Every distinction highlights something while obscuring another. For example, the very choice of presenting certain "games" to people from other cultures brings forth the differences in behavior, but obliterates the impact of introducing a certain interaction that is not familiar to another culture. While this make perfect sense for certain comparative studies, what is wrong here is the surprise factor. Assuming that a framework derived from the study of only one culture can be applied to all mankind is the mistake here, it isn't a problem of the US culture.
The basis of the biological and social aspects of the human species have been reseached before from other disciplines. If anybody wants to read more about it, I can recommend one approach that is well explained in two books: The Tree of Knowledge and Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Enjoy.
I was just thinking about the Last Question. As usual, Asimov's literature, lavishly endowed with creativity and foresight, indulges our imagination in these fundamental quests.
It reminds me of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Back then no one understood why an experiment that should have given different results for the speed of a ray of light failed to do so. As we know today, the constant speed of light is the basis for Einstein's relativity theory and has been proved right many times.
It is a profound critique of the mental representation approach, based on biological and philosophical considerations. A must read for anybody interested in the AI field.
I guess it must be some sort of "air mass" control system. Let me explain:
Considering that low pressure will make the tire wall bend more, the natural irregularities of the road and the suspension system will make it bounce significantly more. The problem for the tire is that the temperature of the air inside rises (I remember how hot the air came out of the pump after inflating bike tires...), and so does the pressure. So if you check the pressure while on the road, it may appear as if it has too much pressure. A common mistake is to let some air out until the pressure reaches the recommended setting, which is really for "rested" tires. This action makes the problem worse and it may become a vicious circle if the driver checks that same tire repeatedly... it is not uncommon to get a tire blown up like this.
Therefore, the only robust option is to measure pressure and temperature and obtain the amount of air that is inside. If it's lower than the recommended setting, then it should allow air to get in.
PS: It may be more convenient though to just set a "hot" referential pressure and let the system work only by pressure after some time on the road. If the technology Goodyear developed works on the road and only uses pressure, this might be the way it works, but TFA does not go into details over this.
PS2: I'm not a native english speaker, please excuse my spelling/grammar mistakes.
It is a really revolutionary book written in 1986 about how AI wouldn't ever be able to do all the things that were implicitly (and explicitly) promised. It relies in sound biological and philosophical arguments that show how foolish the present ideas are.
No I'm not saying we will never have intelligent machines. What I do say is that they are not going to be created by any of the current approaches.
It seems to me that the problem here lies in the incentives for the employees. If they are measured by how many records are entered, then they'll figure out ways to enter them faster...
I've seen this too many times in different industries and job types. How to change it? Evaluate them by the contactability of the records they enter. Take a sample and call the hotels. The percentage of correct numbers should be linked to some sort of variable pay, which must also take the total records into account (It is way too easy to have 100% if you enter only one...)
The key concept here is to link their evaluation to the actual impact their actions have for your business. Did Sally enter a lot of good records and this means more business? Then she should earn more than those who give you a lot of bad records.
Well, the cases you mention are not related to a genetic mutation that gives an individual an advantage to have more children. Therefore, the term "fitter" would not apply, at least in the evolutionary sense.
Now, if you could really identify a correlation between genes and poverty (or slashdot addiction), that would be an extraordinary achievement, albeit controversial...
Please excuse me if my language seems rude, I'm not a native english speaker. I normally don't care, but the subject may be controversial and I might miss some subtleties.
Or maybe it didn't evolve that way for any particular reason.
These sort of studies assume we have now evolved to perfection. But that suggests there will be no further evolution, which I don't think is the case.
I agree, to assume that evolution is heading somewhere is nonsense. To say we have reached a state of "perfection" is absurd...
However, I think there will be no more evolution for human beings, at least in the traditional sense. Evolution of a species involves domination of the new individuals over the rest and probably replacement (or displacement). For this to happen, the "evolved" must reproduce themselves at a faster rate than the others, but this behavior does not appear in humans in present times. If you are smarter, taller, faster, wealthier, etc. it doesn't translate into a more numerous offspring.
What does happen is that people with traits that would have prevented them from procreating in the past, do get to have children today. Therefore, instead of evolution we have something more similar to dissemination (of genes) that would not have happened earlier...
I'm a native spanish speaker from Chile. Considering that all of my friends that had the same english language education don't speak english as well as I do, I think my experience may be helpful.
The main difference between my friends and me is that I played golf and liked computers, two activities that weren't being covered in spanish magazines at that time. I read a lot and when I like something I usually buy the best available books and subscribe to the magazines in the field, so I started reading Compute's Gazette and Golf Magazine.
My vocabulary expanded so fast (and effortlessly) that I outpaced my class and never had to study english again since seventh grade. I also noted an improvement when speaking to foreign people in my trips abroad. I don't consider myself totally bilingual, but for many people that's what I am.
Unfortunately for you, most publications in any field are in english. I would suggest you to find something (a hobby or professional interest) that you like and is well covered by magazines and books written in the language of your choice. Maybe some niche in your field has some experts in other countries (visual design?)
By the way, I lived in the US for 6 months in 2004 and I felt I had a considerable advantage for being able to communicate in spanish and english.
Finally, once you master the basics, you must live abroad in order to really grasp the language (in a way that you would never reach in class). If you do, take some time to learn from the local culture and history, or you'll be left out of many interesting conversations.
TIP: Rent DVDs of foreign movies and play them with english subtitles. This may be the only way to hear slang before you get there.
Cheers
Jaime
Slashdot Mirror
https://xkcd.com/1162
Every distinction highlights something while obscuring another. For example, the very choice of presenting certain "games" to people from other cultures brings forth the differences in behavior, but obliterates the impact of introducing a certain interaction that is not familiar to another culture. While this make perfect sense for certain comparative studies, what is wrong here is the surprise factor. Assuming that a framework derived from the study of only one culture can be applied to all mankind is the mistake here, it isn't a problem of the US culture.
The basis of the biological and social aspects of the human species have been reseached before from other disciplines. If anybody wants to read more about it, I can recommend one approach that is well explained in two books: The Tree of Knowledge and Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Enjoy.
I was just thinking about the Last Question. As usual, Asimov's literature, lavishly endowed with creativity and foresight, indulges our imagination in these fundamental quests.
It reminds me of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Back then no one understood why an experiment that should have given different results for the speed of a ray of light failed to do so. As we know today, the constant speed of light is the basis for Einstein's relativity theory and has been proved right many times.
Could this be one of those moments?
Larry Page's advisor at Stanford, Terry Winograd, wrote a book with Fernando Flores in 1984 titled Understanding Computers and Cognition.
It is a profound critique of the mental representation approach, based on biological and philosophical considerations. A must read for anybody interested in the AI field.
That would be awesome. Then we could bring it back to search for intelligent life on THIS planet!
I guess it must be some sort of "air mass" control system. Let me explain:
Considering that low pressure will make the tire wall bend more, the natural irregularities of the road and the suspension system will make it bounce significantly more. The problem for the tire is that the temperature of the air inside rises (I remember how hot the air came out of the pump after inflating bike tires...), and so does the pressure. So if you check the pressure while on the road, it may appear as if it has too much pressure. A common mistake is to let some air out until the pressure reaches the recommended setting, which is really for "rested" tires. This action makes the problem worse and it may become a vicious circle if the driver checks that same tire repeatedly... it is not uncommon to get a tire blown up like this.
Therefore, the only robust option is to measure pressure and temperature and obtain the amount of air that is inside. If it's lower than the recommended setting, then it should allow air to get in.
PS: It may be more convenient though to just set a "hot" referential pressure and let the system work only by pressure after some time on the road. If the technology Goodyear developed works on the road and only uses pressure, this might be the way it works, but TFA does not go into details over this.
PS2: I'm not a native english speaker, please excuse my spelling/grammar mistakes.
These guys existed well before us...
Have you read Winograd and Flores book "Understanding Computers and Cognition"? (yes, the same Winograd that was Larry Page's PhD advisor)
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Computers-Cognition-Foundation-Design/dp/0201112973/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1
It is a really revolutionary book written in 1986 about how AI wouldn't ever be able to do all the things that were implicitly (and explicitly) promised. It relies in sound biological and philosophical arguments that show how foolish the present ideas are.
No I'm not saying we will never have intelligent machines. What I do say is that they are not going to be created by any of the current approaches.
It seems to me that the problem here lies in the incentives for the employees. If they are measured by how many records are entered, then they'll figure out ways to enter them faster...
I've seen this too many times in different industries and job types. How to change it? Evaluate them by the contactability of the records they enter. Take a sample and call the hotels. The percentage of correct numbers should be linked to some sort of variable pay, which must also take the total records into account (It is way too easy to have 100% if you enter only one...)
The key concept here is to link their evaluation to the actual impact their actions have for your business. Did Sally enter a lot of good records and this means more business? Then she should earn more than those who give you a lot of bad records.
LOL!! I'm chilean and I couldn't stop laughing... good one
Now, if you could really identify a correlation between genes and poverty (or slashdot addiction), that would be an extraordinary achievement, albeit controversial...
Please excuse me if my language seems rude, I'm not a native english speaker. I normally don't care, but the subject may be controversial and I might miss some subtleties.
Or maybe it didn't evolve that way for any particular reason.
These sort of studies assume we have now evolved to perfection. But that suggests there will be no further evolution, which I don't think is the case.
I agree, to assume that evolution is heading somewhere is nonsense. To say we have reached a state of "perfection" is absurd...
However, I think there will be no more evolution for human beings, at least in the traditional sense. Evolution of a species involves domination of the new individuals over the rest and probably replacement (or displacement). For this to happen, the "evolved" must reproduce themselves at a faster rate than the others, but this behavior does not appear in humans in present times. If you are smarter, taller, faster, wealthier, etc. it doesn't translate into a more numerous offspring.
What does happen is that people with traits that would have prevented them from procreating in the past, do get to have children today. Therefore, instead of evolution we have something more similar to dissemination (of genes) that would not have happened earlier...
I'm a native spanish speaker from Chile. Considering that all of my friends that had the same english language education don't speak english as well as I do, I think my experience may be helpful. The main difference between my friends and me is that I played golf and liked computers, two activities that weren't being covered in spanish magazines at that time. I read a lot and when I like something I usually buy the best available books and subscribe to the magazines in the field, so I started reading Compute's Gazette and Golf Magazine. My vocabulary expanded so fast (and effortlessly) that I outpaced my class and never had to study english again since seventh grade. I also noted an improvement when speaking to foreign people in my trips abroad. I don't consider myself totally bilingual, but for many people that's what I am. Unfortunately for you, most publications in any field are in english. I would suggest you to find something (a hobby or professional interest) that you like and is well covered by magazines and books written in the language of your choice. Maybe some niche in your field has some experts in other countries (visual design?) By the way, I lived in the US for 6 months in 2004 and I felt I had a considerable advantage for being able to communicate in spanish and english. Finally, once you master the basics, you must live abroad in order to really grasp the language (in a way that you would never reach in class). If you do, take some time to learn from the local culture and history, or you'll be left out of many interesting conversations. TIP: Rent DVDs of foreign movies and play them with english subtitles. This may be the only way to hear slang before you get there. Cheers Jaime