Well, software projects like AI development also have potential. And a clone of the child given the same upbringing would probably turn out the same. It hasn't been tested because of... wait for it... ethical concerns.
There are some real differences between a computer and a human, but nothing so fundamental that it annuls ethical considerations. Given time and effort, people can be programmed within certain parameters, just like computer. The process is just faster, depending on what you're going for. With advances in AI and genetics, the differences are going to be even more slight.
If you're hung up on the term "artificial", ask yourself what it means. What's natural about C-section babies? What's artificial about human creations? Is a bird's nest artificial? How about a caterpillar's cocoon? How about the system that encourages the construction of these objects? Because if evolution isn't natural, I don't know what is. Hell, it's the nature of nature.
It may be troubling, but we (sentient humans) aren't that special.
And without historical lessons whitewashed by bad highschool teachers, you don't have a very good view of the baggage that comes with the term "Boston Tea Party".
Short version: They were rioting hooligans that were pissed off at the government and no one thought their actions were in good form except for like-minded anti-establishment types.
It alienated whatever friendship remained among the British Lords. Benjamin Franklin said that the damage would have to be repaid. It incited other violence and destruction. We're taught at school that it was an act of nationalistic pride. While it did move us closer to revolution, it wasn't as clean and pretty as the propaganda that Samuel Adams spread around at the time.
It's not just an open source facebook clone. that would be simple as setting up a website with users, and user content, and the ability to link other's content. Bam, Facebook clone.
No, Diaspora was to be distributed. There's no central authority to decide who gets banned, blocked, censored, spied upon, and sold to marketers. It would be YOU in control of your social network. It was a noble goal. But it didn't seem to go anywhere.
I don't know anything about the guy, but suicide is always a damn shame. And just from the sheer amount of money being thrown around, the possibility of being suicided shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
A universal healthcare system provides services to everyone (that's the universal part) at the expense of the taxpayer. Soooo.... the poor have the same healthcare as "everyone else". And "everyone else" just has to, you know, walk in the door. It's "free" to them. Other then taxes
But you're right about the rich having the best healthcare. They can fly to Singapore for surgery, or pick up meds while in Cuba.
And it cuts out the insurance companies, which are just leeching off a horribly broken system right now. So that's a plus.
That's true enough.
But it's as bullshity as saying that:
Reds pass bills that destroy jobs.
Blues pass bills that create jobs.
While technically true, it's a broad generalization that's an empty and meaningless statement. Especially since the reverse is equally true in that both Reds and Blues pass bills that both create and destroy jobs.
In short, he doesn't deserve any charitable assumptions since he's being a partisan hack. And for "loose".
All that said, his general grousing about the two parties both looking out for the wealthy has some merit and he sounds like someone that should be out at OWS.
The Democrats make government services that only the rich have the resources to take advantage of.
Wut?
I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that only the rich would have access to universal healthcare.
Or only the rich would apply for low-income housing assistance.
Or only the rich would work for minimum wage.
Or... you know what? Sorry, that's just silly. Broad generalizations hardly ever paint an accurate picture, but this one... this one is way WAY off in left field.
Business grants though. That could be one example that fits. Still, it's spectacular cherry picking.
Re:Only "troubled" if you're not Lockheed Martin
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Along comes Congress, and they want to, in the name of votes, drawdown the number of uniforms on active duty.
Whoa whoa whoa, let me fix that for you:
Along comes Congress, and they want to, because they're contractually obligated by the Iraqi government (a contract which was signed by Bush btw), drawdown the number of uniforms on active duty.
The end goal here is to stop pissing away money in a nation we never should have conquered in the first place. Part of that is to get the Iraqi government (and their military) to police their own lands. Part of that is the draw down of our own troops.
I'd rather we didn't have a US office in Kabul. Support the troops, bring them home.
Oh fer shuur!
The Palestines had it so much better under the Romans.
And the serfs lived glorious lives under their kings.
A those guys with the stone foot-balls in Aztec? They were living it up.
And don't forget all the artistic output that came form the farmers under Incan rule.
Yes indeed, these poor Chinese have never had "glory days". It's was just the rulers.... Sure.
First off, peak oil will only be able to be seen after it happens.
Second, we HAVE hive peak oil in the United States.
Need a reminder about what that means? Supply cannot keep up with demand. Even though you throw more money at it, you can't produce enough oil fast enough.
Ultimately, that just means that oil elsewhere is cheaper, so they're buying abroad. But the price of oil is going to go up. The only way for it to come down is for a massive economic shutdown. It will be the hard rock that bursts bubbles.
Ah, swing and a miss. Sorry about that. Swore you were a manager.
It's good that you finally came out and suggested we evaluate the teachers. Because that didn't exist anywhere in the last 3 posts. But kids aren't machine parts and robots. Schools are not a production line. Someone elsewhere in the threads made a good point. Teachers are more like managers then line workers. How do people test managers? Well, by the output of the production line under them. Which means testing the kids.
My goodness, extra kudos for proper use of "begging the question". But I have to disagree, at least with this example. It sounds like he is a programmer, so his job was literally genesised from the void. That job simply didn't exist in his parents' and grandparents' time. While it could be possible that at one day there's nothing left that needs doing for us meatbags to do, I'm pretty sure we'll find way to fill the void. Let's say with art, or politics, or research. I imagine we'd move entirely to a service-based economy... oh wait. We're already there. The output of our mechanically assisted primary and secondary sectors far outpace the required manpower. We pay people to sit around all day with no physical output other then "that makes me happy". Because really, what's the point of art? This IS utopia.
Repeat after me: "Security through obscurity isn't security".
The people who would want to know, will know. Especially for something like this. Where things and people have to come in and out on a regular basis. Of course this is a target for our enemies. The same way that our president is a target. And yet we still have a president. AMAZING how that works.
huh, go figure. You're right. They're not paid too bad. Well we're doing something right at least.
Still, the stated goal of reducing the pay of teachers is atrocious. It would effectively diminish the entire industry and things would get even worse.
It'll be fine since good teachers know how their kids are doing. Principles will fire bad teachers. They just know.
Sorry, I really don't mean to pick on you. You have some good points in there. It's just that you come off as such a manager. In an empty suit sort of way. For example, you just assume that the principles inherently know who the bad teachers are. And then you trust them to behave accordingly. Suits look after suits. You also just kind of assume that principles can fire people. This isn't your business. There is the teachers union, tenure, seniority, and the parents, and maybe even some of the kids that would be up in arms if the principles fired off whoever they wanted. And there are a lot of ways to get fired besides not teaching well. If you weren't aware, there's a bit of a schism between teachers and administration. Probably because it's a position ripe for abuse.
Additionally, so what if the teachers know who the stupid kids are? What are they supposed to do about it? "Improve quality" is vague to the point of meaningless when it comes to teaching.
I'm guessing about the republican/libertarian, but who else would bitching about government regulation?
The next few points come from READING COMPREHENSION. He wrote down two sentences. The second kind of runs on, but it's readable.
As for what he doesn't want, those points are kind of inferred. He could have simply forgotten about them. Perhaps he would have mentioned them if he wasn't so rushed for time. We could give him the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, his first concern is to slash the pay of teachers. And that's my main point.
Hmmm? OH! no no no. You see, my post wasn't just plastered whilly nilly anywhere in the thread. I wasn't referring to Bill Gates. I was talking about AnonGCB.
This is insightful?
"We need better quality! In fact, we need a culture of better quality"
That's great, but how do we do it? This is the sort of thing that motivational speakers spew and that self-help books churn out. Cheezy example and all.
You could have just as easily used the old and busted razor blade story:
"blah blah blah, give away the razor blades, make money on the razors.
This is what needs to happen in education. It's not teaching kids that 1+1=2, it's giving them the framework that synergizes their co-motivational buzzword buzzword."
Well, step back a moment. Why would you say that the ghetto is not the "real world" for them?
For some kids, the school IS in the ghetto. The ghetto sits across from them in class, teaches at the chalkboard, and awaits them after school. There are poor doomed bastards that get born into the ghetto and will live and die in the ghetto. So, I think I have to explain to you that the ghetto IS their world.
It's a world we want them to escape, but there's a statistical improbability that all of them are going to do so.
Also, once you point out that the root of the problem is the culture surrounding them, you natrally progress to wanting to fix that culture. Well, imposing culture onto people is social interventionism. It's the sort of thing that fascists did. Just saying.
Everyone, please pay attention!
This is a republican/libertarian that wants to remove government regulation of public schools.
The stated purpose is to end the "high pay" and raises of teachers.
The high pay of teachers.
Think about that. He doesn't want better teachers. He doesn't want poor schools to do better. The entire goal he's going for, in the grand sum of two sentences, is to pay teachers even less than what they're paid now. This is why we need unions. This is why teachers unions fight this sort of thing. This is a roadblock to progress.
Remember that econopocalypse in 2007? The one that ushered in the recession? How the bankers did some ludicrously stupid and unethical things? That was brought on by deregulation. DEregulation is what failed us. We need to put the leash back on the dog.
I've always thought there was some odd market force that was allowing the cost of education rise in such a bizarre way
Yeah, it's the market force of shifting to a service based economy and robots "takin err JERRRBS". Those damn dirty robots. Like combines and conveyer belts.
Also, Ron Paul is a RINO, Republican In Name Only. Usually an insult, but not so in this case. Ron is really a libertarian. To a fault.
Also also, let me work your example a bit for you:
"If people no longer had money to spend on, let's say, FOOD... they would be willing (and magically somehow able) to spend a LOT less on food."
Yes. When people have less money, they generally are FORCED to spend less. Amazing how that works. Now, you and Ron PAul DO bring up a good point. Colleges would get a lot more competative and drop their rates. While immediately a good thing, realize that this is overall less money to acedamia. With cut-throat competition, some would fold. Professors wouldn't be paid (as much) and they would flee. On the whole, the industy would diminish. Currently foreigners send their top students to our schools en mass. Do you really want to let go of yet another domestic industry?
And that's great for the independently wealthy that care what their peers think about ancient Greek philosophy. But for the average college kid, he's going to want a job afterwards. Colleges exist for a lot of reasons, one of which is that people go there to make themselves valuable so they get a job. Don't ignore that. It's important. They also exist to give people a well-rounded education and hence you have the chemistry intro for programmers and all those bullshit diversity courses you have to sit through.
It's really admirable that you're on a quest for knowledge. It's also really enviable that you can afford to do so. And really bullshit if you think I'm going to pay for it.
I agree with the grandparent. There are too many jobs that ask for a degree of any sort. There's also a problem that there are too many bullshit degrees being handed out. How many philosophy and history majors does the world need?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, software projects like AI development also have potential. And a clone of the child given the same upbringing would probably turn out the same. It hasn't been tested because of... wait for it... ethical concerns.
There are some real differences between a computer and a human, but nothing so fundamental that it annuls ethical considerations. Given time and effort, people can be programmed within certain parameters, just like computer. The process is just faster, depending on what you're going for. With advances in AI and genetics, the differences are going to be even more slight.
If you're hung up on the term "artificial", ask yourself what it means. What's natural about C-section babies? What's artificial about human creations? Is a bird's nest artificial? How about a caterpillar's cocoon? How about the system that encourages the construction of these objects? Because if evolution isn't natural, I don't know what is. Hell, it's the nature of nature.
It may be troubling, but we (sentient humans) aren't that special.
How you play a sandbox game of creation says a lot about a person.
And without historical lessons whitewashed by bad highschool teachers, you don't have a very good view of the baggage that comes with the term "Boston Tea Party".
Short version: They were rioting hooligans that were pissed off at the government and no one thought their actions were in good form except for like-minded anti-establishment types.
It alienated whatever friendship remained among the British Lords. Benjamin Franklin said that the damage would have to be repaid. It incited other violence and destruction. We're taught at school that it was an act of nationalistic pride. While it did move us closer to revolution, it wasn't as clean and pretty as the propaganda that Samuel Adams spread around at the time.
It's not just an open source facebook clone. that would be simple as setting up a website with users, and user content, and the ability to link other's content. Bam, Facebook clone.
No, Diaspora was to be distributed. There's no central authority to decide who gets banned, blocked, censored, spied upon, and sold to marketers. It would be YOU in control of your social network. It was a noble goal. But it didn't seem to go anywhere.
I don't know anything about the guy, but suicide is always a damn shame. And just from the sheer amount of money being thrown around, the possibility of being suicided shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
A universal healthcare system provides services to everyone (that's the universal part) at the expense of the taxpayer. Soooo.... the poor have the same healthcare as "everyone else". And "everyone else" just has to, you know, walk in the door. It's "free" to them. Other then taxes
But you're right about the rich having the best healthcare. They can fly to Singapore for surgery, or pick up meds while in Cuba. And it cuts out the insurance companies, which are just leeching off a horribly broken system right now. So that's a plus.
That's true enough.
But it's as bullshity as saying that:
Reds pass bills that destroy jobs.
Blues pass bills that create jobs.
While technically true, it's a broad generalization that's an empty and meaningless statement. Especially since the reverse is equally true in that both Reds and Blues pass bills that both create and destroy jobs.
In short, he doesn't deserve any charitable assumptions since he's being a partisan hack. And for "loose".
All that said, his general grousing about the two parties both looking out for the wealthy has some merit and he sounds like someone that should be out at OWS.
New, Less Autonomous Honda Corporation Unveiled by Asimo!
The Democrats make government services that only the rich have the resources to take advantage of.
Wut?
I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that only the rich would have access to universal healthcare.
Or only the rich would apply for low-income housing assistance.
Or only the rich would work for minimum wage.
Or... you know what? Sorry, that's just silly. Broad generalizations hardly ever paint an accurate picture, but this one... this one is way WAY off in left field.
Business grants though. That could be one example that fits. Still, it's spectacular cherry picking.
Along comes Congress, and they want to, in the name of votes, drawdown the number of uniforms on active duty.
Whoa whoa whoa, let me fix that for you:
Along comes Congress, and they want to, because they're contractually obligated by the Iraqi government (a contract which was signed by Bush btw), drawdown the number of uniforms on active duty.
The end goal here is to stop pissing away money in a nation we never should have conquered in the first place. Part of that is to get the Iraqi government (and their military) to police their own lands. Part of that is the draw down of our own troops.
I'd rather we didn't have a US office in Kabul. Support the troops, bring them home.
Oh fer shuur!
The Palestines had it so much better under the Romans.
And the serfs lived glorious lives under their kings.
A those guys with the stone foot-balls in Aztec? They were living it up.
And don't forget all the artistic output that came form the farmers under Incan rule.
Yes indeed, these poor Chinese have never had "glory days". It's was just the rulers.... Sure.
First off, peak oil will only be able to be seen after it happens.
Second, we HAVE hive peak oil in the United States.
Need a reminder about what that means? Supply cannot keep up with demand. Even though you throw more money at it, you can't produce enough oil fast enough.
Ultimately, that just means that oil elsewhere is cheaper, so they're buying abroad. But the price of oil is going to go up. The only way for it to come down is for a massive economic shutdown. It will be the hard rock that bursts bubbles.
Ah, swing and a miss. Sorry about that. Swore you were a manager.
It's good that you finally came out and suggested we evaluate the teachers. Because that didn't exist anywhere in the last 3 posts. But kids aren't machine parts and robots. Schools are not a production line. Someone elsewhere in the threads made a good point. Teachers are more like managers then line workers. How do people test managers? Well, by the output of the production line under them. Which means testing the kids.
Which is where we started at.
Right, we have to educate them first.
Hmmm, I wonder why everyone is complaining about the cost of tuition going up....
My goodness, extra kudos for proper use of "begging the question". But I have to disagree, at least with this example. It sounds like he is a programmer, so his job was literally genesised from the void. That job simply didn't exist in his parents' and grandparents' time. While it could be possible that at one day there's nothing left that needs doing for us meatbags to do, I'm pretty sure we'll find way to fill the void. Let's say with art, or politics, or research. I imagine we'd move entirely to a service-based economy...
oh wait.
We're already there. The output of our mechanically assisted primary and secondary sectors far outpace the required manpower. We pay people to sit around all day with no physical output other then "that makes me happy". Because really, what's the point of art?
This IS utopia.
Repeat after me: "Security through obscurity isn't security".
The people who would want to know, will know. Especially for something like this. Where things and people have to come in and out on a regular basis. Of course this is a target for our enemies. The same way that our president is a target. And yet we still have a president. AMAZING how that works.
huh, go figure. You're right. They're not paid too bad. Well we're doing something right at least.
Still, the stated goal of reducing the pay of teachers is atrocious. It would effectively diminish the entire industry and things would get even worse.
Let me boiled that down for you:
Read about Deming.
Test less, save money.
It'll be fine since good teachers know how their kids are doing. Principles will fire bad teachers. They just know.
Sorry, I really don't mean to pick on you. You have some good points in there. It's just that you come off as such a manager. In an empty suit sort of way. For example, you just assume that the principles inherently know who the bad teachers are. And then you trust them to behave accordingly. Suits look after suits. You also just kind of assume that principles can fire people. This isn't your business. There is the teachers union, tenure, seniority, and the parents, and maybe even some of the kids that would be up in arms if the principles fired off whoever they wanted. And there are a lot of ways to get fired besides not teaching well. If you weren't aware, there's a bit of a schism between teachers and administration. Probably because it's a position ripe for abuse.
Additionally, so what if the teachers know who the stupid kids are? What are they supposed to do about it? "Improve quality" is vague to the point of meaningless when it comes to teaching.
I'm guessing about the republican/libertarian, but who else would bitching about government regulation?
The next few points come from READING COMPREHENSION. He wrote down two sentences. The second kind of runs on, but it's readable.
As for what he doesn't want, those points are kind of inferred. He could have simply forgotten about them. Perhaps he would have mentioned them if he wasn't so rushed for time. We could give him the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, his first concern is to slash the pay of teachers. And that's my main point.
Hmmm? OH! no no no. You see, my post wasn't just plastered whilly nilly anywhere in the thread. I wasn't referring to Bill Gates. I was talking about AnonGCB.
Universities.
This is insightful?
"We need better quality! In fact, we need a culture of better quality"
That's great, but how do we do it? This is the sort of thing that motivational speakers spew and that self-help books churn out. Cheezy example and all.
You could have just as easily used the old and busted razor blade story:
"blah blah blah, give away the razor blades, make money on the razors.
This is what needs to happen in education. It's not teaching kids that 1+1=2, it's giving them the framework that synergizes their co-motivational buzzword buzzword."
Well, step back a moment. Why would you say that the ghetto is not the "real world" for them?
For some kids, the school IS in the ghetto. The ghetto sits across from them in class, teaches at the chalkboard, and awaits them after school. There are poor doomed bastards that get born into the ghetto and will live and die in the ghetto. So, I think I have to explain to you that the ghetto IS their world.
It's a world we want them to escape, but there's a statistical improbability that all of them are going to do so.
Also, once you point out that the root of the problem is the culture surrounding them, you natrally progress to wanting to fix that culture. Well, imposing culture onto people is social interventionism. It's the sort of thing that fascists did. Just saying.
Everyone, please pay attention!
This is a republican/libertarian that wants to remove government regulation of public schools.
The stated purpose is to end the "high pay" and raises of teachers.
The high pay of teachers.
Think about that. He doesn't want better teachers. He doesn't want poor schools to do better. The entire goal he's going for, in the grand sum of two sentences, is to pay teachers even less than what they're paid now.
This is why we need unions. This is why teachers unions fight this sort of thing. This is a roadblock to progress.
Remember that econopocalypse in 2007? The one that ushered in the recession? How the bankers did some ludicrously stupid and unethical things? That was brought on by deregulation.
DEregulation is what failed us. We need to put the leash back on the dog.
I've always thought there was some odd market force that was allowing the cost of education rise in such a bizarre way
Yeah, it's the market force of shifting to a service based economy and robots "takin err JERRRBS". Those damn dirty robots. Like combines and conveyer belts.
Also, Ron Paul is a RINO, Republican In Name Only. Usually an insult, but not so in this case. Ron is really a libertarian. To a fault.
Also also, let me work your example a bit for you:
"If people no longer had money to spend on, let's say, FOOD... they would be willing (and magically somehow able) to spend a LOT less on food."
Yes. When people have less money, they generally are FORCED to spend less. Amazing how that works. Now, you and Ron PAul DO bring up a good point. Colleges would get a lot more competative and drop their rates. While immediately a good thing, realize that this is overall less money to acedamia. With cut-throat competition, some would fold. Professors wouldn't be paid (as much) and they would flee. On the whole, the industy would diminish.
Currently foreigners send their top students to our schools en mass. Do you really want to let go of yet another domestic industry?
And that's great for the independently wealthy that care what their peers think about ancient Greek philosophy. But for the average college kid, he's going to want a job afterwards. Colleges exist for a lot of reasons, one of which is that people go there to make themselves valuable so they get a job. Don't ignore that. It's important. They also exist to give people a well-rounded education and hence you have the chemistry intro for programmers and all those bullshit diversity courses you have to sit through.
It's really admirable that you're on a quest for knowledge. It's also really enviable that you can afford to do so. And really bullshit if you think I'm going to pay for it.
I agree with the grandparent. There are too many jobs that ask for a degree of any sort. There's also a problem that there are too many bullshit degrees being handed out. How many philosophy and history majors does the world need?