You know, when I was 15 I actually did have a cop pull into my driveway behind my truck, flash his lights, and accuse me of illegally hunting deer... with said graph paper, D&D books, and pencils on the seat beside me.
Of course, it was really part of a harassment campaign of my whole family by local cops after my dad confronted the chief of police at a town hall meeting, but still... Did not like that campaign at all.
"Google likewise decides to be notsoevil because otherwise it would cost them too much."
I'm pretty convinced that Brin & Page have some specific political-philosophical motivations for what they do (partly based on Brin's upbringing in the Soviet Union), and not exclusively a profit motive.
I'll trump your "how-to-get-in" story. Most community colleges (New York, Massachusetts, etc.) have "open admissions" -- absolutely zero requirements to be allowed on campus and start registering for classes. Also excellent financial aid from the state: 70 credits paid full-time, actually above the tuition level, plus health insurance, you can pocket the difference.
But once most people are there? Nationwide, 2/3 of community college students are in need of remedial (no credit) math or English. Of those who take such courses, about 2/3 never graduate from college with a degree. Their skills are commonly atrocious; half my job is (unfortunately) monitoring the semester-after-semester death march of people in remedial algebra who have only the barest flicker of any chance to pass the class (and I have higher passing rates than most other instructors).
In summary -- Succeeding at college-level work is entirely impossible for approximately half the students who enter college. I totally didn't believe until I saw it.
Is this real? My god, the spelling in the comment above makes Qwest look even more droolingly retarded than the original post. Is this whole thing an elaborate hoax?
The iSmell or iSmell Personal Scent Synthesizer was a computer peripheral device developed by DigiScents in 2001. The prototype connected to a personal computer via USB or serial port and was designed to emit a smell when a user visited a web site or opened an email. The device contained a cartridge with 128 "primary odors," which could be mixed to replicate natural and man-made odors. DigiScents had indexed thousands of common odors, which could be coded, digitized, and embedded into web pages or email.[1]
In 2006, the iSmell was named one of the "25 Worst Tech Products of All Time" by PC World Magazine, which commented that "[f]ew products literally stink, but this one did--or at least it would have, had it progressed beyond the prototype stage.[2]
As someone with degrees in both Mathematics & Philosophy, I'll say this -- The Slashdot nerdrage when someone spouts off about science they don't understand, PHB-style, is volcanic. Yet, the Slashdot willingness to spout off about philosophy they don't understand, PHB-style, is equally monumental. A lot of the comments in this thread read as though coming from half-literate rednecks.
Consider the members of the Manhattan Project who felt so bad about it afterward. Perhaps they could have used a bit more philosophy on the front end and not merely engineering-uber-alles?
"I see no point in investigating a flat-Earth theory. It is falsified by the knowledge that the Earth is spherical combined with the knowledge that spheres are not flat. I have seen no compelling reason to believe that "ghosts" (to use the colloquial, loaded word) have been falsified... Your mistake is that you think the two ideas are on equal ground."
Indeed, they are not on equal ground -- The "ghost" issue is one of those unfalsifiable notions. It's not well-defined and is routinely asserted to have no testable/reproducible effects.
"Once you have those, what kinds of results would it take to convince a skeptic there's something unusual going on, or demonstrate that there's not? I don't have much hope of changing the minds of those who believe, but it would be satisfying to at least be scientific about it."
Well, in principle, you're the one acting out the part of "I think there is something worth investigating here". So it's up to you (or your ghost-believing friends) to establish a specific, witnessable claim as to something that is happening; a falsifiable theory. Are ghosts supposed to be visible? Are they a moving thermal field? The skeptics expect the null hypothesis (nothing has changed), the ghost-believers some alternative hypothesis (something has changed), so it's really up to the latter to well-define their extraordinary claim.
Asking skeptics to state what would convince them otherwise is not generally how science works; it's neither time-effective (for the skeptics, for whom there is an infinitude of ridiculous claims in the world), nor is it logically sensible (in terms of established philosophy of science).
"At the same time, even the management types who know absolutely nothing about games should, purely with basic EC101 type considerations, be able to see that this is not a market where there is much room for imitative product."
This is like Kant arguing that it's impossible to commit suicide, because if the self cares enough to feel pain, then it cares too much to end itself.
Epic-sized greed and wishful thinking are not wiped out by EC101. In fact, I would dare say that they are exacerbated by it.
WOW makes, what, $2.5 billion in subscriptions annually? And recall Pascal's Wager which convinces some people for a belief in God. "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing."
Think Icarus. So many successful game companies get bright lights in their eyes and want their own WOW. Problem is, the MMO genre is geometrically more difficult and expensive (as compared to singe-player games), and the push into it overwhelms and destroys otherwise successful companies over and over again.
"As these talented amateurs struggle in power meta-games to control revenue from online gaming, the collateral damage has been extensive and nearly fatal. When the definitive history of online gaming is written years from now, the analysts will look back and note the executives in charge of online gaming nearly killed it with their greed and incompetence." [Jessica Mulligan and Bridgette Patrovsky, Developing Online Games, p. xxvii]
That was written back in 2003. The next paragraph goes on about how, in the following year, Sony Online's Star Wars Galaxies will be an important bellwether on where the industry goes in the future.
A former online game-company boss of mine: "We're smarter than the average company, so we can cut all of our time estimates in half."
"This phenomenon doesn't yet have an official name..."
Sure it does: Publication Bias. It's even mentioned in the article itself: "Jennions, similarly, argues that the decline effect is largely a product of publication bias..." (p. 3 of the linked online article).
Unfortunately, the New Yorker has gotten in the habit of publishing articles in the vein of "Enormous scientific existential mystery!... Or actually, it's a standard topic that's been known for decades". Methinks someone got snookered by the 1st-page article headline/hype.
Slashdot Mirror
The better sources are the links within TFA:
- Official ruling (1st line is a beauty): http://abovethelaw.com/_old/2010/01/26/Singer%20v.%20Raemisch.pdf
- Commentary at GeeksAreSexy: http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2011/01/25/dungeons-dragons-a-threat-to-prison-security/
You know, when I was 15 I actually did have a cop pull into my driveway behind my truck, flash his lights, and accuse me of illegally hunting deer... with said graph paper, D&D books, and pencils on the seat beside me.
Of course, it was really part of a harassment campaign of my whole family by local cops after my dad confronted the chief of police at a town hall meeting, but still... Did not like that campaign at all.
It's possible some of my details are off - I was going on what I'd been told verbally by the head financial aid officer at a certain school.
What I'm coming up with for anchors of financial aid here are Federal Pell Grants and New York State TAP Grants.
Skeptical -- w/o citation.
"Google likewise decides to be notsoevil because otherwise it would cost them too much."
I'm pretty convinced that Brin & Page have some specific political-philosophical motivations for what they do (partly based on Brin's upbringing in the Soviet Union), and not exclusively a profit motive.
"The best built software in the world is useless if nobody can sell it."
Useful != Capitalizable.
Probably even more exacerbated if you take that into account!
Over the last several decades, U.S. income tax rates have dropped precipitously on the upper tax bracket:
1940-1963 -- 80-94%
1964-1981 -- 70-77%
1982-1986 -- 50%
1987-2009 -- 35-39%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_federal_income_tax
"Anyone can get into college."
Who gives a shit? Classic Slashdot myopia.
I'll trump your "how-to-get-in" story. Most community colleges (New York, Massachusetts, etc.) have "open admissions" -- absolutely zero requirements to be allowed on campus and start registering for classes. Also excellent financial aid from the state: 70 credits paid full-time, actually above the tuition level, plus health insurance, you can pocket the difference.
But once most people are there? Nationwide, 2/3 of community college students are in need of remedial (no credit) math or English. Of those who take such courses, about 2/3 never graduate from college with a degree. Their skills are commonly atrocious; half my job is (unfortunately) monitoring the semester-after-semester death march of people in remedial algebra who have only the barest flicker of any chance to pass the class (and I have higher passing rates than most other instructors).
Article on CT colleges, but I've seen identical numbers nationwide -- http://www.ctmirror.org/story/8545/colleges-tackle-remedial-problem
In summary -- Succeeding at college-level work is entirely impossible for approximately half the students who enter college. I totally didn't believe until I saw it.
Excellent post!
The end result of technological progress probably has to be either socialism xor a horrible dystopia.
From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.
"where is the profit in lying?... we are just out a few thousand dollars"
Answered your own question, and quite efficiently. I nominate you to provide the few thousand dollars.
"That's the only misspelled word..."
Not so; try again.
"Not something that only happens in the U.S."
Wonderful sub-headline in the linked article. Great example of our worldwide reputation nowadays.
Is this real? My god, the spelling in the comment above makes Qwest look even more droolingly retarded than the original post. Is this whole thing an elaborate hoax?
You're a manger!?
The iSmell or iSmell Personal Scent Synthesizer was a computer peripheral device developed by DigiScents in 2001. The prototype connected to a personal computer via USB or serial port and was designed to emit a smell when a user visited a web site or opened an email. The device contained a cartridge with 128 "primary odors," which could be mixed to replicate natural and man-made odors. DigiScents had indexed thousands of common odors, which could be coded, digitized, and embedded into web pages or email.[1]
In 2006, the iSmell was named one of the "25 Worst Tech Products of All Time" by PC World Magazine, which commented that "[f]ew products literally stink, but this one did--or at least it would have, had it progressed beyond the prototype stage.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismell
Actually, Vietnam is in the top 2 for places my girlfriend & I are considering moving to (from the US).
Yeah, like that. Good example.
As someone with degrees in both Mathematics & Philosophy, I'll say this -- The Slashdot nerdrage when someone spouts off about science they don't understand, PHB-style, is volcanic. Yet, the Slashdot willingness to spout off about philosophy they don't understand, PHB-style, is equally monumental. A lot of the comments in this thread read as though coming from half-literate rednecks.
Plus nukes, killer drones, and global warming.
Consider the members of the Manhattan Project who felt so bad about it afterward. Perhaps they could have used a bit more philosophy on the front end and not merely engineering-uber-alles?
"I see no point in investigating a flat-Earth theory. It is falsified by the knowledge that the Earth is spherical combined with the knowledge that spheres are not flat. I have seen no compelling reason to believe that "ghosts" (to use the colloquial, loaded word) have been falsified... Your mistake is that you think the two ideas are on equal ground."
Indeed, they are not on equal ground -- The "ghost" issue is one of those unfalsifiable notions. It's not well-defined and is routinely asserted to have no testable/reproducible effects.
"Once you have those, what kinds of results would it take to convince a skeptic there's something unusual going on, or demonstrate that there's not? I don't have much hope of changing the minds of those who believe, but it would be satisfying to at least be scientific about it."
Well, in principle, you're the one acting out the part of "I think there is something worth investigating here". So it's up to you (or your ghost-believing friends) to establish a specific, witnessable claim as to something that is happening; a falsifiable theory. Are ghosts supposed to be visible? Are they a moving thermal field? The skeptics expect the null hypothesis (nothing has changed), the ghost-believers some alternative hypothesis (something has changed), so it's really up to the latter to well-define their extraordinary claim.
Asking skeptics to state what would convince them otherwise is not generally how science works; it's neither time-effective (for the skeptics, for whom there is an infinitude of ridiculous claims in the world), nor is it logically sensible (in terms of established philosophy of science).
"At the same time, even the management types who know absolutely nothing about games should, purely with basic EC101 type considerations, be able to see that this is not a market where there is much room for imitative product."
This is like Kant arguing that it's impossible to commit suicide, because if the self cares enough to feel pain, then it cares too much to end itself.
Epic-sized greed and wishful thinking are not wiped out by EC101. In fact, I would dare say that they are exacerbated by it.
WOW makes, what, $2.5 billion in subscriptions annually? And recall Pascal's Wager which convinces some people for a belief in God. "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing."
Think Icarus. So many successful game companies get bright lights in their eyes and want their own WOW. Problem is, the MMO genre is geometrically more difficult and expensive (as compared to singe-player games), and the push into it overwhelms and destroys otherwise successful companies over and over again.
"As these talented amateurs struggle in power meta-games to control revenue from online gaming, the collateral damage has been extensive and nearly fatal. When the definitive history of online gaming is written years from now, the analysts will look back and note the executives in charge of online gaming nearly killed it with their greed and incompetence." [Jessica Mulligan and Bridgette Patrovsky, Developing Online Games, p. xxvii]
That was written back in 2003. The next paragraph goes on about how, in the following year, Sony Online's Star Wars Galaxies will be an important bellwether on where the industry goes in the future.
A former online game-company boss of mine: "We're smarter than the average company, so we can cut all of our time estimates in half."
"This phenomenon doesn't yet have an official name..."
Sure it does: Publication Bias. It's even mentioned in the article itself: "Jennions, similarly, argues that the decline effect is largely a product of publication bias..." (p. 3 of the linked online article).
Unfortunately, the New Yorker has gotten in the habit of publishing articles in the vein of "Enormous scientific existential mystery!... Or actually, it's a standard topic that's been known for decades". Methinks someone got snookered by the 1st-page article headline/hype.
FTA: "The Met said among the 2,512 suspects caught this year, four were suspected murderers, 23 rapists and sex attackers and five wanted gunmen."
But, what were the other 2,479 (98.7%)?