I guess most people didn't catch the significance of Andrews University...
Two of the study's coauthours (Wendi Kannenberg, Gary L. Hopkins) are from Andrews University Institute for Prevention of Addictions. Andrews is a Christian university run by a denomination which doesn't accept evolution. I've spoken to a prof from their biology department, apparently it's a bastion of the Intelligent Design movement. (Here's a book published by Andrews University Press).
I'm not saying that proponents of intelligent design and those around them are incapable of doing serious scientific research. I'm thinking this might partially explain what feels like an anti-gamer bias.
I'm sorry to take exception to a key tennant of open source theory, but I just don't think its so simple to 'just' commit a patch.
I see contributing to a project as involving a significant commitment. In my thinking, high quality patches require the developer to have a fairly high level of understanding of the internals of the project and the local coding conventions. If the contributor doesn't have this, the patch will need significant rework from someone who does, or the codebase will get ugly fast.
If I'm being too much of a perfectionist please tell me.
I'm a software developer who'd love to contribute to some of the major projects, but I see the personal commitment to positive effect ratio as prohibitive.
First, I'm pretty sure I've seen this article before. How does a 1996 article suddenly become news?
There's a hole in the guy's argument that I'dn't seen before though:
Perfectly operating markets rely on perfect information flowing to all the participants. Approximately perfect markets rely on participants having approximately perfect information. If A is true, it's okay that some people believe A and some believe B; the people who believe A will be rewarded by the market, thus encouraging people to be right. However, if A is true and there is a persistent myth that almost everyone believes that B is true, its a real market killer. In that case, the market will make decisions based on B and will radically misprice anything affected by A or B. (As an example, circa 2006, A = house prices are going to fall, B = seriously falling house prices are negligably improbable.)
Thus if it's true that Dvorak keyboards aren't actually better while the persistent myth says they are, that would be a mark against the perfectly optimal free market. To recover, they would have to argue that, while the Dvorak myth persists, no similar myths exist for economically important realities. They don't do that.
Arguments of perfection really do free market theory a grave disservice. Outside of God's Heaven (which I don't think literally exists) nothing is perfect. Being unaware of your imperfections is an invitation for them to overwhelm you.
Note: I'm a happy Canuck, so s/President/Prime Minister/...
Due to technical limitations, in the 18th and 19th centuries Representative Democracies were the closest we could come to having the will of the people expressed by government. In the 21st century, even as more democratic structures become possible, we see governments moving away from true representation to selling a product: Coke vs Pepsi, Republican/Conservative kings vs Democrat/Liberal kings. It's been totally forgotten that we aren't crowning kings, we're choosing representatives, and we collectively have the power to decide what they do.
Collecting the opinions, desires, and most importantly, expertise of millions of people is difficult. No one knows how to do it just yet, mostly because not enough people are really trying. Transferring control from a "representative" elite to The People will take decades, centuries - but the process must begin. Now.
Sadly, I haven't seen any politicians who truly grok this. Up in Canada, former Prime Minister Paul Martin made great noises about renewing democracy, then did little to actually effect meaningful change. Obama has spoken about the power of the people in similar terms; I expect a similar result.
The Halting Problem is the general case: You can't write an algorithm which you can give any program and get an accurate answer as to whether it will terminate. However, the programs which absolutely can't be proven either way are kind of wonky: You can prove termination for most sane programs/functions. It's just a lot of work.
And testing this very hypothesis has yielded results that support the medical use of intercesory prayer, as was mentioned about the previous study. The investigators were some surprized IIRC. So this definately warrants furthur investigation.
I seem to recall another study testing roughly the same thing, getting negative results.
Re:FDR was our GREATEST President
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
The tax brackets were such that most people were below the level where they were even required to file or have taxes witheld.
Hmmm, I hadn't heard that, but it sounds believable.
It seems to me that a more reasonable strategy for shifting to consumption taxes would be to phase them in while simultaniously pushing the brackets UP one at a time.
But, as we are so wisely told here, that would make the US fall into the same trap as Canada and Europe, where they "layer their consumption taxes on top of their income taxes, producing a predictable drag on their economies." The only smart way to do it is to completely remove the US government's power to raise income taxes by repealing the 16th amendment immediately. It's all under the heading Let's not make the mistake Europe and Canada have made near the bottom of that link.
This is what I'm complaining about: All the good ideas seem to be championed by the overzealous who make them look like bad ideas.
Re:FDR was our GREATEST President
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
Hmmm, that actually seems like a good idea, moving from income to consumption taxes. The problem is, these guys seem to want to switch entirely in one shot, which would create revenue chaos. Why must excited progressives always frame their ideas as unreasonable plans?
The fact that the Green party doesn't like nuclear power was one of the main reasons I don't vote for them. That was before Pickering Nuclear... Pickering is a nuclear plant just east of Toronto. Fairly safe design, but the fact that 3 million people are living just next to it is still unnerving. I unfortunately don't know all the specifics (could find a bit of information here http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/13/canada/picker ing_plant030313 )
The plant went offline in 1997 when the Provincial government decided to overhaul it and bring it back up. The project has gone *way* overbudget and overschedule. The Green party's line has changed from 'Nuclear power is evil!' to 'Nuclear power costs way too much to build and maintain'. They've apparently done studies showing that nuclear power is not cost effective compared to renewable alternatives. Now, I'm well aware the study is definately biased, but after Pickering, it's starting to sound believable.
In case you're tired of living in a freedom-loving dictatorship, here's how to apply as a skilled worker immigrant to Canada:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/skilled/how-1.html
It seemed relavant:)
(Wouldn't I be surprized if someone actually takes it...)
I doubt it's you they're complaining about. Any CEO that isn't too snoby to read Slashdot isn't one who's contributing to the image of CEO's Slashdotters have.
Also, it should be noted that the place isn't known for being kind and considerate.
There always has to be a universal moral ground to fall back on. [Certain things are] universally wrong, despite the fact that the perpetrators thought they were right.
Here's the problem - everyone assumes it's their enemies who are deluding themselves and they are in fact in the right. When some group or country thinks it's in the right while many outsiders are sure it's doing wrong, the correct response is to objectively look at and re-evaluate its position. What ususally happens is the group's leaders become louder to quell the internal and external dissent. That response creates a spiral of dogmatism where insiders become increasingly sure that they're right while objective observers see increasing problems.
Here's my prediction for the first is-AI-sentient trial (or at least, an interesting and too plausible scenerio for one)
A fairly powerful but non-sentient AI is given some problem to optimize. This problem has many practical applications, and the AI's results are put to good use. Unfortunately, part of the solution it hits on is analogous to some patent in the same problem space, and the IP owner sues. It would then be in the interest of the patent holder to establish that the AI is sentient, to counter the claim that if a non-sentient machine thought of the same idea, it must not be all that novel.
This scenerio assumes that it would be much easier to command an AI to optimize the problem (and program it to get results) than to command it to optimize, but avoid hitting on patented techniques. Given the silliness of many patents issued nowdays, it could happen.
But let's face it. I'd rather die in my 60's then to live 20 years longer in a nursing home.
I think the idea is if it makes you healthier, your prolonged life will be better. If it makes you less healthy, the end of your life will be crummy whatever age you are.
The article was big on dramatic narration at the expense of explaining what's really going on...
Why did these guys do it? Did they decide they'd have more fun at their own company? You'd think, with a move like this, they'd have serious grievences with JBoss Group. Either that or they're being backstabing bastards. I'll assume the first...
H0H0H 0H0H0 = 0 12' 0.83" E 86 59' 48" S
That puts him close to the *south* pole, somewhere in Antarctica (I think). As we all know, Santa lives at the North Pole.
North Pole = ? E/W 90 N (East/West don't have meaning at the exact point of the north pole). The first 5 figures relate to the longitude, so it doesn't matter what those are. 90 N can't be represented, but we can get close:
First, he sounds more deluded than mentally ill. There is a difference. If he's ill that would contribute to the delusion, but I couldn't diagnose from the website.
Also, if he is ill, so what? I remember a time when I thought of stopping telling insane jokes from respect for the mentally ill. Then I was diagnosed as one, and I've been telling more insanity jokes ever since. Sulking about it doesn't help anything. At least laughing marginally increases the happiness of the world. Getting him help would be the best, but I don't see a way to do that, do you?
If all he's good for is to be laughed at, then we must laugh at him or reduce him to uselessness.
Summary of web site (both this guy's, and Alex Chiu's): I have the ultimate theory of the universe! I can do amazing things like [create energy from nothing|live forever] with this knowledge! It involves [dividing by zero|the magnetic fields of the body]. I am one of the greatest scientific minds in history! I prove it by putting pictures of great scientists on my website! But the establishment surpresses my work, through ignorance or evil. But one day they will be forced to acknowledge me as one of the greatest minds in history! Well, all my theories make sense to me, so even though they haven't been properly tested, they must be right! I will now expound on my accumulated wisdom, as I can see you want to bask in the glow of my obviously superior intellect. [...]
The big difference that I see, is that Alex has been able to turn his knowledge into a marketable product (Eternal Life Rings), while this guy apparently seeks to profit through collecting royalties on his IP. He talks about copyright... But you can't copyright an idea. Maybe patent... But you can't patent it either. Well, nowdays, maybe, but I didn't see any patent numbers, which IIRC Alex displays boastfully. It seems to be working out better for Alex, seeing as the latter sounds a lot more angry at the world.
TimeCube is even worse than that. IIRC, no practical applications suggested, and even less consistant.
Could it be problems with its merger with NetBSD & GNU/OpenBSD? I imagine that would take some time. Or are they going to have a few more releases separately?
If I was in the administrator's shoes, I'd try to talk this donor into giving the money (or some of the money) in agreement to substantially reduce MS usage, not eliminate it.
I can't live without MS software, and its not for lack of trying - I doubt an entire university could do it for any millions (unless it gets into the billions, then they could just pay to have someone rewrite the MS software - pipe dream, now returning to reality).
This guy obviously has something against Microsoft. I'd explain that his no-MS demand is unreasonable, so he isn't going to be helping rid the world of MS by ofering a donation they can't accept. But a less-MS demand could be met, and would have the desired effect, or as much of the desired effect as possible.
I didn't believe the warning. This is serious stuff. It makes Playboy look tame. Not an exageration.
The Sci-fi parts of this book were kind of interesting. The rest is obviously a sex fantasy, the kind that makes most people feel guilty for having, let alone writing about.
Chapter 1 follows Caroline, and is a bit of background with a lot of sensational edgy stuff. Most of the don't-read-this-kids stuff is here. That's in complete contrast to chapter 2, which is completely tame and wholly technical sci-fi, following AI researcher Lawrence. Here is introduced the big assumption of the book - new computer components are created that magically work many orders of magnitude faster than conventional stuff, mostly due to internal data transfer being instantaneous - not at the speed of light, but instantaneous. This is never really explained, other than referring to it as the 'Correlation Effect', or maybe 'Quantum Correlation Effect' (my brain is wired to discard buzzwords). In any case, the resultant AI uses this Correlation Effect to gain incredible inteligence and direct control over the entire universe, or something as non-sensical.
In the middle, uhm, supporting stuff happens. We get to see the beginning of Caroline's obsession with death and all things evil. Also Caroline undergoes a Hurculean task just to meet Lawrence to tell him off. I forget why I read through this far...
(***SPOILER WARNING***) (but nothing too serious/unexpected from chapter 1)
Caroline (who's usually naked, of course) shows up and meets Lawrence, in the second last chapter. Together they delve into the incredibly primitive decision making algorithm the AI uses, and it's revealed that tough decisions occasionally crash parts of the system(!?!). Then they produce a moral delema for the AI that convinces it into giving up control of the universe... Or something... What happens isn't exactly clear. All that I can say for sure is that the last chapter is not that expected, is slightly unsatisfying, and includes plenty of underage sex. (No joke. I wonder if new prudish anti child porn laws could strike this book down for the contents of the last chapter...)
Overall, this book has few new ideas, includes a weird ending, and has more offensive titilation that most entire magazine racks. I felt incredibly guilty for reading it. So, naturally, I liked it. 7/10.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess most people didn't catch the significance of Andrews University...
Two of the study's coauthours (Wendi Kannenberg, Gary L. Hopkins) are from Andrews University Institute for Prevention of Addictions. Andrews is a Christian university run by a denomination which doesn't accept evolution. I've spoken to a prof from their biology department, apparently it's a bastion of the Intelligent Design movement. (Here's a book published by Andrews University Press).
I'm not saying that proponents of intelligent design and those around them are incapable of doing serious scientific research. I'm thinking this might partially explain what feels like an anti-gamer bias.
The joys of crowdsourcing...
They go over this in the clip. He's not Jesus Christ, he's the Quizatz Haderach.
I'm sorry to take exception to a key tennant of open source theory, but I just don't think its so simple to 'just' commit a patch.
I see contributing to a project as involving a significant commitment. In my thinking, high quality patches require the developer to have a fairly high level of understanding of the internals of the project and the local coding conventions. If the contributor doesn't have this, the patch will need significant rework from someone who does, or the codebase will get ugly fast.
If I'm being too much of a perfectionist please tell me.
I'm a software developer who'd love to contribute to some of the major projects, but I see the personal commitment to positive effect ratio as prohibitive.
First, I'm pretty sure I've seen this article before. How does a 1996 article suddenly become news?
There's a hole in the guy's argument that I'dn't seen before though:
Perfectly operating markets rely on perfect information flowing to all the participants. Approximately perfect markets rely on participants having approximately perfect information. If A is true, it's okay that some people believe A and some believe B; the people who believe A will be rewarded by the market, thus encouraging people to be right. However, if A is true and there is a persistent myth that almost everyone believes that B is true, its a real market killer. In that case, the market will make decisions based on B and will radically misprice anything affected by A or B. (As an example, circa 2006, A = house prices are going to fall, B = seriously falling house prices are negligably improbable.)
Thus if it's true that Dvorak keyboards aren't actually better while the persistent myth says they are, that would be a mark against the perfectly optimal free market. To recover, they would have to argue that, while the Dvorak myth persists, no similar myths exist for economically important realities. They don't do that.
Arguments of perfection really do free market theory a grave disservice. Outside of God's Heaven (which I don't think literally exists) nothing is perfect. Being unaware of your imperfections is an invitation for them to overwhelm you.
Note: I'm a happy Canuck, so s/President/Prime Minister/ ...
Due to technical limitations, in the 18th and 19th centuries Representative Democracies were the closest we could come to having the will of the people expressed by government. In the 21st century, even as more democratic structures become possible, we see governments moving away from true representation to selling a product: Coke vs Pepsi, Republican/Conservative kings vs Democrat/Liberal kings. It's been totally forgotten that we aren't crowning kings, we're choosing representatives, and we collectively have the power to decide what they do.
Collecting the opinions, desires, and most importantly, expertise of millions of people is difficult. No one knows how to do it just yet, mostly because not enough people are really trying. Transferring control from a "representative" elite to The People will take decades, centuries - but the process must begin. Now.
Sadly, I haven't seen any politicians who truly grok this. Up in Canada, former Prime Minister Paul Martin made great noises about renewing democracy, then did little to actually effect meaningful change. Obama has spoken about the power of the people in similar terms; I expect a similar result.
The Halting Problem is the general case: You can't write an algorithm which you can give any program and get an accurate answer as to whether it will terminate. However, the programs which absolutely can't be proven either way are kind of wonky: You can prove termination for most sane programs/functions. It's just a lot of work.
And testing this very hypothesis has yielded results that support the medical use of intercesory prayer, as was mentioned about the previous study. The investigators were some surprized IIRC. So this definately warrants furthur investigation.
I seem to recall another study testing roughly the same thing, getting negative results.
This is what I'm complaining about: All the good ideas seem to be championed by the overzealous who make them look like bad ideas.
Hmmm, that actually seems like a good idea, moving from income to consumption taxes. The problem is, these guys seem to want to switch entirely in one shot, which would create revenue chaos. Why must excited progressives always frame their ideas as unreasonable plans?
The plant went offline in 1997 when the Provincial government decided to overhaul it and bring it back up. The project has gone *way* overbudget and overschedule. The Green party's line has changed from 'Nuclear power is evil!' to 'Nuclear power costs way too much to build and maintain'. They've apparently done studies showing that nuclear power is not cost effective compared to renewable alternatives. Now, I'm well aware the study is definately biased, but after Pickering, it's starting to sound believable.
In case you're tired of living in a freedom-loving dictatorship, here's how to apply as a skilled worker immigrant to Canada: :)
(Wouldn't I be surprized if someone actually takes it...)
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/skilled/how-1.html
It seemed relavant
I doubt it's you they're complaining about. Any CEO that isn't too snoby to read Slashdot isn't one who's contributing to the image of CEO's Slashdotters have.
Also, it should be noted that the place isn't known for being kind and considerate.
And that's the problem.
When there's a perception that the employee should be thankful for any job they can get, the employer is free to screw them over.
There always has to be a universal moral ground to fall back on. [Certain things are] universally wrong, despite the fact that the perpetrators thought they were right.
Here's the problem - everyone assumes it's their enemies who are deluding themselves and they are in fact in the right. When some group or country thinks it's in the right while many outsiders are sure it's doing wrong, the correct response is to objectively look at and re-evaluate its position. What ususally happens is the group's leaders become louder to quell the internal and external dissent. That response creates a spiral of dogmatism where insiders become increasingly sure that they're right while objective observers see increasing problems.
Here's my prediction for the first is-AI-sentient trial (or at least, an interesting and too plausible scenerio for one)
A fairly powerful but non-sentient AI is given some problem to optimize. This problem has many practical applications, and the AI's results are put to good use. Unfortunately, part of the solution it hits on is analogous to some patent in the same problem space, and the IP owner sues. It would then be in the interest of the patent holder to establish that the AI is sentient, to counter the claim that if a non-sentient machine thought of the same idea, it must not be all that novel.
This scenerio assumes that it would be much easier to command an AI to optimize the problem (and program it to get results) than to command it to optimize, but avoid hitting on patented techniques. Given the silliness of many patents issued nowdays, it could happen.
I think the idea is if it makes you healthier, your prolonged life will be better. If it makes you less healthy, the end of your life will be crummy whatever age you are.
The article was big on dramatic narration at the expense of explaining what's really going on...
Why did these guys do it? Did they decide they'd have more fun at their own company? You'd think, with a move like this, they'd have serious grievences with JBoss Group. Either that or they're being backstabing bastards. I'll assume the first...
H0H0H 0H0H0 = 0 12' 0.83" E 86 59' 48" S
That puts him close to the *south* pole, somewhere in Antarctica (I think). As we all know, Santa lives at the North Pole.
North Pole = ? E/W 90 N (East/West don't have meaning at the exact point of the north pole). The first 5 figures relate to the longitude, so it doesn't matter what those are. 90 N can't be represented, but we can get close:
H0H0H ZZZZZ = 0 12' 0.83" E 89 59' 59.99" N
Looks like he's sleeping!
I don't think it's that bad.
First, he sounds more deluded than mentally ill. There is a difference. If he's ill that would contribute to the delusion, but I couldn't diagnose from the website.
Also, if he is ill, so what? I remember a time when I thought of stopping telling insane jokes from respect for the mentally ill. Then I was diagnosed as one, and I've been telling more insanity jokes ever since. Sulking about it doesn't help anything. At least laughing marginally increases the happiness of the world. Getting him help would be the best, but I don't see a way to do that, do you?
If all he's good for is to be laughed at, then we must laugh at him or reduce him to uselessness.
Summary of web site (both this guy's, and Alex Chiu's) :
I have the ultimate theory of the universe! I can do amazing things like [create energy from nothing|live forever] with this knowledge! It involves [dividing by zero|the magnetic fields of the body]. I am one of the greatest scientific minds in history! I prove it by putting pictures of great scientists on my website! But the establishment surpresses my work, through ignorance or evil. But one day they will be forced to acknowledge me as one of the greatest minds in history! Well, all my theories make sense to me, so even though they haven't been properly tested, they must be right! I will now expound on my accumulated wisdom, as I can see you want to bask in the glow of my obviously superior intellect.
[...]
The big difference that I see, is that Alex has been able to turn his knowledge into a marketable product (Eternal Life Rings), while this guy apparently seeks to profit through collecting royalties on his IP. He talks about copyright... But you can't copyright an idea. Maybe patent... But you can't patent it either. Well, nowdays, maybe, but I didn't see any patent numbers, which IIRC Alex displays boastfully. It seems to be working out better for Alex, seeing as the latter sounds a lot more angry at the world.
TimeCube is even worse than that. IIRC, no practical applications suggested, and even less consistant.
Could it be problems with its merger with NetBSD & GNU/OpenBSD? I imagine that would take some time. Or are they going to have a few more releases separately?
If I was in the administrator's shoes, I'd try to talk this donor into giving the money (or some of the money) in agreement to substantially reduce MS usage, not eliminate it.
I can't live without MS software, and its not for lack of trying - I doubt an entire university could do it for any millions (unless it gets into the billions, then they could just pay to have someone rewrite the MS software - pipe dream, now returning to reality).
This guy obviously has something against Microsoft. I'd explain that his no-MS demand is unreasonable, so he isn't going to be helping rid the world of MS by ofering a donation they can't accept. But a less-MS demand could be met, and would have the desired effect, or as much of the desired effect as possible.
And common sense would suggest that drawn images (not made with models) would be free speech, but they're illegal, aren't they?
I heard something about Canada making new laws to crack down on child erotica stories. Unsure of the details.
I didn't believe the warning. This is serious stuff. It makes Playboy look tame. Not an exageration.
The Sci-fi parts of this book were kind of interesting. The rest is obviously a sex fantasy, the kind that makes most people feel guilty for having, let alone writing about.
Chapter 1 follows Caroline, and is a bit of background with a lot of sensational edgy stuff. Most of the don't-read-this-kids stuff is here. That's in complete contrast to chapter 2, which is completely tame and wholly technical sci-fi, following AI researcher Lawrence. Here is introduced the big assumption of the book - new computer components are created that magically work many orders of magnitude faster than conventional stuff, mostly due to internal data transfer being instantaneous - not at the speed of light, but instantaneous. This is never really explained, other than referring to it as the 'Correlation Effect', or maybe 'Quantum Correlation Effect' (my brain is wired to discard buzzwords). In any case, the resultant AI uses this Correlation Effect to gain incredible inteligence and direct control over the entire universe, or something as non-sensical.
In the middle, uhm, supporting stuff happens. We get to see the beginning of Caroline's obsession with death and all things evil. Also Caroline undergoes a Hurculean task just to meet Lawrence to tell him off. I forget why I read through this far...
(***SPOILER WARNING***) (but nothing too serious/unexpected from chapter 1)
Caroline (who's usually naked, of course) shows up and meets Lawrence, in the second last chapter. Together they delve into the incredibly primitive decision making algorithm the AI uses, and it's revealed that tough decisions occasionally crash parts of the system(!?!). Then they produce a moral delema for the AI that convinces it into giving up control of the universe... Or something... What happens isn't exactly clear. All that I can say for sure is that the last chapter is not that expected, is slightly unsatisfying, and includes plenty of underage sex. (No joke. I wonder if new prudish anti child porn laws could strike this book down for the contents of the last chapter...)
Overall, this book has few new ideas, includes a weird ending, and has more offensive titilation that most entire magazine racks. I felt incredibly guilty for reading it. So, naturally, I liked it. 7/10.
alt.suicide.holiday I know what I'm doing! ;-)