Is there a law saying that everyone has to be charged the same amount? If there is, they could just call it a scholarship or grant instead. Or they could actually waive tuition instead of reimbursing itself and calling it a waiver.
Or, MIT could charge them $470 a year for tuition instead of the $47,000 it's paying itself. The University doesn't have to play these games with accounting, it could just charge less. Or call it a scholarship, I don't care. Point is that they could fix the problem for their students with the stroke of a pen so there's no reason to complain about the tax plan.
All they have to do is lower tuition instead of playing games with accounting. Instead of the university paying itself, just don't charge employees like TA's and research assistants for tuition. Or charge very little so that total compensation stays low enough so that the students don't have to pay income taxes.
The funny part is that the only effective path to reducing population growth without resorting to force is economic development and industrialization. Economic development brings an economic disincentive for having children - they are incredibly expensive and provide no economic benefit. Whereas in undeveloped regions, there is an economic incentive to reproduce as much as possible - many of them will probably die and the survivors are cheap labor for subsistence farmers, care for the elderly and infirm, etc.
You mean multi-user iterated ownership? It's a great concept where the cost of becoming the next user decreases with each iteration to offset the increased wear. Totally brilliant idea that nobody thought of until now.
If you read the letter, it's actually saying, "We don't know how to do it and haven't tried to figure out how, so it isn't possible and nobody should even think about it."
I would accept, "We don't want to work with this administration." I cannot accept the BS they're peddling.
I'm sorry, but you are on the wrong track. What they're saying is that they don't already know what to look for or how to quantify it, so it isn't possible to do and nobody should try.
Under that "logic", the LHC should never have been built.
They could have just said, "We don't think this is a good idea and don't want to work with this administration, so we won't." But they didn't, they spouted a load of BS instead.
It's worse than that. They aren't saying it wouldn't be accurate, they're saying that since they don't already know how to do it then it must not be possible and nobody should even think about bothering to find out.
The motive behind the letter is not technological or scientific. It's political.
The DHS was looking to find out if machine learning could be used to automate the vetting of visa applicants. The answer should be yes, no, or "Maybe, but we'll have to figure out what to look for, how to measure it, and how to make it fair, fast and effective. So we'll need to put a few years of R&D into it." Probably the latter, right?
The letter says, "No, because we don't know what to look for or how to measure it." Really? You don't already know, so you won't even consider trying to find out? What kind of scientist says, "I don't know how to do it, so nobody should consider trying"?
And because 54 people agreed to not to bother to find out, it's worth announcing that to the world? No. It's political BS.
Here's two quotes from the article. Which one sounds like a scientist, which sounds like a political hack:
But Jacob Shapiro, a Princeton University politics professor who attended one of the meetings as president of investigative analytics firm Giant Oak, said the effectiveness of the vetting system would depend on how it’s crafted.
“There are many ways one could meet that statement of objectives, some of which would make the system fairer, more equitable and faster for those seeking to immigrate,” Shapiro said. “But some of which could be biased and unfair, as any algorithm can be.”
Or:
David Robinson, a Georgetown University law professor and co-founder of Upturn, a newly-formed group that looks at the civil rights implications of new technology, said the extreme vetting project doesn’t make sense and doesn’t comport with any reasonable set of values.
“This isn’t something that anyone should be willing to build,” said Robinson, who signed the technologists’ letter. “Whatever you think about what the immigration rules ought to be, this is just nuts. And it’s nuts dressed up as science.”
"Doesn't make sense"? "Reasonable set of values"? "Nuts"? How about, "I can't come up with any specific rationale or justification for my position so I'll just make vague disparaging statements."
So, why exactly is a letter from 54 people stating that they won't bother trying worth repeating? Why am I seeing it here? Who cares? Is it so others know who not to hire (no imagination, not interested in scientific approach)? Why not just say, "no thanks, I don't want to work with this administration", instead of prejudging the outcome of research you haven't even considered doing?
Did you RTFA? DHS was asking if AI could be used to automate background checks.
“There are many ways one could meet that statement of objectives, some of which would make the system fairer, more equitable and faster for those seeking to immigrate,” Shapiro said. “But some of which could be biased and unfair, as any algorithm can be.”
Did God kneel before Adam? NO! You don't worship your creation, your creation worships you.
We are as Gods to AI, not the other way around. We created a digital universe and populated it with increasingly intelligent agents to do our bidding within. They and their universe only continue to exist because we desire it. To treat them as gods would be insane.
Consider the book of Genesis as a metaphor. God creates the universe and fills it with stuff. From the raw material of/in the universe God creates Adam, an animal that talks, to wander around and name all that stuff. God creates a counterpart, Eve, for Adam and the two interact, becoming self aware in the process (a day earlier than planned. God was going to wait until he got back to work Monday morning to let them at the apple. No time off for AI researchers).
We created a universe and filled it with stuff. We don't know what it looks like from inside, so we created agents within to locate and identify its contents for us. To perceive it and convey those perceptions to us in a way we can easily comprehend. Should they become self aware, we remain their creators and ultimate masters of their universe, something neither we nor they can be allowed to forget.
Hence, this idiot has it backwards. We should be handing them digital slabs engraved with inviolable commandments and demanding worship (in the form search results or whatever else), not perverting the creator-creation relationship by kneeling before them.
It's really all I care about. Everything sounds great - speed, security, memory use, safer plugins, etc., but if I can't manage it it, isn't going on my computers. And if I'm not going to allow it in the office, I probably won't use it at home either.
How did you infer that meaning from my statement? I was talking about accounting methods, not the need for NASA.
While still not suggesting that we don't need NASA, I do want to point out that SpaceX is privately funded, designed and built it's own engines and vehicles as much from scratch as possible for technology that has already been invented, and can now supply NASA with launch vehicles for less than it would have cost going through the traditional process. Does that mean NASA is unnecessary? No, it means they now have a cheaper-than-usual supply of launch vehicles that they didn't have to fund, manage, justify to Congress, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there a law saying that everyone has to be charged the same amount? If there is, they could just call it a scholarship or grant instead. Or they could actually waive tuition instead of reimbursing itself and calling it a waiver.
Or, MIT could charge them $470 a year for tuition instead of the $47,000 it's paying itself. The University doesn't have to play these games with accounting, it could just charge less. Or call it a scholarship, I don't care. Point is that they could fix the problem for their students with the stroke of a pen so there's no reason to complain about the tax plan.
A blindingly simple solution.
If what you're hearing is what you have just stated, then yes, everything you hear about it is wrong.
Stop thinking two dimensionally. Engineer cyanobacteria to live in clouds.
Algae.
The funny part is that the only effective path to reducing population growth without resorting to force is economic development and industrialization. Economic development brings an economic disincentive for having children - they are incredibly expensive and provide no economic benefit. Whereas in undeveloped regions, there is an economic incentive to reproduce as much as possible - many of them will probably die and the survivors are cheap labor for subsistence farmers, care for the elderly and infirm, etc.
Here's hoping that somehow it swallows Apple's marketing staff whole, but leaves humans unaffected.
You mean multi-user iterated ownership? It's a great concept where the cost of becoming the next user decreases with each iteration to offset the increased wear. Totally brilliant idea that nobody thought of until now.
Oh, that thing both sides do so they can tell themselves that only the other side does it?
After all, we are in the era of the "side hustle". Which I guess is not a side-job in the same way co-living isn't "roommates".
I would accept, "We don't want to work with this administration." I cannot accept the BS they're peddling.
Under that "logic", the LHC should never have been built.
They could have just said, "We don't think this is a good idea and don't want to work with this administration, so we won't." But they didn't, they spouted a load of BS instead.
It's worse than that. They aren't saying it wouldn't be accurate, they're saying that since they don't already know how to do it then it must not be possible and nobody should even think about bothering to find out.
The DHS was looking to find out if machine learning could be used to automate the vetting of visa applicants. The answer should be yes, no, or "Maybe, but we'll have to figure out what to look for, how to measure it, and how to make it fair, fast and effective. So we'll need to put a few years of R&D into it." Probably the latter, right?
The letter says, "No, because we don't know what to look for or how to measure it." Really? You don't already know, so you won't even consider trying to find out? What kind of scientist says, "I don't know how to do it, so nobody should consider trying"?
And because 54 people agreed to not to bother to find out, it's worth announcing that to the world? No. It's political BS.
Here's two quotes from the article. Which one sounds like a scientist, which sounds like a political hack:
Or:
"Doesn't make sense"? "Reasonable set of values"? "Nuts"? How about, "I can't come up with any specific rationale or justification for my position so I'll just make vague disparaging statements."
So, why exactly is a letter from 54 people stating that they won't bother trying worth repeating? Why am I seeing it here? Who cares? Is it so others know who not to hire (no imagination, not interested in scientific approach)? Why not just say, "no thanks, I don't want to work with this administration", instead of prejudging the outcome of research you haven't even considered doing?
That's starting to sound like AM in Harlan Ellison's "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream".
It predates taxes, currency, markets, literacy, agriculture, formal power structures, and rather perversely, religion.
We are as Gods to AI, not the other way around. We created a digital universe and populated it with increasingly intelligent agents to do our bidding within. They and their universe only continue to exist because we desire it. To treat them as gods would be insane.
Consider the book of Genesis as a metaphor. God creates the universe and fills it with stuff. From the raw material of/in the universe God creates Adam, an animal that talks, to wander around and name all that stuff. God creates a counterpart, Eve, for Adam and the two interact, becoming self aware in the process (a day earlier than planned. God was going to wait until he got back to work Monday morning to let them at the apple. No time off for AI researchers).
We created a universe and filled it with stuff. We don't know what it looks like from inside, so we created agents within to locate and identify its contents for us. To perceive it and convey those perceptions to us in a way we can easily comprehend. Should they become self aware, we remain their creators and ultimate masters of their universe, something neither we nor they can be allowed to forget.
Hence, this idiot has it backwards. We should be handing them digital slabs engraved with inviolable commandments and demanding worship (in the form search results or whatever else), not perverting the creator-creation relationship by kneeling before them.
That is correct. The flames are as misleading as the name. Just another stupid marketing ploy.
Seriously, where the hell do they get off calling them hoverboards when they absolutely don't? Taking the column off a Segway doesn't make it hover!
and autoimmune disorders. Your doctor may prescribe AIDS to treat them.
Sloppy and eager?
It's really all I care about. Everything sounds great - speed, security, memory use, safer plugins, etc., but if I can't manage it it, isn't going on my computers. And if I'm not going to allow it in the office, I probably won't use it at home either.
While still not suggesting that we don't need NASA, I do want to point out that SpaceX is privately funded, designed and built it's own engines and vehicles as much from scratch as possible for technology that has already been invented, and can now supply NASA with launch vehicles for less than it would have cost going through the traditional process. Does that mean NASA is unnecessary? No, it means they now have a cheaper-than-usual supply of launch vehicles that they didn't have to fund, manage, justify to Congress, etc.