Granted, such a simple suggestion is out of vogue, but here we go: exercise your will. In other words, force yourself to concentrate and work on what you're supposed to be working on. Master your passion for distraction. You will find that it gets easier over time, much like most other things.
Two things must be said. First, you're simply assuming that the brain is a kind of machine. Yet to say that brain research is in its infancy is wildly charitable. And second, if it does turn out that, in fact, the brain is a machine, then the argument at hand demonstrates that the mind is something above and beyond the brain. That's a conclusion that many scientists won't much like, of course, but it won't come as any suprise to lots of other folk.
So I guess if 1 in 6 Americans supported slavery, we should start putting people in chains again? The percentage of the population that believes something to be morally right/wrong has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether it is, in fact, morally right/wrong. Logicians call that the informal fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Apparently, some aren't aware of it.
I take it this chap, and many other posters, are unaware of the Lucas-Penrose argument, which demonstrates that it is literally impossible for any formal system (e.g., a machine) to run the "program" of a human mind. It's an interesting use of Göedel's theorem, and it's worth study, but I guess it's more popular to conclude that, in fact, the matrix has us. Thanks, but I'll stick with reality.
First, regarding the security of the system, it might be in violation of federal privacy guidelines. I teach at the University of Southern California, and our administrators are taking those guidelines pretty seriously. To wit, I cannot discuss grades or anything substantive with students via email, and I cannot post grades anywhere that they could be read unless I generate random codes for lookup that are in no way related to the student's true information. That the product in question uses the social security number and a few letters of the last name probably doesn't pass legal muster from what I've been told.
Second, regarding the homework: suck it up. Every day I deal with college students that are literally incapable of performing basic mathematics (e.g., multiplying two single-digit numbers), writing a simple declarative sentence (in any language, mind you, not just English), and show a shocking lack of any reasoning skills. Do your homework now while you're young. I know it isn't much fun, but trust me, it's better than being an idiot later in life.
I don't know what planet you're on, but I had no trouble whatsoever getting work with only 3 years of experience. Try completing lots and lots of applications. You might be surprised.
My first suggestion is to relax. I dealt with the same thing when I was 19, being only the second statistics-literate person in a Ford plant that was desperate seeking their Q1 quality award (back in 1986). I got precisely zero respect at first from any of the guys there at first, who were all 15 - 40 years my senior. However, once it became obvious that I knew what I was talking about while they didn't, the majority treated me much better while the minority hated my guts. If you're as good as you think you are, then the respect will come. If it doesn't, you might want to re-evaluate how good you really are as opposed to how good you think you are. Those older than you aren't stupid; they may be unfairly skeptical, but they'll come around if you've got the stuff to prove yourself.
Sounds to me like you're simply starting to think about this without the benefit of having already made up your mind at the outset. I am not a big fan of Microsoft, but if arrogance ought be a crime, as you imply, then Slashdot too is deserving of punishment. Has Microsoft done illegal and/or morally bad things? Yes, I think so. Ought they be punished for them? Insofar as they've done illegal things, yes. Ought the company be broke up by the draconian ruling of a hard-headed judge of whom it can also be plausibly said that he made up his mind long before the evidence had been examined? No, I don't think so. Judge Jackson's ruling strikes me as an edict from a man who got pissed off at what he saw rather than as an impartial judgement from a disinterested observer--which is what such rulings are supposed to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Granted, such a simple suggestion is out of vogue, but here we go: exercise your will. In other words, force yourself to concentrate and work on what you're supposed to be working on. Master your passion for distraction. You will find that it gets easier over time, much like most other things.
Two things must be said. First, you're simply assuming that the brain is a kind of machine. Yet to say that brain research is in its infancy is wildly charitable. And second, if it does turn out that, in fact, the brain is a machine, then the argument at hand demonstrates that the mind is something above and beyond the brain. That's a conclusion that many scientists won't much like, of course, but it won't come as any suprise to lots of other folk.
So I guess if 1 in 6 Americans supported slavery, we should start putting people in chains again? The percentage of the population that believes something to be morally right/wrong has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether it is, in fact, morally right/wrong. Logicians call that the informal fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Apparently, some aren't aware of it.
I take it this chap, and many other posters, are unaware of the Lucas-Penrose argument, which demonstrates that it is literally impossible for any formal system (e.g., a machine) to run the "program" of a human mind. It's an interesting use of Göedel's theorem, and it's worth study, but I guess it's more popular to conclude that, in fact, the matrix has us. Thanks, but I'll stick with reality.
First, regarding the security of the system, it might be in violation of federal privacy guidelines. I teach at the University of Southern California, and our administrators are taking those guidelines pretty seriously. To wit, I cannot discuss grades or anything substantive with students via email, and I cannot post grades anywhere that they could be read unless I generate random codes for lookup that are in no way related to the student's true information. That the product in question uses the social security number and a few letters of the last name probably doesn't pass legal muster from what I've been told.
Second, regarding the homework: suck it up. Every day I deal with college students that are literally incapable of performing basic mathematics (e.g., multiplying two single-digit numbers), writing a simple declarative sentence (in any language, mind you, not just English), and show a shocking lack of any reasoning skills. Do your homework now while you're young. I know it isn't much fun, but trust me, it's better than being an idiot later in life.
I don't know what planet you're on, but I had no trouble whatsoever getting work with only 3 years of experience. Try completing lots and lots of applications. You might be surprised.
My first suggestion is to relax. I dealt with the same thing when I was 19, being only the second statistics-literate person in a Ford plant that was desperate seeking their Q1 quality award (back in 1986). I got precisely zero respect at first from any of the guys there at first, who were all 15 - 40 years my senior. However, once it became obvious that I knew what I was talking about while they didn't, the majority treated me much better while the minority hated my guts. If you're as good as you think you are, then the respect will come. If it doesn't, you might want to re-evaluate how good you really are as opposed to how good you think you are. Those older than you aren't stupid; they may be unfairly skeptical, but they'll come around if you've got the stuff to prove yourself.
Sounds to me like you're simply starting to think about this without the benefit of having already made up your mind at the outset. I am not a big fan of Microsoft, but if arrogance ought be a crime, as you imply, then Slashdot too is deserving of punishment. Has Microsoft done illegal and/or morally bad things? Yes, I think so. Ought they be punished for them? Insofar as they've done illegal things, yes. Ought the company be broke up by the draconian ruling of a hard-headed judge of whom it can also be plausibly said that he made up his mind long before the evidence had been examined? No, I don't think so. Judge Jackson's ruling strikes me as an edict from a man who got pissed off at what he saw rather than as an impartial judgement from a disinterested observer--which is what such rulings are supposed to be.