"Why is anyone shocked that they don't want to make the world a better place, and would rather become very rich instead off their only asset."
Where'd you get the idea that anyone (many) are "shocked" about it? It's just that their approach to the net is not part of the vision that many people have for the net. Any more than today's Wall Street is part of the vision most people have for the US.
Not that that should stop them... but they sure can't expect most people to applaud. While they can rope in people who no reason to suspect what they're up to and why, they're going to be missing a very significant part of the big picture - anyone who has a reason not to play. Combine that with the fact that their statistics are going to be about as valuable as modern economics, and I expect that they'll only enrich themselves until their product is recognized as being transitory and vapid.
"If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals, then what was so special about Mozart?"
First of all, no machine has ever 'written' anything comparable to great music. The result can be no better than the algorithm, and an adequate algorithm would be beyond even those great composers who benefited from the gift of creating great music. It flows, as does emotion, from an inscrutable source.
If a machine *could* do that, it would have learned (as did all the greats) from the example of those who came before. But great music is liberated from the tutorials that confine ordinary music, and that comes from a combination of mastery of musical language and a faculty of freedom to receive and express. Call it indomitable spirit, or whatever. Such a machine would deserve as much credit as the human 'machines' that created, overcoming all odds against it -- poverty and ignorance and jealousy and the deliberate obstructions of the small-minded -- the great music.
Personally I don't care who or what authors great music... I'll take it when I can get it.
But things are getting worse, slowly. And it'll be ten years before people have the money once again like they did last year.
Anyone who hasn't realized that yet still hasn't grasped the *scope* of what just happened. Krugman doesn't have to predict anything: it's all there in black and red -- all that's needed is to read it. The banks are *all* insolvent. Consumers are insolvent. We've just poured in $11 Trillion dollars from the future, and it's barely helping. Just which direction does Cramer expect the Lone Ranger to come from?
I am half-astrophysicist. I sympathize with your need for much more money for what you want to know, I am the same way with sex - very very curious and a deep need to know.
I guess I need to point out that most Americans also need much more money. Not to (ever) mention the rest of the world.
And so your dream is not likely to be realized by wanting much, much more money. So, like me, you'll have to find clever ways to accomplish your need to know that don't require much, much more money - using your imagination!
I don't praise BG much, but I will now. Bill has a sense of history, a sense of obligation, and a recognition that plowing money into the community is A Good Thing. I never cared for the OS, but I was impressed with Encarta and some of the music-related projects.
A True Geek isn't impressed with profits all that much. What matters is trying something cool, discovering something cool, contributing to the state-of-the-art. Pushing the envelope. Once you've connected with The Source, all the rest exists ONLY for that purpose.
I've experimented with composing music on computers since the C64; I've got a couple CDs of finished work. I think it's great that Microsoft is pursuing this avenue. It's not a new concept, and it's a cutting-edge computing challenge.
In my informed opinion, there's no chance that computers are going to get so creative that they'll displace musicians. I embrace the likelihood that computers will bring a new dimension to generative music. That will push on the art and evoke new directions for composition as well as improvisation.
The very first computers were very unimpressive by today's standards. Good thing people back in the 50s didn't say 'well this isn't going very far.' Music was one of the first things people had fun doing on computers. No doubt there were admistrative fuddie-duddies that frowned on that. Visionless f*** are everywhere.
I'm betting that 50 years from now, computer-generated music will be embraced for the elements of surprise and interest -- very important elements of creative musicality -- it brings to the table. Whether their capacity will reach to 'serious art music' might not be decided for centuries. I'm not threatened as a human being; I'll take great music anywhere I can find it.
Computing was so much more *fun* back in the 80s. It wasn't yet overwhelmed by all these "serious" applications. Thanks, Microsoft, for NOT being corporate fuddy-duddys: thanks for pushing the technical envelope.
"What does "easiness" (of programming) have to do with the end quality of the game?"
Not a programmer?
If you have to spend weeks doing the basic, grunty underlying stuff (with assembler, let's say), that's less time you have to spend on quality interface, graphics, sound, innovation, vision, finesse.
I don't know where they got the idea that DST was intended to save energy. That must be a more modern excuse for it.
It was sold decades ago as being about later hours in the growing season for farmers, early hours in the winter (so the schoolkids had more light).
DST doesn't affect residential usage all that much; major usage is for water heating, refrigeration. There'll be more use of lighting in the spring, which probably accounts for the 1 percent rise.
"having 'gay marriage' is not giving equal rights, it is a radical redefining something"
Since your apparent objection is to the marriage ceremony, I'm sure you'll have no problem with gays in committed relationships having ALL of the same rights and privileges as "married" couples... at work, at the hospital, at taxtime, at the adoption center, at deathtime... EXCEPT the right to call themselves married???
Because many gay men have long believed that those exclusionary laws are designed to punish them for being themselves, rather than pretending to be something their not? Perhaps by marrying women, pretending that's what they want -- thereby denying those women, for a lifetime, the truly loving partners they deserve?
Fortunately, such extremely punitive views, which have caused *so* much suffering in the past, are going extinct... because more and more people are getting it. And recognizing the lies and bigotry as such.
not. Progress is a comfortable disease: your victim (death and life safely beyond)
plays with the bigness of his littleness --- electrons deify one razorblade into a mountainrange; lenses extend unwish through curving wherewhen till unwish returns on its unself.
A world of made is not a world of born --- pity poor flesh
and trees, poor stars and stones, but never this fine specimen of hypermagical
ultraomnipotence. We doctors know
a hopeless case if --- listen: there's a hell of a good universe next door; let's go
As a composer and musician, I ask: so... what's the problem, then?
The "industry" (think once more about that word, and what it has meant to *music*) was an anomaly built by pimping pop to teenagers with enough money to buy vinyl. It consumed as many lives as it made dollars. The "star" system, the "underground economy", the proliferation of radio stations choosing what is "worthy"
Good riddance. Music never needed the cigars, the usury, the chains or the money. I look forward to new Woody Guthries running amok in the countryside, new Dylans popping up in depression coffeehouses. As for all the people who've made a very good living from the creativity of others: go sell Amway.
most scientists don't seem to know or care where they come from
Completely wrong-headed statement. Any laws which have been established in any particular discipline are taught to students immediately. They're used and discussed endlessly as the basis for all kinds of problem-solving decisions. In physics, for example, the law of conservation of momentum has been verified a million more times than Darwin has incited insecurity. Anyone who wishes to do so can easily search for an example in which that law is violated; no single exception has ever arisen.
In other words, laws become common sense as the result of observations -- as obvious to anyone engaged in a field as the outcome of unsafe driving is obvious to seasoned drivers.
Wow. A study proving that dogs can discriminate between things and make decisions. No doubt owners of sheep-herding dogs everywhere will be greatly relieved.
Good thing for all these science-fair-level studies that most of the important problems are already solved.
I would encourage older students to go to Wikipedia, and give them credit for finding... *and correcting*... any mistakes they found in the articles there... so long as those corrections could be substantiated by three other reputable sources.
The benefits include: questioning authority, reflecting on what constitutes a "reputable source", documenting assertions, and taking action to improve Wikipedia. Students may not be ready to write entire articles, but they're certainly capable of finding individual mistakes -- even of improving on how the "facts" are presented. While some of WP's articles are highly polished, many are in need of improvements in grammar, punctuation, argumentation at the very least.
There's a great deal of value for students becoming involved in this worthy experiment... rather than turning them away.
I've no problem differentiating moral from amoral. And I certainly don't like much of what happens in China... even though I have little choice but to be their customer much of the time.
But what's moral? Within any time in any particular culture, there may be a consensus on that question. But consensus varies within any culture over time, and varies from culture to culture. Criticism of someone else's morality is presumptive of a demonstrated capacity to do better -- to provide a guiding example. Otherwise it's simply relativistic squabbling.
Do we really have a consensus, in America, on the morality of "ratting out" journalists? Scientists? Whistleblowers? Friends? Family? Is our torture "on a higher plane" than their torture?
We are currently living in one of the most corrupt eras in American history. It's hypocritical as hell to keep pointing fingers at other cultures for doing what we do. We need to clean up our own house first. Our "outrage" rings pretty hollow right now. This Congress is in no position to raise howls of outrage; its present nature encourages what it pretends to disparage. We've no "high moral" ground to stand upon.
I have "gone and learned a lot more about physics, radioactivity, power generation, the biological effects of radiation, logic, risk assessment, and terrorism."
In my view, nuclear energy is a very foolish investment. Since you've implied that you've done all the above, you're aware of the hazards -- quite apart from terrorism or the likelihood of human error that's apparent from decades of nuke operation -- of uranium mining and waste disposal. The failures to cope with these hazards prove that pressing ahead is only an option for the bull-headed.
Your assertion about France ignores the fact that their problems have been kept secret. In Japan, US, UK, and USSR, many nuclear failures and spills have been visible -- and many more were kept hidden.
Your attitude that wind and solar being unable to "generate power density high enough" (whatever that means) is a learned attitude that flies in the face of current technology. If you're referring to the variability in wind and solar energy, both can be stored to produce hydroelectric power. In the US, existing coal and nuclear facilities can handle those few remaining industries that need "power density" until alternatives are built. Finally, after decades of stalling.
Your attitude toward energy, in short -- and toward democracy, for that matter -- is based in the belief that growling loud will scare people so they'll do what you want. Which is a long way of saying that you come off an arrogant, self-important bully. Is your nickname "shooter"?
Slashdot Mirror
We had real 'social contact' before the internet came along. So this must be about something else. And it feels more like herd to me.
"Why is anyone shocked that they don't want to make the world a better place, and would rather become very rich instead off their only asset."
Where'd you get the idea that anyone (many) are "shocked" about it? It's just that their approach to the net is not part of the vision that many people have for the net. Any more than today's Wall Street is part of the vision most people have for the US.
Not that that should stop them ... but they sure can't expect most people to applaud. While they can rope in people who no reason to suspect what they're up to and why, they're going to be missing a very significant part of the big picture - anyone who has a reason not to play. Combine that with the fact that their statistics are going to be about as valuable as modern economics, and I expect that they'll only enrich themselves until their product is recognized as being transitory and vapid.
"If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals, then what was so special about Mozart?"
First of all, no machine has ever 'written' anything comparable to great music. The result can be no better than the algorithm, and an adequate algorithm would be beyond even those great composers who benefited from the gift of creating great music. It flows, as does emotion, from an inscrutable source.
If a machine *could* do that, it would have learned (as did all the greats) from the example of those who came before. But great music is liberated from the tutorials that confine ordinary music, and that comes from a combination of mastery of musical language and a faculty of freedom to receive and express. Call it indomitable spirit, or whatever. Such a machine would deserve as much credit as the human 'machines' that created, overcoming all odds against it -- poverty and ignorance and jealousy and the deliberate obstructions of the small-minded -- the great music.
Personally I don't care who or what authors great music ... I'll take it when I can get it.
If you think you might ever sell the thing, consider that the potential buyers will have the same questions.
But things are getting worse, slowly. And it'll be ten years before people have the money once again like they did last year.
Anyone who hasn't realized that yet still hasn't grasped the *scope* of what just happened. Krugman doesn't have to predict anything: it's all there in black and red -- all that's needed is to read it. The banks are *all* insolvent. Consumers are insolvent. We've just poured in $11 Trillion dollars from the future, and it's barely helping. Just which direction does Cramer expect the Lone Ranger to come from?
It's OVER. No tea leaves necessary.
I am half-astrophysicist. I sympathize with your need for much more money for what you want to know, I am the same way with sex - very very curious and a deep need to know.
I guess I need to point out that most Americans also need much more money. Not to (ever) mention the rest of the world.
And so your dream is not likely to be realized by wanting much, much more money. So, like me, you'll have to find clever ways to accomplish your need to know that don't require much, much more money - using your imagination!
I don't praise BG much, but I will now. Bill has a sense of history, a sense of obligation, and a recognition that plowing money into the community is A Good Thing. I never cared for the OS, but I was impressed with Encarta and some of the music-related projects.
A True Geek isn't impressed with profits all that much. What matters is trying something cool, discovering something cool, contributing to the state-of-the-art. Pushing the envelope. Once you've connected with The Source, all the rest exists ONLY for that purpose.
I've experimented with composing music on computers since the C64; I've got a couple CDs of finished work. I think it's great that Microsoft is pursuing this avenue. It's not a new concept, and it's a cutting-edge computing challenge.
In my informed opinion, there's no chance that computers are going to get so creative that they'll displace musicians. I embrace the likelihood that computers will bring a new dimension to generative music. That will push on the art and evoke new directions for composition as well as improvisation.
The very first computers were very unimpressive by today's standards. Good thing people back in the 50s didn't say 'well this isn't going very far.' Music was one of the first things people had fun doing on computers. No doubt there were admistrative fuddie-duddies that frowned on that. Visionless f*** are everywhere.
I'm betting that 50 years from now, computer-generated music will be embraced for the elements of surprise and interest -- very important elements of creative musicality -- it brings to the table. Whether their capacity will reach to 'serious art music' might not be decided for centuries. I'm not threatened as a human being; I'll take great music anywhere I can find it.
Computing was so much more *fun* back in the 80s. It wasn't yet overwhelmed by all these "serious" applications. Thanks, Microsoft, for NOT being corporate fuddy-duddys: thanks for pushing the technical envelope.
"What does "easiness" (of programming) have to do with the end quality of the game?"
Not a programmer?
If you have to spend weeks doing the basic, grunty underlying stuff (with assembler, let's say), that's less time you have to spend on quality interface, graphics, sound, innovation, vision, finesse.
GREAT languages let you do a lot with a little.
"as many Chinese citizens seem to like it that way."
Particularly those who are concerned that the masses will learn how miserable and fettered their lives are.
So, Mars' magnetic umbrellas are sort of like credit swap derivatives, then???
"contrary to the policy's intent"
I don't know where they got the idea that DST was intended to save energy. That must be a more modern excuse for it.
It was sold decades ago as being about later hours in the growing season for farmers, early hours in the winter (so the schoolkids had more light).
DST doesn't affect residential usage all that much; major usage is for water heating, refrigeration. There'll be more use of lighting in the spring, which probably accounts for the 1 percent rise.
"having 'gay marriage' is not giving equal rights, it is a radical redefining something" Since your apparent objection is to the marriage ceremony, I'm sure you'll have no problem with gays in committed relationships having ALL of the same rights and privileges as "married" couples ... at work, at the hospital, at taxtime, at the adoption center, at deathtime ... EXCEPT the right to call themselves married???
Because many gay men have long believed that those exclusionary laws are designed to punish them for being themselves, rather than pretending to be something their not? Perhaps by marrying women, pretending that's what they want -- thereby denying those women, for a lifetime, the truly loving partners they deserve?
Fortunately, such extremely punitive views, which have caused *so* much suffering in the past, are going extinct ... because more and more people are getting it. And recognizing the lies and bigotry as such.
Aaash. This *again*? I still maintain that it will *always* be there!!!
Which chapter of "Halting State" is that quoted from, again???
pity this busy monster, manunkind,
not. Progress is a comfortable disease:
your victim (death and life safely beyond)
plays with the bigness of his littleness
--- electrons deify one razorblade
into a mountainrange; lenses extend
unwish through curving wherewhen till unwish
returns on its unself.
A world of made
is not a world of born --- pity poor flesh
and trees, poor stars and stones, but never this
fine specimen of hypermagical
ultraomnipotence. We doctors know
a hopeless case if --- listen: there's a hell
of a good universe next door; let's go
-- E. E. Cummings
"the music industry will continue to crumble."
... what's the problem, then?
As a composer and musician, I ask: so
The "industry" (think once more about that word, and what it has meant to *music*) was an anomaly built by pimping pop to teenagers with enough money to buy vinyl. It consumed as many lives as it made dollars. The "star" system, the "underground economy", the proliferation of radio stations choosing what is "worthy"
Good riddance. Music never needed the cigars, the usury, the chains or the money. I look forward to new Woody Guthries running amok in the countryside, new Dylans popping up in depression coffeehouses. As for all the people who've made a very good living from the creativity of others: go sell Amway.
most scientists don't seem to know or care where they come from
Completely wrong-headed statement. Any laws which have been established in any particular discipline are taught to students immediately. They're used and discussed endlessly as the basis for all kinds of problem-solving decisions. In physics, for example, the law of conservation of momentum has been verified a million more times than Darwin has incited insecurity. Anyone who wishes to do so can easily search for an example in which that law is violated; no single exception has ever arisen.
In other words, laws become common sense as the result of observations -- as obvious to anyone engaged in a field as the outcome of unsafe driving is obvious to seasoned drivers.
The Encyclopedia Galactica must know all. ALL!
Wow. A study proving that dogs can discriminate between things and make decisions.
No doubt owners of sheep-herding dogs everywhere will be greatly relieved.
Good thing for all these science-fair-level studies that most of the important problems are already solved.
I would encourage older students to go to Wikipedia, and give them credit for finding ... *and correcting* ... any mistakes they found in the articles there ... so long as those corrections could be substantiated by three other reputable sources.
The benefits include: questioning authority, reflecting on what constitutes a "reputable source", documenting assertions, and taking action to improve Wikipedia. Students may not be ready to write entire articles, but they're certainly capable of finding individual mistakes -- even of improving on how the "facts" are presented. While some of WP's articles are highly polished, many are in need of improvements in grammar, punctuation, argumentation at the very least.
There's a great deal of value for students becoming involved in this worthy experiment... rather than turning them away.
I've no problem differentiating moral from amoral. And I certainly don't like much of what happens in China ... even though I have little choice but to be their customer much of the time.
But what's moral? Within any time in any particular culture, there may be a consensus on that question. But consensus varies within any culture over time, and varies from culture to culture. Criticism of someone else's morality is presumptive of a demonstrated capacity to do better -- to provide a guiding example. Otherwise it's simply relativistic squabbling.
Do we really have a consensus, in America, on the morality of "ratting out" journalists? Scientists? Whistleblowers? Friends? Family? Is our torture "on a higher plane" than their torture?
We are currently living in one of the most corrupt eras in American history. It's hypocritical as hell to keep pointing fingers at other cultures for doing what we do. We need to clean up our own house first. Our "outrage" rings pretty hollow right now. This Congress is in no position to raise howls of outrage; its present nature encourages what it pretends to disparage. We've no "high moral" ground to stand upon.
Kevin is only looking to improve his image after pimping the removal of restrictions on newspapers owning radio stations and vice versa.
Ghandi fucked up. What you do is NOT always insignificant. (Try reading about the 1960s).
Rock on dudes & dudettes. The mufu's are already worried sick (see Nat Review)
I have "gone and learned a lot more about physics, radioactivity, power generation, the biological effects of radiation, logic, risk assessment, and terrorism."
In my view, nuclear energy is a very foolish investment. Since you've implied that you've done all the above, you're aware of the hazards -- quite apart from terrorism or the likelihood of human error that's apparent from decades of nuke operation -- of uranium mining and waste disposal. The failures to cope with these hazards prove that pressing ahead is only an option for the bull-headed.
Your assertion about France ignores the fact that their problems have been kept secret. In Japan, US, UK, and USSR, many nuclear failures and spills have been visible -- and many more were kept hidden.
Your attitude that wind and solar being unable to "generate power density high enough" (whatever that means) is a learned attitude that flies in the face of current technology. If you're referring to the variability in wind and solar energy, both can be stored to produce hydroelectric power. In the US, existing coal and nuclear facilities can handle those few remaining industries that need "power density" until alternatives are built. Finally, after decades of stalling.
Your attitude toward energy, in short -- and toward democracy, for that matter -- is based in the belief that growling loud will scare people so they'll do what you want. Which is a long way of saying that you come off an arrogant, self-important bully. Is your nickname "shooter"?