This is sort of a misrepresentation of the talk. The "Take home message of the talk" (as she says at 16:47) is that the choice to take risk differs on whether the situation is perceived as a gain or a loss -- regardless of the risk/reward being exactly the same in each case. When presented with the option of either (a) 2 grapes, or (b) 50/50 chances for either 1 or 3 grapes:
- Monkeys take the safe choice (a) in a gain situation, i.e., start with 1 grape and possibly add some more later, - Monkeys take the risky choice (b) in a loss situation, i.e., start with 3 grapes and possibly take some away.
That being the same as humans tend to do on analogous tests. My personal interpretation is that negative numbers are actually a very sophisticated, hard thing to deal with for most people. Most of the time in a natural community you'd be taking actions to gain things -- the "loss" scenario is somewhat artificial and abusive, and we're not set up naturally to deal with that well.
Difference between A shares and B shares -- CNet.com article from earlier this year:
Google created a dual-class stock structure when it filed for an initial public offering in 2004. Class A shares are the ones that were offered to the public, granting the owner the value of one vote for one share. Class B shares, owned by Brin, Page, CEO Eric Schmidt, directors, early investors, and key managers, grant their owners 10 votes per share.
Page and Brin currently control 59 percent of the voting power of Google's stock, according to Friday's filing. By the time they have disposed of all the shares involved in the plan, they will control 48 percent of the voting power of Google's stock.
This is in an article about a long-term stock-dispersal plan -- Page & Brin will still have over 50% of voting rights until 2014.
"Do you think they would be working there if there was already better work available?"
Possibly not. The way in which supposed free-market magic breaks down generally involves either (a) force, or (b) unequal information. Therefore the answer will be "no" in cases where:
(1) The employer has the employees in lock-down or forced labor situations. (2) The employer has the employees in ongoing debt due to company-store/lodging requirements (effectively same as above). (3) The employer can make threats or political pressure on the employee's family members. (3) The employer prevents the employees from finding out about better work, possibly by hiring illiterates, or prohibiting free speech (meetings, discussions, phone calls, informational pamphlets, etc.)
In these cases, you need some kind of outside legal regulation body to put an end to human-rights abuses of this sort. (Or else violent overthrow from within, generally a much less desirable outcome with much lower odds of success.)
I read this completely differently: (1) Countries like China are now demanding real-name identification to get on the net. (2) We at Google are having to develop technologies to deal with this requirement. (3) It would be more efficient for us if we rolled out these technologies globally. (4) Also, we broadly assume that more countries will go in this direction anyway.
"Honestly, what kind of statement is that. It's already been leaked. What is there to gain from getting it back? I doubt Wikileaks got a stack of paper from PFC Manning anyway."
It's an intentionally-impossible casus belli. Like demanding Saddam Hussein turn over all his WMD's when everyone knows he hasn't got any in the first place.
Pretty good point -- I was struck by the similarity (part of the recent Wikileaks reveals), regarding one shot-down helicopter in 2007, that official Spokesman Major John Thomas said: "It's not impossible for small-arms fire to bring down a helicopter." This when they knew full-well it was brought down by a heat-seeking missile and were covering the fact up.
"Was my friend kind of an idiot at 19? Absolutely. But does he deserve to become a lower class of society for the rest of his life over his (ultimately harmless) mistake?"
Just based on that story, I'm not even sure I'd call him an idiot. That just flat-out really shouldn't be illegal. From what I can tell, 17 satisfies the age of consent in most states (44 of 50?).
"Anyone could more easily put an ounce of cocaine in his desk and call the cops, no computer expertise needed."
Personally, I don't know where to get cocaine, and presumably you'd have to go out and be seen by somebody procuring it. Computer porn is orders of magnitude easier to come by.
"Steve Furber — co-founder of Acorn and ARM designer — believes students are avoiding computing classes because they teach nothing but the boring basics."
This is something you could survey students about and determine directly. My alternative hypothesis is that students avoid CS because (exactly like math) it's just too hard for them. My community college students find stepping through a flowchart and assigning some variables almost overwhelmingly, unimaginably difficult.
"I'm not religious at all, but even I know this is the 'correct' interpretation."
This sounds like total bullshit.
The article you link to doesn't say anything like this. In fact, it says the opposite in the second sentence:
Usury... originally meant the charging of interest on loans. This included charging a fee for the use of money, such as at a bureau de change. [Wikipedia, "Usury"]
"I'd like to know what the point of the damn things are..."
The point is to sell shit. The next business day after last year's Christmas bombing attempt, the company that makes these scanners was sending out PR to every newspaper in the country about how their scanners would prevent that. And places like Fox were running interviews solely with people who were saying how happy they'd be to give up some privacy for it.
Actually, 2 or 3 days ago I started wondering how much fallout Wikimedia would possibly take after the Wikileaks story (investigation? nasty letters? death threats to Wales?). So to me today this was "aha, there it is".
Supporting my own post with a quote from the New York Times today:
Publishers have started de-emphasizing the textbook in favor of selling a package of supporting materials like teaching aids and training. And companies like Houghton Mifflin have created internal start-ups to embrace technology and capture for themselves some of the emerging online business.
They're both wrong, so we should abolish it. FDR used it in a case against 8 men (Ex parte Quirin). Bush used it against some 775 detainees at Guantanamo and unknown others. So, we can say that Bush is approximately 100-fold more in the wrong than FDR was.
Also, Bush expanded the meaning and use of the term (to automatically include anyone in the Taliban or al Qaida, regardless of actions) in his November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism".
So again: We should abolish it. As has been indicated under the Obama administration in a statement by Attorney General Eric Holder on March 13, 2009.
Actually, I would say that they are related in that both ("new tech/ new methods") are generally foisted on schools as a scam ("sell new tech/ sell new books"), and both generally lack any research evidence that they improve student learning outcomes. Furthermore, they're becoming linked in practice, in that book publishers tie new-method books and technology products together.
Slashdot Mirror
This is sort of a misrepresentation of the talk. The "Take home message of the talk" (as she says at 16:47) is that the choice to take risk differs on whether the situation is perceived as a gain or a loss -- regardless of the risk/reward being exactly the same in each case. When presented with the option of either (a) 2 grapes, or (b) 50/50 chances for either 1 or 3 grapes:
- Monkeys take the safe choice (a) in a gain situation, i.e., start with 1 grape and possibly add some more later,
- Monkeys take the risky choice (b) in a loss situation, i.e., start with 3 grapes and possibly take some away.
That being the same as humans tend to do on analogous tests. My personal interpretation is that negative numbers are actually a very sophisticated, hard thing to deal with for most people. Most of the time in a natural community you'd be taking actions to gain things -- the "loss" scenario is somewhat artificial and abusive, and we're not set up naturally to deal with that well.
This is an attitude (happy about more ads) that I only see on Slashdot, never in real life.
Difference between A shares and B shares -- CNet.com article from earlier this year:
Google created a dual-class stock structure when it filed for an initial public offering in 2004. Class A shares are the ones that were offered to the public, granting the owner the value of one vote for one share. Class B shares, owned by Brin, Page, CEO Eric Schmidt, directors, early investors, and key managers, grant their owners 10 votes per share.
Page and Brin currently control 59 percent of the voting power of Google's stock, according to Friday's filing. By the time they have disposed of all the shares involved in the plan, they will control 48 percent of the voting power of Google's stock.
This is in an article about a long-term stock-dispersal plan -- Page & Brin will still have over 50% of voting rights until 2014.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10440005-265.html
"nothing will ever be a higher priority than profit (as it should be with a business)"
Disagree.
"('greed is good', after all)."
You know, that was originally satire.
"Do you think they would be working there if there was already better work available?"
Possibly not. The way in which supposed free-market magic breaks down generally involves either (a) force, or (b) unequal information. Therefore the answer will be "no" in cases where:
(1) The employer has the employees in lock-down or forced labor situations.
(2) The employer has the employees in ongoing debt due to company-store/lodging requirements (effectively same as above).
(3) The employer can make threats or political pressure on the employee's family members.
(3) The employer prevents the employees from finding out about better work, possibly by hiring illiterates, or prohibiting free speech (meetings, discussions, phone calls, informational pamphlets, etc.)
In these cases, you need some kind of outside legal regulation body to put an end to human-rights abuses of this sort. (Or else violent overthrow from within, generally a much less desirable outcome with much lower odds of success.)
"A company, in the eyes of the law, is one entity."
Quick, outsource that shit.
Agree with everything -- especially the critical "NO PROOF" point. Mod this guy up!
"An anonymous reader writes with word that Wikileaks..."
Sounds like FUD.
I read this completely differently:
(1) Countries like China are now demanding real-name identification to get on the net.
(2) We at Google are having to develop technologies to deal with this requirement.
(3) It would be more efficient for us if we rolled out these technologies globally.
(4) Also, we broadly assume that more countries will go in this direction anyway.
"Honestly, what kind of statement is that. It's already been leaked. What is there to gain from getting it back? I doubt Wikileaks got a stack of paper from PFC Manning anyway."
It's an intentionally-impossible casus belli. Like demanding Saddam Hussein turn over all his WMD's when everyone knows he hasn't got any in the first place.
Pretty good point -- I was struck by the similarity (part of the recent Wikileaks reveals), regarding one shot-down helicopter in 2007, that official Spokesman Major John Thomas said: "It's not impossible for small-arms fire to bring down a helicopter." This when they knew full-well it was brought down by a heat-seeking missile and were covering the fact up.
"Was my friend kind of an idiot at 19? Absolutely. But does he deserve to become a lower class of society for the rest of his life over his (ultimately harmless) mistake?"
Just based on that story, I'm not even sure I'd call him an idiot. That just flat-out really shouldn't be illegal. From what I can tell, 17 satisfies the age of consent in most states (44 of 50?).
"Anyone could more easily put an ounce of cocaine in his desk and call the cops, no computer expertise needed."
Personally, I don't know where to get cocaine, and presumably you'd have to go out and be seen by somebody procuring it. Computer porn is orders of magnitude easier to come by.
"Steve Furber — co-founder of Acorn and ARM designer — believes students are avoiding computing classes because they teach nothing but the boring basics."
This is something you could survey students about and determine directly. My alternative hypothesis is that students avoid CS because (exactly like math) it's just too hard for them. My community college students find stepping through a flowchart and assigning some variables almost overwhelmingly, unimaginably difficult.
You may possibly win an award for the most unreadable three lines I've ever seen on Slashdot.
Just for starters, let me introduce you to my pet, the "alot": http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html
"iliterate"
You don't say.
Great article. Mod this up.
"I'm not religious at all, but even I know this is the 'correct' interpretation."
This sounds like total bullshit.
The article you link to doesn't say anything like this. In fact, it says the opposite in the second sentence:
Usury... originally meant the charging of interest on loans. This included charging a fee for the use of money, such as at a bureau de change. [Wikipedia, "Usury"]
"The government needs to be once again a government of the people, by the people and for the people."
You lose, we re-defined the word "people" to mean companies.
Think of the terrorist babies!
(Part of the GOP 14th Amendment repeal discussion today -- scroll down to Fox Business News Eric Bolling/ Rep. Louis Gohmert quote.)
"I'd like to know what the point of the damn things are..."
The point is to sell shit. The next business day after last year's Christmas bombing attempt, the company that makes these scanners was sending out PR to every newspaper in the country about how their scanners would prevent that. And places like Fox were running interviews solely with people who were saying how happy they'd be to give up some privacy for it.
Actually, 2 or 3 days ago I started wondering how much fallout Wikimedia would possibly take after the Wikileaks story (investigation? nasty letters? death threats to Wales?). So to me today this was "aha, there it is".
Supporting my own post with a quote from the New York Times today:
Publishers have started de-emphasizing the textbook in favor of selling a package of supporting materials like teaching aids and training. And companies like Houghton Mifflin have created internal start-ups to embrace technology and capture for themselves some of the emerging online business.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/technology/01ping.html?_r=1
They're both wrong, so we should abolish it. FDR used it in a case against 8 men (Ex parte Quirin). Bush used it against some 775 detainees at Guantanamo and unknown others. So, we can say that Bush is approximately 100-fold more in the wrong than FDR was.
Also, Bush expanded the meaning and use of the term (to automatically include anyone in the Taliban or al Qaida, regardless of actions) in his November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism".
So again: We should abolish it. As has been indicated under the Obama administration in a statement by Attorney General Eric Holder on March 13, 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant
Actually, I would say that they are related in that both ("new tech/ new methods") are generally foisted on schools as a scam ("sell new tech/ sell new books"), and both generally lack any research evidence that they improve student learning outcomes. Furthermore, they're becoming linked in practice, in that book publishers tie new-method books and technology products together.