Could one argue that even if you are working on a google project that has nothing to do with ads, that you are ultimately contributing to a business that exists to get people to click ads? I think that is his point. Yes, the best and brightest aren't directly involved with ad clicking, but their code and equations are.
If the rat is being punished, it would probably learn to not do the task. Also, there are no pain receptors in the brain. (I know you are probably making a joke, if so a good one, but I still feel the need to point this out)
(speaking purely hypothetically) If radar is dead technology to them, they could have. I'm pretty sure catapulting a boulder into the shuttle or setting an F-16 on fire would do some damage. I would imagine that any sort of miraculous hover technology is dependent on manipulating magnetic fields. So I'd imagine that it caused some kind of interference that made the craft difficult to fly and eventually brought it down (as opposed to just dropping out of the sky). (I am not a physicist or engineer)
Or make jobs doing research in academia actually feasible. I'm getting turned off (in grad school right now) at a future in academia because of the fact that I have to claw and scratch and fight for grants and funding. It is so fucking stupid that we it hard just to *do* important research jobs, without even taking into account the challenges of actually doing the research itself. No wonder professors never talk about jobs in industry (research, I'm not in a field that could turn me into a quant), many would jump ship pretty quick. So yeah, maybe if being a research scientist was an appealing job with decent pay we wouldn't have so many quants fucking things up.
The best bumper sticker I ever saw said "You can't convince people you are killing them for their own good." Your points are all fair, but I still honestly think that most Americans could have watched the entire thing from start to finish unedited and saw nothing wrong. I definitely saw things in there that were wrong, but I didn't think that *everything* wikileaks tried to point out was wrong.
There wasn't much backlash because the public didn't see what was wrong. If you watch the videos, you can see why they fired when they did. Had they turned out to all be insurgents no one would have given a shit (although shooting missiles at a building when a dude was walking along outside was questionable for sure). On the other hand, if they had destroyed the local market because a guy with an RPG ran into it, you may have had a bit of outrage on your hand. One could argue that "Collateral Murder" was more "Collateral Accidental Tragedy." The wikileaks people did a terrible job by making the incident out to be murder. Same thing with media pundits that said things like 'the pilots acted like they were racking up points in a video game" - untrue. All they said was 'through the windshield, nice shot' or something like that. I was expecting "Yeah, get some! You kill those fucking towelheads! yee haw!!!" There could have been outrage over bad rules of engagement, or many other things, but when you say "there was murder, they were psychotic!" and neither is true, most viewers just switch off.
There were two major newspapers in the USSR, which were called "The Truth" ("Pravda" - I think this one is still around) and "The News." Russians used to say "There is no truth in the news, and no news in the truth."
Having said this, propaganda is easy to believe when life is working out for you. When you are dirt poor and only have left shoes because the factory that makes right shoes is broken down, you stop believing the bullshit. In the modern US, people are realizing that the lack of healthcare, poor education systems, etc, are causing America to lose its standing as a great place to live (for everyone here). So, while I love this country, I am less apt to believe a politician that says "This is the greatest country on Earth." I have never believed the jackasses that say we have the best healthcare system in the world.
Keep in mind they probably pay their troops (whom I think are mostly conscripts) diddly squat. If their troops are conscripted, they don't have to shell out something like $16k per recruit in advertising.
Or, Consoles win because they are cheaper. You can buy a console for x hundred dollars on release day and play everything that comes out for 3 to 5 years (or beyond, these days). Could you say the same of a PC you built yourself on the same day? And while we are at it, a lot of people aren't "serious" gamers, and therefore would be idiots to shell out thousands on a PC when they could spend hundreds on a console. Plus, you can't have a crowd over and all play on the same PC in the same room. Sure you can have LAN parties, but if you just want to school your friend at Madden or call of duty over a beer, toting over a rig is kind of a hassle.
3. Faculty at elite programs are generally hired based on research abilities, not based on teaching quality. If anything, someone who has taught 3x as many students at a 'fourth tier' program might have a larger sample to base an opinion on when thinking "what does a CS student need to succeed?" - again, this applies to pretty much any field.
1. None of the points you make have anything to do with calculus, which renders your argument about math largely a straw man (did you RTFA?). You can keep CS majors taking math, just stuff other than calc. Your point about 'avoid the hot topics' is a good one, and is something that should generalize to pretty much any discipline.
2. 4th Tier? I'm currently in grad school (Neural Systems, not comp sci) and want to know what cool aid you have been drinking regarding tiers and how academia works in general. Specifically, universities *don't* hire people all the time. You can have years where there are no slots open at top schools, and all the guys and gals from CMU and MIT (or whatever is the top of a given field) or that have well connected advisors at other schools are unable to get jobs at top schools. Then the following year you have a ton of retirements (or people not getting tenure) and all of a sudden slots open, and people who went to or got postdocs at "2nd tier" schools can get hired up at "better" schools. There are researchers at big state schools that could wipe the floor with people at elite schools in any given field.
But what is bad is unnecessary invocation of "good for the brain." It is a bit like saying that "this new version of linux is good for your CPU" when really it just works a bit better. Speaking as a neuroscientist, if there is one thing that annoys me more than crappy journalism it is crappy science journalism, and how it tends to start talking about the brain when really cognitive psychology will do.
"Ulterior motives" really don't matter if you have presented a good argument, and have addressed opposing arguments and points of view. Unfortunately, people generally suck at the latter.
And I'm sure that the "right to bear arms" included the right to own extended magazines and assault weapons. I don't think the OP meant welfare a la unemployment, but was referring to the fact that social security (or healthcare) is legal under the Constitution.
The difference is that the fat in Ubuntu isn't wasting anything other than a bit of HD space, and that a linux user knows how to get rid of it, whereas the typical consumer does not.
You can't truly simulate all stochastic processes. You just have to approximate something close enough to a right answer. But the best predictors of pretty much anything have to be able to take weather into account.
Prince. Link says that it is mirrored and slightly lowered pitch, and I can't use sound right now to make sure it doesn't sound bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfNeoKv8qzk
Slashdot Mirror
Could one argue that even if you are working on a google project that has nothing to do with ads, that you are ultimately contributing to a business that exists to get people to click ads? I think that is his point. Yes, the best and brightest aren't directly involved with ad clicking, but their code and equations are.
If the rat is being punished, it would probably learn to not do the task. Also, there are no pain receptors in the brain. (I know you are probably making a joke, if so a good one, but I still feel the need to point this out)
Followed by the A7 Corsair.
(speaking purely hypothetically) If radar is dead technology to them, they could have. I'm pretty sure catapulting a boulder into the shuttle or setting an F-16 on fire would do some damage. I would imagine that any sort of miraculous hover technology is dependent on manipulating magnetic fields. So I'd imagine that it caused some kind of interference that made the craft difficult to fly and eventually brought it down (as opposed to just dropping out of the sky). (I am not a physicist or engineer)
Or make jobs doing research in academia actually feasible. I'm getting turned off (in grad school right now) at a future in academia because of the fact that I have to claw and scratch and fight for grants and funding. It is so fucking stupid that we it hard just to *do* important research jobs, without even taking into account the challenges of actually doing the research itself. No wonder professors never talk about jobs in industry (research, I'm not in a field that could turn me into a quant), many would jump ship pretty quick. So yeah, maybe if being a research scientist was an appealing job with decent pay we wouldn't have so many quants fucking things up.
The best bumper sticker I ever saw said "You can't convince people you are killing them for their own good." Your points are all fair, but I still honestly think that most Americans could have watched the entire thing from start to finish unedited and saw nothing wrong. I definitely saw things in there that were wrong, but I didn't think that *everything* wikileaks tried to point out was wrong.
I'll add to this: good luck finding a country with good quality of life and lower taxes!
There wasn't much backlash because the public didn't see what was wrong. If you watch the videos, you can see why they fired when they did. Had they turned out to all be insurgents no one would have given a shit (although shooting missiles at a building when a dude was walking along outside was questionable for sure). On the other hand, if they had destroyed the local market because a guy with an RPG ran into it, you may have had a bit of outrage on your hand. One could argue that "Collateral Murder" was more "Collateral Accidental Tragedy." The wikileaks people did a terrible job by making the incident out to be murder. Same thing with media pundits that said things like 'the pilots acted like they were racking up points in a video game" - untrue. All they said was 'through the windshield, nice shot' or something like that. I was expecting "Yeah, get some! You kill those fucking towelheads! yee haw!!!" There could have been outrage over bad rules of engagement, or many other things, but when you say "there was murder, they were psychotic!" and neither is true, most viewers just switch off.
There were two major newspapers in the USSR, which were called "The Truth" ("Pravda" - I think this one is still around) and "The News." Russians used to say "There is no truth in the news, and no news in the truth."
Having said this, propaganda is easy to believe when life is working out for you. When you are dirt poor and only have left shoes because the factory that makes right shoes is broken down, you stop believing the bullshit. In the modern US, people are realizing that the lack of healthcare, poor education systems, etc, are causing America to lose its standing as a great place to live (for everyone here). So, while I love this country, I am less apt to believe a politician that says "This is the greatest country on Earth." I have never believed the jackasses that say we have the best healthcare system in the world.
Keep in mind they probably pay their troops (whom I think are mostly conscripts) diddly squat. If their troops are conscripted, they don't have to shell out something like $16k per recruit in advertising.
Or, Consoles win because they are cheaper. You can buy a console for x hundred dollars on release day and play everything that comes out for 3 to 5 years (or beyond, these days). Could you say the same of a PC you built yourself on the same day? And while we are at it, a lot of people aren't "serious" gamers, and therefore would be idiots to shell out thousands on a PC when they could spend hundreds on a console. Plus, you can't have a crowd over and all play on the same PC in the same room. Sure you can have LAN parties, but if you just want to school your friend at Madden or call of duty over a beer, toting over a rig is kind of a hassle.
Basically, he is stuck with a tiny little netbook running an obscure linux...I'm sorry, GNU/Linux distro.
http://richard.stallman.usesthis.com/
3. Faculty at elite programs are generally hired based on research abilities, not based on teaching quality. If anything, someone who has taught 3x as many students at a 'fourth tier' program might have a larger sample to base an opinion on when thinking "what does a CS student need to succeed?" - again, this applies to pretty much any field.
1. None of the points you make have anything to do with calculus, which renders your argument about math largely a straw man (did you RTFA?). You can keep CS majors taking math, just stuff other than calc. Your point about 'avoid the hot topics' is a good one, and is something that should generalize to pretty much any discipline.
2. 4th Tier? I'm currently in grad school (Neural Systems, not comp sci) and want to know what cool aid you have been drinking regarding tiers and how academia works in general. Specifically, universities *don't* hire people all the time. You can have years where there are no slots open at top schools, and all the guys and gals from CMU and MIT (or whatever is the top of a given field) or that have well connected advisors at other schools are unable to get jobs at top schools. Then the following year you have a ton of retirements (or people not getting tenure) and all of a sudden slots open, and people who went to or got postdocs at "2nd tier" schools can get hired up at "better" schools. There are researchers at big state schools that could wipe the floor with people at elite schools in any given field.
So was the original Ghost Recon. Man, I miss that.
Or sexual health, abortion, and a number of other things along these lines.
I dunno man, the shuttle is pretty damn pricey. And the hotel offers the shuttle comes with are kinda cramped.
But what is bad is unnecessary invocation of "good for the brain." It is a bit like saying that "this new version of linux is good for your CPU" when really it just works a bit better. Speaking as a neuroscientist, if there is one thing that annoys me more than crappy journalism it is crappy science journalism, and how it tends to start talking about the brain when really cognitive psychology will do.
"Ulterior motives" really don't matter if you have presented a good argument, and have addressed opposing arguments and points of view. Unfortunately, people generally suck at the latter.
And I'm sure that the "right to bear arms" included the right to own extended magazines and assault weapons. I don't think the OP meant welfare a la unemployment, but was referring to the fact that social security (or healthcare) is legal under the Constitution.
The difference is that the fat in Ubuntu isn't wasting anything other than a bit of HD space, and that a linux user knows how to get rid of it, whereas the typical consumer does not.
I like this....would make a nice reusable transport system for carrying up big stuff.
You can't truly simulate all stochastic processes. You just have to approximate something close enough to a right answer. But the best predictors of pretty much anything have to be able to take weather into account.
Prince. Link says that it is mirrored and slightly lowered pitch, and I can't use sound right now to make sure it doesn't sound bad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfNeoKv8qzk
It is a 32 dimensional hypercoin. Duh.