I agree. That's the beauty of mathematics. It takes us beyond the limitations of our senses and sometimes even our imagination. There are always some people who demand that a conclusion reached through mathematical procedures be intuitively understandable. Higher dimensional math is a prime example of why such demands are fundamentally misguided.
Unfortunately, it's not out yet. I've always wondered how so many entries in the Indie contests don't offer the games (free or paid) until much later. Is it that they have a working prototype (I know this particular game must - from the Youtube vid) and just need to provide videos of their games to enter?
We haven't been able to find any evidence of "real" higher spatial dimensions
Though superstring theory requires 10 or 11 dimensions of space (from what little I understand), so serious physicists really believe those dimensions might exist.
Just a pet peeve. Physicists have reasons to think those dimensions might exist. 'Belief' is the term that science reporters use when they paraphrase scientists. Carry on... and don't mind me:)
It's not really the Amazon price - they don't have it in stock. It's a marketplace seller who says the following: "New - Out-of-Print and VERY rare title to find in new condition".
I didn't think it was all that rare but the last time I read it was in 2000 and borrowed from the university library so I might be mistaken. I guess if you really can't find a lower price, I'd just check out the movie with Kate Winslet;-).
Here's the link to the UK version (if you don't mind paying international shipping) - it's just under 7 pounds (not lbs. right? lol). The used hardcover (US site - another marketplace seller) is from $15 (go figure) here - http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0671492071/ref=dp_olp_1
Clarification in case it isn't clear: I mean no therapy should be allowed unless the subject of the therapy (and not a substitute decision-maker) is able (where the nature of the disorder does not inherently prevent it) to articulate an understanding of risks and benefits and provide independent consent. What bothers me is the idea of changing kids' DNA just because parents are worried.
That sounds reasonable. While we may disagree on what the individual should do, we seem to agree that in the end, it is the individual's choice. In the case of children, I don't consider myself qualified to have an opinion since I don't have any, so your meticulously worded statement is quite acceptable to me (now if only it were up to you and me to make these decisions, the world would be a saner place:P). If you recall, I stated something similar in my original post - "I can't imagine the kind of dilemma a parent would face if asked to choose between such bleak options but the choices are not always so stark."
Just as food for thought, there may come a time when gene therapy is so comprehensively explored that it will be no riskier than any minor outpatient procedure routinely decided upon by a minor's parents. We are hardly there yet (and probably won't be for many more decades so it may not even come about in out lifetime) but if and when it does, I do hope that humanity will have evolved past the point of deifying our DNA. I sometimes think that DNA has become the substitute for a soul when it comes to shenanigans about medical choices. More fact-based I guess, but just as annoyingly mystical. Oh well, that will undoubtedly be a conundrum that our descendants will wrestle with.
Are you saying we should rob folks like me of a chance to excel because someone else might not? That's absurd. A much better approach would be to look at what approaches to parenting would maximize chances of success despite such disorders.
How could you possibly interpret me as saying that? A person doesn't want the cure, fine - that's his/her choice. I was excruciatingly clear on that. What I objected to was your deciding that every single person so afflicted must make the choice you did. I think it's immoral for anyone to make either choice for someone else. I can't believe I'm repeating myself when I was quite verbose about this before.
And are you saying that all such disorders MUST be preserved (irrespective of the person's choice) because it might inspire them to excel? At least my way, you get a choice and don't have someone else telling you how you ought to live your life. You seem to be saying (if I interpret you correctly) that such cures should be banned so that the afflicted don't have the choice to get rid of their problem. Instead they should be forced to shoulder their burden forever because you feel that's the way things should be; because that would be good for them. If people ever tried to force me to do something that because they think it's for my own good, I know I'd tell 'em to go soak their head.
I'm saying that the choice should be theirs. How could any reasonable person disagree with that?
Of course, if I were in that position, I would jump at a cure at once because I don't want a moral victory over life - I want a real one. To me it is absurd that such disorders are glorified as the cause of such excellence as yours when the real cause is the indomitable human spirit that people like you carry around in you and that is someone not everyone possesses (and that's the part I admire, NOT the disorder). If the latter kind of people do not wish to carry the burden, and a choice exists, who are we to insist that they should?
Thank you. I really mean that. Discussions on/. are marked primarily by their lack of catharsis so this is a pleasant change:)
But yes, I do agree that your concern is very well founded. Especially (as another poster touched on in his post), when it comes to parents making medical decisions for their children. It really is Russian roulette for them isn't it? Who knows how their progeny will react later in their lives to this early intervention on their part. Gratitude or anger? *sigh* It's never easy is it?
That's very inspiring, but don't you see? - that's just the point. For every affliction recognized by the AMA, there is always SOMEONE who stared his affliction down and through sheer perseverance and determination, rose to heights he would never reached if he'd been born "normal".
I applaud your courage and your attitude but what about the ones who didn't make it? For every success story like yours, how many fell by the wayside because they didn't have what it took to make it in this cruel world under the burden of their handicap? Or who simply had one too many problems to get out from under them? Shall we just tell them as they reach the end of their endurance and give up because it's just too painful that well, there was something that could have helped them by curing some or all of their problems but that society had deemed it immoral to take away the thing that made them special?
How about the ones who simply didn't care to have their affliction be the defining feature of their lives and who have even greater aspirations for themselves? At the risk of offending you (I assure you that that is not my intention), I can't help but sense a bit of "well, I could do it - so can everyone else". Fair enough, but what if they don't have to? Would it be moral for me to wish an affliction on another human being simply because that may make him a better, stronger human being? There are challenges aplenty in this messed up world! Why would I wish for anyone to have more of them than absolutely necessary? It's not a videogame that one should wantonly jack up the difficulty level just for the added challenge.
And more to the point, can't you extrapolate from ADD (as in your case) to EVERY SINGLE HEALTH PROBLEM EVERY SEEN and say that curing that problem was morally wrong because it disrespected the courage and inspirational fortitude that their lives might have displayed? What if I held out the example of Roosevelt as an inspiring example of how a man could have polio and still be one of the greatest presidents the free world has ever seen (which would be fine) but further went on to say that eradicating polio might have been the wrong thing to do because the disease might have brought out the best in some people. Clearly, the polio example is ridiculous... right? What about AIDS or cancer? Or (more on topic) blindness? Is restoring sight to the blind equally immoral?
At some point I can't help but feel that people are making a virtue out of necessity and holding on to it even when it becomes optional because it has now been converted into a virtue.
Mind you, all of what I said only makes sense if the alleged cure is actually reasonably safe and WORKS. Given a choice between a completely uncertain cure and a reasonably certain but uncomfortable life, I would probably want to choose the latter. I can't imagine the kind of dilemma a parent would face if asked to choose between such bleak options but the choices are not always so stark.
I can only say in conclusion that if mankind was "meant" to always play the hand that was dealt (if that even means anything), we would still be living in caves and cowering in the dark. Science (especially medical science) is humanity looking "Fate" in her disgusting, passionless eyes and telling her ever so politely to go F*** herself.
You make a good point. However, there is a fundamental difference between fixing "aberrations" that are centered in the brain/endocrine glands and doing the same with purely physical ones. Yes, I know that Descartes was simply wrong about mind-body dualism (as concluded on the basis of empirical evidence, not pretty arguments) and you cannot separate the two. The point is that not every affliction makes you "special" (though Hollywood or Lifetime would have you believe otherwise). That's a little bit like thinking gamma rays turn you into the Hulk instead of the reality where they'd just fry you up (but subtler, because mental illnesses still have that aura of mystery around them). In most cases, metal illnesses are just plain torture on the afflicted without conferring any offsetting benefits like you see so often in popular culture. For examples, please see this highly engaging article on Cracked (yes, it's Cracked, but it's quite insightful in this case). We absolutely should be wary of mental illness cures but that doesn't mean they don't exist. We have come a long way from the sadistic meathouses of yesteryear when it comes to treating mental illnesses. Things do converge towards an answer more often than not. But everything you or I have said so far is only marginally relevant to the main aspect of the debate.
The only relevant thing here is that it would be immoral to withhold treatment of ailments that the person chooses to have cured in the here and now just because a bunch of people (like the dissenter in tfa) have a certain idea of "the way things should be". By all means, have this discussion with the person before the cure (in the same way that some clinics make patients go through mandatory counseling prior to life-changing procedures like abortion). But we simply do not have the right, moral or otherwise, to make that decision for someone else. By the way, that distinction makes this argument highly asymmetric. It is simply not pro/against. It is a case of the debaters (you and I) just not having the moral right to choosing for someone else (in a situation where their needs can be satisfied without hurting someone else - I say this carefully to make my point inextensible to something like abortion [just don't want to mix this up with that can of worms]).
In the example you used, I would be saddened beyond words if we lost a potential genius because he chose to fix something like OCD or autism and lead a normal life. But that does not give me the right to prevent him from making that choice. After all, people make that choice everyday when it comes to choosing a profession and no one ever suggests that such choices are morally wrong. There were at least three bona fide geniuses in my graduating class who could have (potentially) made revolutionary discoveries in the basic sciences had they chosen to do so. Instead, they decided that they would be happier in a more commercial setting with the purpose of making a good living. The world is a poorer place because of that choice. But I do not believe that anyone had the right to make that decision for them. Are the people afflicted with such diseases then less human than normal folk that a similar choice on their part (to be happy in a narrowly defined sense instead of being "special") is immoral? Kind of a selective and twisted morality if you ask me.
The world cannot be made richer by the unwilling sacrifices of the afflicted. You may be surprised how many of these savants actually decline such cures. Believe it or not, the truly special people often place high importance on the things that make them special and willingly sacrifice mere happiness for the more elusive satisfaction.
Sorry for being so verbose. I should have just said that the title of the first post pretty much says it all, and far more effectively than I just did -
Who modded this 'troll'? Are people not allowed to muse wonderingly anymore? Sheesh, some people need to unclench.
Personally, having been entirely fascinated with Turing and his work during my college years (from a mathematical point of view - the Entscheidungsproblem rather than CS), seeing an actual Turing machine sends shivers up my spine. Kudos!
For anyone interested in knowing more about this fascinating scientist, I recommend the book by Andrew Hodges.
Social engineering of the best kind - try to change wrong attitudes but not count on it. Instead, make small changes that cause large positive outcomes even if people continue to act like idiots (regularly printing emails for instance). Kudos to UW.
It still brings a tear to my eye to recall the massive whoosh... it was just like the air that would be displaced by 1.4 billion people jumping off chairs at the same moment (**fingers crossed, waiting hopefully**).
bbbut... Bernoulli's principle.... oh wait!
(Ironically, there's nothing wrong with your latest simile - it would make a rather large whoosh =)
Just like spelling is boring as hell, arithmetic is also boring, and just like punctuation and sentence structure are boring (fuck off grammar Nazis), math and language PROCESS is also boring as hell. If you want to make language or math interesting, teach people to apply it!
d
You have that backwards. If someone isn't interested in math or the other things you mentioned in themselves, then by all means they should go ahead and at least learn those things on a utilitarian basis. It is ridiculous to assume that everyone will be (or should be) bored by these things to begin with or that there is something fundamentally boring with those things. I can well imagine that the way they are taught at certain places or in certain contexts may be less than ideal.
In fact, I'm an experimental physicist and even so, every single thing you wrote in that list has been a source of intense fascination for me at some point or another of my life. Case in point, I recently picked up 'Alphabet Juice' by Roy Blount Jr. and 'Eats, shoots and leaves' by Lynne Truss and I'm a longstanding fan of Bill Bryson's 'The mother tongue'. Of course, YMMV - and that's my whole point here.
In parting, just a gentle suggestion: the 'math is just a tool' demographic is also the one most susceptible to being eventually replaced by a computer program. If you're a practicing engineer, you clearly have a bit more insight into the mathematical process than that. In any case, you are of course entitled to your opinion. Just please note than saying that something is boring can NEVER be a universal opinion (thank god!) no matter what that something is. To me, saying that the math and language processes are important only to the extent that they are useful is a bit like saying that a man's wife is important only for cranking out babies:)
Also, what the heck is a '/s' and why would I want to use one? Oh, you gave me 3 extra ?'s. Waste not, want not. So here ya go - ???. You're welcome;-). Does this mean I'll 'burne in heil?'
Geez, tell me about it. I spent minutes looking for it on xkcd (just knew it had to be on there). Then I looked on Abstruse Goose - no luck. Had to google it a couple times - still don't remember when I saw it on smbc - not a regular reader of that one.
But yeah, I get your (slightly sarcastic) point - it's just that my usual method of writing page-long expositions doesn't seem to reach the crowd that most needs it. If some smart person obliges by making the same point in a witty comic, I bow to his/her superior expertise and shamelessly (but with citation) use it when I can;-)
Pre-7th grade math is boring as hell anyway. Give me a calculator and let me start with the interesting math.
You seem to be under the impression that numbers are the most important part of math. It is this unhealthy obsession with numbers that makes math boring for kids. It would be like art class being all about blending pigments to get the right colors. Hell, even math 'fans' who obsess about the digits of pi are... misguided. I think this says it best - http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1777
So all you really get to choose is whether you want to evaluate posts on your own or eliminate those that other people don't want you to see.
Except for the part where you can choose a "no earplug" option to view the entire site.
Relativism is all well and fine. Unfortunately (for the relativists), if it's crap, calling it a rose doesn't really help now does it? I've found that moderation (unless a story is truly political) works quite well in terms of promoting the interesting stuff and burying the obvious trolls and flamers. It's like any anti-spam software (but crowd-sourced). Yeah, there will be false positives and some spam may leak through. If you don't like the former scenario, just read Slashdot unfiltered. In a very practical sense, moderation is truly optional and shouldn't have to affect you at all if you don't choose it.
It;s the same reason we read reviews of books or movies before deciding whether to spend our time on them. There is just way too much spam out there and my time is limited and valuable (in a literal sense). If that means I miss out on a few gems here and there, well... that's too bad, but it's preferable to having to wade through the dregs of humanity myself. That's why the job of book or movie critic is harder than people think it is - I could never do it because I'd have to actually read or watch bad (from my pov) stuff just so I could review it. Destroys the whole entertainment value of... entertainment.
In a practical sense Slashdot is guilty of censorship on a daily basis. It provides the ability to hide any post that moderators don't like.
No. It is providing users with the ability to exercise the unstated but equally crucial part of the right to freedom of speech - the right to not have said free speech crammed down my ears without my consent - i.e. the freedom to wear earplugs. Think about that.
BS, if it takes more energy to produce the device than it will ever output in it's lifetime (or than other renewable energy devices would make) then efficiency is completely relevant.
Is there an echo in here? Here's what I wrote in the post you quoted:
The question that WOULD be relevant is the following:
Given the cost of building and deploying this system and given its predicted lifetime, will it produce enough hydrogen in ts lifetime to amply offset its cost? As long as a finite amount of hydrogen can be harvested this way, any questions of efficiency are simply not relevant.
The point is that people keep harping on about energy conversion efficiency when that is simply not the full story. Like in this case, where the energy being converted was going to waste anyway. In such a case, the conversion efficiency is not the relevant parameter. The total cost to return ratio must ALWAYS be the criterion for deciding whether something is worth it. Why is this so hard to understand? Sheesh...
there will always exist a class of people who will refuse to be bothered with "useless" things like mathematics and will demand that the workings of the universe be made comprehensible to them in simple terms
Did it, maybe, occur to you, that aside from some people who define "being humanist" as "don't know calculus and proud of it!" there is a majority of those who cannot understand higher mathematics but would like to know, even in approximate way, how the universe works? Probably not...
Try not to be deliberately dense. I never look down upon people who cannot understand something. I deeply sympathize with them because I experience the same frustration in trying to understand certain things and as I get older, it gets harder and harder to get the insights I so effortlessly used to get as a kid.
My contempt is aimed at people (and this was made perfectly clear in my statement that you quoted) who refuse to understand, which includes most undergraduate students who are not math/science majors. It is amusing for me to note that scientists and engineers are all too often keen on aspects of the humanities but it never seems to work the other way round - NOT because of a lack of ability (which I would sympathize with) but a horrible lack of understanding of the significance of said math/science spheres of knowledge within our gestalt.
The very fact that you characterize Calculus (of all things) as "higher mathematics" saddens me immeasurably.
Yes, you're perfectly right that anyone not enthusiastic about deriving all the equations from scratch is worthelss subhuman that should not receive any of the holy science and the knowledge should be withheld from these heathen useless animals. We shall never tell them F=ma, anyone worthy of knowing will derive that himself. Eradicate the unbelivers!
This rant of yours is probably the most disgusting thing I've read in a while, not to mention, the most ironically twisted one. You could not find a single educator on this entire Earth who would ever dream of "withholding knowledge" from the "heathens". The whole point is that you have every scientist shouting from the rooftops to all and sundry that this stuff is useful, fascinating, profound and will you please learn it? And the scientist sees them all with their hands over their ears, unwilling to listen. Yes, Physics for poets is a compromise course. Doesn't mean I think it should be abolished. It was a statement of fact. Facts do not always come pregnant with opinions (although you would be forgiven for believing so given the state of politics in our country).
Sometimes I do think that if there had been a bit of mystique about science (sort of like religion, where the select few are afforded a glimpse of divinity), perhaps there might be more people interested. But that would be a terrible price to pay for, frankly, an entirely inadequate return.
But you sir (or madam), blithely conclude that my expression of my dismay and sadness at this state of affairs constitutes an elitist arrogance; a derisive condemnation of the poor souls who have no access to "higher mathematics". Bravo, I say! Bra-Vo!
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. That's the beauty of mathematics. It takes us beyond the limitations of our senses and sometimes even our imagination. There are always some people who demand that a conclusion reached through mathematical procedures be intuitively understandable. Higher dimensional math is a prime example of why such demands are fundamentally misguided.
I've gotta try this this evening.
Unfortunately, it's not out yet. I've always wondered how so many entries in the Indie contests don't offer the games (free or paid) until much later. Is it that they have a working prototype (I know this particular game must - from the Youtube vid) and just need to provide videos of their games to enter?
We haven't been able to find any evidence of "real" higher spatial dimensions
Though superstring theory requires 10 or 11 dimensions of space (from what little I understand), so serious physicists really believe those dimensions might exist.
Just a pet peeve. Physicists have reasons to think those dimensions might exist. 'Belief' is the term that science reporters use when they paraphrase scientists. Carry on ... and don't mind me :)
It's not really the Amazon price - they don't have it in stock. It's a marketplace seller who says the following: "New - Out-of-Print and VERY rare title to find in new condition".
;-).
I didn't think it was all that rare but the last time I read it was in 2000 and borrowed from the university library so I might be mistaken. I guess if you really can't find a lower price, I'd just check out the movie with Kate Winslet
Here's the link to the UK version (if you don't mind paying international shipping) - it's just under 7 pounds (not lbs. right? lol). The used hardcover (US site - another marketplace seller) is from $15 (go figure) here - http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0671492071/ref=dp_olp_1
Happy reads!
Clarification in case it isn't clear: I mean no therapy should be allowed unless the subject of the therapy (and not a substitute decision-maker) is able (where the nature of the disorder does not inherently prevent it) to articulate an understanding of risks and benefits and provide independent consent. What bothers me is the idea of changing kids' DNA just because parents are worried.
That sounds reasonable. While we may disagree on what the individual should do, we seem to agree that in the end, it is the individual's choice. In the case of children, I don't consider myself qualified to have an opinion since I don't have any, so your meticulously worded statement is quite acceptable to me (now if only it were up to you and me to make these decisions, the world would be a saner place :P). If you recall, I stated something similar in my original post - "I can't imagine the kind of dilemma a parent would face if asked to choose between such bleak options but the choices are not always so stark."
Just as food for thought, there may come a time when gene therapy is so comprehensively explored that it will be no riskier than any minor outpatient procedure routinely decided upon by a minor's parents. We are hardly there yet (and probably won't be for many more decades so it may not even come about in out lifetime) but if and when it does, I do hope that humanity will have evolved past the point of deifying our DNA. I sometimes think that DNA has become the substitute for a soul when it comes to shenanigans about medical choices. More fact-based I guess, but just as annoyingly mystical. Oh well, that will undoubtedly be a conundrum that our descendants will wrestle with.
Are you saying we should rob folks like me of a chance to excel because someone else might not? That's absurd. A much better approach would be to look at what approaches to parenting would maximize chances of success despite such disorders.
How could you possibly interpret me as saying that? A person doesn't want the cure, fine - that's his/her choice. I was excruciatingly clear on that. What I objected to was your deciding that every single person so afflicted must make the choice you did. I think it's immoral for anyone to make either choice for someone else. I can't believe I'm repeating myself when I was quite verbose about this before.
And are you saying that all such disorders MUST be preserved (irrespective of the person's choice) because it might inspire them to excel? At least my way, you get a choice and don't have someone else telling you how you ought to live your life. You seem to be saying (if I interpret you correctly) that such cures should be banned so that the afflicted don't have the choice to get rid of their problem. Instead they should be forced to shoulder their burden forever because you feel that's the way things should be; because that would be good for them. If people ever tried to force me to do something that because they think it's for my own good, I know I'd tell 'em to go soak their head.
I'm saying that the choice should be theirs. How could any reasonable person disagree with that?
Of course, if I were in that position, I would jump at a cure at once because I don't want a moral victory over life - I want a real one. To me it is absurd that such disorders are glorified as the cause of such excellence as yours when the real cause is the indomitable human spirit that people like you carry around in you and that is someone not everyone possesses (and that's the part I admire, NOT the disorder). If the latter kind of people do not wish to carry the burden, and a choice exists, who are we to insist that they should?
LMAO (considering your sig ;-)
posting to undo mod - my hand slipped from insightful to redundant (skutz!). Sorry bout that ;-)
Thank you. I really mean that. Discussions on /. are marked primarily by their lack of catharsis so this is a pleasant change :)
But yes, I do agree that your concern is very well founded. Especially (as another poster touched on in his post), when it comes to parents making medical decisions for their children. It really is Russian roulette for them isn't it? Who knows how their progeny will react later in their lives to this early intervention on their part. Gratitude or anger? *sigh* It's never easy is it?
That's very inspiring, but don't you see? - that's just the point. For every affliction recognized by the AMA, there is always SOMEONE who stared his affliction down and through sheer perseverance and determination, rose to heights he would never reached if he'd been born "normal".
... right? What about AIDS or cancer? Or (more on topic) blindness? Is restoring sight to the blind equally immoral?
I applaud your courage and your attitude but what about the ones who didn't make it? For every success story like yours, how many fell by the wayside because they didn't have what it took to make it in this cruel world under the burden of their handicap? Or who simply had one too many problems to get out from under them? Shall we just tell them as they reach the end of their endurance and give up because it's just too painful that well, there was something that could have helped them by curing some or all of their problems but that society had deemed it immoral to take away the thing that made them special?
How about the ones who simply didn't care to have their affliction be the defining feature of their lives and who have even greater aspirations for themselves? At the risk of offending you (I assure you that that is not my intention), I can't help but sense a bit of "well, I could do it - so can everyone else". Fair enough, but what if they don't have to? Would it be moral for me to wish an affliction on another human being simply because that may make him a better, stronger human being? There are challenges aplenty in this messed up world! Why would I wish for anyone to have more of them than absolutely necessary? It's not a videogame that one should wantonly jack up the difficulty level just for the added challenge.
And more to the point, can't you extrapolate from ADD (as in your case) to EVERY SINGLE HEALTH PROBLEM EVERY SEEN and say that curing that problem was morally wrong because it disrespected the courage and inspirational fortitude that their lives might have displayed? What if I held out the example of Roosevelt as an inspiring example of how a man could have polio and still be one of the greatest presidents the free world has ever seen (which would be fine) but further went on to say that eradicating polio might have been the wrong thing to do because the disease might have brought out the best in some people. Clearly, the polio example is ridiculous
At some point I can't help but feel that people are making a virtue out of necessity and holding on to it even when it becomes optional because it has now been converted into a virtue.
Mind you, all of what I said only makes sense if the alleged cure is actually reasonably safe and WORKS. Given a choice between a completely uncertain cure and a reasonably certain but uncomfortable life, I would probably want to choose the latter. I can't imagine the kind of dilemma a parent would face if asked to choose between such bleak options but the choices are not always so stark.
I can only say in conclusion that if mankind was "meant" to always play the hand that was dealt (if that even means anything), we would still be living in caves and cowering in the dark. Science (especially medical science) is humanity looking "Fate" in her disgusting, passionless eyes and telling her ever so politely to go F*** herself.
Yes, please, where do I swipe my card?
It's a brave new future we're heading into.
You can get the CC Reader slot addon installed in your ... ah ... nether regions for an extra grand.
The only relevant thing here is that it would be immoral to withhold treatment of ailments that the person chooses to have cured in the here and now just because a bunch of people (like the dissenter in tfa) have a certain idea of "the way things should be". By all means, have this discussion with the person before the cure (in the same way that some clinics make patients go through mandatory counseling prior to life-changing procedures like abortion). But we simply do not have the right, moral or otherwise, to make that decision for someone else. By the way, that distinction makes this argument highly asymmetric. It is simply not pro/against. It is a case of the debaters (you and I) just not having the moral right to choosing for someone else (in a situation where their needs can be satisfied without hurting someone else - I say this carefully to make my point inextensible to something like abortion [just don't want to mix this up with that can of worms]).
In the example you used, I would be saddened beyond words if we lost a potential genius because he chose to fix something like OCD or autism and lead a normal life. But that does not give me the right to prevent him from making that choice. After all, people make that choice everyday when it comes to choosing a profession and no one ever suggests that such choices are morally wrong. There were at least three bona fide geniuses in my graduating class who could have (potentially) made revolutionary discoveries in the basic sciences had they chosen to do so. Instead, they decided that they would be happier in a more commercial setting with the purpose of making a good living. The world is a poorer place because of that choice. But I do not believe that anyone had the right to make that decision for them. Are the people afflicted with such diseases then less human than normal folk that a similar choice on their part (to be happy in a narrowly defined sense instead of being "special") is immoral? Kind of a selective and twisted morality if you ask me.
The world cannot be made richer by the unwilling sacrifices of the afflicted. You may be surprised how many of these savants actually decline such cures. Believe it or not, the truly special people often place high importance on the things that make them special and willingly sacrifice mere happiness for the more elusive satisfaction.
Sorry for being so verbose. I should have just said that the title of the first post pretty much says it all, and far more effectively than I just did -
WTF? Just ask the patient
QED
Somewhere, a thousand geeks just simultaneously orgasm'd. (I would too, but I'm at work and it's generally frowned upon).
Who modded this 'troll'? Are people not allowed to muse wonderingly anymore? Sheesh, some people need to unclench.
Personally, having been entirely fascinated with Turing and his work during my college years (from a mathematical point of view - the Entscheidungsproblem rather than CS), seeing an actual Turing machine sends shivers up my spine. Kudos!
For anyone interested in knowing more about this fascinating scientist, I recommend the book by Andrew Hodges.
Social engineering of the best kind - try to change wrong attitudes but not count on it. Instead, make small changes that cause large positive outcomes even if people continue to act like idiots (regularly printing emails for instance). Kudos to UW.
It still brings a tear to my eye to recall the massive whoosh... it was just like the air that would be displaced by 1.4 billion people jumping off chairs at the same moment (**fingers crossed, waiting hopefully**).
bbbut ... Bernoulli's principle .... oh wait!
(Ironically, there's nothing wrong with your latest simile - it would make a rather large whoosh =)
Just like spelling is boring as hell, arithmetic is also boring, and just like punctuation and sentence structure are boring (fuck off grammar Nazis), math and language PROCESS is also boring as hell. If you want to make language or math interesting, teach people to apply it!
d
You have that backwards. If someone isn't interested in math or the other things you mentioned in themselves, then by all means they should go ahead and at least learn those things on a utilitarian basis. It is ridiculous to assume that everyone will be (or should be) bored by these things to begin with or that there is something fundamentally boring with those things. I can well imagine that the way they are taught at certain places or in certain contexts may be less than ideal.
:)
;-). Does this mean I'll 'burne in heil?'
In fact, I'm an experimental physicist and even so, every single thing you wrote in that list has been a source of intense fascination for me at some point or another of my life. Case in point, I recently picked up 'Alphabet Juice' by Roy Blount Jr. and 'Eats, shoots and leaves' by Lynne Truss and I'm a longstanding fan of Bill Bryson's 'The mother tongue'. Of course, YMMV - and that's my whole point here.
In parting, just a gentle suggestion: the 'math is just a tool' demographic is also the one most susceptible to being eventually replaced by a computer program. If you're a practicing engineer, you clearly have a bit more insight into the mathematical process than that. In any case, you are of course entitled to your opinion. Just please note than saying that something is boring can NEVER be a universal opinion (thank god!) no matter what that something is. To me, saying that the math and language processes are important only to the extent that they are useful is a bit like saying that a man's wife is important only for cranking out babies
Also, what the heck is a '/s' and why would I want to use one? Oh, you gave me 3 extra ?'s. Waste not, want not. So here ya go - ???. You're welcome
Geez, tell me about it. I spent minutes looking for it on xkcd (just knew it had to be on there). Then I looked on Abstruse Goose - no luck. Had to google it a couple times - still don't remember when I saw it on smbc - not a regular reader of that one.
;-)
But yeah, I get your (slightly sarcastic) point - it's just that my usual method of writing page-long expositions doesn't seem to reach the crowd that most needs it. If some smart person obliges by making the same point in a witty comic, I bow to his/her superior expertise and shamelessly (but with citation) use it when I can
Pre-7th grade math is boring as hell anyway. Give me a calculator and let me start with the interesting math.
You seem to be under the impression that numbers are the most important part of math. It is this unhealthy obsession with numbers that makes math boring for kids. It would be like art class being all about blending pigments to get the right colors. Hell, even math 'fans' who obsess about the digits of pi are ... misguided. I think this says it best - http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1777
+1 Thank you!
;-)
Finally, a science thread where I don't have to post ('coz you said it all). Good thing too - I'm late for work as it is
So all you really get to choose is whether you want to evaluate posts on your own or eliminate those that other people don't want you to see.
Except for the part where you can choose a "no earplug" option to view the entire site.
... that's too bad, but it's preferable to having to wade through the dregs of humanity myself. That's why the job of book or movie critic is harder than people think it is - I could never do it because I'd have to actually read or watch bad (from my pov) stuff just so I could review it. Destroys the whole entertainment value of ... entertainment.
Relativism is all well and fine. Unfortunately (for the relativists), if it's crap, calling it a rose doesn't really help now does it? I've found that moderation (unless a story is truly political) works quite well in terms of promoting the interesting stuff and burying the obvious trolls and flamers. It's like any anti-spam software (but crowd-sourced). Yeah, there will be false positives and some spam may leak through. If you don't like the former scenario, just read Slashdot unfiltered. In a very practical sense, moderation is truly optional and shouldn't have to affect you at all if you don't choose it.
It;s the same reason we read reviews of books or movies before deciding whether to spend our time on them. There is just way too much spam out there and my time is limited and valuable (in a literal sense). If that means I miss out on a few gems here and there, well
In a practical sense Slashdot is guilty of censorship on a daily basis. It provides the ability to hide any post that moderators don't like.
No. It is providing users with the ability to exercise the unstated but equally crucial part of the right to freedom of speech - the right to not have said free speech crammed down my ears without my consent - i.e. the freedom to wear earplugs. Think about that.
Ha! Let's not go that far. I'm ok with Oakland. I'd be an idiot to claim that every city in the East Bay is a bed of roses :P
BS, if it takes more energy to produce the device than it will ever output in it's lifetime (or than other renewable energy devices would make) then efficiency is completely relevant.
Is there an echo in here? Here's what I wrote in the post you quoted:
The question that WOULD be relevant is the following: Given the cost of building and deploying this system and given its predicted lifetime, will it produce enough hydrogen in ts lifetime to amply offset its cost? As long as a finite amount of hydrogen can be harvested this way, any questions of efficiency are simply not relevant.
The point is that people keep harping on about energy conversion efficiency when that is simply not the full story. Like in this case, where the energy being converted was going to waste anyway. In such a case, the conversion efficiency is not the relevant parameter. The total cost to return ratio must ALWAYS be the criterion for deciding whether something is worth it. Why is this so hard to understand? Sheesh ...
Did it, maybe, occur to you, that aside from some people who define "being humanist" as "don't know calculus and proud of it!" there is a majority of those who cannot understand higher mathematics but would like to know, even in approximate way, how the universe works? Probably not...
Try not to be deliberately dense. I never look down upon people who cannot understand something. I deeply sympathize with them because I experience the same frustration in trying to understand certain things and as I get older, it gets harder and harder to get the insights I so effortlessly used to get as a kid.
My contempt is aimed at people (and this was made perfectly clear in my statement that you quoted) who refuse to understand, which includes most undergraduate students who are not math/science majors. It is amusing for me to note that scientists and engineers are all too often keen on aspects of the humanities but it never seems to work the other way round - NOT because of a lack of ability (which I would sympathize with) but a horrible lack of understanding of the significance of said math/science spheres of knowledge within our gestalt.
The very fact that you characterize Calculus (of all things) as "higher mathematics" saddens me immeasurably.
Yes, you're perfectly right that anyone not enthusiastic about deriving all the equations from scratch is worthelss subhuman that should not receive any of the holy science and the knowledge should be withheld from these heathen useless animals. We shall never tell them F=ma, anyone worthy of knowing will derive that himself. Eradicate the unbelivers!
This rant of yours is probably the most disgusting thing I've read in a while, not to mention, the most ironically twisted one. You could not find a single educator on this entire Earth who would ever dream of "withholding knowledge" from the "heathens". The whole point is that you have every scientist shouting from the rooftops to all and sundry that this stuff is useful, fascinating, profound and will you please learn it? And the scientist sees them all with their hands over their ears, unwilling to listen. Yes, Physics for poets is a compromise course. Doesn't mean I think it should be abolished. It was a statement of fact. Facts do not always come pregnant with opinions (although you would be forgiven for believing so given the state of politics in our country).
Sometimes I do think that if there had been a bit of mystique about science (sort of like religion, where the select few are afforded a glimpse of divinity), perhaps there might be more people interested. But that would be a terrible price to pay for, frankly, an entirely inadequate return.
But you sir (or madam), blithely conclude that my expression of my dismay and sadness at this state of affairs constitutes an elitist arrogance; a derisive condemnation of the poor souls who have no access to "higher mathematics". Bravo, I say! Bra-Vo!