Over the years fields have gotten more and more in-depth/specialized to the point where a hundred or two hundred years back it wasn't unthinkable for a person to know several fields in completion. These days fields are very specialized - even to the point where a subject matter expert may not be able to know the full corpus of their field. At the same time the rates of autism and asperger's syndrome shoot up when you breed to people of high intellect.
Following this line of thinking my questions are:
Do you believe autism/asperger's syndrome are a form of intellectual evolution/advancement?
Do you think the flaws perceived to be associated with autism/asperger's syndrome are related to an improper method of educating such individuals for highly specialized tasks in a useful manner? (e.g. autism/asperger's syndrome are frequently associated with obsessions in childish things like trains, video game characters, cartoons or toys with the concessional highly successful outliers in areas like computing, science, math or biology due to a similar obsession with those things)
From the previous question: Do you believe it would be beneficial to dramatically restructure education of autistic/asperger's syndrome individuals from an early age to steer that inherent ability to drive obsessive study toward useful fields in society?
I ask these as a person with Asperger's Syndrome that was diagnosed with it as a teenager who had a father that taught me a lot of engineering/math/science/tech/programming/psychology/philosophy from an early age (2) and have since developed that obsessive type of study of each of those areas (plus herpetology) so I'm curious if it is just my own take on things from introspective observations of myself or if this would seem to sync up with what others have observed (I'm making the assumption here that you have a fair deal more experience with autistic/asperger's syndrome people than I do.)
I have no objection to the science of GMO. It is the business of GMO that I do not trust.
That's exactly where I stand. GMOs are like machines and genetic engineering in general is like a CNC - you can make tools to improve the world as easily as weapons and malfunctioning equipment that will get people killed (in fact, the latter are easier to produce.) They need to be tightly regulated just like drugs because they are every bit as potentially dangerous and worse they are far more complex and less well understood (Hell, most of what we do with GM involves copying and pasting genes between different organisms - most of the time it works pretty well if the organism survives at all but there is a huge potential for unforeseen consequences.)
Every single GMO organism has the chance for new untested substances to be produced within it. They should be regulated the same way we regulate drugs with proper clinical trials before release for exactly the same reason.
And you are still allowing laziness to overshadow reason? The idea you have 20 years programming experience is seriously suspect if you think of adding a "system wide" default for divide-by-zero AND think it should be adjustable. It's so absurd you may have stuck my eye wide open in an expression of shock.
But if Google or Facebook do the eavesdropping they'll just charge the government for the privilege to see it which will get passed on in the form of taxes. We literally pay if it costs them to spy more on us.
Think of it more in an evolutionary sense than a purely design/engineering one. People tend to suck at design/engineering (that is, there are a lot of failures along the way to success.) Traditionally parachute design has revolved around folding patterns and things of that nature because we didn't have automated means to unfurl a parachute (most are still hand-folded) - you don't just go from hand-folding and relying on folding patterns to an automated deployment mechanism - even with an automated deployment mechanism you are going to have variations from one implementation to the next due to differences in materials (two blocks of aluminum are not created equal - there is variation even in the best-made materials that might cause slightly different flexing and load tolerances.) The leap from hand-folded parachutes to an automated system is practically equivalent to a gliding lizard's wing flaps to a bird's tail feathers - it's a pretty extreme difference even if the two serve similar purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
Over the years fields have gotten more and more in-depth/specialized to the point where a hundred or two hundred years back it wasn't unthinkable for a person to know several fields in completion. These days fields are very specialized - even to the point where a subject matter expert may not be able to know the full corpus of their field. At the same time the rates of autism and asperger's syndrome shoot up when you breed to people of high intellect.
Following this line of thinking my questions are:
I ask these as a person with Asperger's Syndrome that was diagnosed with it as a teenager who had a father that taught me a lot of engineering/math/science/tech/programming/psychology/philosophy from an early age (2) and have since developed that obsessive type of study of each of those areas (plus herpetology) so I'm curious if it is just my own take on things from introspective observations of myself or if this would seem to sync up with what others have observed (I'm making the assumption here that you have a fair deal more experience with autistic/asperger's syndrome people than I do.)
As long as they call it Spacon it will be a hit in Hawaii and annoy people everywhere.
Soon to be amputated.
I'd mod you up for spending the time to present facts to a zealot if I had any mod points.
Prudence is not anti-science, you zealous idiot.
I practice synbio, you nit.
I have no objection to the science of GMO. It is the business of GMO that I do not trust.
That's exactly where I stand. GMOs are like machines and genetic engineering in general is like a CNC - you can make tools to improve the world as easily as weapons and malfunctioning equipment that will get people killed (in fact, the latter are easier to produce.) They need to be tightly regulated just like drugs because they are every bit as potentially dangerous and worse they are far more complex and less well understood (Hell, most of what we do with GM involves copying and pasting genes between different organisms - most of the time it works pretty well if the organism survives at all but there is a huge potential for unforeseen consequences.)
The post made no points - just mindless attacks based on presumption of ignorance.
I find it interesting you believe my view on the matter is based in ignorance - especially since I have a fair deal of experience with synbio.
Every single GMO organism has the chance for new untested substances to be produced within it. They should be regulated the same way we regulate drugs with proper clinical trials before release for exactly the same reason.
Fun for all ages!
Darwin will be pleased.
Its like waking up a laptop, yes it wasn't really asleep because it doesn't dream. Its called language, learn to use it motherfucker.
Google would beg to differ. It's called language, learn to use it motherfucker.
And you are still allowing laziness to overshadow reason? The idea you have 20 years programming experience is seriously suspect if you think of adding a "system wide" default for divide-by-zero AND think it should be adjustable. It's so absurd you may have stuck my eye wide open in an expression of shock.
But if Google or Facebook do the eavesdropping they'll just charge the government for the privilege to see it which will get passed on in the form of taxes. We literally pay if it costs them to spy more on us.
Think of it more in an evolutionary sense than a purely design/engineering one. People tend to suck at design/engineering (that is, there are a lot of failures along the way to success.) Traditionally parachute design has revolved around folding patterns and things of that nature because we didn't have automated means to unfurl a parachute (most are still hand-folded) - you don't just go from hand-folding and relying on folding patterns to an automated deployment mechanism - even with an automated deployment mechanism you are going to have variations from one implementation to the next due to differences in materials (two blocks of aluminum are not created equal - there is variation even in the best-made materials that might cause slightly different flexing and load tolerances.) The leap from hand-folded parachutes to an automated system is practically equivalent to a gliding lizard's wing flaps to a bird's tail feathers - it's a pretty extreme difference even if the two serve similar purposes.
The meta-data used in processing the raw data collected is likely to be far far larger.