Mind Change: How digital technologies are leaving their mark on our brains - Susan Greenfield
The Knowledge: How to rebuild our world from scratch - Lewis Dartnell
For fiction, try:
The Circle - Dave Eggers
The Owner Series (The Departure, Zero Point and Jupiter War) - Neal Asher
Neptune's Brood - Charles Stross
Yup, not a single one of them has anything to do with code or coding, but a few of them certainly provide some context / insight into where we are today, and where we might be going.
And it is the very nature of this compromise that allows for, over several iterations, the the situation that so many 'liberal democratic' nations find themselves in today.
To expand upon this, consider:
Your constitution provides a (theoretically and practically) static baseline of what is considered legal and acceptable. A mover and shaker at a certain alphabet agency conceives of an idea that would address the hot button issue of the day. Regulators and legislators examine his proposal, deem it overreaching, but agree a compromise between the constitution and the proposal, and either new legislation is passed or an understanding is reached that doing this something is now acceptable. Time passes, and a (different) mover and shaker at a certain alphabet agency conceives of an idea that would address the hot button issue of the day. Regulators and legislators examine his proposal, deem it overreaching, but agree a compromise between the current situation and the proposal, and either new legislation is passed or an understanding is reached that doing this something is now acceptable. Time passes, and a (different) mover and shaker at a certain alphabet agency conceives of an idea that would address the hot button issue of the day...
Insidious creep, because step by reasonable step we are rapidly reaching (or reached a long time ago, depending on your viewpoint) an entirely unreasonable position when viewed from our original baseline.
I will just say, however, that compromise is essential for the functioning of any society that isn't a totalitarian nightmare. What is also needed though, and this seems to be the thing that's generally lacking, is enough push-back to force the repeal some of these laws, or an emphatic statement by the populace that 'these things we're doing now are not acceptable'. Sure, some compromise will need to be reached, but at least we'd be compromising in the right direction, as opposed to always going in the wrong one.
I once tried telling someone that football was just a game...
It may not be life, but it is what matters to them in their life.
(Though I agree with you 100% that "Eat, Sleep, Code, Repeat" was clearly intended as humorous, not something that should have been taken as a mantra to live by.)
While I realise you were highlighting the part of the charter that directly related to the GP's post I would like to draw attention to two things:
Firstly, when it says "...and assures that the longterm interests of the shareholders are being served..." people tend to ignore the word 'longterm'. The UK has, albeit in a fairly toothless fashion, recently 'fined' a number of companies for tax avoidance and tightened laws* regarding the issue. Should the backlash become any stronger there is actually a (slim) risk that companies might find themselves on the hook for significant sums, in back taxes and penalty fees.
Secondly, and, in my opinion, more tellingly are, the two passages that say "...in the competent and ethical operation of the Corporation..." and "...committed to business success through the maintenance of high standards of responsibility and ethics.". There is no world in which tax avoidance is ethical. Legal, sure, but unethical all the same. Taxation funds all those basic services that a company relies on, transport links, policing, legal framework, and the education of its current and future workforce, among other things.
Of course I realise that the whole issue of ethics is a maze of shades of grey but I find it hard to believe that anyone who gives it more than a moments thought could honestly argue that the companies engaged in these practices are doing 'the right thing', arguments about shareholders notwithstanding...
*More than a little ironic considering where many of the loopholes originated and / or are capitalised upon.
I'd try not to read extra into what I wrote. Consider: If I said "I cannot come round on Tuesday, I'd rather make it Thursday" would you think that I meant that Tuesday and Thursday were the only days of the week?
Anyway, to directly answer your 'question', no, not at all. I was however implying that the AC I responded to was "regressive".
Care to share some specifics? Which Lord / Lady would you like arrested, and for what crime?
If anything the House of Lords acts as a valuable 'brake' on some of the ludicrous legislation that comes out of the House of Commons. They come from a wide range of backgrounds, have a diversity of skills and education (unlike most career politicians, who invariably studied law at a prestigious university), and show, for the most part admirable restraint when it comes to knee-jerk media fed populist reactions.
To, tangentially, digress, I'd heartily recommend the book "Mind Change - How digital technologies are leaving their mark on our brains" by Baroness Susan Greenfield, just one member of that House which you apparently so despise. How do your contributions to society rate, in comparison?
... but for the rest of the world stick to the proper American MATH!
Why on earth would I, as someone who lives in the 'rest of the world', want to speak American? I already speak a native language, called English, and in English we call it maths, which is short for mathematics.
For example, most young boys do not have a 30+ minute attention span. They rather be DOING than taking in information and being strictly obedient to authority.
Like most things attention span is something that can be taught, and improved. Just because someone doesn't want to concentrate doesn't mean they shouldn't, or that it's not a valuable life skill. Pandering to a pupil's wishes, much like spoiling a child, does them no favours in the long run.
So girls can have their schools... they NEED it as a measure of self worth. Men don't for the most part.
I honestly have no idea what you're basing this particular opinion on, but respectfully I disagree. There are many tools available to adults (in the case of schools read teachers) that allow them to make a child feel valued, be that formal grades, praise, rewards (physical, emotional, social, etc.), etc.. When used appropriately children, or most of them anyway, can learn that feelings of self worth come from one place only... themselves. Natural self confidence, rather than arrogance, and a balanced view of self is the ideal outcome for this 'social metric'.
Remember than the world evolved mostly because of men... the explorers, the scientists, the engineers, the warriors, and the husbands.
...And that has absolutely nothing to do with historical tendencies towards patriarchies or the traditional role of women... nope, not at all!/s
I am in no way diminishing the role of women. Far from it. However, women have had a role to play and they've been very effective at that.
A telling statement!
"Progressives" like to tout their meaningless metrics (e.g. grades) but they don't want to talk about all the things that are lost in their utopian fantasies.
People need to educate themselves. Progressives are horribly uneducated. Their (sic) are just "indoctrinated". In the end, as "progressives" grow up, get jobs, get families, and have real responsibilities, they realize the error of their ways. This is always true.
I clearly don't understand exactly what a "progressive" is, but I suspect I'd rather be one than a "regressive". As to grades specifically, they are simply a measurement of achievement, that achievement, for example, being passing an exam. It's certainly not meaningless, though one should be very careful about reading too much meaning into it. As for the second paragraph, the irony is so strong it's making my eyes water!
So progressives... if you want to unleash your social experiments on the world, feel free to do so in your own house, but don't force the rest of us that don't agree with you. It should tell you something if the only way people follow your wishes is if you pass laws forcing people (e.g. Obama forcing schools to integrate bathrooms) or if you do it at gunpoint.
This sentiment would presumably equally apply to racial equality too, as well as all other forms of discrimination which have been outlawed?
Well, I can't say I'm surprised you elected to post anonymously...
Just the fact that a SDC can drive much closer means that at least 2-3 times as many vehicles can fit in the same stretch of road as before. Combine that with the ability to replace traffic signals, stop signs, and it means faster driving overall. Highway intersections that require multi-level construction can be replaced by a simple four-way, with vehicle computers adjusting speed so they can go through safely and at highway speeds.
You like many other people in this thread seem to be making one, very unreasonable, assumption...
Or are you suggesting that actual persons will be forbidden to drive their non-self-driving cars on the roads?
At what point in the future do you envisage this 'autopia' occurring?
I have wondered this too, and, based on a couple of names that popped up on my list recently, I have come up with a very simple explanation:
They appear on your 'suggested' list because they have visited / looked at your Facebook page. Although they didn't send you a friend invite they probably searched for you by name and chose to view your particular page from all the others similarly named, so Facebook's algorithms, (mostly) correctly, conclude they know you, and vice versa.
Also known as 'how to tell when someone is stalking you online'.;-)
I am sorry to hear that. I hope she passes quickly and without too much trauma to those involved.
It is my firm belief that the first right we have, as a living being, is the right to end our own life. As a follow on I also believe we have the right to give others the (time limited) right to end our life - they are of course under no obligation to oblige our whims or wishes in this though - with no legal repercussions or consequences.
I know a lot of people feel very uncomfortable even thinking about such things, let alone discussing them. I feel a bit sorry for them.
Fortunately the situation is changing, albeit one-person-at-a-time slowly, and one day we will actually have sane laws regarding this incredibly emotive issue.
Please pass on my regards and admiration to your sister, and my condolences to you.
Americans generally don't travel much and seldom bother to learn a foreign language.
Many tech companies in Sweden use English as their working language. In Britain, English is even more common, although they don't speak it as well as the Swedes.
As a Brit, albeit not the GP, may I just say touche (you'll just have to imagine the acute accent:-/).
Where I have the problem is the, "Oh, we need H1B Visas so these people can come to the US and can be trained to do the work you do now." Uh, no. The idea behind H1Bs is that these people have skills that American workers don't have. If I have to train my replacement, then he obviously does not have skills that I, as an American worker, have.
That reason alone should be enough to invalidate the visa.
Outsourcing (overseas), unfortunately, is another matter entirely...
I usually choose my words very carefully, however sometimes I make errors, and if, in this case, I have done so I apologise for being unclear.
I can certainly find where I said Venus experienced run away warming and where I used it as an example of the processes that could lead to run away warming on Earth. I even specifically said there was no qualitative difference between the processes, should they occur.
What I'm not seeing is where I asserted that Earth's temperature would reach 450 degrees C. Perhaps you could point it out to me?
That's the exact sort of nonsense that makes rational discussion about global warming impossible.
To my mind the reason it's practically impossible to have a rational discussion about global warming (with certain people) is that people don't just read what's written and respond to that, they read what's written, imagine a whole lot more that hasn't, and respond based on the fiction they've created in their own mind.
No, they're really not. The Earth has about 10,000 times as much carbon in the rock cycle as it does in the oceans (the atmosphere is a rounding error). To reach Venus's level of CO2 you need to release all the CO2 in the rock cycle. Boiling the oceans won't come anywhere close...
Oh silly me, I didn't realise that CO2 was the only greenhouse gas... Oh, wait, it's not.
In fact water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and the biggest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect. And, as the global temperature rises so will the concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere. As the concentration of water vapour rises so will global temperatures. See how that works? A fairly simple principle after all!
This is the sort of nonsense that makes it impossible to have a rational discussion about global warming.
Which nonsense is that? People's ignorance of basic science?
Obama recently visited the UK, and urged us to remain in the EU, citing international agreements such as the TTIP and pointing out that if we left we'd no longer be a part of them.
When a body absorbs more energy than it emits it gets hotter. The rate of energy absorption, or the amount of energy absorbed if you prefer, does not alter this simple fact.
In this case it just means it will take longer for Earth to get hot enough to cook than it did Venus, not that it won't happen.
Shackleton and is crew lived on Elephant Island off of Antarctica for a couple of years with zero farming, supplies or natural materials other than rocks.
His crew survived there for a period of about 5 months, with the remaining supplies from their failed expedition to the pole, a source of fresh water, and all the penguins and seals they could catch. I have not seen an estimate for how long they could have survived but I'm damn sure they would eventually have perished had Shackleton not reached Stromness and organised a rescue mission.
"Run-away warming" is an (sic) completely fictional scare.
Venus experienced such "run-away warming**" about 3 or 4 billion years ago. The principles are fairly simple, and there's no qualitative difference that suggests such a thing is impossible on Earth. I'd also like to add that AGW was, until fairly recently (and indeed still is for some people), a completely fictional scare......Until it wasn't. I'm not saying it's likely (though, tbf I'm not saying it's unlikely either), but if it does happen we will be truly f'scked, and on that basis alone it's probably worth considering, at least a little bit more than simply stating it wont happen.
We know what a Warm Earth looks like, after all, know (sic) need to guess.
There is (at least) one significant difference between then and now, and that's that (practically) no natural carbon sequestration in the form of coal or oil will ever happen again. The current microbiome makes that nigh on impossible, as the bound carbon will be broken down to carbon dioxide or methane well before it's buried.
** Does attempting to denigrate the idea of it happening on Earth by putting it in quotes make your scepticism any more scientific?
Slashdot Mirror
For non-fiction I'd suggest:
Mind Change: How digital technologies are leaving their mark on our brains - Susan Greenfield
The Knowledge: How to rebuild our world from scratch - Lewis Dartnell
For fiction, try:
The Circle - Dave Eggers
The Owner Series (The Departure, Zero Point and Jupiter War) - Neal Asher
Neptune's Brood - Charles Stross
Yup, not a single one of them has anything to do with code or coding, but a few of them certainly provide some context / insight into where we are today, and where we might be going.
tbf the original saying, as I heard it was "One rotten apple will spoil the entire barrel".
Paraphrasing is like playing a game of chinese whispers with a group of beat poets.
An excellent point!
And it is the very nature of this compromise that allows for, over several iterations, the the situation that so many 'liberal democratic' nations find themselves in today.
To expand upon this, consider:
Your constitution provides a (theoretically and practically) static baseline of what is considered legal and acceptable. A mover and shaker at a certain alphabet agency conceives of an idea that would address the hot button issue of the day. Regulators and legislators examine his proposal, deem it overreaching, but agree a compromise between the constitution and the proposal, and either new legislation is passed or an understanding is reached that doing this something is now acceptable.
Time passes, and a (different) mover and shaker at a certain alphabet agency conceives of an idea that would address the hot button issue of the day. Regulators and legislators examine his proposal, deem it overreaching, but agree a compromise between the current situation and the proposal, and either new legislation is passed or an understanding is reached that doing this something is now acceptable.
Time passes, and a (different) mover and shaker at a certain alphabet agency conceives of an idea that would address the hot button issue of the day...
Insidious creep, because step by reasonable step we are rapidly reaching (or reached a long time ago, depending on your viewpoint) an entirely unreasonable position when viewed from our original baseline.
I will just say, however, that compromise is essential for the functioning of any society that isn't a totalitarian nightmare. What is also needed though, and this seems to be the thing that's generally lacking, is enough push-back to force the repeal some of these laws, or an emphatic statement by the populace that 'these things we're doing now are not acceptable'. Sure, some compromise will need to be reached, but at least we'd be compromising in the right direction, as opposed to always going in the wrong one.
I once tried telling someone that football was just a game...
It may not be life, but it is what matters to them in their life.
(Though I agree with you 100% that "Eat, Sleep, Code, Repeat" was clearly intended as humorous, not something that should have been taken as a mantra to live by.)
While I realise you were highlighting the part of the charter that directly related to the GP's post I would like to draw attention to two things:
Firstly, when it says "...and assures that the longterm interests of the shareholders are being served..." people tend to ignore the word 'longterm'. The UK has, albeit in a fairly toothless fashion, recently 'fined' a number of companies for tax avoidance and tightened laws* regarding the issue. Should the backlash become any stronger there is actually a (slim) risk that companies might find themselves on the hook for significant sums, in back taxes and penalty fees.
Secondly, and, in my opinion, more tellingly are, the two passages that say "...in the competent and ethical operation of the Corporation..." and "...committed to business success through the maintenance of high standards of responsibility and ethics.". There is no world in which tax avoidance is ethical. Legal, sure, but unethical all the same. Taxation funds all those basic services that a company relies on, transport links, policing, legal framework, and the education of its current and future workforce, among other things.
Of course I realise that the whole issue of ethics is a maze of shades of grey but I find it hard to believe that anyone who gives it more than a moments thought could honestly argue that the companies engaged in these practices are doing 'the right thing', arguments about shareholders notwithstanding...
*More than a little ironic considering where many of the loopholes originated and / or are capitalised upon.
I'd try not to read extra into what I wrote. Consider: If I said "I cannot come round on Tuesday, I'd rather make it Thursday" would you think that I meant that Tuesday and Thursday were the only days of the week?
Anyway, to directly answer your 'question', no, not at all. I was however implying that the AC I responded to was "regressive".
Care to share some specifics? Which Lord / Lady would you like arrested, and for what crime?
If anything the House of Lords acts as a valuable 'brake' on some of the ludicrous legislation that comes out of the House of Commons. They come from a wide range of backgrounds, have a diversity of skills and education (unlike most career politicians, who invariably studied law at a prestigious university), and show, for the most part admirable restraint when it comes to knee-jerk media fed populist reactions.
To, tangentially, digress, I'd heartily recommend the book "Mind Change - How digital technologies are leaving their mark on our brains" by Baroness Susan Greenfield, just one member of that House which you apparently so despise. How do your contributions to society rate, in comparison?
No, not in the slightest.
Now, what was your point again?
Why on earth would I, as someone who lives in the 'rest of the world', want to speak American? I already speak a native language, called English, and in English we call it maths, which is short for mathematics.
For example, most young boys do not have a 30+ minute attention span. They rather be DOING than taking in information and being strictly obedient to authority.
Like most things attention span is something that can be taught, and improved. Just because someone doesn't want to concentrate doesn't mean they shouldn't, or that it's not a valuable life skill. Pandering to a pupil's wishes, much like spoiling a child, does them no favours in the long run.
So girls can have their schools... they NEED it as a measure of self worth. Men don't for the most part.
I honestly have no idea what you're basing this particular opinion on, but respectfully I disagree. There are many tools available to adults (in the case of schools read teachers) that allow them to make a child feel valued, be that formal grades, praise, rewards (physical, emotional, social, etc.), etc.. When used appropriately children, or most of them anyway, can learn that feelings of self worth come from one place only... themselves. Natural self confidence, rather than arrogance, and a balanced view of self is the ideal outcome for this 'social metric'.
Remember than the world evolved mostly because of men... the explorers, the scientists, the engineers, the warriors, and the husbands.
...And that has absolutely nothing to do with historical tendencies towards patriarchies or the traditional role of women... nope, not at all! /s
I am in no way diminishing the role of women. Far from it. However, women have had a role to play and they've been very effective at that.
A telling statement!
"Progressives" like to tout their meaningless metrics (e.g. grades) but they don't want to talk about all the things that are lost in their utopian fantasies.
People need to educate themselves. Progressives are horribly uneducated. Their (sic) are just "indoctrinated". In the end, as "progressives" grow up, get jobs, get families, and have real responsibilities, they realize the error of their ways. This is always true.
I clearly don't understand exactly what a "progressive" is, but I suspect I'd rather be one than a "regressive". As to grades specifically, they are simply a measurement of achievement, that achievement, for example, being passing an exam. It's certainly not meaningless, though one should be very careful about reading too much meaning into it. As for the second paragraph, the irony is so strong it's making my eyes water!
So progressives... if you want to unleash your social experiments on the world, feel free to do so in your own house, but don't force the rest of us that don't agree with you. It should tell you something if the only way people follow your wishes is if you pass laws forcing people (e.g. Obama forcing schools to integrate bathrooms) or if you do it at gunpoint.
This sentiment would presumably equally apply to racial equality too, as well as all other forms of discrimination which have been outlawed?
Well, I can't say I'm surprised you elected to post anonymously...
Just the fact that a SDC can drive much closer means that at least 2-3 times as many vehicles can fit in the same stretch of road as before. Combine that with the ability to replace traffic signals, stop signs, and it means faster driving overall. Highway intersections that require multi-level construction can be replaced by a simple four-way, with vehicle computers adjusting speed so they can go through safely and at highway speeds.
You like many other people in this thread seem to be making one, very unreasonable, assumption...
Or are you suggesting that actual persons will be forbidden to drive their non-self-driving cars on the roads?
At what point in the future do you envisage this 'autopia' occurring?
What's wrong with your teeth?
I saw that coming...
Fascinating link. Thanks!
I have wondered this too, and, based on a couple of names that popped up on my list recently, I have come up with a very simple explanation:
They appear on your 'suggested' list because they have visited / looked at your Facebook page. Although they didn't send you a friend invite they probably searched for you by name and chose to view your particular page from all the others similarly named, so Facebook's algorithms, (mostly) correctly, conclude they know you, and vice versa.
Also known as 'how to tell when someone is stalking you online'. ;-)
I am sorry to hear that. I hope she passes quickly and without too much trauma to those involved.
It is my firm belief that the first right we have, as a living being, is the right to end our own life. As a follow on I also believe we have the right to give others the (time limited) right to end our life - they are of course under no obligation to oblige our whims or wishes in this though - with no legal repercussions or consequences.
I know a lot of people feel very uncomfortable even thinking about such things, let alone discussing them. I feel a bit sorry for them.
Fortunately the situation is changing, albeit one-person-at-a-time slowly, and one day we will actually have sane laws regarding this incredibly emotive issue.
Please pass on my regards and admiration to your sister, and my condolences to you.
Americans generally don't travel much and seldom bother to learn a foreign language.
Many tech companies in Sweden use English as their working language. In Britain, English is even more common, although they don't speak it as well as the Swedes.
As a Brit, albeit not the GP, may I just say touche (you'll just have to imagine the acute accent :-/).
Damn it, if only I had mod points left.
Where I have the problem is the, "Oh, we need H1B Visas so these people can come to the US and can be trained to do the work you do now." Uh, no. The idea behind H1Bs is that these people have skills that American workers don't have. If I have to train my replacement, then he obviously does not have skills that I, as an American worker, have.
That reason alone should be enough to invalidate the visa.
Outsourcing (overseas), unfortunately, is another matter entirely...
Well, you were the one asserting that it could.
I usually choose my words very carefully, however sometimes I make errors, and if, in this case, I have done so I apologise for being unclear.
I can certainly find where I said Venus experienced run away warming and where I used it as an example of the processes that could lead to run away warming on Earth. I even specifically said there was no qualitative difference between the processes, should they occur.
What I'm not seeing is where I asserted that Earth's temperature would reach 450 degrees C. Perhaps you could point it out to me?
That's the exact sort of nonsense that makes rational discussion about global warming impossible.
To my mind the reason it's practically impossible to have a rational discussion about global warming (with certain people) is that people don't just read what's written and respond to that, they read what's written, imagine a whole lot more that hasn't, and respond based on the fiction they've created in their own mind.
Oh goodie, I'm reassured now you've explained that the Earth's surface temperatures can't reach 450+ degrees C.
The principles are fairly simple,
No, they're really not. The Earth has about 10,000 times as much carbon in the rock cycle as it does in the oceans (the atmosphere is a rounding error). To reach Venus's level of CO2 you need to release all the CO2 in the rock cycle. Boiling the oceans won't come anywhere close...
Oh silly me, I didn't realise that CO2 was the only greenhouse gas ... Oh, wait, it's not.
In fact water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and the biggest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect. And, as the global temperature rises so will the concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere. As the concentration of water vapour rises so will global temperatures. See how that works? A fairly simple principle after all!
This is the sort of nonsense that makes it impossible to have a rational discussion about global warming.
Which nonsense is that? People's ignorance of basic science?
Obama recently visited the UK, and urged us to remain in the EU, citing international agreements such as the TTIP and pointing out that if we left we'd no longer be a part of them.
Best reason to leave the EU, ever!
When a body absorbs more energy than it emits it gets hotter. The rate of energy absorption, or the amount of energy absorbed if you prefer, does not alter this simple fact.
In this case it just means it will take longer for Earth to get hot enough to cook than it did Venus, not that it won't happen.
Shackleton and is crew lived on Elephant Island off of Antarctica for a couple of years with zero farming, supplies or natural materials other than rocks.
His crew survived there for a period of about 5 months, with the remaining supplies from their failed expedition to the pole, a source of fresh water, and all the penguins and seals they could catch. I have not seen an estimate for how long they could have survived but I'm damn sure they would eventually have perished had Shackleton not reached Stromness and organised a rescue mission.
"Run-away warming" is an (sic) completely fictional scare.
Venus experienced such "run-away warming**" about 3 or 4 billion years ago. The principles are fairly simple, and there's no qualitative difference that suggests such a thing is impossible on Earth. I'd also like to add that AGW was, until fairly recently (and indeed still is for some people), a completely fictional scare... ...Until it wasn't. I'm not saying it's likely (though, tbf I'm not saying it's unlikely either), but if it does happen we will be truly f'scked, and on that basis alone it's probably worth considering, at least a little bit more than simply stating it wont happen.
We know what a Warm Earth looks like, after all, know (sic) need to guess.
There is (at least) one significant difference between then and now, and that's that (practically) no natural carbon sequestration in the form of coal or oil will ever happen again. The current microbiome makes that nigh on impossible, as the bound carbon will be broken down to carbon dioxide or methane well before it's buried.
** Does attempting to denigrate the idea of it happening on Earth by putting it in quotes make your scepticism any more scientific?