job, people will usually prefer a person to do them.

Purely a reflection of the current state of the art. As this year’s Loebner prize demonstrated, it is actually possible for an artificial intelligence, even using modern weak AI algorithms, to fool humans into thinking it is another human. This year I mention in particular, because one bot actually did manage to fool a little under half the judges that it was human.

One day that may change, but it’s likely a very long time from now

Probably roughly 20-25 years away, allowing for a few dead ends in current interaction research, so not that long at all. That would be the point it is essentially impossible to discern the difference between a profressional human speaking over a remote interlink and an AI doing the same. By the same point our physically embodied AIs should have enough grasp of the subtleties of emotion, natural language, and human psychology to be anthromorphised into a person by pretty much everyone they interact with.

It’s close enough certainly to be taking the possibilitiy seriously.

Yes, but many of the lower-class workers of today could easily do that, but simply don’t have the degree, or don’t know how to get into the field, or are striving for some ridiculous job in sports.

You’re trivialising what is involved in properly educating and guiding the young here. Reducing it to a bottom-of-the-pile job that we give to those who cannot function in anything else. If you do that, the education of a generation of your young will suffer.

There’s always going to be certain people who do worthless jobs, assuming we don’t purge people or have people not work at all, however, we should try to phase those jobs out as much as possible.

True, however in a society where having a job is a fundamental human right, everyone does indeed have to have employment. This is going to limit cases of automation to any time there aren’t enough people to perform at capacity, and is likely to lead to a lot of ‘make work’ (work made up so another person can be employed) if there is a population surplus.

Considering the range of both physical and mental disabilities that exist, and how they affect the individual – and accepting that it is quite possible for a person tohave both a physical and a mental disability, unrelated to one another – then you are inevitably going to get a small subset of the population that are not capable of very much work at all. Simple tasks such as washing dishes or sorting goods on a production line being the most they are realistically able to do.

In these cases the state would find them such jobs, and present these people to their new employers.

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / The age to appear in porn is 18, but the average world age of consent is 16

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Challenges of Online Communication

Originally posted by Aleazor:

I don’t understand a damn thing in this thread. All I have to work with are my interpretations of the words other people are using to express their ideas. That is the curse of internet communication.

I would say that was more a ‘curse’ of any communication. Even direct brain 2 brain communication would rely on your own interpretations of the engrammatic concepts being shown to you.

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / The age to appear in porn is 18, but the average world age of consent is 16

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Originally posted by Zachary_Greene:

Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that a dishwasher wouldn’t have a better job-quality teaching for example, and that they would not induce a better situation for your country from their work?

Yes.

If they don’t have the aplitude for teaching then they shouldn’t be made to do it. There are enough bad teachers as it is, without adding more.

there are plenty of ‘bottom of the rung’ humans, or even those who have severe mental health disabilities including developmental disabilities who would be ideally suited for sweeping roads say unless they also have a marked physical disability, in which case a job washing dishes would be more ideal as they don’t have to physically move round and are never far from the stabilising effect of walls if they have a dodgy gait.

A robot misses a genuine human touch, that is in fact beneficial in regards to child care, or education, and even in research simply because you do not have rational limitations

I’m not sure where you get this myth from. All you have stated here are simply developmental hurdles that are being overcome. It’s a mode of thought that is required that is emotion based, or an interface issue in communicating to others with what they wish to hear or best respond to.

As to the research angle, some embodied AIs are already being used in drug research precisely because they can handle the laborious tasks much more efficiently and tirelessly than a relatively failable organic mind.

Fundamentally there is absolutely nothing that has to separate an artificial mind’s capabilities from those of a natural one. Belief that there must be is a common public misconception, nothing more.


Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

That said, vika, do you think such a society would “encourage” a much stricter “control” of its population?

It’s certainly possible, but please note these would be policies entirely separate from whether it is communistic or capitalistic or not. Emergent rather from the way the resultant social order of things allows policies that could not be implemented easily in a more capitalistic society to be implemented.

Since having a job is a fundamental human right in a communistic society, it could be argued that not having a child that was physically or mentally unable to perform any job would be discouragred, as you would be breaching that child’s fundamental human rights by giving birth to it.

Of course on the flipside, by intervening early enough you can correct any disabilities of body or brain with use of the right assistive or surgical tech, so the argument could go either way as a communistic society might equally see it as everyone’s right not to have a debilitative disability, and at the same time see the fundamental right to life as sacred once you are born. Guaranteeing they would correct any disability to the best of their ability, free to the family, as soon as the child was born.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Originally posted by Zachary_Greene:

Well yes, however, the vast majority of people working as such are not low enough to do such work.
Of course you may prefer shopping with people instead of robotic workers, so there may be a job for that, however, it’s not one that must be filled.

If the communistic society guarantees you a job as a basic human right, then you may not get a say what that job is. If your skills don’t reflect anything there is an opening for higher up the scale, then dishwasher is what you get.

As such a communistic society is probably less likely to use a robotic workforce if their population is such that giving everyone a job leaves no room for automation.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The age to appear in porn is 18, but the average world age of consent is 16

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

The best defense is to not have a computer or smart phone.
Just use a stone tablet & chisel, learn how to send smoke signals, Morse Code via tom-tom.

Won’t protect you from someone sneaking some printouts into your bag then alerting security on the ‘suspicion’ of your possession of child porn.

Your bag is searched, the pictures found, and well, you’d better have a good lawyer to plea bargain your sentence down. Caught in possession. Committing a crime without you even doing anything.

And, the law has to prove that the kids even knew the vehicle was stolen

Not a problem if you’re caught with those printouts. Guilt is automatic, whether or not you even realised something was amiss.

In the UK, whether or not you manage to get your lawyer to plea bargain things down, you’re automatically entered onto the police sex offender database, and membership is lifetime. Any time someone wishes to do a security check on you (like a new job application) it’ll flag up on the police’s report back to your potential employer that you are a sex offender.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The age to appear in porn is 18, but the average world age of consent is 16

I was explaining an out, Karma. If someone else sends it to you, then it is not your fault that you possess it, and you should not be held liable, if you didn’t seek it out. As things stand right now, you are liable, even if someone you normally trust sent you an image. Your crime of possession coming completely out of left field, and with no effort or desire on your own part.

Mind you, porn comes in so many different flavors, it can be hard to determine what is and what isn’t porn. My own collection is heavy on the imagery, but light on the actual images. Erotic fiction is highly explicit at times, and I’d say definitely pornographic once it really gets going, but would the average horny teen consider it to be porn if they have to read through forty or fifty pages of prose before things really start to get steamy?

Certainly someone casually looking over my shoulder at the ebook would likely have no idea that it was a porn story I was reading, as other than specific scenes that go on for quite a few pages, most of it is plot or world-building stuff, setting the backdrop and reading like any other dimestore novel.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The age to appear in porn is 18, but the average world age of consent is 16

Because whether they asked for it or not, the person with it in their possession is the one in possession of child porn.

Heck even the person who took the selfie likely did not realise what they were really doing; too mentally immature to think it all the way through. Limited abstract reasoning capability et al. By creating a selfie and sending it to their partner, they were literally distributing child porn, but wern’t viewing it as such.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The age to appear in porn is 18, but the average world age of consent is 16

Originally posted by Zachary_Greene:
Originally posted by Helltank:

What’s wrong with child pornography?

I didn’t read any of Helltanks argument, aside from his original, or what I believe to be his original reply, on page 5.
But, since this thread was necroed, I might as well take it as a chance to gather more hate or disgust to me and my views.

I agree completely, minus what you said in your original reply.
Calling anyone who isn’t prepubescent a child is a joke in my opinion, firstly, which if you get where I’m going, basically, ALL ages should be legal.
Saying that twelve is a cut off is just arbitrary as the current average of 15.8~ across the world.

It’s not arbitrary. At least not completely.

In early teenage years, a brain structure known as the corpus callosum suddenly gets a massive growth spurt. Most of the adult structure actually comes into existence during the years of puberty. The corpus callosum is basically the main information superhighway of the brain. Almost completely composed of white matter, it connects the hemispheres in ways they simply were not connected before this point; allowing reasoning abilities that the younger child simply did not have.

At the same time the prefrontal cortex is growing and changing, with abstract reasoning capabilities just starting to develop. The corpus callosum effectively amplifies and magnifies these capabilities by tying the two halves of the prefrontal together more tighhtly than they were before; with basically what amounts to dedicated connections.

This happens in every child, unless an underlying neurological disorder prevents it, and is typically underway by age 13.

That’s the whole reason for the legal cutoff; it’s not practical at this point in time to assess every child individually and see when they develop abstract reasoning capabilities. It is however practical to take the average age at which these capabilities are developing, and make that the cutoff point. Hence why laws such as COPPA protect kids until this point; at which time they in theory have the capability to understand the dangers.

The cut-off point for sex with a minor exists for the same reason; it’s nothing to do with how developed their genetalia are, and everything to do with an average midpoint for the point in the process when their brains are likely developed enough to truly understand the abstract ramifications of what they are doing – the ability to legally give informed consent. Some will not have developed sufficiently by this point, and some will have developed long before, but right now there’s no easy, practical way to test every teenager and assess to what point their brain has developed, without submitting each of them to an extensive neurological workup at regular intervals.


Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Tell me again, how do these ppl have child porn in their possession?

It’s easily done. Two teenagers believe they are in love. One takes a naked selfie with their cameraphone and sends it to the other (this has been a fad for a while now). The other is now in possession of child pornography. They didn’t solicit it, but it is in their possession all the same.

If that other then sends the picture to all their mates for a ‘laugh’ (also been known to happen) each of those mates is now in possession of unsolicited child pornography. Any of them can be arrested and prosecuted for it, despite the fact they didn’t ask for it in the first place. Even a kid receiving it in class and the teacher seeing, is enough that the kid is now going to jail, and there are incidents where this has occurred.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The age to appear in porn is 18, but the average world age of consent is 16

Originally posted by onlineidiot1994:

What are others’ thoughts on this?

That prostitution is acceptable so long as the man or woman understand what they are getting themselves into. It is their body, therefore it is their choice if they wish to derive their income from it.

Fundamentally no different from anyone else who chooses to withhold or grant sex, except that once the money changes hands like with any other service, they become contractually bound to deliver.

The effort then should be focussed on making prostitution as safe as possible for those who wish to partake. Both in terms of physical safety of worker and client, and in terms of avoiding disease transference.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Originally posted by onlineidiot1994:

As far as equal wages are concerned, they may make the same amount of money (nothing) but well trained individuals DID tend to get preferential treatment when luxuries were concerned. That being said, party officials were considered the upper class of a communist society, not doctors and engineers.

That’s Marxism as opposed to pure communism. All pure communism does is remove the ability to have private sources of income other than your wage. Eg the share trading I do, would not be possible under a proper communistic system.

Owning property and renting it out for a second income would likewise not be possible. You would have your wage and no other source of income.

There’s still the incentive to push yourself, because better jobs have better wages.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Corporal Punishment

Originally posted by Kasic:
It would have been a far simpler solution if they were allowed to grab the kid’s arm and wrestle the lighter out of the kid’s possession without ending their own career in the process.

That’s far different than corporal punishment.

Not really. It still comes under the header of staff may never cause physical damage to a kid ever. No matter the justification they think they have in the spur of the moment.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Corporal Punishment

Originally posted by Kasic:

Oddly specific. Was there an incident with an arsonist in your past? I don’t think smacking the kid will make them any less inclined to burn stuff.

It was in reference to an incident at a good friend’s school, yes (he’s network admin). The kid had modified a lighter to emit a very large flame, and was in the process of using it to torch one of the ICT classrooms. The staffmember present at the time was unable to command the kid out of doing it, and had to use the fire extinguisher to douse the material the kid had lit.

The extinguisher undoubtedly did more damage to the innards of the computer the kid was at then the smoke from the litttle bonfire the kid had made, but it was realistically the only permissable way to end the situation. Pity they hadn’t had the forethought to turn the nearest PCs off before extinguishing the blaze.

It would have been a far simpler solution if they were allowed to grab the kid’s arm and wrestle the lighter out of the kid’s possession without ending their own career in the process.


(not necessarily the best example… why would the gate be open on to a busy road???)

Because many parents are a few sandwiches short of a picnic. I’m sure we’ve all seen little kids playing on the side of the road before, whilst the parents are absolutely nowhere to be seen. Same as we’ve all seen idiots with more brainpower in the car than in their heads, racing down residential roads at 70mph plus.

EDIT: As an aside, there are many, many properties where the front yard doesn’t even have a gate, or even a wall or fence along the front. Doesn’t stop some parents with young kids from letting them play out front.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Corporal Punishment

Basically, yes. Until we can eliminate the situations where the parents are using their fists on the kids, and have been doing so all their lives, then the hands-off approach in schools is not going to work. Right now, if a child starts pummelling a member of staff, the staffmember has few options. If they strike back, they’re very likely to lose their job. It’s not exactly conductive to discipline, when those situations arise that the staff are not permitted to strike the kid back to end the incident, without fearing for their livelihoods.

Yes, the police are called after the event, and the school will suspend the child for a week or two weeks regardless of the police response, but the completely hands-off approach does not work when the child becomes violent.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mcdonalds Employee (Advice Please)

Ironically Karma, you’ve just demonstrated both Janton’s point and my own for us.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

i think communism is good because everyone gets paid the same

imagine being a dishwasher at a restaurant and making a doctors salary!

Pity communism doesn’t work that way. A dishwasher at a restuarant makes far less than a doctor does under communism.

The myth of equal wages is just that – a myth.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

i think the best way for gun control is to put more technology into them

imagine guns that had computers in them so they couldnt be fired in civilized areas

Wouldn’t work long-term. We cannot rely on a device inside the gun limiting its capability when increasingly less and less skilled individuals can produce their own guns. Bypasses the entire approach.

A better approach is to use overwatch for the presence of a gun, tracking them by their signature, rather than relying on something embedded in them, and using legislature in conjunction with new abilities to place additional safeguards on those who have shown that they are willing to misuse firearms against other citizens.

Originally posted by Kasic:
Only problem is that gun nuts get all pissy about “registration” and “outside control” and don’t see that it would stop children from accidentally shooting themselves/others at the very least.

It would deal with a lot of the problems of unregistered firearm trafficing if the law mandated that each firearm be legally registered, and possession of an unregistered firearm was a severe offense itself. Help even more if (as is likely) it is ultimately possible to ascertain from a given printed gun which batch of materials it was printed from, and from that who purchased those materials and thus was likely to be the source of the gun’s manufacture in the first place.

Still a lot of work to track things back in that way, but I still maintain that taking the effort to track illegal firearm manufacturers down is better for the safety of the citizenry than doing nothing and leaving such manufacturers of unregistered weapons to their own devices.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Corporal Punishment

Originally posted by biguglyorc:

I’m not very interested in this topic itself, but I don’t think the following question will derail it much, so I’ll just ask it, if you don’t mind.

So you’re against it, alright. Do you mind me asking what exactly changed your mind over the last… four years and a half?

I don’t think anything has really. I’m against it as a parenting tool, as it’s really teaching the kid that the wrong type of behavior is okay. However, as a teaching tool there is still a place for it.

At the moment if a kid hits a teacher, the kid will be suspended at worst. (Expulsion is usually off the table as an option, because it costs the school a great deal of money to expell one child, to the point that it pretty much decimates the budget.) However if a teacher is physical with a child, either hitting them or physically restraining them, they risk instant dismissal and blacklisting – they can never work in the field again.

Since we have a problem at the moment where the childrens of parents who physically abuse are attending school, and occasionally employ the lessons their parents taught them both against the teaching staff and other kids, we are left with a teaching staff that have precious little recourse open to them, without disasterous consequences.

So I support corporal punishment where the kid started the issue. I support the right of the teaching staff to physically grab the individual, and to knock some sense into them if necessary, without risking their careers in the process. The issue can be one where the kid starts physically assaulting a member of staff, a visitor to the school or another kid; it doesn’t matter. I would also include incidents where the kid is either threatening to burn school property or has already done so, as the type where physical force is justified.