"You have to teach yourself," Storman rightly complained.
Being able to learn yourself is the most important skill you can have. Unfortunately, many people never acquire that skill (...)
I found out that school is not very efficient in transferring knowledge, at least not for me. What school was good for, was shaping my neural networks, learning to think, and actually being able to teach myself new things.
Unfortunately this insight only came to me when my educational years were in the past. I wish someone had told me that school is not for learning 'durch, fur, gegen, ohne, um, entlang, bis' or 'poteram, poteras, poterat, poteramus, poteratis, poterant', but for making your brain see structures, for enabling your brain to remember other things.
Ironically one of the few teachers that in retrospect seemed to grasp that, thought theology lessons. Maybe that is why I am an atheist: he triggered my critical thinking.
I doubt that putting kids of that age in front of screens for hours will educate or improve their self-learning skills. We have evolved while learning from each other. It would not surprise me if human-human interaction turns out to be the best way to learn. We are social animals.
Off topic, but it is a generational thing. Judging from your ID I take it you are the same age as I am, or older. I only applied for an account after reading slashdot for quite some months/years...
Anyway, we are of the same age or you are older. Which means that you can remember a world without internet access on your phone. Or internet access in your home. Or internet access at university or some Initech. Or internet at all. When you needed information, you needed to go to the library, or look it up in an encyclopedia or ask someone else.
If you wanted to make an appointment with someone, you had to plan in advance instead of calling ad-hoc. If you wanted to meet someone at a venue, you would have to plan in advance, because, hey, no mobile phones. You needed to keep an eye out for each other or assign a meeting point for when someone got lost.
You had to go to a shop to buy something, go to some desk to rent something. You probably even needed to plan to have enough money on you, but not too much.
Hell, even running punch cards through a computer and getting the results could take hours.
Long story short: everything took longer. Now so much is instantaneous. Your mind got wired when everything took longer. The internet generation has gotten their minds wired in an environment were everything is near-instant. They are not used to waiting, because they have never waited. Not like you and me. I think that is a significant factor in the change you have noticed here on slashdot.
We are getting old. We have skills, like patience and parallelization/pipe-lining, that are not really needed anymore. We see the 'young' without these once essential skills and get more or less annoyed at the behaviour they show without these skills.
So yeah: screw useful! This is heavy nerdy shit. This is why I visit slashdot.
Judging from your post is seems your focus and reasoning are stronger than the primitive human urges of wanting to know what the monkeys on the other rock are doing. You also seem aware of the effects that your actions have on other people.
These things cannot be said of most people. I think these watches are targeted at most people.
I do not know if you are old-fashioned, but your 'license' argument is false. When you buy something, you own it. Period. (Unless you know it is stolen goods, etc.)
Copyright takes away some of the actions you could normally perform on your property, such as making a copy and selling it.
That is why the term 'intellectual property' is Orwellian doublespeak: copyright holders do not 'own' the contents of books or recordings. They simply 'own' the exclusive right to make copies of it. When you buy one of their copies, you own it. You can use it, sell it, rip it to pieces, store it, whatever. But only the copyright holder has right to make copies. For a limited amount of time. Note that the definition of 'limited' has been extended from 14 years originally to nowadays 70 to 120 years in the U.S.
Based on your posting, a lot of other information and a you-need-to-start-acting-on-your-hunches from my wife (1), I bought 4 shares yesterday at around usd 296. Laughing hard now.
(1) When Steve Jobs returned to Apple, I stated to a friend that if I had 1000 euro to spare, I would buy Apple shares. Unfortunately I did not have money to spare back then...
As states the anonymous coward, with ancient scripts as his only source.
Please have a look at logic, and make a study of 'non sequitur'. Even if we accept the absurdity of your claim that someone came back from the dead, that revival says nothing about the claims that zombie has been making. In other words: causing a miracle does not make everything you say true.
"If AI kills everyone in the future, then we cannot be living in a computer simulation created by our decedents. And if we are living in a computer simulation created by our decedents, then AI didn't kill everyone. I think it a fair deduction that Professor Bostrom is wrong about something."
Well there is a basic logical error if I have ever seen one. If an AI is smart enough to kill all human beings (and we humans can be pretty resourceful when we are pushed), then why would that same AI not be able to create simulations? Come to think of it, when an AI comes to the level of where it simply wants to know everything there is to know, there is a high probability that it would build simulated worlds, just to find out how stuff like evolution works on a macro scale.
Every once in a while I come across a comment on slashdot that tells me something I did not know or think about, but is immediately obvious and clear the moment I have read it. This is such a gem: yes, he does not want insight in what his customers want, which is ridiculous on one hand and signals that this is not a free market.
Sibling comment from Waccoon above has some excellent points. And a couple of days ago there was an item here on Slashdot on why your type of response is frowned upon.
Please try to help others instead of putting them down.
I would be very happy if these would end up in the next iteration of the MacBook Pro. Having the Oculus Rift work on an Apple machine (when Oculus resumes its work on an OS X and releases an SDK) would spare me the extra cost of buying a PC. I hope to set up a VR rig within 12 months and my 2011 MacBook Pro is eligible for replacement; I hope to combine these two.
How do the two compare? I know this Google attempt will not qualify as 'composed by Bach', so is there something special in the way the Google AI came to this awful sequence of notes? If the Google folk except it to do better, why did they not wait a few learn-iterations and publish that result?
For some reason, society has developed a notion of "proper" behavior which deviates substantially from how people actually behave.
Yes. For me this is called 'civilized'. When someone cuts me off in traffic, my instinct tells me to hit him or her. Nasty, but it is my ancient primate genes talking. I may or may not think about hitting, depending on my mood. That is the more human part of my brain. Do I actually hit someone for cutting me off in traffic? No. There is a big difference in what I 'feel', 'think' and what I do.
I know you mentioned 'behaviour/behaviour' and not 'though/behaviour', but the first is analog to the latter. For instance, I do not communicate about what I do sexually. I do not do anything illegal, or even weird, but that is just something between me and my girl. Putting our intimate details in the public domain is not civilized behaviour for me. Likewise for a night out: I do not go on a vandalizing spree or whatever, but posting pictures about my night out? No, that is private.
This line of reasoning pretty much continues all the way up to (but not included) posts like this one: I consider this to be a civilized exchange of ideas, so that is why I write these lines.
As the saying goes, good judgement comes from experience. And experience comes from bad judgement. If "everyone" has their incidents of bad judgement made public for all to see, maybe we'll all start to be more honest with ourselves, admit that we all screw up from time to time, and be more forgiving of other people's innocent mistakes. Then maybe we can actually get some honest politicians elected to run the country.
I am Dutch, so I might have less to complain about in politics... I do want my children to learn from their bad judgement, and I know that they will make mistakes, but I see no use in having their mistakes out there forever. It is not civilized and serves them no purpose. It is probably best said by jareth-0205 in 52078783:
Privacy is what prevents flawed judgemental people from harming us.
I grew up in a world where the internet did not really exist for most people. My first direct contact with it was in 1989. This means I have had the opportunity (although at the time I was not fully aware of that) to influence what pieces of information about me were put online.
When I became a father it seemed only logical to extend this same opportunity to our offspring. And my girlfriend feels the same on this issue, so it is very difficult to find anything on our children online.
My hope is that they will see the value in this and abstain from putting things online that might work against them in their future life. Puberty for them is still some odd years in the future, so I hope there is time enough to get this into their firmware.
Why do you dodge the 'most of the terror in the world today' part with a disingenious 'some others do it too'? You dodge the main point and then claim gp should be ashamed? Disingouity followed by an ad hominem? Why do moderators fall for these tricks?
If most acts of X are committed by Y and someone asks why this is so, claiming discrimination is effectively telling the one who asks the question to shut up because you say he is a bigot. You are wilfully distorting the discussion.
You are offended? What is your point? You think you have a reason to be offended because someone makes fun of a belief system? How about being offended because of things that are actually harmful and bad? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You have been working for the freedom of software users for at least some thirty odd years now. Do you think that (maybe because of your work) that freedom has improved, or that it has stayed the same or has deteriorated? To me it seems to have deteriorated and I am wondering where you get the energy to keep on fighting.
You probably mean 'coffee shops'. You can buy hash and weed there and smoke it too. 'Coffee houses' are mostly run by and frequented by (former) Turkish nationals (men); the main themes there are playing games, talking and drinking coffee.
Nice strawman. I never said the orthodox jews are in charge of the government of the whole of the U.S.A.
A rabbi forces 'his' views on the people under him. The Irani government (and a lot of governments on this planet) force 'its' views on the people under it. That is the similarity.
It is relatively easier for an orthodox jew in the U.S.A. to leave orthodoxy than for an Iranian muslim to leave islam, but there is no pick and choose for fundamentalist movements, like the orthodox jews, what the original poster seemed to imply.
No. The only difference is that you can leave your religion if you are an ultra-orthodox Jew in the U.S.A. Leaving any orthodox religion is hard, after so many years of hard-line indoctrination.
But in no way do 'followers of the rabbis' have any say in which rules they will follow and which rules not: do everything, or face the consequences. In this there is a great similarity with the situation in Iran.
Slashdot Mirror
In the same context: my parents and my teachers always gave me correct information and my memory works flawlessly.
With my phone I am able to perform more tasks and perform them faster than without a phone. I would say that would fit the meaning of 'smarter'.
"You have to teach yourself," Storman rightly complained.
Being able to learn yourself is the most important skill you can have. Unfortunately, many people never acquire that skill (...)
I found out that school is not very efficient in transferring knowledge, at least not for me. What school was good for, was shaping my neural networks, learning to think, and actually being able to teach myself new things.
Unfortunately this insight only came to me when my educational years were in the past. I wish someone had told me that school is not for learning 'durch, fur, gegen, ohne, um, entlang, bis' or 'poteram, poteras, poterat, poteramus, poteratis, poterant', but for making your brain see structures, for enabling your brain to remember other things.
Ironically one of the few teachers that in retrospect seemed to grasp that, thought theology lessons. Maybe that is why I am an atheist: he triggered my critical thinking.
I doubt that putting kids of that age in front of screens for hours will educate or improve their self-learning skills. We have evolved while learning from each other. It would not surprise me if human-human interaction turns out to be the best way to learn. We are social animals.
Oh yes, âthatâ(TM) tsr! I am almost sure it came from simtel somewhere. Oh, those were the days...
Off topic, but it is a generational thing. Judging from your ID I take it you are the same age as I am, or older. I only applied for an account after reading slashdot for quite some months/years...
Anyway, we are of the same age or you are older. Which means that you can remember a world without internet access on your phone. Or internet access in your home. Or internet access at university or some Initech. Or internet at all. When you needed information, you needed to go to the library, or look it up in an encyclopedia or ask someone else.
If you wanted to make an appointment with someone, you had to plan in advance instead of calling ad-hoc. If you wanted to meet someone at a venue, you would have to plan in advance, because, hey, no mobile phones. You needed to keep an eye out for each other or assign a meeting point for when someone got lost.
You had to go to a shop to buy something, go to some desk to rent something. You probably even needed to plan to have enough money on you, but not too much.
Hell, even running punch cards through a computer and getting the results could take hours.
Long story short: everything took longer. Now so much is instantaneous. Your mind got wired when everything took longer. The internet generation has gotten their minds wired in an environment were everything is near-instant. They are not used to waiting, because they have never waited. Not like you and me. I think that is a significant factor in the change you have noticed here on slashdot.
We are getting old. We have skills, like patience and parallelization/pipe-lining, that are not really needed anymore. We see the 'young' without these once essential skills and get more or less annoyed at the behaviour they show without these skills.
So yeah: screw useful! This is heavy nerdy shit. This is why I visit slashdot.
Judging from your post is seems your focus and reasoning are stronger than the primitive human urges of wanting to know what the monkeys on the other rock are doing. You also seem aware of the effects that your actions have on other people.
These things cannot be said of most people. I think these watches are targeted at most people.
I do not know if you are old-fashioned, but your 'license' argument is false. When you buy something, you own it. Period. (Unless you know it is stolen goods, etc.)
Copyright takes away some of the actions you could normally perform on your property, such as making a copy and selling it.
That is why the term 'intellectual property' is Orwellian doublespeak: copyright holders do not 'own' the contents of books or recordings. They simply 'own' the exclusive right to make copies of it. When you buy one of their copies, you own it. You can use it, sell it, rip it to pieces, store it, whatever. But only the copyright holder has right to make copies. For a limited amount of time. Note that the definition of 'limited' has been extended from 14 years originally to nowadays 70 to 120 years in the U.S.
Based on your posting, a lot of other information and a you-need-to-start-acting-on-your-hunches from my wife (1), I bought 4 shares yesterday at around usd 296. Laughing hard now.
(1) When Steve Jobs returned to Apple, I stated to a friend that if I had 1000 euro to spare, I would buy Apple shares. Unfortunately I did not have money to spare back then...
As states the anonymous coward, with ancient scripts as his only source.
Please have a look at logic, and make a study of 'non sequitur'. Even if we accept the absurdity of your claim that someone came back from the dead, that revival says nothing about the claims that zombie has been making. In other words: causing a miracle does not make everything you say true.
Ah, you are also 'in the spectrum'. I wondered why I found all of your comments in this thread so clearly formulated and well thought out.
Now it is obvious: you mostly use your brain to think instead of your guts, just like me.
"If AI kills everyone in the future, then we cannot be living in a computer simulation created by our decedents. And if we are living in a computer simulation created by our decedents, then AI didn't kill everyone. I think it a fair deduction that Professor Bostrom is wrong about something."
Well there is a basic logical error if I have ever seen one. If an AI is smart enough to kill all human beings (and we humans can be pretty resourceful when we are pushed), then why would that same AI not be able to create simulations? Come to think of it, when an AI comes to the level of where it simply wants to know everything there is to know, there is a high probability that it would build simulated worlds, just to find out how stuff like evolution works on a macro scale.
Every once in a while I come across a comment on slashdot that tells me something I did not know or think about, but is immediately obvious and clear the moment I have read it. This is such a gem: yes, he does not want insight in what his customers want, which is ridiculous on one hand and signals that this is not a free market.
Sibling comment from Waccoon above has some excellent points. And a couple of days ago there was an item here on Slashdot on why your type of response is frowned upon.
Please try to help others instead of putting them down.
Excellent that they took their time to made sure there was not any name clash with something else in the filesystem realm
I would be very happy if these would end up in the next iteration of the MacBook Pro. Having the Oculus Rift work on an Apple machine (when Oculus resumes its work on an OS X and releases an SDK) would spare me the extra cost of buying a PC. I hope to set up a VR rig within 12 months and my 2011 MacBook Pro is eligible for replacement; I hope to combine these two.
Not like that has never been done before, or better. Mind the date: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/11/science/undiscovered-bach-no-a-computer-wrote-it.html?pagewanted=all
How do the two compare? I know this Google attempt will not qualify as 'composed by Bach', so is there something special in the way the Google AI came to this awful sequence of notes? If the Google folk except it to do better, why did they not wait a few learn-iterations and publish that result?
Since I am Dutch, I would very much like to know what input you used to come to the conclusion this was an illegal police action.
Yes. For me this is called 'civilized'. When someone cuts me off in traffic, my instinct tells me to hit him or her. Nasty, but it is my ancient primate genes talking. I may or may not think about hitting, depending on my mood. That is the more human part of my brain. Do I actually hit someone for cutting me off in traffic? No. There is a big difference in what I 'feel', 'think' and what I do.
I know you mentioned 'behaviour/behaviour' and not 'though/behaviour', but the first is analog to the latter. For instance, I do not communicate about what I do sexually. I do not do anything illegal, or even weird, but that is just something between me and my girl. Putting our intimate details in the public domain is not civilized behaviour for me. Likewise for a night out: I do not go on a vandalizing spree or whatever, but posting pictures about my night out? No, that is private.
This line of reasoning pretty much continues all the way up to (but not included) posts like this one: I consider this to be a civilized exchange of ideas, so that is why I write these lines.
I am Dutch, so I might have less to complain about in politics... I do want my children to learn from their bad judgement, and I know that they will make mistakes, but I see no use in having their mistakes out there forever. It is not civilized and serves them no purpose. It is probably best said by jareth-0205 in 52078783 :
I grew up in a world where the internet did not really exist for most people. My first direct contact with it was in 1989. This means I have had the opportunity (although at the time I was not fully aware of that) to influence what pieces of information about me were put online.
When I became a father it seemed only logical to extend this same opportunity to our offspring. And my girlfriend feels the same on this issue, so it is very difficult to find anything on our children online.
My hope is that they will see the value in this and abstain from putting things online that might work against them in their future life. Puberty for them is still some odd years in the future, so I hope there is time enough to get this into their firmware.
Why do you dodge the 'most of the terror in the world today' part with a disingenious 'some others do it too'? You dodge the main point and then claim gp should be ashamed? Disingouity followed by an ad hominem? Why do moderators fall for these tricks?
If most acts of X are committed by Y and someone asks why this is so, claiming discrimination is effectively telling the one who asks the question to shut up because you say he is a bigot. You are wilfully distorting the discussion.
You are offended? What is your point? You think you have a reason to be offended because someone makes fun of a belief system? How about being offended because of things that are actually harmful and bad? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You have been working for the freedom of software users for at least some thirty odd years now. Do you think that (maybe because of your work) that freedom has improved, or that it has stayed the same or has deteriorated? To me it seems to have deteriorated and I am wondering where you get the energy to keep on fighting.
You probably mean 'coffee shops'. You can buy hash and weed there and smoke it too. 'Coffee houses' are mostly run by and frequented by (former) Turkish nationals (men); the main themes there are playing games, talking and drinking coffee.
If Google had used a dolphin, I would say that the PETA would have a point.
Nice strawman. I never said the orthodox jews are in charge of the government of the whole of the U.S.A.
A rabbi forces 'his' views on the people under him. The Irani government (and a lot of governments on this planet) force 'its' views on the people under it. That is the similarity.
It is relatively easier for an orthodox jew in the U.S.A. to leave orthodoxy than for an Iranian muslim to leave islam, but there is no pick and choose for fundamentalist movements, like the orthodox jews, what the original poster seemed to imply.
Not so ridiculous.
No. The only difference is that you can leave your religion if you are an ultra-orthodox Jew in the U.S.A. Leaving any orthodox religion is hard, after so many years of hard-line indoctrination.
But in no way do 'followers of the rabbis' have any say in which rules they will follow and which rules not: do everything, or face the consequences. In this there is a great similarity with the situation in Iran.