"This makes it really powerful because you just don't think about it". This is a pretty good summary of the way in which companies such as Google make their profit.
These days, it is quite essential to "think about it".
I wish science in general was considered part of what a learned person has to know. I mean, if you want to pass for an intellectual you have to read your Dante, your Beckett and you at least need to know who Lautreamont was. But, apparently, you can very well get away with thinking that you can suck gravity out of a room the way you suck air, or with not having even heard about string theory. That divorce makes no sense, and it was impossible in the history of ideas till very recently.
And Euler's formula is more beautiful than most poems.
That's not new. The Foundation for Law and Goverment had such a system in place almost thirty years ago. We've seen rehashed stories in/. before, but really, guys, 30 years?
If the best expected performance of the new technology is just 5 times better than current technology, is it really worth pursuing it? Current technology is current, as in real. Best expected performance needs to be divided by a correcting factor which is unlikely to be much lower than 5.
Let me see if I can make my post evolve to a less typoed version:
It makes some sense. The idea is that whenever you have a lot of bacteria reproducing, mutation rates being what they are, benefitial mutations will eventually appear. Chemostats, which are what these reactors will essentially be, have been used to test evolution experimentally in just this way.
Now, the flaw in Niedi's reasoning is that evolution is directed only to better differential reproduction. So, if bacteria reproduce before self-destruction, there will be no environmental pressure to select against this feature.
It makes some sense. The idea is that whenever you have a lot of bacteria reproducing, mutation rates being what they are, benefitial mutations will eventually appear. Something like this has been used to. Chemostats, which are what these things will essentially be, have been used to test evolution experimentally in just this way.
Now, the flaw in Niedi's reasoning is that evolution is directed only be better differential reproduction. So, if bacteria reproduce before self-destruction, there will be no environmental pressure to select against this feature.
Well, the interest of mainstream contemporary art in a cyber-punk novel may be deemed of interest to/.ers. But I agree with you that this publication is too close to "Drop William Gibson's name and I'll slashdot you".
Surely sometimes it is not quite stupid to, but instead one has to, ignore a certain market area? An extreme example being gas-chamber manufacturers and Nazi Germany?
Them Nazis. Always so helpul when trying to drive our points home.
Apparently, this is what happened with the Nicaraguan Sign Language, one of the latest natural languages to have appeared (on Earth).
Deaf people in Nicaragua used to communicate with hearing relatives using ad-hoc signing. Once the Sandinist revolution increased the schooling of deaf kids in the late 70s, all of these signing schemes surfaced at Nicaraguan schools, and little deaf kids, well, fixed them, and in the process created a real language.
It's a pity that they cannot smuggle SETI into the pack. Anyway, if I was a SETI researcher I'd save some of my radiotelescope time to look into the region of space occupied by exoplanets deemed suitable for life by research such as this.
It's a pity that they cannot smuggle SETI into the pack. Anyway, if I were a SETI researcher, I'd save some of my radiotelescope time to look into those exoplanets deemed as suitable for life by research such as this.
If Slashdot it to be trusted, there will soon be a sizeable number of cat brains living in our computers. Does anybody know why cats and not dogs or hamsters?
It doesn't need to be all driven by dishonesty. There may be also the sheer intellectual interest in knowing what follows from a body of doctrine once you add an extra ingredient. It's surely idle -for non-believers, I mean- but it may be an honest piece of harmless fun.
Well, I teach an undergraduate course and avoid using presentation software -which, anyway, would have been Lyx plus Beamer for me-, for largely the kind of reasons advanced in TFA. Most of my colleagues use PowerPoint or something similar this days.
And I'm starting to notice that many students actually prefer the PP-teachers. They want to have the information delivered in formulaic pills, "Concept A stands for blah; Concept B stands for bleh", and this is more easily achieved if the formulae in question are neatly projected on the screen. I could achieve the same effect by dictating, of course, but that's even more boring and less empowering for students that PowerPoint.
It is one thing to establish that some statement is true -i. e., getting to know it-; it is another thing to prove it true, if proving involves something like perfect certainty. Knowledge does not entail certainty, thinking otherwise is simply bad epistemology.
So you may be right that science cannot prove statements right (I do not wish to advance judgement about this), but this is still compatible with science being in the business of securing truths, attaining knowledge about the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably because, as a matter of empirical psychological fact, you would find the latter impossible and the former irresistible.
"This makes it really powerful because you just don't think about it". This is a pretty good summary of the way in which companies such as Google make their profit. These days, it is quite essential to "think about it".
I'm surprised that nobody has brought up Hackety Hack and Why's (poignant) Guide to Ruby.
... does it run Linux? No, it does not. Windows only.
Seriously? On Slashdot? People still value the pursuit of knowledge over here. I am sure your grandfather can understand that.
We should concentrate on figuring out whether God likes poutine.
An explanation of the Toronto gaffe by IBM.
I wish science in general was considered part of what a learned person has to know. I mean, if you want to pass for an intellectual you have to read your Dante, your Beckett and you at least need to know who Lautreamont was. But, apparently, you can very well get away with thinking that you can suck gravity out of a room the way you suck air, or with not having even heard about string theory. That divorce makes no sense, and it was impossible in the history of ideas till very recently. And Euler's formula is more beautiful than most poems.
That's not new. The Foundation for Law and Goverment had such a system in place almost thirty years ago. We've seen rehashed stories in /. before, but really, guys, 30 years?
If the best expected performance of the new technology is just 5 times better than current technology, is it really worth pursuing it? Current technology is current, as in real. Best expected performance needs to be divided by a correcting factor which is unlikely to be much lower than 5.
Let me see if I can make my post evolve to a less typoed version:
It makes some sense. The idea is that whenever you have a lot of bacteria reproducing, mutation rates being what they are, benefitial mutations will eventually appear. Chemostats, which are what these reactors will essentially be, have been used to test evolution experimentally in just this way.
Now, the flaw in Niedi's reasoning is that evolution is directed only to better differential reproduction. So, if bacteria reproduce before self-destruction, there will be no environmental pressure to select against this feature.
It makes some sense. The idea is that whenever you have a lot of bacteria reproducing, mutation rates being what they are, benefitial mutations will eventually appear. Something like this has been used to. Chemostats, which are what these things will essentially be, have been used to test evolution experimentally in just this way.
Now, the flaw in Niedi's reasoning is that evolution is directed only be better differential reproduction. So, if bacteria reproduce before self-destruction, there will be no environmental pressure to select against this feature.
So, this is a joke and the moderators are metajoking, right?
Well, the interest of mainstream contemporary art in a cyber-punk novel may be deemed of interest to /.ers. But I agree with you that this publication is too close to "Drop William Gibson's name and I'll slashdot you".
Surely sometimes it is not quite stupid to, but instead one has to, ignore a certain market area? An extreme example being gas-chamber manufacturers and Nazi Germany?
Them Nazis. Always so helpul when trying to drive our points home.
Apparently, this is what happened with the Nicaraguan Sign Language, one of the latest natural languages to have appeared (on Earth).
Deaf people in Nicaragua used to communicate with hearing relatives using ad-hoc signing. Once the Sandinist revolution increased the schooling of deaf kids in the late 70s, all of these signing schemes surfaced at Nicaraguan schools, and little deaf kids, well, fixed them, and in the process created a real language.
Witty or not, I only needed one post to make it. I meant I deserve Trepidity's retort.
I deserve it :)
It's a pity that they cannot smuggle SETI into the pack. Anyway, if I was a SETI researcher I'd save some of my radiotelescope time to look into the region of space occupied by exoplanets deemed suitable for life by research such as this.
It's a pity that they cannot smuggle SETI into the pack. Anyway, if I were a SETI researcher, I'd save some of my radiotelescope time to look into those exoplanets deemed as suitable for life by research such as this.
If Slashdot it to be trusted, there will soon be a sizeable number of cat brains living in our computers. Does anybody know why cats and not dogs or hamsters?
It doesn't need to be all driven by dishonesty. There may be also the sheer intellectual interest in knowing what follows from a body of doctrine once you add an extra ingredient. It's surely idle -for non-believers, I mean- but it may be an honest piece of harmless fun.
Well, I teach an undergraduate course and avoid using presentation software -which, anyway, would have been Lyx plus Beamer for me-, for largely the kind of reasons advanced in TFA. Most of my colleagues use PowerPoint or something similar this days.
And I'm starting to notice that many students actually prefer the PP-teachers. They want to have the information delivered in formulaic pills, "Concept A stands for blah; Concept B stands for bleh", and this is more easily achieved if the formulae in question are neatly projected on the screen. I could achieve the same effect by dictating, of course, but that's even more boring and less empowering for students that PowerPoint.
Hey, individual orbitals are several orders of magnitude smaller than pentacene molecules.
It is one thing to establish that some statement is true -i. e., getting to know it-; it is another thing to prove it true, if proving involves something like perfect certainty. Knowledge does not entail certainty, thinking otherwise is simply bad epistemology.
So you may be right that science cannot prove statements right (I do not wish to advance judgement about this), but this is still compatible with science being in the business of securing truths, attaining knowledge about the world.