The possibility of robot abuse is actually being taken quite seriously. Psychologists are studying it. Governments are drafting laws about it.

http://www.idemployee.id.tue.nl/j.hu/publications/2008-IS-ExploringTheAbuseOfRobots/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070316-robot-ethics.html

As a clinical psychologist, I'll say that this comes as no surprise.

Dude, shut up. You're not going to win this. You're not a psychologist, you have nothing to say you just want to try and find a way to render my posts moot. It's not going to work.

Also is this your first day? Have you read ANY of my other posts?

The truth is, I made a joke you didn't get. That bothers you so you try and turn it into a character defect. Thanks, got it, you don't get jokes because you're not funny.

It's another shame that his "evidence" is also complete supposition that a stay in a rehab (for illicit drug use) months earlier somehow equates to inappropriate hard core anti depressant usage without supervision.
I'll just hope for random patients sake that's not his own experience as a 'clinical psychologist' that he's speaking from. (Oh, my wife, an ex-pharmacist, just clued me into the fact that psychologists can't prescribe medicines, is it therefore likely his apparent anti-anti-depressant position is just an extension of jealousy of those who can?)
(Somehow I feel he doesn't tell his patients about Videosift, I think he might lose some if they read his posts and put 2 and 2 together).

The link selected was for its clarity of description, not for its modus operandi, but, if you like, here's additional support for the non-dichotomous (not "black and white") assertion I've made (despite your suggestions to the contrary).

Simply put, suicidality is a side-effect of anti-depressants due, in part, to the increased energy or motivation that could arise as a result of the commencement of a round of SSRIs. Someone suffering from a severe depressive episode may, within a few weeks of commencing an SSRI, avail themselves to the means for suicide (in the absence of therapeutic interventions) which, in the weeks previous, might have seemed too difficult or like too much work to pull off.

As a psychologist and clinician myself, I am trained to work closely with individuals struggling with depressive episodes with an eye on this very issue. Sadly, for whatever reason, Robin's therapist(s) were unable to intervene as quickly as was necessary, speculating as I have, that a recent round with anti-depressants was at play.

@bareboards2 and ChaosEngine -

I actually spent a fair amount of time thinking about this after watching the video. The conclusion that I came to is that in bareboards2's situation, I agree that probably the "best" response would be make a scene / speak up / shame the guy. For a couple of key reasons:

First, there are two possible goals / longterm objectives to any response here. One, and the most important, is for the woman/person being harassed to get out of the situation as quickly as possible and suffer as little physical or psychological damage as possible. Second, ideally the person doing the harassing/assault ought to be discouraged from behaving the same way in the future.

Calling the assaulter out is probably, in most situations, the best way to optimize both of those outcomes. A physical response like taking the guy down / kicking him in the balls might do an OK job of accomplishing both goals also, but it is probably more risky in general. Also, the specifics of the situation might not play out in favor of it -- it might easily happen with a huge strong dude versus a woman with NO self defense training.

BUT, I also agree with ChaosEngine. Bareboards2, I'm not a psychologist or anything, but it seems like a lot of your regret and lingering bad feelings about your situation come as a result of deciding not to speak up OR respond physically with violence. While I agree that speaking up would probably have been the best response, I'd wager that you'd have felt better if you had socked the creep; or at least incapacitated him enough to fully get out of the situation. And he would (probably) have been less likely to do it again in the future if that had happened; but that is a far lesser concern than your physical and emotional state after the incident.

I guess what I mean to say is that sometimes when we are in a real-life situation, under pressure and caught unprepared, it might be the case that a less-than-ideal solution to the situation might be better than holding back and doing nothing. Maybe.

I hope I don't cause any offense with any of that, I just found this whole comment thread very interesting and find myself agreeing with different aspects of many of the differing opinions.

German Channel ProSieben - Galileo featured Miroslaw Magola who promotes Telekinesis. Real Magneto, X- Men, Miroslaw Magola's telekinesis is achieved by projecting a portion of his consciousness in the object that he want to move.

Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku : THE FUTURE OF THE MIND: The scientific quest to understand, enhance, and empower the mind.” And his quest to promote: “Telepathy. Telekinesis. Mind reading. Photographing a dream. Uploading memories. Mentally controlled robots.”

Kaku claims all of “these feats” have already been achieved. “These feats, once considered science fiction, have now been achieved in the laboratory, as documented in THE FUTURE OF THE MIND,” Kaku’s website declares.

Kaku notes that his “book goes even further, analyzing when one day we might have a complete map of the brain, or a back up Brain 2.0, which may allow scientists to send consciousness throughout the universe.” Miroslaw Magola alias "Magnetic Man," ( Magnet Mann ) known form Stan Lee's Superhumans - MInd Force who allegedly exhibits telekinetic powers aired on History and Discovery Channel born in Poland and now living in Germany. He claims he can lift objects off the floor, transport them through the air and force them to stick to his body - all using the power of his mind .

He was investigated by Prof. Dr. Dr. Ruhenstroth-­Bauer and Dr. Friedbert Karger of the Max Planck Institute and Dr. David Lewis (psychologist), a neurophysiologist at MindLab, one of the United Kingdom's leading neuro-research centers and Dr. Konstantin Korotkov, professor of Physics at St. Petersburg State Technical University in Russia and Alexander Imich from USA. More [url redacted]

I don't know, but I doubt free training would be a driving force for people joining the police.

Forcing someone to do something they've lost interest in is a poor way of encouraging them to invest themselves in and commit themselves to their work longer term. If the aim was to get them to thumb it in just enough, this would be ideal. Cycling on 2 years would not be ideal as a general target to aim for.

The first point is intended to be an unlikely extreme, put there predominantly to highlight the more realistic 2nd point, which is currently in use. I agree that there would be other options, but I'm not aware of any that have been employed. Checked with my brother-in-law (a NSW 'beat' cop, who doesn't like being called that) who couldn't offer another viable option either, even from his side of the fence.

You do not have to start as a beat cop. An easy example is, Forensics units, they tend to come from other avenues that are specifically science based with no prior affiliation to that of a beat cop. Administration, is another easy to see example, as well as criminal psychologists.

Do you see how those with higher IQ's will still be targeted, but towards different roles, completely bypassing the more rudimentary or 'on-show' (as my bro-in-law says) roles?

There ARE police who start as detectives. There are courses that gear them up with the required knowledge for the role. Sure some (not aware of the %) will go the longer career advancement path.

A great form of stability for any organization in its hiring procedure is to keep an individual in the same role for close to a decade. It's cheap, largely efficient, and by the 3rd to 4th year they are essentially a master at that role.. why then would the administration want to pull them out of that role, only to have to start the cycle again by training another (currently) inferior for the vacancy? Granted this method would offer some strengths otherwise missed.

Nothing is clear cut and exceptions can always be made. But policies such at the one featured in this video, exist to create predictable balances of resources that will make managing the overall organization easier and more stable.

you just went right over his head @enoch

all I know is that @lantern53 just can't stop talking or thinking about homosexuals. He can't seem control himself as he is apparently forced to comment on virtually every sift involving alternative sexuality.

such obsession....such devoted passion! Pulsing and throbbing with energy!

Something tells me the psychologists would have a field day with fabulous ole lantern here.

Definitely would.. if only she hadn't turned down the offer to take the Randi test.

From Wiki:

"In 2012, the James Randi Educational Foundation awarded Caputo a Pigasus Award for being, in its view, the "psychic" performer who fooled the greatest number of people with the least effort in the preceding year. A Pigasus award was also given to TLC for continuing to air the show.[59] In an article published by Wired Magazine the organization's founder James Randi explained why he believed shows like Long Island Medium were deceptive and potentially harmful to its participants:

Why do these pseudo-psychic spectacles bother those of us at the James Randi Educational Foundation? First, and foremost: They are not true. [...] But much more importantly to us, such performances seem to prey on people at their most vulnerable moments — those who have suffered the loss of loved ones — and these mediums use such grief to make a buck. Psychologists tell us this keeps the grieving stuck in their grief, rather than going through the natural stages of acceptance that are healthy.
—James Randi[1]

In June of that year, Caputo appeared in a commercial for Priceline.com in which she portrayed herself "connecting" with the late Priceline Negotiator character previously played by William Shatner.[60] However, this commercial has sparked controversy, since the commercial appears to make light of the Native American belief of smudging.[61] JREF President DJ Grothe issued a statement decrying Priceline.com: "It is difficult to watch the show and not feel heartbroken for those who are desperate to hear from the departed... and even more so if they are being manipulated by a charlatan." Grothe urged the organization to have their new spokeswoman take the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge and prove her paranormal claims."

> "I don't think most libertarians agree with you that libertarian government is anarchy."

Yeah, many who use the label seem rather confused.. So sure, many libertarians are not libertarian anarchists.

> "So, there is no utopian free market, just the real, regulated one you're complaining about."

This is what the crony-capitalists, the pluto-klepto alliance thinks -- and it's one of the reasons why they don't bother doing away with it but rather just continue to exploit it. Which is also an option available to some.

> "Better safeguards could make better politicians (yes, that's regulation, of politicians)."

Haha, go ahead, 'regulate' them. I'm not stopping you. "Regulate" the politicians all you want. See how it goes for ya!

> "I do, I vote, and I pay my taxes. I don't have these problems, or over-regulation problems where I live."

Then maybe you are happy with your situation.

> "I might hope you DO need the police to help you (with something minor, but enough to create your 'need'), then you might realize they are not all your enemy or useless and not far worse than anarchy."

I've had a number of experiences with the police, that were supposedly for "my benefit" but were in reality much worse than anarchy, and were, in fact downright detrimental to me.. Like for example, getting hit by a car during an irresponsible and unnecessary police chase in which I had no involvement until I got hit.

> "It's sad to think that it would take a personal need for you to realize that, but apparently it would."

Since you seem to be cursing me to have a "need" for police, I doubt you really feel "sad" about it.

> "because private ownership does NOT mean better management."

If I was a gambling man, I'd bet that you're not a landlord.

> "I don't pay much in taxes, only my fair share."

Of course. It's usually folks like you who pay little to nothing who want everyone else to pay for your "services."

> "Send me the URL to a company that gives actual security for $35 a month that isn't simply a guy you call on the phone who then calls the police."

Sorry, no freebie for you. You'll have to do with the "services" you get from other people's taxes.

> "I don't see a difference between paying taxes for services and paying 'homeowner fees' for services, except homeowner fees are usually far more expensive for fewer services and more regulation."

Homeowner fees are voluntary. You can choose not to live there and you don't get thrown in jail for not paying them.

But you did have to mention the roads, didn't you? There's an epidemic of "road zombies!" I tend to take Satochi Nakamoto's point of view when it comes to this kind of nonsense. Like "John Galt," Nakamoto thinks that socialists dislike Rand so much because Galt actually scares them.

But then again, somehow I've given you the impression that I actually care about that you think or not. But "all in all you're just another brick in the wall." (Kinda crazy, arguing with bricks. As a psychologist, I'm rather selective about these things.)

Suffice it to say that, for folks like you who "like" the Leviathan or think you're going to somehow control it, I have little if anything to contribute.

From one of the news links:

"PTSD is never a defense or an excuse," said [Psychologist Dr. Michael] Mantell. "It may be an explanation."

He has PTSD, and that causes him major issues. However, this is merely an explanation and not a defense or an excuse because he's still not completely a puppet to his disorder. I've known people who have fought and have PTSD, and they do not do things like this. The wounded woman filming this incident likely has PTSD, and she certainly didn't respond ballistically.

@bareboards2 Stop feeling so bad. He is not completely without control of himself or the situation. Assholes can have PTSD too.

Well the prosecution should have been all over this "expert" witness psychologist. They should have gotten a psychiatrist and asked him "In your medical opinion does affluenza represent a psychiatric disorder?" He probably would have chuckled.