Also, most people DON'T seek to take the test. Their parents or school do. Most IQ tests are taken when people are young as a way of checking for disability or for advanced placement in the education system. Very Rarely does someone go to a Psychologist and say "I want to take an IQ test."
I was waiting for someone to make that point, I knew I missed it the moment I clicked 'Submit'.
Ok, but the fact that any person would choose to either take or administer the test is going to change the result. The school wants to improve its methods, the parents want to "improve" (guide, whatever) their children. Even if they don't change the result for the current batch of people being tested, it's going to change the result for the batch after that. One of the reasons that the test is there is so that we can draw conclusions (even if some choose to use it to brag), and part of these conclusions are going to be how to improve ourselves and/or our methods. Yes, I realize that the common mechanical reason for the test is selection/sorting, but it's also used "for good"...
Both statements are true. However, keep in mind that both would also apply to vaccination. We opt to alter our immune system in a certain way because, over a span of time, we found that it saves lives. There are always going to be anomalies, but that's why we have the ability to discern. We keep deadly plagues frozen even though they haven't been seen in the wild for decades, because these diseases may hold the key to solving problems in the future. Also, even if we do start altering our genes like changing clothes, not everyone is going to have the same taste -- our creative diversity will lead to the genetic one.
(yes, I'm being optimistic, we're probably going to design human weapons before we cure cancer, but it's going to take time anyway, so I'd prefer to think that we have a future rather than an apocalypse awaiting us)
Natural disasters don't discriminate -- plagues do. In the past, anyone without a sufficient immune system would perish, and so would anyone with any significant allergy. The only things that can kill people en-masse now are large natural disasters, which don't care about your genes, or other people, who may care about your genes if said genes give your skin a certain pigment. Well, people can also starve, but good genes won't save you from that, either. Keep in mind that people may also die of cancer, but if they've already done all the "breeding" they were going to so far in their lifetime, then that doesn't effect the gene pool (same goes for all major causes of death over breeding age).
So, yeah, we're deluded and arrogant, but we've managed to at least change the way we're "naturally selected" into a more "unnatural" selection.
You're saying that this particular gene modification may have an adverse effect, which is possible, but there are some general attributes that define how "smart" we are. If we found the gene/genes that regulate/s how much we can remember, in the "long term storage" part of the brain, and modified it/them so that we could remember, say, twice what we do now, it would probably lead to "being smarter". If we changed it so that we never forgot anything, it would lead to insanity. If we move slowly and cautiously, we should, one hopes, learn to alter our genes to make us "smarter".
(* I kept placing the word "smart" in quotes since it's a very subjective term, not because I was being dickish...)
Bras have no genome. The line did not compute, and therefor was ignored by the parser. Your parser is either set to "verbose", or "display all warnings".
If you could counter these points and make the arguments that you did, then you can also observe that your reaction was visceral. It's entirely possible that he was being honest, and that on this site, at this hour, on a weekend, he could allow himself to be. I agree with part of what you've said (see what I posted above about social abilities), but your reaction "came off" as knee-jerk, and you could have argued back without assuming, or pointing out, that he seemed elitist. Also, this is Slashdot, who here *isn't* an elitist??:)
Keep in mind that it relates to the people that take the test. If you opt to take an IQ test (not everyone that takes the test opted to, obviously, but many do), there's a higher chance that you've been exposed to the kind of environment/education that incentives critical thinking, and as teaching methods improve and learning resources increase, these people will continue to do better on these tests. We're not talking about the average intelligence of the human species.
How about we separate social abilities from intellectual capacity. Some people are smart, and since they don't notice that it makes them different, they become outsiders. Others are both smart and very perceptive, so they "modulate" their behavior according to who they're talking to. Yet others make a conscious decision that if someone else doesn't approve of the way they are, then that someone is at fault, and not them.
And to continue the theme: I'm an atheist, intelligent, knowledgeable, and a snappy dresser!
Evolution is causal. Just because a cause existed 50 million years ago, doesn't mean that it's there right now. I think that if we had the opportunity to *opt* for a larger (or more efficient) brain in exchange for higher energy consumption, most of us would do it. Humans have tamed the environment, and therefor we change our surroundings, rather than them changing us. We need to take the harness if we want to continue to improve ourselves, and the path of genetic modification seems the inevitable one.
That's the most likely solution, but would that be enforceable? Will Intel really claim: "it was clearly stated in the EULA, in the BIOS, which flashes for 2 seconds if the vendor screen isn't turned on by default". You can't hide the EULA in an encrypted microscopic engraving somewhere, and you can't have a EULA that's activated by "if you wait 5 seconds without pressing DEL, then you are accepting the EULA" (at least I think you can't -- it's supposed to require some active, conscious effort on your part).
I'd think Apple would be fine with this. Apple is already in the habit of charging small amounts for what would often be considered just "good will" on the side of the company (in terms of software updates), so Apple users wouldn't really be surprised by the request to "Pay to Unlock", especially if it's just $50 for what's effectively a hardware upgrade. Within the Apple ecosystem, this would seem more natural.
As for the privacy implications, I don't see why Apple would be *more* concerned than anyone else. They're not Google -- in the sense that privacy isn't a sore subject for them (maybe I'm just not up to date, but I don't recall any privacy slip-ups of that type from Apple).
...that Avatar, like Terminator and Alien and The Matrix, is a movie that should never, ever, ever have a sequel.
Terminator *2* was the good one. People remember Arnold fighting the T1000, not some soft human.
And you can edit the Matrix Reloaded down to about 50 minutes of entertainment.
If I didn't read/hear about this exact scenario numerous times, I'd be incredulous. According to what you've written above, you have at least *some* considerations that would be considered "political" (regarding Free Software), and you've bothered replying and debating the worth of software and the people who wrote/write it. You then say "I got a Mac". How do you reconcile your opinions with buying hardware/software from a company that effectively leeches off free software, gives it a fresh coat of paint and then sells it back to you?
So first the one-liner slamming Mono gets a +5 Insightful, and now this AC gets a 'funny' for placing the word "shit" and "Miguel" next to one another. Who said hate doesn't pay.
I'd place greater emphasis on that last part. If a publisher becomes aware of the cache loophole and contacts Google about it, they most likely send out a canned reply in the spirit of "this is the way we roll. If you don't like it, there's the door.". I can't find the article at the moment but there's been more than one occasion where someone at Google made it clear that they don't design their software according to publisher's needs -- no one's forcing you to remain indexed, the decision is yours. There may be some exceptions with the very big players (Murdoch), but not many.
Did the programming team who designed the UAV flight-AI "afraid" that these multi-million drones drop like flies? If so, they should have programmed in "fear of losing your job", at the very least...
Damn it, why can't the lag on Slashdot kick in when I make a mistake in a post... If Slashdot lets me post less than a second after I click "Preview", I should take it as a sign that I messed something up. It's like any mechanism working on the first attempt -- it's never good news.
Good one, but you pointed out a significant change: The Subaru engines were internal combustion, while the Turboshaft is a type of gas turbine. It's not a trivial modification.
According to Wikipedia: "In August 2010 the A160 Hummingbird is undergoing jungle test flights in Belize". So it wasn't just having a joy ride in open skies, it was in a tricky terrain to navigate, for *any* kind of autonomous vehicle.
Strictly speaking, you're right -- the "pump" refers to inflating stock values. However metaphorically it could still work with privately held companies. Many startups are built (get their funding) on the basis that they'll make themselves an attractive buy for a larger company. Their goal isn't to prove a business model on their own, but to create a modular subsystem and then parade their tech in large company showrooms. It's kind of like the "Buy Now" button on E-Bay that ends the auction (potential IPO).
TFA talks about doing this with exactly one pre-existing microphone
Which makes me doubt the idea. Are all microphones in smartphones created equal? Will the ones installed in most devices be good enough for the job? Microphones "degrade" (they deform slowly) with use -- can you recalibrate the software, and how often will you need to do so? After filtering out all of the noise, and then attempting to infer the touch location, will you have any CPU power left to actually perform the task that the touch was intended to do (and what about on devices with less computing power)?
Slashdot Mirror
Also, most people DON'T seek to take the test. Their parents or school do. Most IQ tests are taken when people are young as a way of checking for disability or for advanced placement in the education system. Very Rarely does someone go to a Psychologist and say "I want to take an IQ test."
I was waiting for someone to make that point, I knew I missed it the moment I clicked 'Submit'.
Ok, but the fact that any person would choose to either take or administer the test is going to change the result. The school wants to improve its methods, the parents want to "improve" (guide, whatever) their children. Even if they don't change the result for the current batch of people being tested, it's going to change the result for the batch after that. One of the reasons that the test is there is so that we can draw conclusions (even if some choose to use it to brag), and part of these conclusions are going to be how to improve ourselves and/or our methods. Yes, I realize that the common mechanical reason for the test is selection/sorting, but it's also used "for good"...
Both statements are true. However, keep in mind that both would also apply to vaccination. We opt to alter our immune system in a certain way because, over a span of time, we found that it saves lives. There are always going to be anomalies, but that's why we have the ability to discern. We keep deadly plagues frozen even though they haven't been seen in the wild for decades, because these diseases may hold the key to solving problems in the future. Also, even if we do start altering our genes like changing clothes, not everyone is going to have the same taste -- our creative diversity will lead to the genetic one.
(yes, I'm being optimistic, we're probably going to design human weapons before we cure cancer, but it's going to take time anyway, so I'd prefer to think that we have a future rather than an apocalypse awaiting us)
Natural disasters don't discriminate -- plagues do. In the past, anyone without a sufficient immune system would perish, and so would anyone with any significant allergy. The only things that can kill people en-masse now are large natural disasters, which don't care about your genes, or other people, who may care about your genes if said genes give your skin a certain pigment. Well, people can also starve, but good genes won't save you from that, either. Keep in mind that people may also die of cancer, but if they've already done all the "breeding" they were going to so far in their lifetime, then that doesn't effect the gene pool (same goes for all major causes of death over breeding age).
So, yeah, we're deluded and arrogant, but we've managed to at least change the way we're "naturally selected" into a more "unnatural" selection.
How could FORTY fuck TWO at the same time? Are you implying that FORTY has more than ONE penis? He's FORTY! He's lucky he can get it up!
You're saying that this particular gene modification may have an adverse effect, which is possible, but there are some general attributes that define how "smart" we are. If we found the gene/genes that regulate/s how much we can remember, in the "long term storage" part of the brain, and modified it/them so that we could remember, say, twice what we do now, it would probably lead to "being smarter". If we changed it so that we never forgot anything, it would lead to insanity. If we move slowly and cautiously, we should, one hopes, learn to alter our genes to make us "smarter".
(* I kept placing the word "smart" in quotes since it's a very subjective term, not because I was being dickish...)
Bras have no genome. The line did not compute, and therefor was ignored by the parser. Your parser is either set to "verbose", or "display all warnings".
If you could counter these points and make the arguments that you did, then you can also observe that your reaction was visceral. It's entirely possible that he was being honest, and that on this site, at this hour, on a weekend, he could allow himself to be. I agree with part of what you've said (see what I posted above about social abilities), but your reaction "came off" as knee-jerk, and you could have argued back without assuming, or pointing out, that he seemed elitist. Also, this is Slashdot, who here *isn't* an elitist?? :)
Keep in mind that it relates to the people that take the test. If you opt to take an IQ test (not everyone that takes the test opted to, obviously, but many do), there's a higher chance that you've been exposed to the kind of environment/education that incentives critical thinking, and as teaching methods improve and learning resources increase, these people will continue to do better on these tests. We're not talking about the average intelligence of the human species.
How about we separate social abilities from intellectual capacity. Some people are smart, and since they don't notice that it makes them different, they become outsiders. Others are both smart and very perceptive, so they "modulate" their behavior according to who they're talking to. Yet others make a conscious decision that if someone else doesn't approve of the way they are, then that someone is at fault, and not them.
And to continue the theme: I'm an atheist, intelligent, knowledgeable, and a snappy dresser!
Evolution is causal. Just because a cause existed 50 million years ago, doesn't mean that it's there right now. I think that if we had the opportunity to *opt* for a larger (or more efficient) brain in exchange for higher energy consumption, most of us would do it. Humans have tamed the environment, and therefor we change our surroundings, rather than them changing us. We need to take the harness if we want to continue to improve ourselves, and the path of genetic modification seems the inevitable one.
That's the most likely solution, but would that be enforceable? Will Intel really claim: "it was clearly stated in the EULA, in the BIOS, which flashes for 2 seconds if the vendor screen isn't turned on by default". You can't hide the EULA in an encrypted microscopic engraving somewhere, and you can't have a EULA that's activated by "if you wait 5 seconds without pressing DEL, then you are accepting the EULA" (at least I think you can't -- it's supposed to require some active, conscious effort on your part).
I'd think Apple would be fine with this. Apple is already in the habit of charging small amounts for what would often be considered just "good will" on the side of the company (in terms of software updates), so Apple users wouldn't really be surprised by the request to "Pay to Unlock", especially if it's just $50 for what's effectively a hardware upgrade. Within the Apple ecosystem, this would seem more natural.
As for the privacy implications, I don't see why Apple would be *more* concerned than anyone else. They're not Google -- in the sense that privacy isn't a sore subject for them (maybe I'm just not up to date, but I don't recall any privacy slip-ups of that type from Apple).
No, no, it's obvious:
...Smurf -- I am your FATHER!
Titanator 2
"The Empire Strikes Back"
Lemme guess... You liked Transformers 2? Oh, those wacky robots!
...that Avatar, like Terminator and Alien and The Matrix, is a movie that should never, ever, ever have a sequel.
Terminator *2* was the good one. People remember Arnold fighting the T1000, not some soft human.
And you can edit the Matrix Reloaded down to about 50 minutes of entertainment.
If I didn't read/hear about this exact scenario numerous times, I'd be incredulous. According to what you've written above, you have at least *some* considerations that would be considered "political" (regarding Free Software), and you've bothered replying and debating the worth of software and the people who wrote/write it. You then say "I got a Mac". How do you reconcile your opinions with buying hardware/software from a company that effectively leeches off free software, gives it a fresh coat of paint and then sells it back to you?
So first the one-liner slamming Mono gets a +5 Insightful, and now this AC gets a 'funny' for placing the word "shit" and "Miguel" next to one another. Who said hate doesn't pay.
I'd place greater emphasis on that last part. If a publisher becomes aware of the cache loophole and contacts Google about it, they most likely send out a canned reply in the spirit of "this is the way we roll. If you don't like it, there's the door.". I can't find the article at the moment but there's been more than one occasion where someone at Google made it clear that they don't design their software according to publisher's needs -- no one's forcing you to remain indexed, the decision is yours. There may be some exceptions with the very big players (Murdoch), but not many.
Did the programming team who designed the UAV flight-AI "afraid" that these multi-million drones drop like flies? If so, they should have programmed in "fear of losing your job", at the very least...
Damn it, why can't the lag on Slashdot kick in when I make a mistake in a post... If Slashdot lets me post less than a second after I click "Preview", I should take it as a sign that I messed something up. It's like any mechanism working on the first attempt -- it's never good news.
Good one, but you pointed out a significant change: The Subaru engines were internal combustion, while the Turboshaft is a type of gas turbine. It's not a trivial modification.
According to Wikipedia: "In August 2010 the A160 Hummingbird is undergoing jungle test flights in Belize". So it wasn't just having a joy ride in open skies, it was in a tricky terrain to navigate, for *any* kind of autonomous vehicle.
Strictly speaking, you're right -- the "pump" refers to inflating stock values. However metaphorically it could still work with privately held companies. Many startups are built (get their funding) on the basis that they'll make themselves an attractive buy for a larger company. Their goal isn't to prove a business model on their own, but to create a modular subsystem and then parade their tech in large company showrooms. It's kind of like the "Buy Now" button on E-Bay that ends the auction (potential IPO).
TFA talks about doing this with exactly one pre-existing microphone
Which makes me doubt the idea. Are all microphones in smartphones created equal? Will the ones installed in most devices be good enough for the job? Microphones "degrade" (they deform slowly) with use -- can you recalibrate the software, and how often will you need to do so? After filtering out all of the noise, and then attempting to infer the touch location, will you have any CPU power left to actually perform the task that the touch was intended to do (and what about on devices with less computing power)?
To many variables. Pics or it didn't happen.
Your in a loud room.
Your tap is outside "normal" strength range
I was expecting to see grammar nazis on the case, but since they seem to be on a break, I'll cover this:
YOU'RE == YOU ARE && YOU'RE != YOUR.