An interesting followup might be to look at whether the student's major or area of studies had a relationship to his or her choice and the extent to which that choice was influenced by the treatment (exposure to attractive, as opposed to average, member of opposite sex).
I think that it's plausable that some relationship exits. For example, students of majors such as Actuarial Science, Economics, Statistics, Applied Mathematics, and the like would be more likely to know exactly how to make a rational choice in this case (i.e. maximize the net present value of their decision by discounting the future payment at a reasonable rate). This could easily influence their base odds of making the rational choice. An interesting question might be whether their ability to use their knowledge in the area would be affected by the treatment. If there is an effect, should workers be allowed to put on their cubicle walls pictures of members of opposite sex that are of only average attractiveness?
Of course, you wouldn't be able to demonstrate causality, since that would require randomly assigning students to majors.
A man comes to a consulting lawyer. The following conversation takes place:
MAN: I need to know, by the law, do I have the right to... LAWYER: (interrupting) Yes, you do. MAN: But I didn't tell you what it was yet. Do I have the right... LAWYER: (interrupting) Yes, you do. MAN: If you keep interrupting, how can I ask you?! So by the law, can I, or can't I... LAWYER: (interrupting) No, you can't.
I think the scientists who did this and the scientists who made smart mice should collaborate in making an ingenious, giant mouse!
What should we call it? Mousezilla? Mickey Cong? Mouse-ra? Can we pick a name without getting sued by the producer of the original? Can you imagine these mice turning on their creators and taking over the world?! Can you imagine what that will do to a certain TV show?
Pinky: So what are we doing tonight, Brain? Brain: The same thing we do every night -- try to... Oh, nevermind.
First it was MP3's, now it's this. RIAA does have a reason to worry about computers. They'll probably sue the printer manufacturers and try to get it banned, probably through something they call "Noise Pollution Ordinances". Remember to resist these ordinances if they are ever proposed in your community.
I think that this technique would also make an excellent trigger-lock for a gun. Perhaps a gun that has such a scanner built into its side so that it scans when picked up. Assuming the authentication is fast enough, I would expect to see a partnership between Sony and some gun manufacturer pretty soon. Overall, a small fingerprint authenticator would have applications anywhere where some relatively small device needs to be used by a limited number of people.
While my first impression of the Librarian was of a supertraditionalistic British-accented (no offence to UK residents intended) snob, the kind that they portray in TV commercials, and the decision is, indeed, rather arrogant and shows lack of understanding, I think I understand what he is thinking.
Probably he himself is a prolific writer, and definitely a big reader. He has watched books that he loves so much being replaced by television and the Internet. I think what he feels is that the people are forgetting how to enjoy the books: the part that involves imagination and patience. And he blames technology for it. And while I disagree with him, I think I understand him. He is afraid that the paper books, where each book has a different personality will be replaced by plastic devices with LCD's, that are now known as e-books. While the text is still there, perhaps to him there is more to a book than text. Perhaps it's a tradition of reading and of learning through reading, that he is afraid will be lost. So I am not angry at him. I pity him.
Also, I think I understand his argument about old pamphlets and other rare works. If I were choosing what to put up first, indeed I would put up the rare works. Let's face it, whether or not the works of Leo Tolstoy are available on the Internet, "War and Peace" is very easy to obtain. Not so with some of the lesser known works.
For the record, I support digitizing all public domain works. In fact, I am currently trying to write e-book-like program for TI-89.
All that having been said, here is a paranoid conspiracy theory as well: he could be in cahoots with the publishers, who would loose the money they are currently earning by reprinting public domain works, when anyone can download the work to their palmtop computer.
OK, suppose you find a way to have limited-time lending, as well as a way to make sure that only one copy of a book exists, which would permit the library system. Now, suppose public libraries start using that system. That is, they make sure that only one instance of the book is checked out at any given time. However, when you are shipping data rather than actual books, there is no difference in cost to the library between lending an electronic book to a person living next door to it, and lending a book to someone accross the country. So, what is likely to happen is that people would start borrowing e-books from the libraries, and search libraries until they find one which has the book available, and there will probably always be one somewhere in the country. (I know I would do that:) ) Anyway, assuming the first sale doctrine holds, this scheme is perfectly legal. At the same time, you can effectively have access to a book all the time, while not paying anything. I don't know whether authors and publishers will like it, though.
While I agree that working conditions and pay are important factors, I think there is another form of social responsibility that nobody (that I read) mentioned.
We all know that many hardware manufacturers use proprietary protocols so that they can "dumb down" the hardware and compensate in software. The list ranges from the WinModems to video cards, to printers. And there are people willing to write the Open Source drivers for them, given the chance. However, the manufacturer also refuses to disclose the specifications of the device, forcing them to reverse-engineer, thus making the task more difficult. (And imagine if UCITA were applied there...) Remember the Haloween Papers: Microsoft, the company we love to hate, believes that the best way to crush the Open Source movement is through proprietary protocols and API's. It is quite clear that hardware interfaces are also among the factors. Indeed, by making their interfaces secret, the manufacturers are indirectly aiding Microsoft's monopoly, as the drivers are usually only releasted for Windows (and MacOS, if you are lucky).
So, when buying hardware, also look at whether it users open interfaces and/or the manufacturer discloses the complete specifications needed to make and optimize a driver. And unless you absolutely have to, don't settle for NVidia-style obfusticated and unoptimized Linux-only drivers. My hope is that one day, next to the "Built for Microsoft Windows" sticker on a component, there will be a "Uses open interfaces" sticker.
As a personal experience, I found that printers that Linux completely supports are either very old (in computer hardware time) or very expensive (for a college student like me, anyway). And I remember when 8 years ago, we bought a used Citizen 120D dot matrix printer, and the manual had a complete list of commands that printer could understand, from font selection to graphics. It even had examples. I am not saying "I miss the good old days", as they weren't that good, but I think you understand...
The store return policy only changes things a little: find some software package you wanted to buy for a while or some old software package that costs $15 or so. Or perhaps a Linux distribution. Then, buy something else. Disagree with its EULA. Come back. Exchange it for another piece of software that you don't want. Repeat proceduare until satisfied. Then, exchange it for the software you wanted in the first place. Theoretically, this will work: as far as the store can see, you've bought, opened, and returned (ruined) a dozen or so items because of their EULA and UCITA. You wound up buying and not returning 1 software package, a package which is open-source anyway. I don't know whether this would work in practice, and bear no responsibility for any losses resulting from my suggestions.
AFAIK, you can run almost any CPU at almost any speed, assuming you can tweak the motherboard clock. However, running it at higher speeds reduces the clarity of the signal (the detectable difference between 0 and 1), and that can only be overcome by increasing the voltage. But more voltage means more heat and you will need more and more cooling to keep it from melting and otherwise becoming damaged. This is what Kryotech people do: cool the CPU, allowing them to maintain signal clarity at higher speed. However, it seems that these newer Athlons will be able to run at those speeds without needing the voltage increase or the extra cooling. On-die L2 cache is also good: placing it there will allow it to run at CPU speed (hopefully), and that would further improve the preformance. (Just look at what it did for the Intel Celeron.) Of course, Intel will try to match it, in speed, in price, and/or in PR. (Hopefully the first two, not the third.)
It's an interesting vision of the future. It's the kind of a vague dystopia where you know that there is something wrong with the society at the core, but you can't put your finger on it, since it functions as well as could be expected with its constituents' value system. Huxley's Brave New World is like this, but, of course, very different in most other respects.
This also seems to be a vision of an Objectivist society, with its absolute minimal government, privatization of everything, contractualization of all relations, and self-centeredness. Some of the likely consequenses of implementation of Objectivism are also here. However, apparently, this Objectivism has been achieved without the proverbial Atlas Shrugging, but through gradual transition.
All in all, the society presented seems, as author contends, very dull. I wouldn't be surprised if it had a high suicide rate. The contention that the consumer society has burnt out and only continues to exist because nobody can think of anything better to do, or, for that matter anything else to do is, in my opinion, a possible future, but, chances are, the hype will go on for much longer: there are always more techno-toys to build. If the hypothetical state of affairs is achieved, will it last forever? I doubt it. There would still be some "Earth shaking" developments eventually. Super-human AI is one that is bound to occurr sooner or later. Then there is the possibility of a religious backlash resulting in a theocracy or a de facto theocracy, but I don't want to start a flame war, so I won't elaborate on that.
At the same time, the possibility of the environmental degradations resulting in extinctions of all species that human's don't want to have bears an eerie resemblance to H. G. Wells Time Machine, where the environment of Earth was customized heavily, being one of the causes of the devolution of humanity that the book described.
And, by the way, I don't think SETI @ Home program the author referred to will survive that long: by then, individual computers at the observatories will be powerful enough to do all the analyses from all the radiotelescopes in real time, and no new observatories are likely to be built for the same reason as the reason for nobody colonizing Mars and low birthrates: there is no profit in it.
Slashdot Mirror
An interesting followup might be to look at whether the student's major or area of studies had a relationship to his or her choice and the extent to which that choice was influenced by the treatment (exposure to attractive, as opposed to average, member of opposite sex).
I think that it's plausable that some relationship exits. For example, students of majors such as Actuarial Science, Economics, Statistics, Applied Mathematics, and the like would be more likely to know exactly how to make a rational choice in this case (i.e. maximize the net present value of their decision by discounting the future payment at a reasonable rate). This could easily influence their base odds of making the rational choice. An interesting question might be whether their ability to use their knowledge in the area would be affected by the treatment. If there is an effect, should workers be allowed to put on their cubicle walls pictures of members of opposite sex that are of only average attractiveness?
Of course, you wouldn't be able to demonstrate causality, since that would require randomly assigning students to majors.
I think it's from the Kruschev or Brezhnev era.
A man comes to a consulting lawyer. The following conversation takes place:
MAN: I need to know, by the law, do I have the right to...
LAWYER: (interrupting) Yes, you do.
MAN: But I didn't tell you what it was yet. Do I have the right...
LAWYER: (interrupting) Yes, you do.
MAN: If you keep interrupting, how can I ask you?! So by the law, can I, or can't I...
LAWYER: (interrupting) No, you can't.
What should we call it? Mousezilla? Mickey Cong? Mouse-ra? Can we pick a name without getting sued by the producer of the original? Can you imagine these mice turning on their creators and taking over the world?! Can you imagine what that will do to a certain TV show?
Pinky: So what are we doing tonight, Brain?
Brain: The same thing we do every night -- try to... Oh, nevermind.
First it was MP3's, now it's this. RIAA does have a reason to worry about computers. They'll probably sue the printer manufacturers and try to get it banned, probably through something they call "Noise Pollution Ordinances". Remember to resist these ordinances if they are ever proposed in your community.
I think that this technique would also make an excellent trigger-lock for a gun. Perhaps a gun that has such a scanner built into its side so that it scans when picked up. Assuming the authentication is fast enough, I would expect to see a partnership between Sony and some gun manufacturer pretty soon. Overall, a small fingerprint authenticator would have applications anywhere where some relatively small device needs to be used by a limited number of people.
Probably he himself is a prolific writer, and definitely a big reader. He has watched books that he loves so much being replaced by television and the Internet. I think what he feels is that the people are forgetting how to enjoy the books: the part that involves imagination and patience. And he blames technology for it. And while I disagree with him, I think I understand him. He is afraid that the paper books, where each book has a different personality will be replaced by plastic devices with LCD's, that are now known as e-books. While the text is still there, perhaps to him there is more to a book than text. Perhaps it's a tradition of reading and of learning through reading, that he is afraid will be lost. So I am not angry at him. I pity him.
Also, I think I understand his argument about old pamphlets and other rare works. If I were choosing what to put up first, indeed I would put up the rare works. Let's face it, whether or not the works of Leo Tolstoy are available on the Internet, "War and Peace" is very easy to obtain. Not so with some of the lesser known works.
For the record, I support digitizing all public domain works. In fact, I am currently trying to write e-book-like program for TI-89.
All that having been said, here is a paranoid conspiracy theory as well: he could be in cahoots with the publishers, who would loose the money they are currently earning by reprinting public domain works, when anyone can download the work to their palmtop computer.
We all know that many hardware manufacturers use proprietary protocols so that they can "dumb down" the hardware and compensate in software. The list ranges from the WinModems to video cards, to printers. And there are people willing to write the Open Source drivers for them, given the chance. However, the manufacturer also refuses to disclose the specifications of the device, forcing them to reverse-engineer, thus making the task more difficult. (And imagine if UCITA were applied there...) Remember the Haloween Papers: Microsoft, the company we love to hate, believes that the best way to crush the Open Source movement is through proprietary protocols and API's. It is quite clear that hardware interfaces are also among the factors. Indeed, by making their interfaces secret, the manufacturers are indirectly aiding Microsoft's monopoly, as the drivers are usually only releasted for Windows (and MacOS, if you are lucky).
So, when buying hardware, also look at whether it users open interfaces and/or the manufacturer discloses the complete specifications needed to make and optimize a driver. And unless you absolutely have to, don't settle for NVidia-style obfusticated and unoptimized Linux-only drivers. My hope is that one day, next to the "Built for Microsoft Windows" sticker on a component, there will be a "Uses open interfaces" sticker.
As a personal experience, I found that printers that Linux completely supports are either very old (in computer hardware time) or very expensive (for a college student like me, anyway). And I remember when 8 years ago, we bought a used Citizen 120D dot matrix printer, and the manual had a complete list of commands that printer could understand, from font selection to graphics. It even had examples. I am not saying "I miss the good old days", as they weren't that good, but I think you understand...
Good point. But I was emphasizing the difference between the prior Athlons and the newer ones. Still, you are correct.
I love competition!
This also seems to be a vision of an Objectivist society, with its absolute minimal government, privatization of everything, contractualization of all relations, and self-centeredness. Some of the likely consequenses of implementation of Objectivism are also here. However, apparently, this Objectivism has been achieved without the proverbial Atlas Shrugging, but through gradual transition.
All in all, the society presented seems, as author contends, very dull. I wouldn't be surprised if it had a high suicide rate. The contention that the consumer society has burnt out and only continues to exist because nobody can think of anything better to do, or, for that matter anything else to do is, in my opinion, a possible future, but, chances are, the hype will go on for much longer: there are always more techno-toys to build. If the hypothetical state of affairs is achieved, will it last forever? I doubt it. There would still be some "Earth shaking" developments eventually. Super-human AI is one that is bound to occurr sooner or later. Then there is the possibility of a religious backlash resulting in a theocracy or a de facto theocracy, but I don't want to start a flame war, so I won't elaborate on that.
At the same time, the possibility of the environmental degradations resulting in extinctions of all species that human's don't want to have bears an eerie resemblance to H. G. Wells Time Machine, where the environment of Earth was customized heavily, being one of the causes of the devolution of humanity that the book described.
And, by the way, I don't think SETI @ Home program the author referred to will survive that long: by then, individual computers at the observatories will be powerful enough to do all the analyses from all the radiotelescopes in real time, and no new observatories are likely to be built for the same reason as the reason for nobody colonizing Mars and low birthrates: there is no profit in it.