Slashdot Mirror


Co-Founder of PayPal Peter Thiel: Society Is Hostile To Science and Technology

dcblogs writes Peter Thiel, a co-founder of PayPal, billionaire investor and author, says "we live in a financial, capitalistic age, we do not live in a scientific or technological age. We live in a period where people generally dislike science and technology. Our culture dislikes it, our government dislikes it. The easiest way to see "how hostile our society is to technology" is to look at Hollywood. Movies "all show technology that doesn't work, that ... kills people, that it is bad for the world," said Thiel. He argues that corporations and the U.S. government are failing at complex planning.

238 comments

  1. Tchnology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tchnology?

    1. Re:Tchnology? by sycodon · · Score: 1

      The Spell Checker (technology) didn't work.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  2. Society Is Hostile To Science and Tchnology by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes, hostile to tchnology like spell checkers....

    1. Re:Society Is Hostile To Science and Tchnology by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      Yes, hostile to tchnology like spell checkers....

      Spell checkers? Dang, it's not every day one gets Nazi'd by a Hogwarts graduate...

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    2. Re:Society Is Hostile To Science and Tchnology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Obviously, most of society loves those technologies that make their lives easier.

      What people don't love is anything that requires of them a higher level of mental effort. Things like safe password management, for example. Similarly, if being of above-average intelligence means you can more greatly utilize available technological resources to give yourself greater success, then everyone really hates that, and hates you while they are at it. For example, they don't want to have to learn to code, because that's hard. So they dislike the fact that they might have to learn to code (or maybe master Excel or similar) in order to pull the kind of income you can pull.

      Lastly, they hate having their favorite myths challenged by scientific progress, especially when understanding why the science behind whatever it is they don't like is actually solid requires them to do a lot of study and hard-thinking (like understanding the philosophical foundation of, and practical necessities that drive, the expensive details of the scientific method (such as the need for control groups and Large Hadron Colliders)). THAT is way too much work, and the people who do this are way too arrogant, and so the things they create will necessarily doom us all, so we would be better off without the lot of it.

    3. Re:Society Is Hostile To Science and Tchnology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lastly, they hate having their favorite myths challenged by scientific progress, especially when understanding why the science behind whatever it is they don't like is actually solid requires them to do a lot of study and hard-thinking

      You say "they" when it is something that includes just about everyone, including a lot of nerds (e.g. people here) and even scientists. People have a specific interest, and a certain level of effort they want to put into different topics, and that is that. A very select few are truely curious about everything, with everyone else being superficial about at least a few things.

      For example, I notice in your list of examples of hard thinking, you don't include something like learning math or learning a topic in a thorough sense, or learning to read science papers from the source. In other words, there are a lot of people that are more than willing to read a bazillion internet articles, but not actually put effort into learning the subject in any more serious level. Despite numerous free sources online for learning comprehensive intro level material in physical sciences, very few people will go as far as reading any such material if it involves math. But because they have read something on the topic, they are more than willing to act like they understand a subject to the point that people who disagree with them are just ignorant, whether the other person is truly ignorant, or actually has a degree in the field.

      Just look at how many people on Slashdot are eager to act like they are the final word on quantum mechanics, and the implications that has for a sci-fi-like future, yet almost none of them have actually looked at a QM textbook or course notes because that involves math (math that any CS/EE major should be able to do, and often there are refreshers of the harder stuff, it just takes time).

    4. Re:Society Is Hostile To Science and Tchnology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Obviously, most of society loves those technologies that make their lives easier."
      You mean like the TV remote? Yes, what a catastrophe it was to walk all the over to the TV set to change channels!!!

    5. Re: Society Is Hostile To Science and Tchnology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Society is not hostile to science and technology. Society is waking up to and is hostile towards the crony capitalist oligarchs who are using it to enslave everyone else.

      This guy is one of them and he can fuck RIGHT off.

    6. Re: Society Is Hostile To Science and Tchnology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cleaning, transportation, communication, finance, work. Would you rather be a coal miner from 1800 or from today. Nowadays they work using robots from clean offices.

  3. And spelling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because

  4. Its not the technology - it is the tech company by cyberspittle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When high tech companies offshore cash to avoid taxes, it is no wonder people don't trust the technology. They don't trust the technology companies.

    1. Re:Its not the technology - it is the tech company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Are they hostile towards coffee? Because last I checked Starbucks was the biggest offender.

    2. Re:Its not the technology - it is the tech company by geekmux · · Score: 1

      When high tech companies offshore cash to avoid taxes, it is no wonder people don't trust the technology. They don't trust the technology companies.

      Yes, and isn't it ironic that the very reason they don't like technology companies that do this is because of their capitalistic goals to increase financial wealth.

      Perhaps it's not so much irony as it is proving his point dead on.

    3. Re:Its not the technology - it is the tech company by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Most of the people i see bitching about tech companies or any company for that matter who offshores cash to avoid taxes seem to object on the grounds of "fairness" and "governmentbis good except when it gets involved over seas". It typically isn't about cApitalistic financial anything.

      I don't see any irony or point being proven.

    4. Re:Its not the technology - it is the tech company by Kariles70 · · Score: 0

      Our stupid government could stop all off-shoring tomorrow by simply lowering corporate taxes to where we are not the highest corporate taxed country on earth. It would also increase corporate revenue into the national treasury. Of course that would fix the problem and politicos are not about fixing a problem. If they fix something you don't need them and that is the scariest thing on earth for a politician. No, they'll prolong and exacerbate the problem as much as possible.

    5. Re:Its not the technology - it is the tech company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our stupid government could stop all off-shoring tomorrow by simply lowering corporate taxes to where we are not the highest corporate taxed country on earth.

      I have to wonder if you even remotely believe what you wrote, or maybe you've never actually worked for a corporation. I've worked for quite a few multinationals, and without exception, any tax is too much. If they can pay 0 tax on profits they will still complain and demand additional benefits. Lower the corporate tax rate to 1% and not a single one will onshore back to the US. Throw in a multi-billion dollar sweetener and watch them pocket it and reneg on their part of the deal.

    6. Re:Its not the technology - it is the tech company by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Informative

      where we are not the highest corporate taxed country on earth.

      Except we're not the highest. Chad and the UAE have the highest.

      Also, to make up for the loss of revenue, we would have to raise the personal income tax. We could be like Germany with a 45% personal income tax, Norway with 47.2% or Japan at 50.84%.

      Oh wait, you thought by lowering corporate taxes things would work themselves out. Now I see the problem.

      A comparison of corporate and personal income tax rates

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    7. Re:Its not the technology - it is the tech company by markhahn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem with corporate taxation is that it's based on profit, not income. Personal tax is always income based - imagine if you were only taxed on the income you didn't manage to spend each year! If corporate tax was based on income, it would be commensurable (and would presumably also be a much lower rate). Corporate INCOME tax would also make all these tax dodges irrelevant, since they work only because companies manipulate their profit.

    8. Re:Its not the technology - it is the tech company by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Hahahahahahahahahaha.
      Someone apparently isnt aware that the average ACTUAL rate paid by companies is less than 14%, a third of the "official" rate. and the only reason the average is that high is because of the large number of small businesses that can't afford all the tax breaks, loopholes, and avoidance strategies that the big guys use to get their rates below 10%.

      simply put: offshoring has 0 to to do with our corporate tax rate.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    9. Re:Its not the technology - it is the tech company by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Oh...and No, reducing the rate would NOT increase the revenue brought in. that right there is a dead giveaway to your intellectual abilities.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    10. Re:Its not the technology - it is the tech company by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In general, money spent to specifically make more money is not taxable, for individuals or corporations. I personally have deducted thousands from my income for spending money to make more money, and I had unusually low expenses for the money I made. Money spent for other purposes is generally taxable (excluding things like charity).

      The difference is that, typically, a corporation's expenses will all be to try to make more money, while most of my spending is unrelated to how I currently make money.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  5. A bit of a straw-man by TWX · · Score: 1

    Sometimes movies don't show us technological failings, but human ones. The Minority Report shows us advanced technology (to the point that the UI was praised, and is basically duplicated in shows like Agents of Shield) and shows us human failings.

    On the other hand, implementation of technology has become a corporate thing. And as corporations have shown us, they're working in their interests, not ours. They'll release buggy or vulnerable products. They won't patch or fix those problems without being forced to, as such corrections are costs that detract from profit. They'll stand it up and once it's stood-up, if they don't have to have anything to do with it, all the better in their minds.

    Unfortunately new things are technology much of the time, and that means that we have to be skeptical. Bear in mind, it's likely that the average readership of Slashdot handles technological and scientific issues better than average, and we still have some doozies of arguments on here. Look at someone that doesn't want to play armchair researcher or enthusiast and see how well they cope. It's not good.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:A bit of a straw-man by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And don't forget the scary parts.

      Almost every week you read about another "hacked" company that just lost your credit card number and all your identifying information. Hope you changed all your passwords.

      Will the people who "stole" your credit card ever be caught? No.

      Will the people who decided NOT to protect it ever be punished? No.

      Is there anything you can do? Aside from using cash everywhere? Not really.

    2. Re:A bit of a straw-man by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      For everything else, there's Dogecoins.

    3. Re:A bit of a straw-man by khasim · · Score: 2

      :D

      Okay, that made me laugh.

      But that requires that the average person trust someone they can't even name with keeping their money safe. And the money is just a bunch of zeros and ones. If the "hackers" can take your real money can they take your imaginary money?

      Will the government take your real stuff because you got imaginary money from a "terrorist"?

      Will you end up in court one day because your kid is accused of sharing a song and now you owe $50,000 in penalties?

      The benefits of technology are not being evenly distributed. But the risks certainly are.

    4. Re:A bit of a straw-man by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, implementation of technology has become a corporate thing. And as corporations have shown us, they're working in their interests, not ours.

      Corporations work with the same interests that anybody else does. That is to say, they can be anything from assholes to being very benevolent.

      Even when they are working for their own interests, that isn't a bad thing. When Nokia invented the smartphone, they weren't intending on giving it away for free, rather they wanted to make themselves rich. But that benefited everybody else as well in the process; it eventually lead to technology being so cheap and available that anybody can have it, even the most poor people in the world.

      Remember that in any willing transaction, both parties are getting something more valuable to them than what they are giving up. That means these "evil" corporations are giving you something that you value enough that you're willing to give up something else to obtain it.

      Or to put it another way, I'm not sure why I should believe anybody who tells me that its evil for a corporation to give you something that you think is so nice that you're ready and willing to pay them for it.

    5. Re:A bit of a straw-man by TWX · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry, I do not trust the benevolence of corporations. As to even the poorest being able to afford the products that corporations offer, I disagree with that concept as I've seen first-hand people neglecting their needs in order to pay for their wants. I've seen acquaintances fail to pay their rent on-time because they spent the money on a high-end video card. I've seen people with cable TV subscriptions and Netflix and smart phones fail to pay their gas bill and have it shut off.

      People don't make the best decisions on their own behalf. They make decisions that they feel will benefit them. As to corporations making things cheaper, often that's a byproduct of the amortization of development costs being finally paid, so continued units have less costs to recuperate. It's also common for cheaper items to be decontented to the point that they're really not good, and the customer is screwed-over by giving any amount of money for something that's arguably defective in design. That $35 Indian smartphone for instance.

      People buy things from corporations for a large number of reasons. Sometimes that thing has become essential in order to be efficient enough to be profitable, like smartphones can be for people in certain fields. Sometimes peer pressure makes one think that something's essential when it's actually not. The motives are all over the place.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re:A bit of a straw-man by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, implementation of technology has become a corporate thing.

      Unlike 100 years ago, when anyone with a trowel and some perseverance could grow iPhones in their home garden, and communications satellites were built by village artisans.

      Or we could go back in time to, say, the 1940s, when the development of computers and rockets was being driven by one of the ugliest wars in history. Not to say that it wasn't necessary, but do you really think that would be an improvement over Apple and SpaceX?

    7. Re:A bit of a straw-man by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I do not trust the benevolence of corporations.

      You can equally say "I do not trust the benevolence of strangers" for all of the same reasons you just listed. The only difference with a corporation is that it is much easier to build capital with large pooled resources, something that is rarely achievable as an individual.

      That $35 Indian smartphone for instance.

      That's not a very good example. I think it's more likely that the design teams encountered problems along the way and as they were running out of time and budget on their design project, they just had to release what they had. This is a common problem in project management, even in free (as in beer) projects like open source software where there's no profit motive at all.

    8. Re: A bit of a straw-man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Society is not hostile to science and technology. Society is waking up to and is hostile towards the crony capitalist oligarchs who are using it to enslave everyone else.

      This guy is one of them and he can fuck RIGHT off..

    9. Re: A bit of a straw-man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet when doing science outreach work, you can bump into a wide variety of people giving you crap, despite not being associated with any thing capitalistic, and even when specifically discussing the importance of learning to understand things yourself so you can't get screwed over by someone trying to con you. Maybe it has more to do with people just in general having issue with arrogance, and the focus of their issues is scattered across the board, not that there is some unified rally to a single cause.

    10. Re:A bit of a straw-man by johanw · · Score: 1

      Then don't use that primitive system of credit cards and pay cash. Added advantage is that you can't be spied uppon by a money trail.

    11. Re: A bit of a straw-man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah it almost makes me laugh. They can pinpoint exactly who is downloading music and movies, yet it's the old "woe are we, we are helpless to the evil "hackers" of the world". Target was susspose to have the best security of any chain, yet they could do nothing to stop the crooks? Find it odd to that all of a sudden a lot of these stores are getting new swipe machines when the ones they had are not that old. Something is fishy there too

    12. Re:A bit of a straw-man by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I've been a software developer for longer than some slashdotters have been alive, sure programming is a creative exercise, to quote Knuth it's both an "art and a science". However a programmer is merely using technology, not creating it. If you don't agree, think about the music world, is a good composer creating new technology or merely using it skillfully?

      It's also hard to see how anyone but a megacorp or government could build a chip fab plant or a HDD factory. Take a look at those two commodity devices and compare them to their 1980's counterparts, now tell me again how corporations and/or governments stifle technology?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    13. Re:A bit of a straw-man by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Will the people who "stole" your credit card ever be caught? No.

      I think you will find the remand centers of the western world are chock full of people defending credit card fraud charges.

      Will the people who decided NOT to protect it ever be punished? No.

      Not sure about the US but most of the western world have laws covering the storage of financial data, belive me you don't want to fuck with the banks on those rules.

      Is there anything you can do? Aside from using cash everywhere? Not really.

      Again, not sure what happens in the US but here in Oz the credit company foots the bill if you've been ripped off. People who foot the bill themselves are usually doing so to avoid having a relative or "friend" formally charged with fraud. If you do get stung by a drive by hacker it takes a few weeks to sort but everyone I know who has had that problem has had their money returned by the bank, one card was drained of 25K by people having a wonderful time touring Europe.

      It's worked that way since the mid-90's, possibly earlier. At the end of the day it's in their best interest to keep the customer happy and claw back the "spillage" with interest rates. If they were to change their policy and tell everyone "tough titties" it wouldn't take more than a few years to reach the point where everyone had a few friends who really did lose thousands in one hit. At that point the credit cards would have a terminal problem with distrust since any rational person would start avoiding plastic like the plague.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    14. Re:A bit of a straw-man by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      The problem is, using cash is "leaving money on the table" if you have credit cards with any sort of rewards program. Unless there is a cash discount, when you pay cash you are in essence subsidizing the credit card users.

      That said, I will try to use cash at small busnesses / independent stores to help show support...

  6. Dislike != Distrust by sanosuke001 · · Score: 2

    I would say that they distrust it, not dislike. It is also expensive to implement over something that has been used for decades and since they see things more short term than long term, the savings aren't seen so upgrading is deemed not worth the cost and training.

    --
    -SaNo
    1. Re:Dislike != Distrust by Collective+0-0009 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree that it's distrust. This started a while back, when it started becoming obvious that technology was going to replace a lot of jobs. When robotic arms become a reality (and now they have eyes too!) and start moving the material onto the machine you used to load, then people start thinking about it differently. But they still loved it because it had only replaced the most menial jobs and was actually thanked for eliminating these tasks at home and work.

      Then it started doing things better than the best craftsman. And faster. While craftsmen numbers fell, machine repairmen numbers did not keep up (otherwise what's the point?). This is when distrust began. But it was only a few that had been replaced and they were not heard as the technology had brought great fun and even provided quite a few other jobs.

      But lately technology is replacing many different types of jobs. Salesman, accountants, and general office help (which ironically was only ever a job thanks to technology) joined the ranks of the blue collar machinist as those that had been replaced by a computer. At this point distrust is growing among many, but still the new gadgets and joys - and affordable too - are keeping dislike to a minimum.

      And this is only from one perspective. The next would be the interruptions it brought.

      --
      I finally updated my sig, but now it's lame.
  7. Technology enables abuse on a large scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's wishful thinking. Technology should have produced a world without want, sickness or fear, where no one need labor for their own survival. Instead all that ingenuity went into devising new ways to oppress and kill our fellow man.

    "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."

    1. Re: Technology enables abuse on a large scale by rfengr · · Score: 1

      Religion kills and oppresses; no technology needed.

    2. Re: Technology enables abuse on a large scale by Oligonicella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ideology kills and oppresses; no religion needed either.

    3. Re:Technology enables abuse on a large scale by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's wishful thinking. Technology should have produced a world without want, sickness or fear, where no one need labor for their own survival. Instead all that ingenuity went into devising new ways to oppress and kill our fellow man.

      Actually you're exactly what he's talking about. Technology has gone a massive way towards reducing famine and sickness. I mean think about it:

        - Some people actually argue that human natural selection has ended because medical technology is so good now that people rarely ever die from natural causes unless they're either very old or neglect their own health (e.g. drug abuse.) Contrast to 150 years ago where virtually any sort of serious injury often included death or dismemberment. People nowadays can be born with serious inherited diseases (e.g. cystic fibrosis) and even have kids where in the past that would have been impossible.

        - The green revolution (that is, agricultural technology) has turned famine into a distant memory. The root cause of any starvation these days is almost always a 100% political one (e.g. some local warlord or government is deliberately limiting the food supply.)

      In spite of the above, you prefer to subscribe to the Hollywood model where technology is only ever used for bad things. As far want and fear, no amount of technology will ever eliminate as those are just part of human nature. I'd actually be more concerned if we did get rid of those, as the only means of doing so would involve altering the person's mind (mind control is another way of putting it; think like the movie Equilibrium.)

    4. Re: Technology enables abuse on a large scale by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd say religion is a special instance of ideology.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re: Technology enables abuse on a large scale by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Thank you for agreeing with me.

    6. Re:Technology enables abuse on a large scale by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      That is what I always admired about Star Trek. While there were no lack of episodes of all the series where technology was put to evil or misguided uses, at the end of the day, it was still shown to be a deliverer of humanity from hunger, war and disease. By and large technology was represented not as an obstacle to human development, but rather as its great enabler.

      But in general, you're quite right, the film industry has long favored dystopian visions; stemming right back to Metropolis (the first and still the greatest of all the dystopian films). Science and technology are the tools of oppression and destruction, and it's the beautiful young heroes who throw the monkey wrench in the machinery.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:Technology enables abuse on a large scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "almost always a 100% political one". Uh-huh...care to provide a link to your research? I didn't think so.

      Sigh. Every day I read statements like this on the Internet, where someone who is almost smart takes something they read in a blog, and repeats it without even thinking to question it. You didn't even BOTHER to read the most basic article on Wikipedia:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine

      Start there. Read the whole thing, don't just cherry pick looking for proof of your statement. Modern famine is caused by a number of factors, and many of them have very little to do with politics. In fact, that very article says the "green revolution" you speak of was only a PROMISE of a solution and it didn't deliver.

    8. Re: Technology enables abuse on a large scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um no. Every single instance of modern famine is caused by humans or their lack of intervention. That's political. Modern famine is caused entirely by a failure to distribute food. That's political. Basically, since we have the supply and the technology to feed everyone, but choose not to, that makes it entirely political.

    9. Re:Technology enables abuse on a large scale by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Start there. Read the whole thing, don't just cherry pick looking for proof of your statement.

      Since the first half of that page is about the history of Famine (which most of it is history at this point in time) the only relevant bits are anything *after* the green revolution, as per what I stated, so I'll "skip" to this point, thank you:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

      Even so, I don't see any causes listed there that aren't political. Since you're so keen on using wikipedia to make your case, then I'll point you to this line:

      Food shortages in a population are caused either by a lack of food or by difficulties in food distribution; it may be worsened by natural climate fluctuations and by extreme political conditions related to oppressive government or warfare.

      Now if you read on further, the "lack of food" mentioned is mainly this:

      Food shortages in a population are caused either by a lack of food or by difficulties in food distribution; it may be worsened by natural climate fluctuations and by extreme political conditions related to oppressive government or warfare. The conventional explanation until 1981 for the cause of famines was the Food availability decline (FAD) hypothesis. The assumption was that the central cause of all famines was a decline in food availability.[132] However, FAD could not explain why only a certain section of the population such as the agricultural laborer was affected by famines while others were insulated from famines.[133] Based on the studies of some recent famines, the decisive role of FAD has been questioned and it has been suggested that the causal mechanism for precipitating starvation includes many variables other than just decline of food availability. According to this view, famines are a result of entitlements, the theory being proposed is called the "failure of exchange entitlements" or FEE.[133] A person may own various commodities that can be exchanged in a market economy for the other commodities he or she needs. The exchange can happen via trading or production or through a combination of the two. These entitlements are called trade-based or production-based entitlements. Per this proposed view, famines are precipitated due to a breakdown in the ability of the person to exchange his entitlements.[133] An example of famines due to FEE is the inability of an agricultural laborer to exchange his primary entitlement, i.e., labor for rice when his employment became erratic or was completely eliminated.[133]

      According to the Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), global climate change is additionally challenging the Earth's ability to produce food, potentially leading to famine.[134]

      Some elements make a particular region more vulnerable to famine. These include poverty, population growth,[135] an inappropriate social infrastructure, a suppressive political regime, and a weak or under-prepared government.[136]

      Thank you.

      And you fail at trolling by the way.

    10. Re:Technology enables abuse on a large scale by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that's faulty thinking, and belies the underying issue with such ideology. Nothing like that can simply fix human nature, and until we evolve further, become less self-centered, less egotistical, less fanatical, etc.. that won't change.
      Technology is not a panacea, it's a tool, like any other in the sense that it can be used for good or evil at the whim of human nature.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    11. Re:Technology enables abuse on a large scale by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      This was the example I going to bring up, Star Trek TNG was all about how great technology would make life.
      Up until a point though; from what I've read, after a few seasons, they started to realize this was a bit too "pie in the sky", and this is precisely why the Borg were introduced to the show, to illustrate that even technology can have a dark side.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  8. Peter Thiel is on a book tour or something... by sgage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This Thiel character has been all over the place these past couple of weeks - talk shows, opinion columns, etc. He is a real techno-cornucopian cheerleader, but does not seem to be a particularly deep thinker.

    1. Re:Peter Thiel is on a book tour or something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet you guys worship everything his best buddy Musk does or says...

    2. Re:Peter Thiel is on a book tour or something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't change whether his observation is correct or not.

      And personally, I think it is. Instead of science and technology, we could phrase it as "disruption to the current order", and the implication becomes much, much clearer.

      Not to mention science has advanced in a relatively short time to a point where most people could understand the concepts involved with a little tutelage, to counter-intuitive concepts that might as well be witchcraft as far some people are concerned.

      And the degree of pseudo-science that permeates even the most advanced cultures which suggest a degree of scientific illiteracy within the population. Ignorance breeds hatred.

      And unfortunately, this trend is likely to grow, as science makes progress further afield from the normal Joe, and even totalitarian governments are caught flatfooted at mitigating the changes new technologies bring.

    3. Re:Peter Thiel is on a book tour or something... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      And yet you guys worship everything his best buddy Musk does or says...

      Well, that's understandable at least. I mean, have you ever smelled Musk?

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    4. Re:Peter Thiel is on a book tour or something... by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      They're friends, but while Musk is doing great things, Thiel mostly makes news complaining.

    5. Re:Peter Thiel is on a book tour or something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Musk should come out with a cologne for nerds, "Elon de Musk". It should smell like solder flux and that smell video cards have when you take them out of the box.

    6. Re:Peter Thiel is on a book tour or something... by AndroidCat · · Score: 2

      I wear Old Flux. That new low-lead stuff just doesn't smell right.

      Old Flux. The solder your solder could smell like.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    7. Re:Peter Thiel is on a book tour or something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the new stuff helps you grow whiskers! Just a few splashes and your hipster 5'oclock shadow is ready to go.

      http://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/reference/tech_papers/2011-kostic-pb-free.pdf

    8. Re:Peter Thiel is on a book tour or something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5 insightful because a random on the net insults someone's intelligence with no supporting evidence whatsoever. /. really is circling the drain at the moment.

    9. Re:Peter Thiel is on a book tour or something... by drew870mitchell · · Score: 1

      Funny this was on Slashdot - my dinner companions and I actually discussed Musk v Thiel last night. Musk needs to do the man a favor and give him the number of his damn publicist. Thiel is mostly known for whining (RTFA), investing (see other posts in this thread), and taking applications for Libertarian Fantasy Island.

    10. Re: Peter Thiel is on a book tour or something... by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      I don't think a publicist would help unless they could get Thiel to change his behavior. The fact is that Musk is getting stuff done while Thiel seems to mostly complain about other people not getting stuff done.

    11. Re:Peter Thiel is on a book tour or something... by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Why isn't this modded higher?
      Elon de Musk? Old Flux? Come on Mods, get your coffee, wake up, and have a chuckle. This is Internet gold.

    12. Re:Peter Thiel is on a book tour or something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is a real techno-cornucopian cheerleader, but does not seem to be a particularly deep thinker.

      I heard him on NPR explaining how monopolies were better for society than free market competition. His theory was that since monopolies make huge profits they'll funnel some of that money into new ideas. What a filthy rich tool.

  9. Plot line by Oligonicella · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The man simply doesn't understand the need for conflict in a plot. If you have a movie about a super computer, there needs to be something to work against. The computer takes over or fails spectacularly. This in no way indicates that this is society's view of computers.

    1. Re:Plot line by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Or, in some cases, eventually figures out how to make tea.

    2. Re:Plot line by Kelson · · Score: 2

      Who's to say the super-computer or robot can't be the good guy? Or the hero's ally? Conflict has two sides, and technology could just as easily be placed on either. If movies place it more often on the bad side, that says something about, if not culture in general, at least the culture of people making movies.

    3. Re:Plot line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming you were forced to make a movie completely centered on a supercomputer, yes, you would have difficulty coming up sources of plot and conflict without something going wrong with the supercomputer. But movies aren't forced to make a certain thing the source of conflict. And yet how many movies are there where a supercomputer system is the solution to a problem it didn't also cause?

    4. Re:Plot line by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      BIcentennial Man. Short Circuit. Iron Giant. Aliens. Star Trek. Transformers. I was addressing his myopia.

    5. Re:Plot line by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The Andromeda Strain comes to mind, though the book makes the computer's role more prominent than the film.

      But that was before Crichton went full on into the business of writing anti-technology and anti-science screeds.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Plot line by timeOday · · Score: 2

      Did you see "Transcendence"? (I know, not a lot of people did). How about "Her"? (Great movie). These are both post-Terminator films, in that super-human intelligence is portrayed in a positive light.

    7. Re:Plot line by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      Terminator 2, technology is on both sides.

    8. Re:Plot line by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Then it would be a movie about the problem, not the computer. I did say "If you have a movie about a super computer".

    9. Re:Plot line by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      Not entirely. "Her" was perhaps the most even-handed I've ever seen, but as such the AI managed to also be selfish and inconsiderate. But at no time did one question whether it was going to slaughter everyone and start looking for John Conner. Perhaps it did the best at showing how the failings of intelligence are from the intelligence, rather than the underlying technology.

      "Transcendence" doesn't fit, the entire plot hinges around the intentions of the AI, and whether it is good or bad. However if anything, it was more or less the reverse of "Her", it was the human consciousness that was at question, and it was the intentions of that consciousness that resolved the plot. The technology itself was portrayed as terrifying and dehumanizing.

    10. Re:Plot line by timeOday · · Score: 1
      But in Transcendence the end-of-movie plot twist was (SPOILER ALERT!) that, after playing the typical terrifying-and-dehumanizing AI trope throughout the film, it turned out that the AI was actually benevolent and people would be better off just going with it. At least that was my take on what it was saying.

      And I have to give a movie props for going on an unconventional or outright dubious premise and conclusion. Limitless and probably Idiotocracy fall into that category for me too.

    11. Re:Plot line by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 2

      I disagree.

      So many movies and TV shows have inept, complacent, or downright evil scientists creating technologies that either lose control or are specifically for enacting violence. Or they mishandle something and a plague starts. Or a technology-driven society encroaching on one who's in touch with nature or a hundred years in the past.

      And it's usually either a dumb "everyman" who stumbles into the situation and rises to the occasion -- maybe a military guy with a heart of gold -- and saves the day without much science or wit. Heck, look at Bruce Banner -- a brilliant scientist who needs to turn into a dumb tank to fight evil.

      The scientists who do good in these stories are rarely portrayed as healthy people. They may be brilliant, but they're also asocial goofballs and usually side characters.

      I think he's right on the money. People are hostile to technology and science. A fear of the unknown, a fear of someone being smarter than them, a fear of something clashing with their beliefs, or telling them they need to change their ways.

      This trend in media, entertainment, and politics is obvious. There are plenty of counter-examples but on a whole, I think it's very easy to see if you're looking. It must reflect society to a not-insignificant degree, or people wouldn't latch on to it.

    12. Re:Plot line by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Your logic doesn't track. People enjoy a good murder mystery, yet murders are actually uncommon.

    13. Re:Plot line by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

      Your logic doesn't track. People enjoy a good murder mystery, yet murders are actually uncommon.

      Stories are all about exploring the unknown without actually having to experience it. I'd even say violence is a common thread in stories for a similar reason as evil science/tech -- people are certainly hostile toward it.

    14. Re:Plot line by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Stories are all about exploring the unknown without actually having to experience it.

      That holds true even for the evil machine movies as evil machines don't actually exist.

      I'd even say violence is a common thread ... people are certainly hostile toward it.

      Point given. I'll narrow my focus. Slasher films that place the audience in the killer's POV. People watch many of those (they outnumber evil machine movies) and yet the emulation of that behavior is extremely rare.

    15. Re:Plot line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that is the point, you don't have to make a movie about a supercomputer. Half the time with something going horribly wrong in a movie or story, it doesn't even matter what actual started or caused a problem, and you can switch out one source with another and keep the same plot. Nonetheless, people like movies where tech going wrong is the cause.

    16. Re:Plot line by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      "Not in the slightest bit. I enjoy working with people. I have a stimulating relationship with Dr Poole and Dr Bowman. My mission responsibilities range over the entire operation of the ship, so I am constantly occupied."

      "Look Dave, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over."

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    17. Re:Plot line by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      You do realize that way over 90% of movies aren't about supercomputers at all, right?

    18. Re:Plot line by NoMaster · · Score: 1

      You don't live in Midsomer, do you?

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    19. Re:Plot line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People have commented before on how the vast majority of portrayals of Tourette syndrome in movies and TV show only those that blurt out obscenities, while in real life that is a minority of people with that condition. But I guess that has no connection to people's perception of the syndrome, because way more than 90% of TV shows and such don't have anyone in them with Tourette syndrome.

    20. Re:Plot line by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      No, I do not live in a fictional town. Why?

    21. Re:Plot line by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Helluva reach that "vast majority" and frankly I think you're fabricating. I've only seen one show about Tourette syndrome and it was a documentary. How about some cites?

      "But that is the point, you don't have to make a movie about a supercomputer." was what I was responding to and if you read up the subthread you'd realize that was the context. Explain how your comment addresses that.

    22. Re:Plot line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is irrelevant. The issue is the ratio of movies that show them (or any other proxy for the larger issue being discussed) shown doing something good versus doing something bad. It is one thing to be skewed somewhat for dramatic reasons, but another when almost everything thing is in the latter group. The previous poster is quite clearly going off your definition that a movie now centered on supercomputers is not "about super computers." Bringing up the fact that most movies don't mention supercomputers at all seems asinine.

    23. Re:Plot line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've only seen one show about Tourette syndrome and it was a documentary. How about some cites?

      Curb Your Enthusiasm, Boondock Saints, Family Guy, Robot Chicken, Malcolm in the Middle, some Bill Murray movie I don't remember the title of. South Park oddly was one of the few that tried to explain coprolalia was rare. News articles and public letters pop up after various cases of this happening, like with one of the Deuce Bigalow movies, and frequently with certain kinds of talk and reality shows that only select extreme cases to make a freak show out of it. There is a lot written and said about the issue of how people perceive it as synonymous with coprolalia, and that pop culture forms a feedback loop on that idea.

      This is a relevant comparison to what you said, as the point is not how often something gets mentioned, but how often it gets treated one way or another when it does get mentioned. You were the one who defined that a movie not about a supercomputer causing a problem is a "movie about the problem," and not a movie about supercomputers. That is what the direct reply was referencing, that if you are going to define things that way, you can make a movie including supercomputers central to the plot without making it a movie "about supercomputers." And if that is not how you intended to define things, then you were flat out wrong that a movie about a supercomputer needs it to be the cause and root of problems to have conflict.

    24. Re:Plot line by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Hollywood hasn't had a habit recently of depicting military brass as having any heart. Maybe a rebel, lower down in rank, but usually the military is depicted as shoot first ask questions later knuckle dragging neanderthals.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    25. Re:Plot line by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The man simply doesn't understand the need for conflict in a plot. If you have a movie about a super computer, there needs to be something to work against. The computer takes over or fails spectacularly. This in no way indicates that this is society's view of computers.

      Also, technologists like Thiel really want to see technology portrayed as working all the time, instead of how it breaks and/or is buggy in the real world pretty much all the time.

  10. Pretty much by kruach+aum · · Score: 1

    People fear and then hate what they do not understand. If you're not interested in how the world works you're not gonna learn, and will just default to anger and scaremongering in your interactions with it, because emotions you do understand.

    1. Re:Pretty much by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      That's part of it. People also frequently partake in shooting the messenger, so when researchers come along and say "This thing we're all doing is having these negative consequences, and we are going to have to stop that thing", they end up learning what Socrates must have felt like as he put the hemlock tea to his lips.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  11. Australia is leading the way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Our leader removed the minister for science! He has reduced funding for our science organization CSIRO ( The one that invented wifi among many other successes ), condemned renewable energy and promoted coal, destroyed our manufacturing sector and is pushing to make university only for the rich. All in the span of a year, impressive really.

    1. Re:Australia is leading the way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our leader removed the minister for science! He has reduced funding for our science organization CSIRO ( The one that invented wifi among many other successes ), condemned renewable energy and promoted coal, destroyed our manufacturing sector and is pushing to make university only for the rich. All in the span of a year, impressive really.

      CSIRO did *not* invent wifi. CSIRO *did* invent the part of the wifi specification related to managing travelling towards and away from the router and compensating for the corresponding frequency change.

    2. Re:Australia is leading the way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our leader has to. When you stand behind a set of policies that are not backed by facts... facts and their producers become the enemy.

    3. Re:Australia is leading the way! by cavebison · · Score: 1

      > Our leader removed the minister for science!

      The U.S. doesn't have a secretary for science either. Some countries do, others don't.

      > He has reduced funding for our science organization [sic]* CSIRO

      organiSation - Australian spelling. Yes this is very unfortunate, as are the ABC funding cuts. Hopefully it's a temporary situation - force an organisation to re-think priorities, then later review. It's an "easy" (for government) way of forcing an organisation to cut things it doesn't really feel are necessary - forcing it to "re-focus". Very clumsy and "blunt instrument" way of doing it (as opposed to an actual independent review) but that's government for you.

      > condemned renewable energy

      He's said a lot of stupid things, but happily Abbott has now rejected cutting the renewable energy target.

      > promoted coal

      Because other countries buy it. One can't really tell a country not to market their natural resources.

      > destroyed our manufacturing sector

      That happened a long time ago, not caused by the current government.

      > and is pushing to make university only for the rich.

      Not intentionally, but "deregulation" is what the Liberal Party has always been about, like the Republicans in the U.S. People should know that and vote accordingly. You can't blame a party for being what it is. Deregulation should be expected from them, it's not Abbott in particular.

      However, Abbott lied through his teeth about all their policies prior to the election, and that you *can* blame a party for. There should be a law to invalidate an election when that happens - how can you have voting and Democracy when politicians do the complete opposite to everything they said up to the election? That's the *real* crime here. If they had been honest and up front about everything before the election, they would not have gotten in at all. That shouldn't be too much to expect in a modern country.

  12. systemd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    What do you guys think about systemd? We need to talk about this more.

    1. Re:systemd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fear people will hate you for this comment. Are you technology?

    2. Re:systemd by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      I fear people will hate you for this comment. Are you technology?

      No, he's Tchnology.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  13. Tchnology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    obvious typo, should be Thnology (like Thiel)

  14. Only Hostile To Peter Thiel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That **** is only interested in technology and science so he and his 1% friends can live forever.

  15. Society is Hostile to Idiotic Billionaires by mbone · · Score: 2

    Just as plausible as his assertions.

    1. Re:Society is Hostile to Idiotic Billionaires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, society loves idiotic billionaires. Everybody loves money, because it's money. That's why they call it money.

    2. Re:Society is Hostile to Idiotic Billionaires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Society is Hostile

      Just that.

    3. Re:Society is Hostile to Idiotic Billionaires by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      They created PayPal to circumvent government intereference in money exchanges *cough avoid taxes*. And now he's shocked and dismayed that governments aren't spending enough on infrastructure?

      It's no shock that the government is hostile to idiotic billionaires who both want to promote tax evasion while also expect a well funded government's services in order to profit further.

    4. Re:Society is Hostile to Idiotic Billionaires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you know anything about the founding of PayPal?

      It was created to solve a problem on eBay. eBay had no central clearinghouse, so there was no impartial body to hold the money while the item was mailed. It resulted in countless people mailing an item and not receiving payment. PayPal solved that, by holding the money until the item was received, then transferring it to the seller. I was an eBay seller when the site was created. I was one of the earlier users of PayPal. I'm also a programmer, and entrepreneur, and I live in silicon valley.

      There is a modern technology which was invented recently, and more closely fits your paranoia. It's used to avoid taxes: bitcoin.

    5. Re:Society is Hostile to Idiotic Billionaires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when? eBay or PayPal doesn't "hold" the money, the seller receives the money as soon as the auction is over. eBay does have the option to do escrow but 99% of transactions don't go through that process.

    6. Re:Society is Hostile to Idiotic Billionaires by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      I apparently know more about PayPal than you. It wasn't setup to just make Ebay money. It had far grander designs.

      "We're definitely onto something big. The need PayPal answers is monumental. Everyone in the world needs money â" to get paid, to trade, to live. Paper money is an ancient technology and an inconvenient means of payment. You can run out of it. It wears out. It can get lost or stolen. In the twenty-first century, people need a form of money that's more convenient and secure, something that can be accessed from anywhere with a PDA or an Internet connection. Of course, what we're calling 'convenient' for American users will be revolutionary for the developing world. Many of these countries' governments play fast and loose with their currencies," the former derivatives trader [referring to Thiel] noted, before continuing, "They use inflation and sometimes wholesale currency devaluations, like we saw in Russia and several Southeast Asian countries last year [referring to the 1998 Russian financial crisis and 1997 Asian financial crisis], to take wealth away from their citizens. Most of the ordinary people there never have an opportunity to open an offshore account or to get their hands on more than a few bills of a stable currency like U.S. dollars. Eventually PayPal will be able to change this. In the future, when we make our service available outside the U.S. and as Internet penetration continues to expand to all economic tiers of people, PayPal will give citizens worldwide more direct control over their currencies than they ever had before. It will be nearly impossible for corrupt governments to steal wealth from their people through their old means because if they try the people will switch to dollars or Pounds or Yen, in effect dumping the worthless local currency for something more secure."

  16. We need a movie to spread the word by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

    One where technologically capable individuals fight back against brutish peers. The technologists could be portrayed as smart and kind, but socially marginalized and not particularly attractive.

    We could call it, I dunno, "Revenge of the Science and Technology People". Truly a story for our decade, it could get the word out that society is hostile towards the people involved in science and technology.

    1. Re:We need a movie to spread the word by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Or we could call it the Foundation Series.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:We need a movie to spread the word by Animats · · Score: 1
    3. Re:We need a movie to spread the word by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      and not particularly attractive.

      Hey now! Some of us are solid 7's.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    4. Re:We need a movie to spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like you are describing the plot of Atlas Shrugged, the third and final chapter of which was just released in theaters last month.

    5. Re:We need a movie to spread the word by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, Real Genius suffers badly from horrific acting (the young teenager and the girl, not to mention most of the others), some terrible scenes (the water party takes the cake), and an unappealing 1980's shooting style that dates the movie badly.

      But, the movie holds a very special place in my heart, I love it. Actually, it holds a very special nostalgic place in my heart, my memory of watching it a lot of times a long time ago are special to me.

      About a year ago I tried to watch it again, and within 20 minutes I realized I had to stop. I was going to ruin my memories of the movie, as my appreciation of quality acting and good production values had changed considerably.

      I love to replay it in my mind though, but never actually watch it...

      Always check your optics.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    6. Re:We need a movie to spread the word by NoMaster · · Score: 1

      One where technologically capable individuals fight back against brutish peers.

      ^shrug^

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    7. Re:We need a movie to spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, Real Genius suffers badly from horrific acting (the young teenager and the girl, not to mention most of the others), some terrible scenes (the water party takes the cake), and an unappealing 1980's shooting style that dates the movie badly.

      But, the movie holds a very special place in my heart, I love it. Actually, it holds a very special nostalgic place in my heart, my memory of watching it a lot of times a long time ago are special to me.

      About a year ago I tried to watch it again, and within 20 minutes I realized I had to stop. I was going to ruin my memories of the movie, as my appreciation of quality acting and good production values had changed considerably.

      I love to replay it in my mind though, but never actually watch it...

      Always check your optics.

      you left out

      "STOP PLAYING WITH YOURSELF!"

      fixed that for you.

      You're welcome.
      sincerely,
      Jesus

    8. Re:We need a movie to spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The technologists could be portrayed as smart and kind, but socially marginalized and not particularly attractive."

      So it would more fantasy bullshit then?

      "Technologists" arent any different than anyone else, dumbass. Just human beings with certain job titles.

  17. This Peter Thiel by dammy · · Score: 1

    I'm always interested in what a member (chairman?) of the Bilderberg Group's Steering Committe has to say about how they want to see what the world should be like.

  18. A mixed story by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    People like technology when it works - but notice when it fails. If it works, it becomes assumed as part of life - and no longer noticed; the more one thinks about the internet, the more incredible it is.

    Part of the problem is that real science is HARD. Most people can't cope and avoid it at school. They dismiss us as geeks - not least to cover their own failure to master the subject. So there's a built up frustration that comes out when it does go wrong... not healthy - but perhaps inevitable given that most people are not up to mastering the science they depend on to live (and all of us won't master it ALL!!)

    1. Re:A mixed story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They dismiss us as geeks - not least to cover their own failure to master the subject.

      Large parts of the nerd and geek culture can be surprisingly anti-science too though. As you say, it is inevitable that most people will not master fields, even those of interest, and one can't physically master them all. But when you take someone who has an ego, possibly for good reason because they do have above average knowledge in some areas, and given them a superficial view of something, they can really run with it at times. Just look at some of the more difficult science topics that end of on Slashdot from time to time, and you can find arguments between people with professional experience and those without.

      In my experience doing science outreach, and even just answering questions about my research when someone asks after someone asked what my job is, the geeky and nerdy types can be as bad or worse than general public. Some general public will just have no interest, others have interest but no background and will try to ask questions, and occasionally a rare person or two will repeat some talking point they've misheard to say they think such research is pointless (whereas even those with political disagreements will acknowledge the research could be useful, just disagree on who should pay for it). But when you get to those with enough knowledge to be dangerous, many will stop asking questions and get dismissive. "Oh, what a waste of time, you could just do X instead of trying Y," ignoring that X was tried 50 years ago and shown not to work. Or "I heard of experiment Z, it proved W," when they misremember and I've read and can pull up the actual paper from the research, "But I saw it online/on a documentary/from some guy, why would you or that paper know any better?"

      Even those without attitude issues seem to be pretty narrow in interests. I knew someone once, who had read dozens of popsci books on quantum mechanics, was still capable of doing calculus quite well, but never wanted to try looking into any actual textbooks or more serious material on the topic (even trade magazine pieces that are much less dry than a textbook). Laziness and/or fickleness of people's interest applies to everyone to some degree.

    2. Re:A mixed story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Solar vs Nuclear vs Petro) Engineering...

    3. Re:A mixed story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny/annoying thing is it doesn't have to be something political or involve invested ideology and wishes. It isn't surprising when someone gets irritable or irrational with something like politics, but it is a bit surprising when they do so over random trivia. It seems to come down to people saying something, then doubling down instead of admitting they are wrong, or otherwise needing to feed their ego.

      I have a background in spectroscopy and development of instrumentation, not exactly a polarizing topic. If someone asks what that involves or an example of what I work on, I give a 30 second overview. A select few will then be dismissive or incorrectly draw connections, and then dig their heels on a topic they never even heard of until 30 seconds ago.

  19. Bias much? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    Robocop showed *both* sides ... killer robots, and technology used to help a person put an end to corruption.

    Technology is *tool*; it be used or abused.

    * A fire can be used for light & heat (i.e. camping), or to burn someone.
    * A gun can be used to protect or to hurt.

    Lastly, Technology is NOT the problem -- people _misusing_ it are.

    1. Re:Bias much? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      * A fire can be used for light & heat (i.e. camping), or to burn someone.

      Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

    2. Re:Bias much? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Terry Pratchett? Really? I've been using that joke for years and years. Didn't know it was from Mr. Discworld himself.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    3. Re:Bias much? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      More than anything else, Robocop showed excellent faux commercials.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    4. Re:Bias much? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      I found that on the Internet, so you know it's true.

    5. Re:Bias much? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Oh :(

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    6. Re:Bias much? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Terry Pratchett? Really? I've been using that joke for years and years. Didn't know it was from Mr. Discworld himself.

      The guy certainly has a sense of humor: His convention t-shirt

  20. Are you sure it's technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it's not technology. Maybe it's you.

  21. Paypal - the best way to get laid... by pubwvj · · Score: 2

    I always misread their slogan, just for an instant.

    Theil may be right that society as a whole is hostile to science but he is fundamentally missing the point: society is more interested, accepting and pro-science than it has ever been in the past. Sure, there are lots of nays but they are fewer than there were before. That's what is important. Look at the positive and move forward.

  22. in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    people queuing up in shop to buy overpriced smartphones that do barely one third of what PCs with similar specs could do 15 years earlier. Captcha: limited

    1. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My smartphone is demonstrably more powerful than my desktop PC from 1999, by roughly a factor of 10, has 20x the RAM and 4X the disk storage. It will idle for 3 days on an 8 Watt-hour battery, compared to the 200W draw of the 1999 machine. It'll also fit into my pocket, instead of a desk, outputs much higher-resolution video than that computer could, and cost less by a factor of 5. My phone is a more capable computer in every conceivable way. Oh, and I can install a real Linux on it, replacing the Android OS.

      But if you see people buying overpriced, underfeatured smartphones, then blame it on the people for choosing that model of phone, not on the devices themselves. There are some spectacular alternatives available.

  23. Yes, because everyone is burning their smartphones by Lohrno · · Score: 1

    We definitely hate technology, it's evil! I can't tell you how many of my friends have been burning their smartphones and computers.

    No, the real issue is that Science and Tech are just evolving at a pace that it becomes difficult to comprehend the implications of things. It's hard for organizations that move slowly like Hollywood and the government to keep pace. Most people love Tech and Science...

  24. Well, duh by 0123456 · · Score: 0

    That's what happens when you're ruled by Regressives. Just like their Luddite ancestors, they want to smash the technology that threatens to bring an end to the centralised, industrial society that made them rich and powerful.

  25. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Society absolutely adores technology. Rare is the home without a flat screen television. When's the last time you saw anybody who was anybody with something that wasn't a smart phone? How many cars have built in GPS and navigation? What kid doesn't want a PS4 or an Xbone?

    The government does, too. Never been so easy to conduct widespread surveillance of everything the plebs are doing.

    What the government dislikes is anything that denies them unlimited, unwarranted power. Such as having your iPhone encrypted by default. Kind of throws a wrench in the controlling the plebs thing.

    1. Re:What? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      What people don't like is any science that suggests they have to alter their behaviors.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:What? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Hence the millions of people following fad "scientific" diets.

    3. Re:What? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      That's true of religion, also. Lots of churchgoing people get real uncomfortable when people around them start talking about ways their behavior isn't in accordance with Christianity.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  26. Chaos Theory by Tokolosh · · Score: 2

    "...corporations and the U.S. government are failing at complex planning."

    Mathematically, the world is a "chaotic" place. It is axiomatic that complex planning will fail. So those not familiar with the field, think of "butterfly effect" or "Black swans".

    So inevitable planning failures are blamed on technology.

    The best solution, proven empirically, is laissez-faire. I concede that "best" means different things to different people.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    1. Re:Chaos Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "...corporations and the U.S. government are failing at complex planning."

      Mathematically, the world is a "chaotic" place. It is axiomatic that complex planning will fail. So those not familiar with the field, think of "butterfly effect" or "Black swans".

      So inevitable planning failures are blamed on technology.

      The best solution, proven empirically, is laissez-faire. I concede that "best" means different things to different people.

      You didn't read the article. To repeat one of his examples: The manhattan project took 3.5 years. But I am sure you will somehow argue that this was not a technological achievement because the government was involved.

    2. Re:Chaos Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Political decisions and views form frameworks into which the chaotic reality is compressed. Planning uses the lossy frameworks as basis for actions, so the end result are not always perfect if measured with a metric outside of the frameworks, but are good enough or perfect if measured with a metric within the frameworks. Technology, as part of the uncompressed reality, always contains aspects outside of any political/religious framework. It will always assume the role of the mysterious and suspicious outsider in the popularity contest of high scho...human society.

    3. Re:Chaos Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't read the article. To repeat one of his examples: The manhattan project took 3.5 years. But I am sure you will somehow argue that this was not a technological achievement because the government was involved.

      The Manhattan project was not so complex by modern technology standards.

    4. Re:Chaos Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Great. Another basement dwelling mouth breathing economics authority. While you can certainly point to the din of fools and liars about free markets, actual facts do not support your conclusions. China is currently kicking everyone's butt in growth with an entirely planned economy. The greatest expansion of the US and European economies occurred while public works were undertaken and regulatory mechanisms were formed. Arguing with you is likely fruitless because the evidence is so overwhelming that planning is required for any significant economic development. We are literally surrounded by the evidence to the point that your opinions are firmly in the trash heap that is creationism, flat eather drivel, and fears of child eating Illuminati lizards. The story of the rise of cities and the development of human economic activity is the story of planned economies. It started with water control. Weather and water runoff is indeed rather chaotic or at least as chaotic as anything else. Go turn on your tap and marvel at the audacity of planning to defy your dim witted axioms.

    5. Re:Chaos Theory by ratl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry, your statements are not as axiomatic as you think.

      If the world is mathematically a chaotic place I would love to see the mathematical prove for that. So far we got no further to say the world is complex and there are some chaotic processes. Chaotic would be akin to the claim that any fraction of a number, say Pi must eventually repeat itself or follow a descernable pattern. The other is saying (much less strict) it is a really long string of numbers, that might have come about for reasons that may be beyond the original domain (math).

      The butterfly effect is a chaotic process. There is no prove the appeareance of a Black Swan is chaotic. If you referring to Taleb's book by the same name: What he describes is an interaction effect in complexity: Something extraordinary happens, the effects are negative so we are 'programmed' to want to fit it into reason. No chaos, just complexity hitting us over the head.

      Complex planning does not necessary fail. Governments fail at it more often, because most others can revise planning, stop, alter goals or change paths to those goals. Government needs to meet utilitarian expectations, at least in a democracy and it needs to be predictable (at least follow prior law) so it is hampered changing plans.

      The best solution, proven empirically, is laissez-faire. I concede that "best" means different things to different people.

      That is always true. It is almost a commercial: "The best solution, proven emperically, is product 'X'. I concede that 'best' means different things to different people." That is just because 'emperical' as being seen in the real world and 'best' a subjective qualification in a hypothesis are inherently problematic.

  27. Technology is fine. Finance sucks. by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the guy behind PayPal talking. Before PayPal, he traded derivatives. After PayPal, he ran a hedge fund. He says "We live in a financial, capitalistic age, we do not live in a scientific or technological age," said Thiel. "We live in a period were people generally dislike science and technology. Our culture dislikes it, our government dislikes it."

    He's pointing out that runaway capitalism and finance is the problem. He ought to know.

    We used to have a simpler, and more locked-down, financial system in the US. Banks accepted deposits, lent money, and handled cash. They weren't allowed to buy and sell stocks. Trading derivatives was definitely out. Brokers did stock transactions for others; brokerage firms didn't trade much for their own accounts. There were mutual funds, regulated by the SEC. Houses were financed mostly by savings and loan companies, which were mostly local and sent people out to check on building sites.

    This worked well until the Reagan years, and the beginnings of financial deregulation. S&L and bank executives wanted the freedom to take more risks with other people's money. Within a few years of S&L deregulation, the savings and loan industry tanked. Within a few years of bank deregulation, the banking industry tanked. There's kind of a pattern there.

    1. Re:Technology is fine. Finance sucks. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      This is the guy behind PayPal talking. Before PayPal, he traded derivatives. After PayPal, he ran a hedge fund.

      Wow, no wonder he thinks people hate technology. It's not technology, it's him. They hate him.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Technology is fine. Finance sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, it's true. Companies become evil once they enter the stock market or shortly thereafter.

    3. Re:Technology is fine. Finance sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Wow, no wonder he thinks people hate technology. It's not technology, it's him. They hate him.

      Indeed. He should instead be asking why PayPal is hostile to society.

  28. Re:Yes, because everyone is burning their smartpho by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    The real kicker is, Apple, Samsung and all the cellphone makers are unknowingly building the first generation of replicators. Once enough units have been manufactured, they'll all activate and take over the planet.

  29. Maybe people are catching on... by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

    Maybe people are catching on to the fact that a lot of what passes for advanced technology these days only amounts to the arrangement of pixels on screens.

    Previous waves of technologies liberated us from hard work. The Internet wave, while impressive, has not really been able to do that.

    And no, sites that help wealthier people buy services such as cooking, cleaning and driving from poorer people don't count, since the work is still done by a human. I'm talking about machines or devices that physically make work easier, or does work automatically. Like the washing machine. The washing machine is so far probably the best machine, or robot really, that we have invented in terms of how much work it saves per dollar. A 1930's invention, which predates computers. It's sad when you think about it.

    I hope the breakthroughs are just around the corner and that soon we will have our self-driving cars and our household robots that do chores and what not. Until then I doubt we will see much excitement from the general public.

    1. Re:Maybe people are catching on... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you've been missing the stories on how robots will replace 1/3 of workers in 20 years? Robotics is slowly climbing the "unskilled labor" curve, able to do more mindless repetitive tasks for us. Of course, people fear change, and so just like every automation revolution that has dramatically improved our live, this will have it share of Luddites, but one way or another people will be excited.

      Effectively free unlimited internet pron? People are exicited about/by that, mere "arrangement of pixels on the screen" or no!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Maybe people are catching on... by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      robots will replace 1/3 of workers in 20 years [...] Of course, people fear change [...]

      I'd rather say they fear loosing their job. Originally the idea of the robotic revolution was that everyone would have his own robot who does all the hard work for him. That didn't work out so well now, did it?

      As long as 1% of the population owns 35% and the top 20% of the population own 85% of a nations wealth, it is not very surprising that people oppose to change that gives the richest 1% even more money - money which according to their own theory (Principle of Diminishing Marginal Utility) should be pretty much useless to the them but would be very useful to the poor.

    3. Re:Maybe people are catching on... by lgw · · Score: 0

      You can't make someone wealthy by giving them money - look at lottery winners after a few years. Wealth is a matter of habits more than funding, and we seem dead-set as a culture against teaching people how to be wealthy - instead we revile the wealthy as bad examples.

      All this "class warfare" tripe is a scheme by one set of wealthy people to attack a different set of wealthy people. Don't participate. Instead, change your habits to those which accumulate wealth, and encourage others to do likewise. That's real change.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Maybe people are catching on... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      We can't teach everybody to be in the upper 1%. We can try to teach them to do better with what they have, and in order to do that we're going to have to understand why they do what they do. For example, short-term thinking is the rational response to certain environments, particularly those where wealth accumulation is going to be very difficult.

      As far as class warfare goes, I'd be more impressed if the people decrying it didn't tend to be the winners. I make a very nice income, but nothing extraordinary, and I do notice that people a lot richer than I am tend to pay a lot less in Federal taxes, proportionately, than I do.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  30. We don't hate technology by ichabod801 · · Score: 2

    We just hate PayPal.

    1. Re:We don't hate technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. This.

  31. Re:Yes, because everyone is burning their smartpho by lgw · · Score: 1

    the real issue is that Science and Tech are just evolving at a pace that it becomes difficult to comprehend the implications

    Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are both about 100 years old now (really!). Why aren't they taught in high school? High schools mostly teach science that was the state of the art around the time of the US civil war (really!).

    We're so culturally bought into the idea that math is hard, that modern physics is full of baffling ideas that normal people can't make sense of, and so we don't even try to teach what we should. Especially if you go on to college: someone who specializes in the works of Shakespeare should know as much about quantum physics as someone who specializes about quantum physics should know about Shakespeare - he should be able to at least give a summary of the most important work.

    We've had 100 years now to figure out how to teach the basic rules of the universe we live in to high school students, but we have simply abandoned the idea a "uncool" and "too hard".

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  32. News? by fred911 · · Score: 1

    Wasn't Galileo sufficient enough an example?

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:News? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      It wasn't his technology, it was his religious speech.

  33. Anti-People? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Movies "all show technology that doesn't work, that ... kills people, that it is bad...

    Movies also often show people doing bad things. Does that mean our society also hates people? (Letting the sick and poor die is arguably a sign of such.)

    But in general, for any drama you need an antagonist. Sometimes that antagonist is a person(s) and sometimes technology. Happy rainbow movies rarely sell.

    Plus, it's fun watching sparks fly out of machines. Unrealistic, but fun. Blood and guts are too unpleasant to watch in my opinion. Kick Bot Butt!

  34. In other news billionaires are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news billionaires are stupid when it comes to technology... or intelligence.

    How the fuck do such stupid people make so much money. It pisses me off. Rise up motherfuckers!

  35. So US centric, AGAIN by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 2

    "We live in a period were people generally dislike science and technology."

    US people maybe. Canada has over 60% approval for sciences.

    But what do you expect? Canada also lacks the billions of dollars it took for corporations to convince you science is bad.

    1. Re:So US centric, AGAIN by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      You make nonsensical assertions, US is far more a driver of science and technology on planet earth than Canada could ever hope to be. What does Canada do for science, beer yeast genetics?

    2. Re:So US centric, AGAIN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although difficult to quantify such things, at the crude level Canada produces more academic papers and citations per capita than the US. In some fields, like Agriculture and CS, they produce almost 50% more per capita. They are in various collaborations on big science projects, etc., pretty much like any other developed nation at this point.

  36. Or maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or maybe they are hostile to the notion that a select bunch of ubermensch will guide us to salvation, Peter knows-it-all Thiel. "Failing at complex planning"? Really? So maybe we should just ask, um, well, who do *you* propose Peter? - to guide us to salvation.

  37. SOCIETY IS SOOOO HOSTILE! (FWP) by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 0

    This society is SO hostile to TECHNOLOGY, that it has rendered VISIONARIES like Thiel ALMOST PENNILESS!!!!

    Won't someone save our precious, sensitive TECH BILLIONAIRES from the humiliation of our hostile, callous society?

    Maybe he can take comfort by joining Scientology?

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:SOCIETY IS SOOOO HOSTILE! (FWP) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, you gotta be a capitalist with some money to be in $cientology.
      Besides, from all reports, they're hostile.

  38. The gift of Technology by MrKaos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Those who wield technology are, therefore, akin to magicians. People are amazed by magicians but they also don't trust what they don't understand.

    Most people don't understand the commitment required to be a good technologist, they just want you to fix their computer during the dinner they invited you to. How may times have you heard the "I'm not very good with computers" line? Even more how many time have you met someone with "the next great idea to make millions" and all they need is some dumb monkey coder to do the actual *work* for them? The general expectation is that you'll do it for them but just watch their face if you ask them to tile your bathroom or do a similar amount of *work*.

    I think Thiel is right. I'm uncertain if people actually deserve a gift like information technology and the internet which is powerful enough to enslave or free humanity. Frankly people are so vapid and apathetic they are simply driving us to a technology driven dystopia from the sheer weight of idiocracy. The worst thing about it is that myself and every technologist I know is being dragged along, kicking and screaming, with them - fully aware of the consequences.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:The gift of Technology by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's the technologists you hang out with. Those I know don't feel that way. I also think you're conflating charlatan's with everyday people.

    2. Re:The gift of Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post is currently rated "4, Insightful" and it's still vastly underrated.

      The greatest evil on Earth is sharing technologies (be they directly such as the internet or indirectly such as mass production of food) with people that could never create those technologies themselves - even when instructed in the principles governing them. To do so just side-steps evolution taking the greatest trait ever to develop on this planet (intellect) and granting all of it's benefits with none of it's disadvantages (few as they may be) to people lacking it. In turn we've not only halted, but actually reversed the effects of evolution resulting in greater intellect. At our current pace we're speeding toward an Idiocracy-type society and beyond that the stoneage, if our progeny are lucky enough to even get a second shot at it. The alchemists writing in code and keeping the secrets of the world unknown to the rest of the population had it right the whole time - even if it was only for fear of persecution the behavior itself was spot on.

      CAPTCHA: eaters

    3. Re:The gift of Technology by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      A usefull corrolary to keep in mind is one from the "Freefall" web comic: "Any technology, no matter how simple, is magic to you if you don't understand it." And too few people really understand science or technology on even a basic level.

      On the other hand, I like Dr. Barry Gehm's version, too: "Any technology that is distinguishable from magic is not advanced enough."

    4. Re:The gift of Technology by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's the technologists you hang out with. Those I know don't feel that way. I also think you're conflating charlatan's with everyday people.

      Perhaps it's the technologists you hang out with?

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    5. Re:The gift of Technology by MrKaos · · Score: 1
      Thank you.

      To do so just side-steps evolution taking the greatest trait ever to develop on this planet (intellect) and granting all of it's benefits with none of it's disadvantages (few as they may be) to people lacking it. In turn we've not only halted, but actually reversed the effects of evolution resulting in greater intellect.

      Indeed!

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  39. not totally by FudRucker · · Score: 2

    i like good science, i hate pseudoscience

    i hate high tech hardware that is locked down for my own good, maybe bought an Android tablet for the specific purpose of wiping android off and putting a vanilla Linux distro on it like Debian or Gentoo or maybe Slackware, and most tablets wont boot from other sources, and even if you mount it as a removable storage device and manually delete everything you can on it once it reboots the dang system gets replaced with a fresh copy (system on a chip???) i dont know for sure but i really hate tablets because nothing can be done to them and i got to run the OS that comes with it, and google store is packed full of crappy spamware, ok rant over because i am digressing, thanks

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:not totally by Kariles70 · · Score: 1

      I really hate pseudo-scientists with a long track record of wrong predictions telling me I have to give up basic rights to change weather that is supposed to be hotter to a colder setting. Particularly when we have record breaking cold in both hemispheres. -135.4 Fahrenheit this July at the south pole. Record breaking cold in Australia this July. The Great Lakes all froze solid this past winter and didn't thaw out until June.

  40. OMG, OMISSION ALERT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    "The underlying message in Gravity is that "you never want to go into outer space,"

    Should have read:

    "The underlying message in Gravity is that "you never want to go into outer space with Sandra Bullock,"

    Lets be serious Sandra managed to destroy:
    1- A space telescope
    2- A space shuttle
    3- The ISS
    4- A Russian Soyuz capsule
    5- The Chinese Space Station
    6- George Clooney

    basically every space asset was destroyed due to something she did. Sandra had what my friends and I refer to as "The reverse midas touch", where everything she touches seems to turn to s**t. She was like a train wreck in slow motion.

    1. Re:OMG, OMISSION ALERT! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      .... dodge micrometeorites? We must have watched different movies there, geez.

  41. Re: Yes, because everyone is burning their smartph by rfengr · · Score: 2

    Hell, Maxwell's treatise on EM was released around the time of the U.S. Civil war. High school physics really only covers basic Newtonian stuff, and maybe some 18th century EM.

  42. My Logic Says Burn So Send Me Away by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    President Joe once had a dream
    The world held his hand, gave their pledge
    So he told them his scheme
    For a Saviour Machine

    They called it the Prayer, its answer was law
    Its logic stopped war, gave them food
    How they adored
    Till it cried in its boredom

    'Please don't believe in me,
    Please disagree with me
    Life is too easy,
    A plague seems quite feasible now
    Or maybe a war, or
    I may kill you all

    Don't let me stay, don't let me stay
    My logic says burn so send me away
    Your minds are too green, I despise all I've seen
    You can't stake your lives
    On a Saviour Machine

    I need you flying, and I'll show that dying
    Is living beyond reason, sacred dimension of time
    I perceive every sign,
    I can steal every mind

    Don't let me stay, don't let me stay
    My logic says burn so send me away
    Your minds are too green, I despise all I've seen
    You can't stake your lives
    On a Saviour Machine

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  43. Alcor or Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just bring up Alcor or Bitcoin in relation to Peter Thiel and even here (yeah, sure) on Slashdot you will get all kinds of hostility from people who are uninformed or just plain hostile. e.g. One would think that something like Alcor would have a big following here.

  44. Hostile? by Subm · · Score: 2

    Movies "all show technology that doesn't work, that ... kills people, that it is bad for the world,"

    What do you mean? We elected it governor of California.

  45. Cofounder of Paypal talks out of his Bunghole by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    Hollywood movie plots don't prove anything except what is considered marketable entertainment.

    Last I checked the USA was ranked #1 in research and science.

    1. Re:Cofounder of Paypal talks out of his Bunghole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By what metric? Sure, it is easy to beat smaller countries by absolute numbers. But a lot of the output, expressed in per capita, per researcher, per dollar spent, etc., is lagging other Western countries. Science education in general is not #1. Heck, just comparing the amount of red tape I have to deal with and time spent on bureaucratic and administrative stuff versus actual research sucks compared colleagues in several other countries. While I've seen a lot of people come from other countries to the US for their education, I'm seeing a lot of people returning to their home countries, or American students getting postdocs and other positions overseas.

  46. Enhance! by pelirojatica · · Score: 1

    Except "enhance the reflection on the screw head and run facial recognition on it!" That always works on teevee.

  47. Technology is freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Freedom to experiment, play, make life easier, make the planet better, make money, become socially mobile, etc.

    Socialism and totalitarianism - which is what politics has devolved into - dislike freedom. They want people to remain brain-dead, drugged slaves plugged in to television, without the money to experience freedom. For the benefit of the Comrade at the top (because some Comrades are more equal than other Comrades).

  48. Re:Yes, because everyone is burning their smartpho by Baloroth · · Score: 1

    Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are both about 100 years old now (really!). Why aren't they taught in high school? High schools mostly teach science that was the state of the art around the time of the US civil war (really!).

    Kant is even older than that, and yet you don't see him being taught in high school either. The age of an idea has little to do with the complexity of the idea, and quantum mechanics is quite complicated, if you want to really understand it. Shakespeare is only widely taught because, due to cultural influences, he is considered something that everyone should know, and his plays aren't really all that hard to understand. Quantum mechanics, orbital dynamics, E&M, etc., not so much. It's not simply because they're hard, either, though those subjects are: it's simply because, unless you're going into a field that requires it, you really don't need to know them, just as the physicist doesn't need to know Kant.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  49. Canada is tiny; you'd have to compare to pop by bussdriver · · Score: 2

    Canada looks big but they have fewer people and less area to produce $$$ for funding. Plus they probably can't ever have high productivity because that is something that doesn't go with being the #1 or #2 nation to live in.

    The global economy and banking system which control everything are not pro-science. For their population and GDP, Canada probably beats the USA. It doesn't help that Canadians easily cross over to the USA college system and end up staying here despite the lower quality lifestyle. Guess buying more junk and the dream of getting more junk is just too compelling... Once that fades away, can't see why anybody would stay-- we've got nothing else to offer that compensates for being at the bottom of the 1st world nations (except expensive military tech.)

    Hope I offended fellow citizens. #1 problem in the USA is we are full of shit; I'm only here (for now) because my science job is here...and all my relatives.

    1. Re:Canada is tiny; you'd have to compare to pop by whodunit · · Score: 1

      Lemme know when you find a science job that isn't in the US. You might have a while to wait.

    2. Re:Canada is tiny; you'd have to compare to pop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what field you might be speaking of with personal experience, or if you have some numbers to back that up, but in physical sciences a lot of Americans do end up with science jobs overseas. Several of China's projects thrive on using experience from other established project, both through collaboration and bringing in workers with direct experience. I've know several people end up with jobs in Korea and Japan, although that requires some ability to learn language and culture or already know it. Even rather untravelled people get jobs in western Europe, both government projects and companies. In particular, in some subfields of plasma, particle, and astrophysics the limited funding in the US has lead to quite a few coworkers and friends of mine ending up going to Europe for work.

  50. You must be joking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only tonight I was arguing with my wife about how she never stops fiddling with her mobile phone. Same with my kids. There is no distrust of new technology, nor any dislike of same. You (Peter Thiel) are labouring under a mistaken belief that technology is the driving force behind society. It's not, money is. I'd say capitalism, but that'd just get everyone ranting at me like i'm a communist. I'm not, but the reality is that society currently has only one moral - profit.

    It's the same reason that the forced uptake of digital television hasn't furnished us with, say, the entire school curriculum spread over dozens of channels. Instead, I get gay 1-2-1 chat, gambling and sales channels piped into my son's bedroom whether I like it or not. This is the true indictment of our society, and represents a moral bankruptcy from which I doubt there will be a return. Profit.

    You (Peter Thiel) assume someone is in charge. You assume there's a plan. There's not. Society is a stampede, driving headlong with nobody at the wheel except marketeers. One glance at the internet shows this. Type any word into google - ten years ago you'd get pages of information about it. Now you'll get people falling over themselves to sell it to you.

    You (Peter Thiel) have completely misinterpreted the data.

  51. Re:Yes, because everyone is burning their smartpho by lgw · · Score: 1

    You don't need to know anything except where to find food, but humans should know more than they need to, or what's the point of it all?

    Neither relativity nor QM is all that hard to understand. The math can be hard to understand, but the more important consequences of both can be explained geometrically. And, really, you only need algebra and trig to do the math for the basic results in special relativity and in very simple quantum mechanical systems.

    I think it's more important to do some simple experiments to show what QM is about, and why the physicists aren't just making all this up - just measuring the light that passes through 2 polarizing filters, and doing a double slit experiment, and explaining that the results are the same if you do one photon at a time, that would be great! Just showing pictures of gravitational lensing and Cherenkov radiation and other visible consequences of relativity would be great!

    These are basic facts about the world, and as such there's really no excuse for not teaching these facts along with some evidence to back them up.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  52. Hollywood reflects and shapes our culture. by bussdriver · · Score: 2

    When talking about culture in TV Nation where community has died and all that comes close is TV/Movies. We talk using movie metaphors, adopt phrases and new metaphors from the medium which sadly doesn't even come close to the past sources they supplanted.

    Advertizing controls people and they don't spend all that $$$ doing product placement, infotainment, endorsements, and advertizing if it didn't have a big impact. People only SAY they don't vote based upon the advertizing that goes on-- but they are lying because most the billions that goes into elections is TV related. Since the biz is all about buying attention-- it's a mix of giving people what they want to see while making them see stuff they don't want to. It actively tries to influence while it actively tries to reflect-- in addition to the other aspects! It can be hard to discern which but it's probably one of the two.

    If you want to take a disjointed culture without any community and characterize it, using the most common thread which binds them (I'm avoiding making a LOTR ref) you use TV/Movies. Referencing that either gives the promoted impressions being pushed by a few (since a minority has working control) or you are seeing what people expect to see. Usually the medium doesn't upset people by going too far outside their cultural expectations. That's bad for business unless you are targeting the intellectual minority... A little makes it interesting but too much and it's a niche market.

    1. Re:Hollywood reflects and shapes our culture. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      where community has died

      No it hasn't. You've endangered your entire post with your first sentence. Maybe where you live it's crippled, but it most certainly isn't dead and even more certainly not everywhere.

      Advertizing controls people

      Wow, another gross overstatement. Most everyone I know and many here on /. finds ads annoying and tune them out, ignore them or develop antipathy.

      Sorry you view things this way but I feel you're incorrect.

    2. Re:Hollywood reflects and shapes our culture. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      2013 saw big jump in black and hispanic moviegoers because of larger number of movies having same as actors. Maybe that's a sign movies aren't quite in tune with culture

    3. Re:Hollywood reflects and shapes our culture. by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      Well, you might also be enough of a freak to be immune to advertizing and propaganda but most people are not. One doesn't need to fool everybody all the time, just a portion and in politics just 51% of the voters or revolutionaries.

      I might seem like I'm making absolute statements to which your anecdotal evidence is sufficient enough of a rebuttal, but I am not and therefore your counter statement is not enough.

      Furthermore, working control is not absolute control. When I said control I was being vague but not incorrect. Plenty of people feel free while they choose which item on the Star Bucks menu unable to break free of the cycle; which they could... but do not. Potential doesn't matter if it is never utilized, just as free will doesn't exist if it is not used (and even then there are plenty of unresolved debates on the existence of free will in the world of philosophy.)

      I'm in a midwest city. Just about everybody here agrees community is dead or doesn't even really know what it means... I didn't, it took conversations with old people to get a grasp on it. In your small town you might still have it, but most people live in cities today. A church community or similar niche community formed around a common topic are about all that is left but those are not full communities (as defined by the elderly who educated me on the topic, who also had membership in sub-communities. Which is all I had for a reference because like I said, community is dead here.)

      Most people I know and many here on /. block out advertizing using software and the bit that remains they easily can ignore. I hadn't realized how bad /. was until last week when I went to the site on a newly installed browser before adding ad protection. It's really obnoxious and hard to ignore plus quite upsetting at the amount of bandwidth being used for video ads.

  53. Put up or shut up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why doesn't Mr. Thiel take some of his billions, fund pro-technology movies and see how they do in the marketplace. Maybe people will cheer for the kindly Terminator slaughtering ignorant bureaucrats and lawyers.

  54. Technology is fine. Finance sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, runaway capitalism is part of the problem. But also lack of long-term planning and execution of the plans. Public accepts planning as something out of the realities of socialism. And socialism is a blasphemy, at least from my experience in the US of A. The public does not respect the scientific thinking or the people who create, use, propagate scientific views and improvements, unless they generate tons of cash. I think it is the time for the people who think that we ought to live in the age of reason to take the matters into their own hands. Be it through the means of propaganda or of a slight coercion. That's what Thiel did not say, what should we do?

  55. Brilliant Assburger [lol] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thiel is just one more example of the nutcase sociopaths who are flocking to San Francisco. If you don't think they're dangerous read about Ryan Chamberlain. And when they have resources like Thiel it's time to really worry. I really hope DHS watches these guys closely now Snowden has made domestic terrorism fashionable.

  56. Re:Yes, because everyone is burning their smartpho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The issue a lot of the time is that people value extrapolation from their own experiences over that of other sources of information, including professionals/experts on many topics. Just giving people a taste of a topic doesn't address that, and potentially only adds fuel to a fire, if they now feel confident extrapolating from a superficial understanding. Quantum mechanics is one of those topics that is really hard to use intuition to figure out what will happen, especially when you were only given a glimpse of simple effects and not an actual foundation in the subject.

    I am not advocating avoiding teaching it, as I'm all for trying to cover as much as possible. But it will be limited in some cases to "Oh cool" more so than informative, especially after filtered through a teacher who may not understand it either. A select few will get enough of an interest to pursue the topic on their own and learn more. Pop-sci books on quantum mechanics related topics are quite popular with various subsets of people. Doing some science outreach on the side of doing actual research, I get a lot of questions about such things even though my research isn't directly connected to quantum mechanics or particle physics. Many people have obviously been exposed to it on some level, and many have even put a lot of thought into it. Some will typically feel they have a solid grasp on it, at least until presented with a new example they have not seen before.

    The issue then is how they deal with finding out their understanding might have been flawed. Some soak up the new stuff and reform their understanding, others use that as a launch point for a series of questions realizing there is a lot more to something, and yet others stand their ground and decide that the scientist or entire field must be wrong to some degree. With the latter types, short of giving them a really solid foundation in a topic, just showing them a bit more doesn't change their attitude as there will always be a gulf between their understanding and more bleeding-edge stuff. Quantum mechanics seems to be especially difficult in this regard, as it doesn't take much to make a simple example not so simple and break many of the half-assed non-math explanations. Whereas something like Newtonian physics or electrostatics or magnetism, you can give 5-10 minute talks with demos, and get people to do surprising well at applying those ideas to new and more complicated situations.

    And this isn't getting into the issue where students seem to avoid math at all costs... I've talked to people who had calculus level math, but would put considerable effort to avoid doing basic algebra in a physics context.

  57. The problem *is* corporations and governments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > corporations and the U.S. government are failing at complex planning.

    (but not only the US government). No. Not the "failure at complex planning", but rather the failure to cater to resp. to represent people's needs. The distribution of money for the former and corruption for the latter means that everything is geared towards satisfying the needs of the affluent few.

    Is it surprising that most see technology with distrust when it is being wielded as a tool (weapon?) against them? And now imagine what's up with the really poor. I tell you -- the horrors of Islamic State are just the beginning.

    More has to change than "ability to do complex planning" (this is lacking too, mind you) if we want to live in a peaceful world.

  58. being hostile to technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given how PayPal used to be notorious for freezing the accounts of innocent people, leaving their livelihoods in the balance and having no customer service, I can understand people might be hostile towards some technology. Apparently the irony of saying that whilst being the co-founder of PayPal is lost on Thiel.

  59. Indeed by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

    And that's why we steer clear of mobile phones, computers, digital watches and clocks, microwaves, cars, planes, xboxes, the internet ect, which has led to the lack of any tech industry in the US. Films attack technology because of the producers hatred of it and they stick to analogue film etc, CGI? what's that?

    Really, what a stupid thing to say. There are some luddites, so what.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  60. Many movies show people using phones and cars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many movies show people using phones and cars and airplanes, and the phones and cars and airplanes usually work fine and are helpful. Likewise for lots of other technology.

    In real life, I see people using and seemingly enjoying all kinds of technology all the time. Enjoying it too much, even, e.g. groups of friends at a table in a restaurant, each absorbed in their own cell phone instead of talking with their friends who are right there. The people who wait in lines for hours or days to be the first to buy a new popular phone etc sure don't seem to hate technology.

    So I have a hard time believe such a broad claim that society is hostile to science and technology.

  61. Failing at complex planning! What? by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

    You mean Agile development, like the free market, isn't the answer to the world's problems? How can that be? Just wait until I bring that up at today's standup. The scrum master will be aghast...

  62. One of the dumbest things I've read. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's basically an argument that large scale planning is the way to success. History has already shown that to be untrue (Agile vs waterfall, capitalism vs. communism).

  63. Re:Failing at complex planning! What? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or do the roles and rituals in agile development sound a bit like a dungeons and dragons game?

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  64. It is easy Peter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop helping the government spy on everything, then maybe they will like science and technology better.

  65. The third law of slashdot. by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

    iii - Mention pseudo scientists and one will always turn up to tell you how cold it's been lately.

    Troll food: The min temp anomaly map for Australia over the past six months, it's clear minimum temperatures have been warmer across most of the continent. It also clear that maximum temps have been well above average for the same period.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:The third law of slashdot. by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      But what percentage of the people who make such a big ostentatious show of being so very very very concerned about CO2 and climate change are not also rabid anti-nukes? Much of our problem with CO2 is that we failed to phase out coal in favor of nuclear decades ago. And California just shut down another nuclear plant, replacing its carbon-free energy with more megatons of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere. (Yes, California does have some "sunny days when the wind is blowing" power generation. But as long as any power is being generated by fossil fuels, shutting down nuclear plants is increasing amount of fossil fuels burned.)

  66. OMG, OMISSION ALERT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be fair, she also had superhuman reflexes (and in a clumsy spacesuit too!), after all not everyone can dodge micrometeorites traveling at least at 30 Km/s in a 0G environment! In other words, to say that Gravity is a science fiction film is akin to spit in the eye of all great SF authors that died for our sins.

    Also ** it. Even murikans think that the average murikan is dumb as a rock and yes, they DO fear science and technology simply because a large percent of the population is unable or unwilling to understand how it works, deluded by bronze age myths that conflict with science findings and influenced by con artists that claim to know what they are talking about.

  67. No Time to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plan your work and work your plan.

  68. living in China reminded me of 1960s science by peter303 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s science culture was popular in the US. People looked forward to new discoveries and gadgets and careers in science. Big industry did need to be restrained by environmentalists and that did mostly work in the US. Then young people got seduced by higher paying jobs in finance, an industry that doesnt really create much else than money.

    When I travel in China I see the pro-science and technology attitudes of my youth. It i s refreshing.

  69. Smell of Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why yes I have, at an interview..

    He smells of money

  70. How not to write a screenplay! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2

    If the Terminator comes from the future, let's be realistic! He'll show up with lots of bloatware. Not only will ke kill you, he'd go through your social media accounts to track down and kill everyone on Facebook that you ever went to high school with. He'd also check your mail, handle phone calls, self-install software updates from the future, keep track of your bank account, play second-person-shooter video games, autoplay video advertisements, and sound cool alarm tones to remind you of your impending appointment with death.

  71. Missing the point by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    This fear and distrust of technology is a symptom of the bigger problem of anti-intellectualism. And this can't be fixed until:
    a) the education system stops trying to scrape the bottom of the barrel.
    b) religion stops getting a free pass on everything

    In particular, there is a distressing lack of logical thinking courses. This is desperately needed, especially because there is currently nothing to counteract the dangerous and forceful indoctrination of children into religious institutions. It has already been demonstrated that children in religious households have difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality, for example.

    The problem is that this is a self perpetuating problem. Stupid adults who arn't able to deal with the real world, want their kids to be equally stupid and unable to deal with the real world, and so raise them accordingly, and even go out of their way to subvert the education system to push their politics on everyone whether they like it or not.

    Ilsa

  72. ebola vaccine anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OHHHHH canada....

  73. Anyone involved in PayPal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PayPal is one of the worst run companies in the world. It's first to market success is slowly bleeding away. Soon it will be a footnote to a much larger chapter.

    The corporate culture at PayPal is legendary. And well documented... as purposefully negative towards customers.

  74. Its not the technology - it is the tech company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given that the US is the only country in the world that taxes worldwide income, it makes sense for any company with a global presence to put their HQ anywhere but the US.

    Imagine how it would be if every country taxed worldwide income. Your business HQ is in the US, but you have profit centers all over the world, so Canada, Mexico, Australia, Japan, China, EU, Russia, New Zealand, Brazil, and Argentina ALL tax you based on your worldwide income and no just the income earned in their country.

    Canada and the EU may have their own problems when it comes to business, but more companies are finding that it's cheaper to deal with those than continuing to pay the US for money earned on other continents.

  75. Re:Yes, because everyone is burning their smartpho by lgw · · Score: 1

    Quantum mechanics is one of those topics that is really hard to use intuition to figure out what will happen, especially when you were only given a glimpse of simple effects and not an actual foundation in the subject.

    The experiment with two polarizing films, if explained properly, will reset intuitions about light. That's why it's so valuable. The intuitive explanation predicts X, the student, hands-on, measures Y, there you go. If you do this the first week that you explain what polarization is, people don't head down the wrong path with intuition in the first place. To me, that's a big deal.

    The double-slit experiment is one that no one really gets a correct intuition on, but you can at least show hands-on that the obvious idea doesn't work.

    Similarly, relativity, if properly explained with geometry, is straightforward. You can't really do hands-on experiments there, but there's plenty of stuff visible to the human eye that you can at least present to the class as photos or videos.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  76. Wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People aren't hostile to technology or science. They are hostile towards people who have hijacked technology and science to promote their ridiculous political goals.

  77. American short-term thinking and Pragmatism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am posting as AC in protest to the Slashdot beta UI appearing as default in some threads. I killed my visible ID on Slashdot. I will only reply as AC on threads that use the original UI.

    The OP sounds frustrated by the short-term thinking that took over in about 1990 in business and government. He can blame the digital revolution for that, excel spreadsheets and instant trading, high-frequency trading, etc. This has sped up the greed machine in the U.S. and it points to the more basic flaw in the American character that is too Pragmatic and doesn't take a long measured view of anything, expecting an immediate gratification. This creates a hostile climate for the really hard things that take time, for respect for lengthy and careful research. America got a gift from the European Academic Traditions via Hitler. The refugee academics trained in the best universities in Germany and elsewhere came here to flee the war and racism, but they really did not find the same environment here. The were largely responsible for the American supremicy during the Cold War, but a string of American leaders grounded in Protestant Fundamentalism have seen to it that the opportunity is largely squandered and American Universities are returning to the second tier status that had before the war. A respect for learning has never taken root here. Other people other nations have a much greater respect for it than most people here. America is destined to decline unless this changes.

  78. Re:Yes, because everyone is burning their smartpho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The experiment with two polarizing films, if explained properly, will reset intuitions about light.

    Pretty much any high school physics class that gets to light and polarization seems to cover this example in my experience, if you are referring to the case where you can get light to pass through two or three polarizing filters depending on their relative angle, especially in the latter case where the first and last are 90 degrees apart. It isn't an unexpected result to the students if you introduced polarization as a vector form the start, and you can usually get them to predict what will happen before you even do it. Considering the majority of students beforehand didn't know what polarization was at all, it isn't much of a reset.

  79. The US certainly is. by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Lessee, my chances of catching ebola are significantly below those of my winning the lottery and buying a trip the the Station... but the media, esp. Faux, is screaming about ebola. (And I happen to work no more than a few hundred yards from a facility that had one of those possibly exposed.)

    We won't mention allegedly science programming channels with supernatural crap.

    And then there's the textbooks in Texas and other southern states, where they'd trying to take out evolution. And the budget cuts for scentific research.

    And we also won't mention the climate change deniers.

    They mostly managed to avoid science in school, it's all magic to most users, and they think that the LATEST IPHONE IS THE MOST IMPRTANT ADVANCE IN TECHNOLOGY THIS CENTURY!!!!!

                      mark "beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life here"

  80. Re:Yes, because everyone is burning their smartpho by lgw · · Score: 1

    It's totally unexpected at 30 degrees. At 0, 45, and 90 degrees the intuitive model of polarization as a vector predicts the measured value, but it fails at all other angles. At 60 degrees, explaining why 25%, not 33%, of light gets through is the perfect introduction to quantum mechanics. And kids should at least get that introduction - that the rules of the universe are more odd than you might guess, but still you can work them out, and that's modern physics.

    You can also explain, with no more math, that one photon passing through 2 filters, and 2 entangled photons passing through two separate filters work the same way. A result that shouldn't surprise anyone, even though its implications are quite weird. You don't really need to understand those implications in high school, but seeing enough to believe that the physicists are just telling colorful stories, that this stuff is actually real, would be great.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  81. Re:Yes, because everyone is burning their smartpho by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Neither relativity nor QM is all that hard to understand.

    Yes, yes they are... for your average elementary school students. Even after explaining it, many, maybe even most adults won't understand. The further you go from the visual world they see, the more difficult these more abstract concepts are to pick up. You mention the double-slit experiment, polarizing light, etcetc as if any of the above people would actually know what they're looking at. They haven't had earlier fundamentals, so the description of that experiment will just lose them completely.

  82. Re:Yes, because everyone is burning their smartpho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At 60 degrees, explaining why 25%, not 33%, of light gets through is the perfect introduction to quantum mechanics.

    No, it is just basic vector projection, something students at the high school level and up should already have been thoroughly exposed to in 2D motion and mechanics. In my experience, that is not something I've seen students struggle with or get wrong on tests, at least not in the sense of guess a third instead of a quarter (the majority seem to get that, or with a few giving that nothing gets through, or make a trig mistake).

  83. Re:Yes, because everyone is burning their smartpho by lgw · · Score: 1

    It's not vector projection in any straightforward way. With the most obvious mental model of polarization (light pointed more in the direction of the filter than perpendicular to it gets through), you expect the energy passing through both filters to fall off directly proportional to the angle between them. If you just took the dot product (and it's not obvious why you would), you also get the wrong answer of course. It's only if you understand the result in terms of the energy in the direction of the filter vs the energy perpendicular to it that you can explain cos^2. That's easy enough to accept, I think, but the implications are pretty strange. And of course lots of stuff in QM work the same way for the same reason, with the same strange implications about determinism and hidden variables.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  84. Hey Peter by MakersDirector · · Score: 0

    The technology that's being introduced is actually light years beyond what's available.

    Something a man in your position I have no doubt is aware of.

    Society isn't hostile to technology. It's simply tired of the abuse and rejecting the calculated nature of the offerings because we've all caught on to the fact that the methods being used attempt to maximize profitability and minimize creativity thus ensuring the most docile and manipulable population.

    Turnabout is fair play. Keep that in mind.

    You know where I am.

  85. Re:Yes, because everyone is burning their smartpho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not vector projection in any straightforward way.

    Each filter cuts off the the electric field component along one axis, whatever perpendicular component there is to this axis gets through. This is about as straightforward as vector projection gets. The illustration using a rope and picket fence makes it quite clear that is how it works from the start. I don't know why at that point someone would think it could be proportional to the angular difference, considering that angles almost never do stuff like that in physics.

  86. Re:Yes, because everyone is burning their smartpho by lgw · · Score: 1

    For angular difference, consider the following:

    You have a baseball bat at a random angle in the same plane as a picket fence. The spacing on the pickets is such that the bat will fit through if it's within 45% of vertical (or whatever direction the pickets go), and won't fit through at a greater angle. If the distribution of bat angles is even, what's the odds that a bat that passes through the first fence pass though a second at an angle of theta to the first?

    It falls off directly with the angular difference. At a theta of 45 degrees, half of possible bats that fit through the first also fit through the second. At a theta of 60 degrees, one third of bats that fit through the first fit through the second. It's the same as taking two quarter-circles, and finding the overlapping length of arc when they're offset by theta (area/length of arc is where "proportional to the angular difference" would come from), as each unit-length of arc represents an equal change of encountering a bat at that range of angles.

    That's the wrong answer, of course. Also, any model by which the first fence modifies the photon-substitute in some way gets very odd for the case of entangled pairs of photons, as then you need spooky action at a distance (so that modifying one instantly modifies the other, making relativity cry), and could easily get the wrong answer for 3 filters in a row.

    Vector projection would give cos(theta), of course, which is also wrong, unless I misunderstand what you're saying. It's only the square of the vector projection, an energy measurement, that gets you there. I've never met anyone who would have guessed cos^2 ahead of time, but it doesn't really seem that strange that it should be energy that matters once you figure it out - why not energy, after all? (And the energy metaphor works well later on, if you accept the chance that a particle might exist in a certain place as a form of potential energy, in an energy-mass equivalence sort of way).

    Anyhow, all of this seems very teachable to high-school students, and simple experiments should establish that light behaves neither light a wave nor like a particle, but "behaves in its own inimical way".

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  87. Re:Yes, because everyone is burning their smartpho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vector projection would give cos(theta), of course, which is also wrong

    No, a single factor of cosine is correct for the electric field, which is what the definition of polarization is all about. The intensity of light is the square of the electric field, so yes, that then because cosine squared. Energy doesn't factor into this.

  88. Endowment effect by NewYork · · Score: 1

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect

  89. Re:Yes, because everyone is burning their smartpho by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Special relativity is pretty straightforward, as long as you're willing to ditch a lot of ideas about space and time. (It seems hard to make people realize that "simultaneous" isn't meaningful with spatially separated events.) I haven't seen a good explanation of general relativity that didn't involve either tensors or a lot of handwaving. I can understand everything related to special relativity I've seen, but there's a whole lot about general relativity that I just have to take on faith, since I don't know how to compute it and don't have any relevant intuition.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  90. Re:Failing at complex planning! What? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    You say that as if it were a bad thing.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  91. Re:Yes, because everyone is burning their smartpho by lgw · · Score: 1

    That reasoning is too specific to this one experiment - you always get that cos^2 out of the QM for cases like this. And the chance that a single photon passes through really does go by cos^2 - that's the lesson here, IMO, that energy isn't just an accident that we happen to be squaring something before we measure, but instead that it's the common pattern we observe across both QM and relativity. There's always some sort of vector projection and then squaring going on, and while what the vector is/measures changes from system to system, the square of it keeps looking like some kind of energy.

    Heck, given how well Hamiltonians and Lagrangians work in explaining mechanics, I'm starting to think of force as an accidental by-product of potential energy changing over distance (which again makes sense across both QM and GR).

    But then that's the real lesson here: that what our intuitions tell us are the fundamental parts of physics from which other stuff should be deduced all comes from human-scale interaction. Pretty silly to think that would be right, given that's not at all the scale at which the fundamental interactions are happening.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  92. It is the US only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not society, but US society as it grows ever more third world.

    Europe and Asia have respect for science.