Slashdot Mirror

But I think that there is a related debate about our priorities which we should all be having: The debate about the best way to use our resources to make a better future. At this point, I think it's fair to assume that there will be some global warming in the next 100 years. My answer to what we should do about it is basically articulated here.

Whether global global warming really is a problem or not, you need to take it seriously and try to pollute as little as possible, because it's moronic to gamble with this one ecosystem we have.

First of all, I agree that most "skeptics" are either stupid or bought. I'm ashamed that my president, Vaclav Klaus, is as stupid as he is.

I also think that we should do every easy thing we can do to not pollute. But that's not what Gore is for. Gore wants to embark on a program that's so dramatic and expensive that it will basically leave us no resources to do anything else meaningful.

If you're curious why I think that's wrong, inhumane and illiberal, I can't say it better than Bjorn Lomborg.

Freeman Dyson is neither. Bjorn Lomborg is neither. You shouldn't judge them by the company they keep.

Thank you for digging this up. I don't want to get mixed up in the he said/she said dispute about whether Gore said "science was not going to intrude on public policy."

I think it's fair to ask, though, whether Gore acts as though he's not prepared to let science intrude on public policy. I happen to think he does, and I think that gives some corroboration to Happer's story. But whatever. Just because Gore wants you to shut off your brain doesn't mean you should.

Maybe I'm just too liberal for Gore, but I think that Bjorn Lomborg is absolutely right in this debate. Take 15 minutes to see where he's coming from:

Bjorn Lomborg talk on TED

if we follow the consensus and it turns out they're wrong, the consequences of that are what?

The consequences are the same as the downside of any sort of fanaticism. Even if that goal is good, it crowds out all other goals, including better and cheaper ones.

In a world where so many people don't even have clean water and basic medicine, isn't it a bit vain for rich people to ignore their problems and invest trillions (which is what it will cost) to fight the CO2 dragon that might not bite, and if it does, it will force us to build bigger dikes and levies?

Please watch this, and come back if you have a reason to disagree with it.

"even primate peoples who have been shown the device could operate it"

MODERATORS: How can a statement be "informative" if there is no indication of any kind that what is being said can be verified?

Ignoring the bizarre idea of "primate peoples" (WTF??), we need to have a special tag on /. for when this happens:

Well. Actually, the non-human primate, the bonobo, has been filmed playing Pacman (with considerable skill I would say) out of curiosity. This starts from 15:51. Before that, the bonobos do less important things like light fires and such (although they cheat and use a lighter). It's not much of a stretch to imagine them using a touchscreen.

Plus, in these hard economic times it's conceivable that Microsoft just substituted bonobos for testers, due to the fact that bonobos don't require payment for their efforts. And, since I've never seen what goes on in Microsoft research, you've probably never seen what goes on, and neither of us is likely to take the time to find out (this being /.), who's to say they don't use bonobos right now?

We are drowning in information.

I'd beg to differ, I think we don't have enough, we've only touched the surface, and we don't share enough. That's two great things about computing:
1. Everything is information.
2. The internet is designed for copying.

I mean, think about it. Ever since a repeater was invented, we've been copying information.

On a related topic, I enjoyed Tim Berners' talk on what he's calling "Linked Data", even if I don't agree with his method.

The only way is to work with nature in the way nature intended and that takes a lot of research planning and, yes luck. When it work it works dramatically well. [ted.com]

In Brewster Kahle's December 2007 TED talk he mentions a third mirror in the Netherlands.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/brewster_kahle_builds_a_free_digital_library.html

As he puts it, the Archive is mirrored on 'a fault line, a flood plain, and in the Middle East'.

Funny thing is I can't find another reference to the Netherlands mirror. The Bibliotheca Alexandrina site mentions a plan to eventually have four sites (California, Alexandria, Europe, and Asia), but that's it. Anyone know what happened with the Netherlands site?

Here, you will like this:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

I wonder how this maps to Garret Lisi's wonderful TED presentation on "a theory of everything"??

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/garrett_lisi_on_his_theory_of_everything.html

hes kinda crazy but good talk http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/clifford_stoll_on_everything.html

They'll continue to argue about it.
Watch this: ted.com video

Pretty exciting stuff indeed.

Maybe if it had been a bear. Monkeys in general show very strong signs of human-level intelligence. They're pretty much on par with our children.

For those of you reading this who are interested in watching a short video showing just how smart monkeys are, check out this TED piece on Bonobos.

I'm an athiest myself but I find his pushy nature to be a bit much soemtimes.

You want to watch Dawkins on Militant Atheism where he explains very well why he has that attitude.

On the Barbara Walters ABC-TV Special "The 10 Most Fascinating People Of 2004" Larry Page and Sergey Brin, founders of the popular Internet search engine Google.com, credited their years as Montessori students as a major factor behind their success. When Barbara Walters asked if the fact that their parents were college professors was a factor behind their success, they said no, that it was their going to a Montessori school where they learned to be self-directed and self-starters. They said that Montessori education allowed them to learn to think for themselves and gave them freedom to pursue their own interests.

But be careful. The word 'Montessori' is not trademarked, and schools and certification programs have popped up that have very little to do with this development based approach. You as a parent would need to do a little homework on the method, the school, and the teachers, and find a good fit. I think our children are worth it though.

Keep the money out of it. The open source system is already working. Any additional legislation, no matter how well intended, has consequences. If nothing else, government officials have to spend their time administering that legislation. Only when the benefits outweigh the consequences should legislation be introduced.

This kind of legislation only has the potential to harm the open source movement.

Currently, the benefit of this extra legislation is a pittance, a mere $200. This is nothing more than a token gesture. It's intended as an extra incentive for individuals to contribute, but gives no real relief to any project large enough to make a difference.

So it has barely any benefit, and it has a chance to do a lot of harm.

The little harms: It can be abused too easily. There's very little way to keep proper track. The money would be diverted from other public benefit.
The big harms: 1) incentives have been shown to psychologically stifle altruistic endeavours and 2) possible large scale abuse later.


1) The incentive
This kind of incentive actually does a lot more harm than good. Barry Schwartz talks about it briefly in one of his TED talks. (at 10min 50sec).

"If you have a reason for doing something and I give you a second reason, it seems only logical that 2 reasons are better than one and you're more likely to do it. Right? Well, not always..." He gives an example of something I've heard about time and time again. If people are willing to do something based on principle for what they believe is right, they are less likely to do it if they are also offered an incentive of money. The introduction of the incentive switches the psychological focus from, 'How can I help?' to 'What can I get out of it?' Without the incentive we're willing to deal with difficulties for a community or a cause we think is right. With the incentive, we weigh the difficulties with what we're getting out of it.


2) Abuse
If legislation grabs hold in one place, that makes it easier for similar legislation to come about in other places. This can have a snowball effect until it gets rather large. So right now you'd have a few individuals abusing the system, but if more legislation gets passed and more money added, you'd get large corporations abusing the system. What happens when the the next OOXML (a product owned by a large company but passed off as being the same as any other OSS) comes into play? It'll just be another government kickback to be abused. Don't assume government legislation is going to be tech savvy as to what true FOSS is.



OSS is doing fine now. It's not broken. It doesn't need fixing. There is already legislation helping non-profit organizations. This kind of legislation does not provide any real benefit. It is too easy to abuse now and it psychologically harms the motivations of the OSS movement.

Let's leave the money in OSS to donations and deals with ordinary companies. Adding extra governmental layers of money is just a bad idea.

He gave interesting talk at TED, can watch him at:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html

... we, Homo Sapiens, become Homo Evolutis. By taking direct control over the evolution of other species (and of ourselves).

(see the thought-provoking Juan Enriquez shares mindboggling new science on this subject)

A choice video demo-ing the original technology can be found here.

I believe, Joe DeRisi: Hunting the next killer virus, is the talk mentioned above. Definitely worth watching!

Well I've seen some interesting evidence by a professor who works on what he tends to refer to as 'the difference between good & evil'... If you'd like to see a talk on that very topic (whether we would or would not follow such orders) take a look: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/272

It is the "data gathering process". The lines are what has *actually* been mapped, the tracks of the ships who pinged the bottom - not just extrapolation of what might be down there (as most of it is).

I believe in is in this TED talk that Robert Ballard says basically this same thing. We have actually only mapped a very, very small percentage of the ocean floor, and explored even less than that. A great talk, interesting and informative - well worth the time to watch it.

Well, yes, if it was one-on-one tutoring, but it isn't. If you have to stop the entire class every time some kid decides that rules don't apply to them then you won't get much teaching done.

Oh, wait, that's exactly what's happening....

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom.html

Personally, I'm disappointed that companies keep calling me and treating me like just a "user".

More of them would get my business if they actually treated me like a member.

Here is an excellent talk from TED making the same point about the rules and the humanity of business:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom.html

Juan Enriquez talked about this research in his talk at TED this year. Just posted today: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/juan_enriquez_shares_mindboggling_new_science.html He argues that the next big evolution in technology -- wetware hacking -- is going to eclipse the financial crisis.

One of the main problems of Wikipedia is it has firm guidelines on what it is and what it is not.

Actually, I wish. It's simply not true. They may have a few core rules (e.g. the one you complain about) that are quite rigid, but overall there is virtually no rule in Wikipedia that is not subject to modification - including by certain senior people at Wikipedia - when circumstances dictate it.

Don't take my word for it - I got it from the horse's mouth. He says it in so many words.

Yes. People are not capable of actually describing or predicting what makes them happy.
Here's an example about food: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html. This gets into how ineffective people are at predicting happiness http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html.

Yes. People are not capable of actually describing or predicting what makes them happy.
Here's an example about food: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html. This gets into how ineffective people are at predicting happiness http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html.

Steven Levitt analyzes crack economics (TED video)

Meh, it's TED. We'll be able to see for ourselves what really happened, when they put the talk online at http://www.ted.com/

B.

TED's cool.

I'll spoil some of his best lines: as part of their research on how kids can teach themselves, they dropped a hardened computer kiosk in a remote rural village where "they were assured that noone had ever taught anyone anything"... and left it for a few months for the kids there to play with. They came back to see what progress was being made, and the first kids they spoke to led with "Oh, it's your machine? Good. We need more RAM and a faster CPU, please."

Reminds me a lot of Architecture for Humanity. Also check Cameron Sinclair's (founder of AfH) talk at TED in 2006.

I wonder what could be done with this type of interface. It certainly would be a lot less expensive than Microsoft's Surface, and you wouldn't be locked into an operating system that is stuck in the 90's.

Actually, the simplest most elegant solution is to do something along the lines of what this individual spoke about: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change.html

And note he mentions that this is TODAY technology, not something that might be around in 100 years from now. Additionally, he makes a good case that climate control will be something that we will want to do in the short term in just this type of scenario.

Don't worry, it won't even be that long.

Wait until any of the big companies that want to build this see http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html ;)

If you are wanting to cite gestures as prior art, sure there is Firefox, but you could go back to the 80s or even pen-windows of the early 90s or even the TabletPC of 2002.

If you want to find where Apple got the specific 'gestures' they implemented on the iPhone, here:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html

Apple literally ran from the TED conference to throw the multi-touch ideas from this presentation into a UI product.

If you notice, even the 'gesture' ideas the presenter 'made up on the fly' are exactly what Apple uses on the iPhone.

There are tons of prior art on the gesturing aspects of this patent, and Apple has some big b*lls to try think it will hold up. Especially, since the one of the main companies that will be forced to challenge the patent is MS, and Apple can't win against MS prior art, patents, and especially money...

So in a sick way, I hope Apple does what they will do and sue companies using a multi-touch interface, and wait until MS or equivalent steps in to take what is theirs out of defense alone or to protect another company, as MS has done before.

And after Apple loses the patent rights, watch as Apple pays royalties for every iPhone or iPodTouch, if not completely lose the rights to use the interface on the devices completely.

(Apple's ego could actually end up killing them.)

Don't you think Jeff Han might just have some prior art on this? This link http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html shows his multitouch interface more than a year before Apple came out with their iPhone and before the Apple patent was filed.

I challenge anyone to show that we are actually safer now than we were 8 years ago.

This probably supports your theory more than refuting it, but I feel safer now than I did 8 years ago. But it has nothing to do with terrorism or government protection and everything to do with the fact that my state, California, has banned cell phone use without a hands-free device. I'm fairly confident in stating that that one law will save more lives than any of the anti-terrorist policies of the Bush administration.

But humans are particularly bad at estimating the probability of something happening and the value, either positive or negative of something should it actually happen. There's a great Ted talk about this very subject. And I think that's basically the point you're trying to make...that the policies that we're being told are making us safer are actually designed to address the irrational fears we have rather than any realistic threat to our safety.

But I sill maintain that due to that relatively-unheralded piece of legislation in my state, I'm safer now than I was 8 years ago.

Sorry, forgot to link to the presentation I mentioned: Hans Rosling: Debunking Third World Myths

Theo Jansens Strandbeesten are not mentioned. [...] He did a talk at TED in 2007.

How odd, it's not a robot, and it's not from 2008, and it wasn't mentioned in The Best Robots of 2008.
I can't understand why!!!

Aside from the fact that you couldn't be more off topic if you tried, mad props to Theo, delusions of grandeur notwithstanding, his creations are amazing.

Theo Jansens Strandbeesten are not mentioned. I'm reading his excellent book 'The Great Pretender' now. There he explains his dream to build autonomous beasts from PVC conduits. He is making good progress. Especially the smooth walking motion is impressive.
He did a talk at TED in 2007.

You know, there's more to life than how many songs you can share and is it OK to get sued for pira^H^H^H^Hcopyright infringement and what if you did break the law but the other side is REALLY being an asshole about it etc etc etc. If he can end the fucking war (the ACTUAL one, with bullets and dead bodies on both sides and whatnot) I'll be happy. If we manage not to slip into a depression I'll be fucking ECSTATIC. THOSE are the reasons I voted for Obama.

I like the NRA, too, but not enough to listen to them when they said I should vote for McCain. I believe America's copyright laws are royally fucked and have ben corrupted to serve the exact OPPOSITE function the framers intended but come on, first things first.

I remember my intern officemate once talking disrespectfully about some girl at a stripjoint. I don't have anything against this in-and-of-itself, as it is part of the implied service a stripper provides. However, he was in dire need of an Outlook Adjustment for a few other reasons...

So I told him how much the strippers at that establishment make (most of it under the table) for what is basically a part-time job, and he got real quiet. Then I asked him, since I knew he was under the same "patent transfer" arrangement I was, what exactly the difference was between selling your body and selling your mind, apart from the fact that you'll never get your ideas back, ever. He didn't talk to me much after that. Some people can't handle the truth I guess.

Back on-topic (sort of): if Steven Levitt (the Freakonomics guy) is to be trusted, most "foot soldiers" in the drug trade actually do pull a second job at McDonalds. He tells the story that they are similarly undignified jobs, except that one of them incurs a much larger probability of dying: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/steven_levitt_analyzes_crack_economics.html

Remember Johnny Lee's Wii remote hacks? It isnt just for games.

You must have seen that on http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/benjamin_wallace_on_the_price_of_happiness.html. :) Which is a really great website! Full of interesting videos.

Most industrial waste cannot be incinerated safely.

C2C is Cradle to Cradle - a biomimicry effort spearheaded by William McDonough. It's also the name of his book: an explanation of the movement, and case studies where he has been brought on to design new factories and processes. One case was the river rouge ford plant; another case was a carpet manufacturer. The River Rouge plant now features things like a green roof (vegetation) where prairie birds nest. It also reclaims and cleans rainwater and runoff from the parking lots. As a result of his efforts, the water coming out of the plant is cleaner than the water coming into the plant.

Ted Talks has a great talk by him: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/william_mcdonough_on_cradle_to_cradle_design.html

I'd like to illustrate your point with superbly beautiful moving graphs! It is TED so you must click it.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html

This reminds me of Vilayanur Ramachandran's talk on TED: A journey to the center of your mind

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind.html

If you don't recall the talk, it's the one about the phantom limbs and how a simple trick helped people who had their arms amputated to stop the pain from the phantom limb.

And everyone who stepped into your bar would wonder why the hell you seem to be stuck in the 1920s.

Remember the Lessig TED talk on advertisers moving to the public domain when the conventional music was too expensive and difficult to work with. This can happen again.