And if your wife ran out at night and vandalized property you would just "give her a good talking to"?
Defense of others, oneself, or your property are all exceptions. I figured it didn't need to be said.
If what you said worked
What did I suggest? Nothing. I just said that the ends don't justify the means.
But contrary to your delusion
It sounds like you're putting words in my mouth... I never said that all humans know what is right and wrong; I just implied that I don't think the ends justify the means.
If he was talking about something like self-defense, then violence would be one possible solution.
That again assumes that it is impossible to create good tests.
Well, I was talking about current tests.
Some of the tests being used in multi-national testing are getting much better at asking questions to test actual understanding instead of just memorization.
Unfortunately, you're misinterpreting my message; I never said that all forms of memorization are bad.
Very useful to have a few poems memorized for impressing the opposite sex. Very useful to have a few nursery rhymes memorized in order to impress and please your kids.
Then memorize them yourself; don't try to force them on kids in public schools. I for one don't care about such things.
Formulas, theorems, knowledge of your craft, all involve some degree of memorization. If you have to solve every problem from scratch, you're going to be an inefficient at everything.
You should work on understanding why these things work so they'll become more memorable to begin with. Most people just forget if they have no idea what they're doing, anyway.
I never said you should solve every problem from scratch, so that's a straw man. It's perfectly valid to look at the result of someone's work and try to figure out what their logic was and gain a deep understanding of how it works.
And yes, everyone should have addition and multiplication tables memorized, because it's so damn useful.
Really? How? Math is not about speed; math is a form of art. Look, I never needed to make an effort to memorize idiotic multiplication tables, which was just a waste of time that could've been used to teach understanding; if I see a result often enough, I memorize it naturally. Forcing people to do this nonsense in public schools is exactly the problem.
there are plenty of practices that can make them very useful.
No, because the tests themselves are currently fundamentally flawed. They test for rote memorization, not understanding. These simplistic tests only fool people into believing they're worth a damn thing.
I can still recite the multiplication tables up to 12 with no real thought.
That might not have been a waste of time for you, but it was for me. Memorize such nonsense on your own time.
Rote has its place.
In mindless subjects. The example you gave was a poor one.
That is a bullshit phrase that has no proof at all.
That is a bullshit sentence with no proof at all.
I doubt anyone who actually understands math and other subjects even a little bit can honestly say that people are receiving good educations. There are vital things that are being left out, and one of those things is the 'why.'
The difference is that kids aren't adults, but that is a very superficial difference. I do not like it when people assert that they can use violence against another person to get that person to do what they want, even if they believe it to bring about a 'better' result in the long run.
It's just that these tests fail to account for the rote memorization 'geniuses' (the majority) and encourage schools to teach to the test in order to get 'better' results.
When it comes time for admission and staying in, a student in the top 10% of a US high school just does not have the ability to compete with his/her counterparts who come from China and India [1].
And how is this measured? By administering more crappy standardized tests and then comparing the two? That's not education at all.
More of the same garbage we see in public schools? That sort of thing just produces worker drones. And if we can make the classes decent, as may as well fix education, too.
I'm sorry it makes no sense to you, but if everything can be produced without labor, there won't be any scarcity of any manufactured good.
Using machines to complete tasks instead of humans would not make resources unlimited.
Congratulations! Despite your apparently nearly complete ignorance of economics, at least you figured out that if everything were free, we wouldn't need markets to allocate resources.
You can automate 100% of what is currently a specific job/task, but you can't automate 100% of all work.
Depends on the type of work.
That means labor is 100 times as productive
What makes you think the labor is 100 times as productive? Where did that number come from?
If 100% of all work is automated, all goods and services are free, so nobody actually needs to get paid anymore.
I don't see why they'd be free just because the task is being done more efficiently. Scarcity would still exist, and how much more efficient the machines are is still relevant.
The same reason they always work: in order to earn a living. if automation automates half the work, workers need to work half as much for the same standard of living.
Why would it only automate half? What I speak of is advanced AI, not mindless machines. Letting humans do the work will only result in inefficiency, at some point.
"Jobs" don't get automated; "jobs" are an artificial constructs into which we divide labor and tasks.
That's nice.
We can maintain the same number of jobs and people just work proportionately less.
And as the amount of tasks that people can complete and get paid for approaches zero, people won't be working much at all, and in that case, how much could you possibly pay them? How much would employers, in reality, want to pay people for doing less and less work?
There's also the fact that people should be innocent unless proven guilty, and they shouldn't be able to force website owners to hand over information on users based on suspicion.
The constitution doesn't give the government the power to strip people of their anonymity, either. Learn to understand the constitution.
Furthermore, punishing people because of their speech (what data they chose to send or not send) is a violation of the right to free speech. Punishing people for being anonymous would violate freedom of speech because you'd be punishing them for how they chose to send their message.
Slashdot Mirror
And if your wife ran out at night and vandalized property you would just "give her a good talking to"?
Defense of others, oneself, or your property are all exceptions. I figured it didn't need to be said.
If what you said worked
What did I suggest? Nothing. I just said that the ends don't justify the means.
But contrary to your delusion
It sounds like you're putting words in my mouth... I never said that all humans know what is right and wrong; I just implied that I don't think the ends justify the means.
If he was talking about something like self-defense, then violence would be one possible solution.
So you agree with what I said, but you think I'm one of the unintelligent people? Fair enough.
That again assumes that it is impossible to create good tests.
Well, I was talking about current tests.
Some of the tests being used in multi-national testing are getting much better at asking questions to test actual understanding instead of just memorization.
I don't see it.
Nothing wrong with it at all.
Unfortunately, you're misinterpreting my message; I never said that all forms of memorization are bad.
Very useful to have a few poems memorized for impressing the opposite sex. Very useful to have a few nursery rhymes memorized in order to impress and please your kids.
Then memorize them yourself; don't try to force them on kids in public schools. I for one don't care about such things.
Formulas, theorems, knowledge of your craft, all involve some degree of memorization. If you have to solve every problem from scratch, you're going to be an inefficient at everything.
You should work on understanding why these things work so they'll become more memorable to begin with. Most people just forget if they have no idea what they're doing, anyway.
I never said you should solve every problem from scratch, so that's a straw man. It's perfectly valid to look at the result of someone's work and try to figure out what their logic was and gain a deep understanding of how it works.
And yes, everyone should have addition and multiplication tables memorized, because it's so damn useful.
Really? How? Math is not about speed; math is a form of art. Look, I never needed to make an effort to memorize idiotic multiplication tables, which was just a waste of time that could've been used to teach understanding; if I see a result often enough, I memorize it naturally. Forcing people to do this nonsense in public schools is exactly the problem.
there are plenty of practices that can make them very useful.
No, because the tests themselves are currently fundamentally flawed. They test for rote memorization, not understanding. These simplistic tests only fool people into believing they're worth a damn thing.
The people that criticize standardized testing are usually opposed to any accountability whatsoever.
I oppose (current) standardized testing because our standardized tests are absolute garbage.
Again, you're actually making it worse by administering these shitty tests; they just encourage rote memorization and teaching to the test.
You largely don't. This desire for worthless simplicity is part of the problem.
I can still recite the multiplication tables up to 12 with no real thought.
That might not have been a waste of time for you, but it was for me. Memorize such nonsense on your own time.
Rote has its place.
In mindless subjects. The example you gave was a poor one.
That is a bullshit phrase that has no proof at all.
That is a bullshit sentence with no proof at all.
I doubt anyone who actually understands math and other subjects even a little bit can honestly say that people are receiving good educations. There are vital things that are being left out, and one of those things is the 'why.'
So you say, but I've seen nothing that indicates otherwise. Most people are simply unintelligent.
The difference is that kids aren't adults, but that is a very superficial difference. I do not like it when people assert that they can use violence against another person to get that person to do what they want, even if they believe it to bring about a 'better' result in the long run.
It's just that these tests fail to account for the rote memorization 'geniuses' (the majority) and encourage schools to teach to the test in order to get 'better' results.
Why can't I slap my wife around? I feel that sometimes it's in her best interest that I do so, so why is that tool not available to me?
When it comes time for admission and staying in, a student in the top 10% of a US high school just does not have the ability to compete with his/her counterparts who come from China and India [1].
And how is this measured? By administering more crappy standardized tests and then comparing the two? That's not education at all.
While what you assert was once true
It was never true. The education system has always been about producing mindless worker drones.
but require the recipient take classes
More of the same garbage we see in public schools? That sort of thing just produces worker drones. And if we can make the classes decent, as may as well fix education, too.
there won't be any scarcity of any manufactured good.
Scarcity will always exist, because the resources you used to produce these goods are themselves scarce.
I'm sorry it makes no sense to you, but if everything can be produced without labor, there won't be any scarcity of any manufactured good.
Using machines to complete tasks instead of humans would not make resources unlimited.
Congratulations! Despite your apparently nearly complete ignorance of economics, at least you figured out that if everything were free, we wouldn't need markets to allocate resources.
Speaking of ignorance...
If everything is automated, tasks aren't done "more efficiently", they are done infinitely efficiently.
That makes no sense. Scarcity will always exist, so to say that the prices would drop to zero is just nonsense.
Not at all. Human greed is what makes free market economics work. The greedier its participants are, the better it works.
Our system as we know it would not exist if everything were free (something that wouldn't happen under our current system anyway).
You can automate 100% of what is currently a specific job/task, but you can't automate 100% of all work.
Depends on the type of work.
That means labor is 100 times as productive
What makes you think the labor is 100 times as productive? Where did that number come from?
If 100% of all work is automated, all goods and services are free, so nobody actually needs to get paid anymore.
I don't see why they'd be free just because the task is being done more efficiently. Scarcity would still exist, and how much more efficient the machines are is still relevant.
And I think you're underestimating human greed.
The same reason they always work: in order to earn a living. if automation automates half the work, workers need to work half as much for the same standard of living.
Why would it only automate half? What I speak of is advanced AI, not mindless machines. Letting humans do the work will only result in inefficiency, at some point.
"Jobs" don't get automated; "jobs" are an artificial constructs into which we divide labor and tasks.
That's nice.
We can maintain the same number of jobs and people just work proportionately less.
And as the amount of tasks that people can complete and get paid for approaches zero, people won't be working much at all, and in that case, how much could you possibly pay them? How much would employers, in reality, want to pay people for doing less and less work?
Their service has not yet been deemed legal or illegal at this point.
The guy above said he thought it was.
In any case, I'm rooting for this company, no matter how our corrupt system ends up dealing with this.
It's hard to root for them unless your only goal is the collapse of broadcast television.
Sounds like a good goal to me. Besides, if what they're doing is legal, then why would you not root for them?
There's also the fact that people should be innocent unless proven guilty, and they shouldn't be able to force website owners to hand over information on users based on suspicion.
The constitution doesn't give the government the power to strip people of their anonymity, either. Learn to understand the constitution.
Furthermore, punishing people because of their speech (what data they chose to send or not send) is a violation of the right to free speech. Punishing people for being anonymous would violate freedom of speech because you'd be punishing them for how they chose to send their message.