"Do you claim that the "invisible hand" mechanism does not operate in the real world?"
Yes, that is exactly what I'm claiming. Look at oil companies earlier this century, phone companies a little later and Microsoft right now. The "invisible hand" only applies to a free economy with perfect information. That situation does not obtain here. Some of these restrictions are actually improvements on a free market situation (dampening swings and other effects) so we'd like to keep them. How then do we ensure that society's goal comes about? (BTW, I never said a rising tide was the invisible hand's goal. A rising tide is society's goal, the invisible hand is the means, aka mechanism.)
"No, they are not. You probably meant statistical anyway, but they are not really amenable to it either. The world is too messy a place for that to work.
I wasn't aware that statistics were non-mathematical. In any case, yes they are. Yes, it's messy--so is a nuclear bomb, but we still do physics. I'm not saying it is possible (or even necessary) to give an value to the utility of the rising tide. I am saying that a qualitative, but mathematical, statement is possible, powerful and necessary. --
Adam Smith's invisible hand is a means, "a rising tide" is a goal.
The invisible hand is a meta-statement about a free economy. However, we don't have a free economy, we have built in certain restrictions (patents, copyrights, anti-monopoly laws, etc). Also, the real world is not identical to theory (real people don't have perfect information or perfect logic). For these reasons, it is sometimes possible for the economy to be on a path that does not head towards the goal the society wants (a rising tide). My question is: What restrictions do we remove/add/modify to make that goal more likely.
Phrased correctly, these problems are amenable to mathematical analysis. I'm not competent to do the math, but I'm taking notes in the hopes that I *am* competent to do the phrasing. --
Imagine a world where ALL textbooks are password-protected, time-limited, etc. How does Steve Wozniak learn electronics? How does Edison learn physics or engineering? How does ANY person of limited means learn ANYTHING? And how do we pool our knowledge on anything from "how do you set the VCR clock" to "how do you make starship"?
There are powerful societal reasons to keep information transfer as free (in all senses of the word) as possible. Unfortunately, these reasons don't translate well into the language of capitalism. There is no way to say "a rising tide lifts all boats" in Capitalismese.
Discussion question: How do you explain this to business people (who run the country) OR build it into the economy? --
I agree that the "popular == bad" mentality is elitist and stupid (although not always wrong). However, that's not what the OP was saying. Quote: "In the past, this was the way with Linux, but now there are commercial interest trying to displace Windows, so we can bet the distro wars will flame up."
He's not saying that "Linux was cool until it 'sold out', man". He's saying "People starting to use Linux because it's right for them is good, people starting to use Linux because a marketing beast told them to is wrong." I agree with this statement. --
I didn't say that because America is the current World Empire having English be a "world language" was right. I just gave that as the reason. And it is the reason. Consider French, Spanish, Latin, Greek, Chinese, Egyptian, etc. Each of these was, at one time, a "world language". Is it coincidence that the country of origin was also running an empire at the time?
You need to learn to distinguish between established fact and desired outcome. --
You quote the numbers of Mandarin, Hindu and Spanish speakers as though that were somehow related to the point. English isn't widespread because it has so many native speakers. English is widespread because it is the language of the (current) World Empire. 1500 years ago "everyone" (who was anyone) spoke Latin. 1000 years before that, "everyone" spoke Greek. Today "everyone" speaks English. --
How is it that Australia is just finding out NOW that ALT tags aren't in use? Why didn't they insist that it be in the contract to begin with? I agree that IBM should fix the pages and I further think it should be done for free (it's just plain poor engineering to leave the tags out). But I don't think Australia is off the hook--they apparently didn't think of it either. --
When I ran Windows 95, I found that I had to wipe the HD and reinstall about every 6 months. I would imagine that "had to reinstall OS 4 times in 2 years" would count as defective. OEMs are going to start feeling the pain of poor OS choice... --
Abigail could naught but eat rats she caughtest in the street. Whereupon she found within a rat a scrap of parchment containing words that hinted at a fortune. Followest she these words and fortune did indeed smile upon her. O careworn traveller, if you needest fortune like poor Abigail, heed these words and post $5.00 care of:
I remember seeing that nick show up again about a year ago but I don't know if it was the same person. Apparently they are less bored now. Or out of work. --
Dude, I remember when I first saw the nick "BOredAtWOrk"--after I had been reading Slashdot for a few months. I protested logins for a LOOONG time before finally giving up and getting one. The fact that it was a long time and I still have a 5 digit UID should tell you something. --
"I find it interesting that people angrily submit stories constantly about Google "selling out" whenever something that looks like it might generate revenue appears. That means more then a lot of people realize: it means people care."
Let's be precise: It means people cared. Just because Google still gets used doesn't mean that it still gets used by the people that complained. In Google's case this is still true. But in Slashdot's case I think a lot of us "founding members" have drifted away (or tried to).
For instance, I remember protesting when the color scheme went from...brown and yellow?...to white and green. I also remember protesting when comments when from "all flat" to "all threaded". (I should also take a moment to apologize for kicking off the "First Post!" phenomena).
In those years, Slashdot's stories have definitely changed. I used to read because everything was so interesting. Now I read in order to keep up with the daily news. Slashdot has changed from a "cool site" to a "news site" (not as bad as CNN or ZDNet, granted). That's not necessarily bad, but I do miss the old Slashdot. --
Re:Ludds don't just fear, they also don't understa
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 2
"Because you know the principles behind it? This isn't guesswork you know. It's a logical progession of scientific knowledge."
I ask, for the third time, where do we learn these principles if not from nature? They are not obvious a priori. Cloning is an old idea but a new technology. Experiments must be done.
"You were talking in general, so was I."
Regardless, the fact remains that human volunteers for a full-clone-creation experiement are useless. Given that simulation is also useless (as shown above), please explain where we get the requisite DNA. --
Re:Ludds don't just fear, they also don't understa
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 2
"Simulation?"
How do you create a working simulator without any data on the actual processes?
"Testing on willing human volunteers?"
Logically impossible in this case. Remember we are creating clones. How do you obtain the permission of the human you are about to create? Or are you thinking that the clone and original are somehow the "same person" and that asking the permission of one gives the permission of the other? If so, I guess it would be OK if I asked one of a pair of identical twins if I can experiment on the other one.
"Life is not like a plank of wood..."
Yes it is. Hey! Making assertion without proof or reasoning is easy! I'm going to give up that "using logic and data" thing I've been doing. --
"No matter how you nurture the clone, it is not going to be in an authentic womb, and things like the oxygen and nutrient supply, hormones from the parent animal, the womb physiology and the gestation period will all have unpredictable effects on development."
I was going to mention this same point and then it occurred to me: what about subsequent generations? If we can get the first generation out accurately enough then the second generation WILL have an authentic womb. Of course, the DNA damage problem still exists... --
I know about puss 'n' boots. What does it have to do with Tasmanian whatevers? --
Ludds don't just fear, they also don't understand
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 2
"...IMHO this isn't the right thing to do."
"There are valuable uses for medical technology like this..."
And just how do you think we are going to get to the point of medical technology without experimenting on animals? And what more dramatic demonstration can you think of than "resurrecting the dead"?
But even the core of your argument "Like it or not, life follows a plan, and once something has happened we need to deal with it and move on." makes no real sense in this context. Tasmanians were part of an ecological structure. It may be that the structure no longer requires this element in which case we are OK. But it may be that the structure does (or will) require this element in which case we better get cracking.
Consider your argument in terms of building materials: "So we lost a beam. Like it or not you can't turn back the clock--it's the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Sometimes beams just break or get removed. It's all part of The Plan. There are valuable uses for construction technology in learning how to create new beams, but attempting to correct the sins of the past isn't one of them." --
I didn't read the story very closely so I don't know if it mentions how many tasmanian fetuses (fetii?) they have. If it's a small number, though, this exercise is relatively pointless. Let's say it was one female and one male. They make 50 copies of each and breed the males with the females. The children of these parents will actually be genetic siblings. You don't want to interbreed siblings for well-known reasons.
Two females and two males are only slightly better--the children will consist of three groups: full siblings, half-siblings and strangers. But the grandchildren will be (carry the one, add two) all full and half siblings? Anyway, you can see my point. They need a "breeding population of genetic samples" if they want to do more than a publicity stunt.
I should also note that while the animal produced IS a tasmanian whatever, this extinction/cloning cycle will probably result in long-term speciation. That is, X years from now (for some X less than the "normal" amount) these tasmanians will be a different species than the original. Why? Because we chose a non-random sample AND subjected the new animal to new conditions (unless they plan on releasing them into the wild). --
Open with scene of woman struggling to use computer that obviously has Win95 installed. She's throwing her hands in the air, making loud exasperated noises, etc.
Voiceover: Tired of the difficult to use UI of Windows 95?
Jump transition as Windows 95 disappears and KDE appears. Woman begins smiling and becomes obviously productive (much mousing around and so forth).
Voiceover: Discover the power of KDE: Alt-F2! It brings up a little input field which you can use to start an app quicker than using the menus! Finally, a breakthrough in UI technology that will make you 10 times more productive leaving you more time for your family, blah blah blah...
Yes, I understand your point: the difference between a poor UI and good UI is incremental. My point, though, is that the difference between and good UI and a great UI is fundamental. We need to make a jump beyond Windows as far as Windows was beyond DOS.
--
Slashdot Mirror
"Do you claim that the "invisible hand" mechanism does not operate in the real world?"
Yes, that is exactly what I'm claiming. Look at oil companies earlier this century, phone companies a little later and Microsoft right now. The "invisible hand" only applies to a free economy with perfect information. That situation does not obtain here. Some of these restrictions are actually improvements on a free market situation (dampening swings and other effects) so we'd like to keep them. How then do we ensure that society's goal comes about? (BTW, I never said a rising tide was the invisible hand's goal. A rising tide is society's goal, the invisible hand is the means, aka mechanism.)
"No, they are not. You probably meant statistical anyway, but they are not really amenable to it either. The world is too messy a place for that to work.
I wasn't aware that statistics were non-mathematical. In any case, yes they are. Yes, it's messy--so is a nuclear bomb, but we still do physics. I'm not saying it is possible (or even necessary) to give an value to the utility of the rising tide. I am saying that a qualitative, but mathematical, statement is possible, powerful and necessary.
--
Adam Smith's invisible hand is a means, "a rising tide" is a goal.
The invisible hand is a meta-statement about a free economy. However, we don't have a free economy, we have built in certain restrictions (patents, copyrights, anti-monopoly laws, etc). Also, the real world is not identical to theory (real people don't have perfect information or perfect logic). For these reasons, it is sometimes possible for the economy to be on a path that does not head towards the goal the society wants (a rising tide). My question is: What restrictions do we remove/add/modify to make that goal more likely.
Phrased correctly, these problems are amenable to mathematical analysis. I'm not competent to do the math, but I'm taking notes in the hopes that I *am* competent to do the phrasing.
--
Imagine a world where ALL textbooks are password-protected, time-limited, etc. How does Steve Wozniak learn electronics? How does Edison learn physics or engineering? How does ANY person of limited means learn ANYTHING? And how do we pool our knowledge on anything from "how do you set the VCR clock" to "how do you make starship"?
There are powerful societal reasons to keep information transfer as free (in all senses of the word) as possible. Unfortunately, these reasons don't translate well into the language of capitalism. There is no way to say "a rising tide lifts all boats" in Capitalismese.
Discussion question: How do you explain this to business people (who run the country) OR build it into the economy?
--
I agree that the "popular == bad" mentality is elitist and stupid (although not always wrong). However, that's not what the OP was saying. Quote: "In the past, this was the way with Linux, but now there are commercial interest trying to displace Windows, so we can bet the distro wars will flame up."
He's not saying that "Linux was cool until it 'sold out', man". He's saying "People starting to use Linux because it's right for them is good, people starting to use Linux because a marketing beast told them to is wrong." I agree with this statement.
--
I didn't say that because America is the current World Empire having English be a "world language" was right. I just gave that as the reason. And it is the reason. Consider French, Spanish, Latin, Greek, Chinese, Egyptian, etc. Each of these was, at one time, a "world language". Is it coincidence that the country of origin was also running an empire at the time?
You need to learn to distinguish between established fact and desired outcome.
--
You quote the numbers of Mandarin, Hindu and Spanish speakers as though that were somehow related to the point. English isn't widespread because it has so many native speakers. English is widespread because it is the language of the (current) World Empire. 1500 years ago "everyone" (who was anyone) spoke Latin. 1000 years before that, "everyone" spoke Greek. Today "everyone" speaks English.
--
Judging from the submitted text of this story, English isn't [sic] the language of the web now.
--
How is it that Australia is just finding out NOW that ALT tags aren't in use? Why didn't they insist that it be in the contract to begin with? I agree that IBM should fix the pages and I further think it should be done for free (it's just plain poor engineering to leave the tags out). But I don't think Australia is off the hook--they apparently didn't think of it either.
--
When I ran Windows 95, I found that I had to wipe the HD and reinstall about every 6 months. I would imagine that "had to reinstall OS 4 times in 2 years" would count as defective. OEMs are going to start feeling the pain of poor OS choice...
--
Abigail could naught but eat rats she caughtest in the street. Whereupon she found within a rat a scrap of parchment containing words that hinted at a fortune. Followest she these words and fortune did indeed smile upon her. O careworn traveller, if you needest fortune like poor Abigail, heed these words and post $5.00 care of:
Ponzi and Sons
Makers of Fine Goods
--
"...the telescope it replaces (designed to last 10 years) collapsed in 1988 after only 26 years."
It was designed to last 10 and only lasted 26? They must have skimped on the corner-cutting.
--
I remember seeing that nick show up again about a year ago but I don't know if it was the same person. Apparently they are less bored now. Or out of work.
--
Dude, I remember when I first saw the nick "BOredAtWOrk"--after I had been reading Slashdot for a few months. I protested logins for a LOOONG time before finally giving up and getting one. The fact that it was a long time and I still have a 5 digit UID should tell you something.
--
"karma farming by pulling rank"??
--
"I find it interesting that people angrily submit stories constantly about Google "selling out" whenever something that looks like it might generate revenue appears. That means more then a lot of people realize: it means people care."
Let's be precise: It means people cared. Just because Google still gets used doesn't mean that it still gets used by the people that complained. In Google's case this is still true. But in Slashdot's case I think a lot of us "founding members" have drifted away (or tried to).
For instance, I remember protesting when the color scheme went from...brown and yellow?...to white and green. I also remember protesting when comments when from "all flat" to "all threaded". (I should also take a moment to apologize for kicking off the "First Post!" phenomena).
In those years, Slashdot's stories have definitely changed. I used to read because everything was so interesting. Now I read in order to keep up with the daily news. Slashdot has changed from a "cool site" to a "news site" (not as bad as CNN or ZDNet, granted). That's not necessarily bad, but I do miss the old Slashdot.
--
"Because you know the principles behind it? This isn't guesswork you know. It's a logical progession of scientific knowledge."
I ask, for the third time, where do we learn these principles if not from nature? They are not obvious a priori. Cloning is an old idea but a new technology. Experiments must be done.
"You were talking in general, so was I."
Regardless, the fact remains that human volunteers for a full-clone-creation experiement are useless. Given that simulation is also useless (as shown above), please explain where we get the requisite DNA.
--
"Simulation?"
How do you create a working simulator without any data on the actual processes?
"Testing on willing human volunteers?"
Logically impossible in this case. Remember we are creating clones. How do you obtain the permission of the human you are about to create? Or are you thinking that the clone and original are somehow the "same person" and that asking the permission of one gives the permission of the other? If so, I guess it would be OK if I asked one of a pair of identical twins if I can experiment on the other one.
"Life is not like a plank of wood..."
Yes it is. Hey! Making assertion without proof or reasoning is easy! I'm going to give up that "using logic and data" thing I've been doing.
--
Does Transmeta Live Up To The Hype?
No. Can Transmeta live up to the hype? Yes. Will Transmeta live up to the hype? That remains to be seen.
--
"No matter how you nurture the clone, it is not going to be in an authentic womb, and things like the oxygen and nutrient supply, hormones from the parent animal, the womb physiology and the gestation period will all have unpredictable effects on development."
I was going to mention this same point and then it occurred to me: what about subsequent generations? If we can get the first generation out accurately enough then the second generation WILL have an authentic womb. Of course, the DNA damage problem still exists...
--
I know about puss 'n' boots. What does it have to do with Tasmanian whatevers?
--
"...IMHO this isn't the right thing to do."
"There are valuable uses for medical technology like this..."
And just how do you think we are going to get to the point of medical technology without experimenting on animals? And what more dramatic demonstration can you think of than "resurrecting the dead"?
But even the core of your argument "Like it or not, life follows a plan, and once something has happened we need to deal with it and move on." makes no real sense in this context. Tasmanians were part of an ecological structure. It may be that the structure no longer requires this element in which case we are OK. But it may be that the structure does (or will) require this element in which case we better get cracking.
Consider your argument in terms of building materials: "So we lost a beam. Like it or not you can't turn back the clock--it's the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Sometimes beams just break or get removed. It's all part of The Plan. There are valuable uses for construction technology in learning how to create new beams, but attempting to correct the sins of the past isn't one of them."
--
I didn't read the story very closely so I don't know if it mentions how many tasmanian fetuses (fetii?) they have. If it's a small number, though, this exercise is relatively pointless. Let's say it was one female and one male. They make 50 copies of each and breed the males with the females. The children of these parents will actually be genetic siblings. You don't want to interbreed siblings for well-known reasons.
Two females and two males are only slightly better--the children will consist of three groups: full siblings, half-siblings and strangers. But the grandchildren will be (carry the one, add two) all full and half siblings? Anyway, you can see my point. They need a "breeding population of genetic samples" if they want to do more than a publicity stunt.
I should also note that while the animal produced IS a tasmanian whatever, this extinction/cloning cycle will probably result in long-term speciation. That is, X years from now (for some X less than the "normal" amount) these tasmanians will be a different species than the original. Why? Because we chose a non-random sample AND subjected the new animal to new conditions (unless they plan on releasing them into the wild).
--
What on earth does this refer to? Some Oz kids show or something?
--
The Library of Congress is demolished or a terminally ill patient dies 3 months earlier.
The Library at Alexandria (the original one) is demolished OR the unknown soldiers who torched it die.
--
Open with scene of woman struggling to use computer that obviously has Win95 installed. She's throwing her hands in the air, making loud exasperated noises, etc.
Voiceover: Tired of the difficult to use UI of Windows 95?
Jump transition as Windows 95 disappears and KDE appears. Woman begins smiling and becomes obviously productive (much mousing around and so forth).
Voiceover: Discover the power of KDE: Alt-F2! It brings up a little input field which you can use to start an app quicker than using the menus! Finally, a breakthrough in UI technology that will make you 10 times more productive leaving you more time for your family, blah blah blah...
Yes, I understand your point: the difference between a poor UI and good UI is incremental. My point, though, is that the difference between and good UI and a great UI is fundamental. We need to make a jump beyond Windows as far as Windows was beyond DOS.
--