Two men were arrested in New York, on charges of attempted terrorism, for trying to get Jewish organizations to pay for an xray that would be mounted in a truck, aimed at Muslims, and used to make them sick or kill them.
The Jewish organizations turned them down, and contacted the FBI.
Unfortunately, there may be those who actually NEED to be charged with terrorism when dealing with Xrays like this.
Having no mod points for "define murder", I will therefore expound on it: Since Roe V. Wade, the right not to be murdered has again been restricted to exclude a large class of people.
Moreover, the right to not be murdered was still only limited to "the right not to be murdered by the government without due process. " Sometimes evil politicians made use of it; Sometimes, as with the Downwind Experiments or the Tuskegee experiments, they ignored it. Recently, the Executive department of the government has pointed out theat they don't need to pay any attention at all to that right.
So theright not to be murdered is tenuous at best.
The line between enterprise and government is actually quite blurry. Actually, let me go farther: the line between property ownership and government, or family and government is also blurry.
consider in The Odyssey, when Ulyssees returned home, and judged his wife's serving maids, hanging them all on a single rope for squabbling. Definitely evil government.
Consider the authoritarian role of fatherand mother in a family of four, two of the kids being toddlers: again, a government, hopefully benign.
Ungoverned industry only works for very small groups. More than 3-4, and a workgroup will waste its time without a leader.
Yes, it is obvious that the guy wants to be ruler of Lanai, in some sense or other. But tobe an effective ruler, he's going to need the support of his people, because rulers have only two tools to work with: influence, and coercion. As long as Lanai is American, the amount of coercion he can exert is quite limited. So he's going to have to try to coopt their good will.
Or that they have gotten CPU manufacturers to add back doors there, or that Google IS NSA, or that they arepretty much able to bully whom they want --and do (remember Paulson bullying the president of Bank of America into doing what was good for Paulson, against his fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders), or that the NSA can crack the strong encryption that we have.
Honsestly, I don't think that last is likely: it is too hard compared to the others. But I named only a few of many possibilities.
What's the worry? Carnivore was as bad when we were growing up. Worry should be reserved for things you can do something about.
See, Snowden's big mistake was not having step 2 in place: 1) reveal all the horrible things being done by the wicked, 2)??+ 3) freedom, justice, and the American way.
But to get there from here, you can't just have ought tos and shoulddas. And to wrest power from an evil organization like the NSA takes organization and greater evil. So if you succeed, all you are left with is greater evil. You can't get there from here.
So whistleblowing is no good. It doesn't work. Nor does revolution, or civil disobedience... take a lesson from The Rise And Fall of the Roman empire. When Rome fell, no slave revolt did it. Rather, the Roman Senate in a normal gesture of magnanimity, voted to feed the Vandals and then voted to contract the job to a corrupt Senator who was supposed to steal most of the money. Idiot stole it all,, and the vandals came into Rome looking for the promised food.as they left, the slaves went with them rather than starve, and Rome's economy...
Stopped.
So much for Rome.
Honestly, just wait it out. And forget the whistleblower protection laws. They're a low tech version of the honeypot.
Meanwhile, though, yeah, I stillwent over to whitehouse.gov and signed both petitions: Snowden AND Manning.
That's only defining it in terms of posessions, which is an iffy issue at best. Instead, perhaps define it as the point at which destruction of wealth passed creation of wealth: though many would put that 60 years ago, , arguably I'd put it just about 80 years ago.
I'm going to point out that when your case is rotten, you fight the battle in the public sphere.
Having read the article, it looks to me like it was practically a PR release by apple. That being the case, I suspect that for some reason, Apple isn't likely to win this one.
Why???I don't know. But will point out that the law firm involved seems to have acted with privledged information against the interests of Flatworld. It is entirely possible that the same law firm represents two companies, and if that is the case here, then their liability could be huge--to Flatworld. It does not matter that one of their lawyers also owns a noncontrolling interest in the company, any more than if one owned stock in Disney and the lawsuit was between Disney and Apple.
Nor is it reasonable to require the plaintiff to suddenly change law firms. That looks like a delay-and-increase-costs move.
I suspect Apple therefore is soon going to be quietly making payments.
There is no "most honest". There is only honest or not honest. Now, by my memory, Fox news did not cover the Libertarian Party when they were doing well in the elections, going so fvr as to explain their position that if Libertarians WON the election, they would not support it. They have performed similarly with Libertarian leaning Republicans, supporting instead fascist-leaning Republicans.
As such, they fall into the category of "dishonest".
Before I begin, let me say that I do value all the hard statements you made. They give me something to check out, and consider. The sneer I could do without.
It'll be hard for me to answer a lot of the statements, though, until I *have* checked them out, and considered them. Things like "don't start trapping daughter products..." doesn't seem to me to apply to Pb/Pb dating. Other things, like the claim that "radioactive Mt. St. Helens" is a stretch, I intend to check out.
AFAIK, the De Meijer / Van Westrenen theory is not pure speculation with no evidence. Among other things, the evidence that the moon is mostly earth mantle is pretty significant. Yes, there is dispute about that: with any scientific discussion, there *should* be dispute.
The impact melt and shocked tectites would only apply to a crater if it was an impact site. It would not apply to a crater that was a blowout site.
The bit about parroting "young Earth" creationist nonsense, is itself nonsense. Yes, I do suspect our dating is off, though the I also suspect the order of events is not, and the difference is less than an order of magnitude. No, I don't think the Earth is 10k years old. And no, I don't discount evidence simply because it is brought up by political pariahs [yes, the currently educational establishment does have its own political pariahs].
On the crater around the Hudson, take a look where the Hudson moved from, at the time of Pangea. See if I am not correct that it was approximately at the location of the New England Plume. Now look and see where the Carribean Plate moved from in that time. Again, it came from that same location. Now, go down to the African Karoo, and see where *it* was at the time of Pangea. Now, compare the Karoo at that time to the location, orientation, size and shape of the Scotia Plate, as it is now. I contend that the two plates are upper mantle scars, and the surface features coincide with them. Such alignments do not seem to me to be coincidental, but of similar causation.
As for Vredefort, Vredefort contains a lot of similarities to a megavolcano, such that it would have been assumed to be a megavolcano except for the massive scattering of tectites and shocked minerals. So yes, there was an asteroid strike there.
Let me propose that plumes like the one that make Hawaii *could* have a collection of de Meijer style Ca/U bergs in the mantle. As long as there is no major catastrophe to bring them together, the vapor pressure made by the nuclear fission might well be enough to keep them apart. On the other hand, if an asteroid punches through the mantle at a shallow angle, and drives one of a collection of Ca/U bergs into the center, then it would force the plume georeactor to go massively supercritical.
Once one georeactor went massively supercritical, the shock waves could force other georeactors 1/3 of the way around the globe into going supercritical. So you would be reasonably likely to have a double blowout, a cracking of the Earth's crust that would form a new ocean [the Atlantic].
Aside from that, a double blowout would shatter the earth's crust like a bullet through glass, at both locations. See if there aren't massive kimberlite and lamproite dikes [not pipes], at 850 miles radius around both the Hudson and the Karoo [at the time of pangea: Greenland's separation breaks the circle for now... but not for Pangea]. Kimberlite and lamproites are formed in supersonic explosions that can throw material into orbit. Estimate the energy that got expended when the kimberlites and lamproites were formed. Tell me how that happened, since there was not asteroid strike at the Hudson.
Do note that in most contracts, if (author != publisher) author= publisher; That is, authorship is assignod to the publisher, as author-at-law, without various risks that still remain with the person who did the work.
You have to remember that these books have far more authors than the headline authors, and although the headline authors might have a pretty good contract, the others won't.
The measurements are valid, but IIUC, the dating typically uses the assumption that ther is/was not significant radioactivity in the region.
Yet for dating of rocks, that would require that magma and lava not be radioactive. Tests on Mt. st. Helens lava, though, showed that it is.
Moreover, the oldest areas on earth are where evidence indicates at least the possibility of their having been deMeijer/Van Westrenen style georeactor explosions: the craton around the Hudson, and South Africa (specifically the African Karoo).
That being the case, I find this data interesting, but the conclusions questionable.
Most of your intracellular bacteria -- and that includes toxiplasmosis, which can trigger schizophrenia -- can pass the blood-brain barrier. Intracellular bacteria also include a number of your organelles, which definitely not only have an effect, but are vital to cellular operation.
The organelles we are aware of, of course, do not survive outside the cell, nor do they move from one to another. But that doesn't mean that there can't be others (like toxiplasmosis) that do.
I really consider that the amount we don't know far exceeds the amount we do know. Or, to put it another way, if we really understood the brain enough to make a digital version of it, then why can't we make a digital brain *without* a model? Thus, I think there is so vastly more to the brain than we understand, that what he is doing will end up being a useless failure.
Don't forget that historically, when the top of technology was muscles and levers, the brain was a kind of muscle. When the top tech was hydraulics, the brain was a type of hydraulic motor. When the top tech was telegraphs, the brain was a telegraph network. When the top tech was computers, the brain was a kind of computer. When the top tech was neural networks, the brain was a kind of neural network. At every stage, there were those who were sure that this time was different, who were sure that they could build a working model of a brain, and they failed miserably. I see no evidence that this time, which admittedly is different, is any different from the other times, which were also different.
I don't mind him trying to model other creatures' brains, though. But I don't find it to be currently worthwhile -- thus, I shouldn't work on such a project.
Do you really think that we'll model -- for example -- all the different blood cells and lymph cells that might possibly interact with the brain? The blood pressure? The various bacteria? There are perhaps 700 billion cells that we would have to model, and most we don't even know what they are, much less how they would work.
I don't think it's currently possible. Maybe he intends to deconstruct a person to get the data. I hope not.
Also not to mention that we have no clear understanding of what cells do what. We now know that the human glia cells -- well, some of them, anyhow -- when injected into mouse brains, make them human-smart mice.
So obviously those glia cells do something. What?
Now, glia cells weren't mentioned in the simulation. But lets be generous, and say that when this guy discovers that something is amiss, and researches more, and decides to put in glia cells, he'll be sure to make them do....... something.
Yes. I want to build a robot to make my bed in the morning. It'll save me from having to do all that work. It'll just take tinker toys, and a cardboard box, and a grant. Oh, and it has to have flashlight eyes, I almost forgot. It won't work without flashlight eyes. But first that grant. Dad, could I have $50?
Mostly, I lived in Virginia, though we spent 3 years in Lithuania. Also, 1985 was still a good year, economically speaking. By 1992, when I graduated from college, NASA was involved in a huge layoff, there were few jobs for new graduates who were not in a preferred minority, the Alumni association made the specific (and publicised) decision not to help new graduates who had not yet held a job, and that year was t_e year Generation X got its definition in a novel.
Clinton, whowas running for his first term, declared, in response, that if Generation X had been x'd out of everything by the greedy and spendthrift Baby boomers, they would fix everything by volunteering their time to Baby boomers for free.
I don't intend for my kids to work for others. I hope to buy a eight acre plot of property, and they get started in biointensive organic gardening, specifically in the form of a community christian garden. First hour, reading Bible and praying. Subsequent hours, limited talk as needed for work and training, but working the garden in a planned manner. Those who work use their working hours to bid on the produce it yields.
Doesn't sound profitable, maybe, but I could see it being a very valid way to live in this coming era. Plus,I suspect they'll have far more free time for learning and engineering, than I ever had.
The budgeting I do as well as I can, but there are certain costs that are not in my control, and that does hamper me a little. One of the other posters very nearly hit my current family income on the head --sixty, which is just barely poverty level in our area--but before that, counting backwards year by year, it was probably pretty close to 60,60, 53,47, 43, 37, 35, 33, 30, 30, 12, 45, 30,25,22, and thn splitting my work and my wife's work, (17/43, 11/41, 8/40). Before that we weren't married. I made 4,12, 10. All numbers in thousands. We had all our children late (heavily related to the poverty.)
The dollar does not have innate value. Fair dealing, honesty, people working together for good, charity, hope, investment, diligence: these things have innate value.
Once upon a time, the dollar was a mathematical variablerepresentation of these things. At that time, it appeared to have innate value. However, as people started to value it as having its own innate value, they separated the dollar from its represented values, and its actual innate value has started to become apparent.
It is entirely possible that the day could come when people will offer vast estates, for any who is willing to separate them from their dollars.
More to the point of your post, I think my horizons are pretty broad. My career has bounced through programming, ancillary textbook creation, education, and prestressed concrete/surveying through project management.
It's not just a cynical view of life. Record numbers of people are buying into the "retraining" hype... doctors retraining as plumbers, plumbers going to med school to be doctors, and they're just getting school debt without ever getting a job.
That isn't cynicism, that's pragmantism you're seeing in me.
My other post, that I referenced, tells what I think a better path is, that I am going to be suggesting for my kids.
Let me remind you of a standard career guidance. Ask yourself, "what kind of a standard of living do I want? What will it cost?" Then ask yourself, "What jobs does society find valuable enough, to pay for that standard of living?". That kind of thing, in the past, has led actors to abandon acting for insurance sales. It's really good advice. Acting is a great career move for maybe, what, twenty people a year. It's okay for another thousand. It's lousy for everyone else: our society really does not value acting.
But let me point out that recently, our society also does not value... computer coding, and grocery store clerks, and drafting, and drawing, and manufacturing automobile rivets, and... the list goes on. Our society does not value the laborer. Unlike "the laborer is worth his wage", our society says "the manager is worth the laborer's wage", even when the manager couldn't do the laborer's job to save his life. But our society then took it a step farther: the owner is worth...
Yes, I have a job. That's a great positive. But the rate of actual unemployment/underemployment/no longer considered unemployed due to overly long unemployment is so great, I can validly say that there is almost no job that our society places a living... much less family... wage on.
In light of that, going to college doesn't make sense. I rather say, prepare yourself as if you *would* go to college, and then wait on that.
Waited till the trolls left. Specifically, (1) Negotiating pay, and (2) budgeting. I contend that those I worked for profited heavily from my work, therefore I'm good at my job.
Ever take Serway's College Physics (CP)/PSE/POP? Did you end up buying the study guide? If so, why did you pick that study guide to buy? I did the page layout, the formatting, all the artwork, some rewriting, etc. A lot of what went into that was what I put into it. My customer's contact (Saunders/Harcourt) mentioned that I was the best at this, that she was aware of.
For a long time, that particular text was the top seller in the world -- no credit to me, all credit to others on that one. However, the study guide is typically a major money-maker.
Jump ahead to a career change, into prestressed concrete. The last place I worked -- where I was told to put a subordinate in a brakeless water truck, and asked "are the brakes fixed?", and was told that I had no right to ask that question... and subsequently fired in great betrayal, I was still later told that I was the best field engineer he ever knew, by the guy who betrayed me.
Now, I did get another job, nearby, at the same wage, doing the same thing, and was subsequently promoted to project manager. But I can say that it isn't that I suck at my job.
But I am not free to move. And I do suck at negotiating pay. But that is not just cause for a top performer to receive bottom pay; and I have seen enough other evidence that college degrees no longer pay off, that I do not intend to send my kid to college. Moreover, I have seen the colleges fail miserably at their primary mandate, and I don't intend to support that either.
I have told my kids, that they need to work at school such that they *could* go to college if they want to. But if they want a further education they should forget the degree, and just find out what the courses are, get the books, work through every single problem, try the stuff out themselves. If they still want a college degree, they should do 2 years of tech school, 2 years of work, 2 years of community college, 2 years of work, 2 years of university, and then they *might* have a chance of getting a job. But I'm not going to send them to that, because I don't consider it to be an idea that is likely to pay off.
At this point, my advice is more along the lines of agricultural and Christianity. Forget business and tech -- in our society's glorification of "greed is good/more for me, none for you", it made too much use of an empty promises.
Slashdot Mirror
Two men were arrested in New York, on charges of attempted terrorism, for trying to get Jewish organizations to pay for an xray that would be mounted in a truck, aimed at Muslims, and used to make them sick or kill them.
The Jewish organizations turned them down, and contacted the FBI.
Unfortunately, there may be those who actually NEED to be charged with terrorism when dealing with Xrays like this.
"pretty cool stuff"?
How may Kelvin, and how many degrees of freedom does that represent?
Having no mod points for "define murder", I will therefore expound on it: Since Roe V. Wade, the right not to be murdered has again been restricted to exclude a large class of people.
Moreover, the right to not be murdered was still only limited to "the right not to be murdered by the government without due process. " Sometimes evil politicians made use of it; Sometimes, as with the Downwind Experiments or the Tuskegee experiments, they ignored it. Recently, the Executive department of the government has pointed out theat they don't need to pay any attention at all to that right.
So theright not to be murdered is tenuous at best.
The line between enterprise and government is actually quite blurry. Actually, let me go farther: the line between property ownership and government, or family and government is also blurry.
consider in The Odyssey, when Ulyssees returned home, and judged his wife's serving maids, hanging them all on a single rope for squabbling. Definitely evil government.
Consider the authoritarian role of fatherand mother in a family of four, two of the kids being toddlers: again, a government, hopefully benign.
Ungoverned industry only works for very small groups. More than 3-4, and a workgroup will waste its time without a leader.
Yes, it is obvious that the guy wants to be ruler of Lanai, in some sense or other. But tobe an effective ruler, he's going to need the support of his people, because rulers have only two tools to work with: influence, and coercion. As long as Lanai is American, the amount of coercion he can exert is quite limited. So he's going to have to try to coopt their good will.
Or that they have gotten CPU manufacturers to add back doors there, or that Google IS NSA, or that they arepretty much able to bully whom they want --and do (remember Paulson bullying the president of Bank of America into doing what was good for Paulson, against his fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders), or that the NSA can crack the strong encryption that we have.
Honsestly, I don't think that last is likely: it is too hard compared to the others. But I named only a few of many possibilities.
What's the worry? Carnivore was as bad when we were growing up. Worry should be reserved for things you can do something about.
See, Snowden's big mistake was not having step 2 in place: 1) reveal all the horrible things being done by the wicked, 2)??+ 3) freedom, justice, and the American way.
But to get there from here, you can't just have ought tos and shoulddas. And to wrest power from an evil organization like the NSA takes organization and greater evil. So if you succeed, all you are left with is greater evil. You can't get there from here.
So whistleblowing is no good. It doesn't work. Nor does revolution, or civil disobedience... take a lesson from The Rise And Fall of the Roman empire. When Rome fell, no slave revolt did it. Rather, the Roman Senate in a normal gesture of magnanimity, voted to feed the Vandals and then voted to contract the job to a corrupt Senator who was supposed to steal most of the money. Idiot stole it all,, and the vandals came into Rome looking for the promised food.as they left, the slaves went with them rather than starve, and Rome's economy...
Stopped.
So much for Rome.
Honestly, just wait it out. And forget the whistleblower protection laws. They're a low tech version of the honeypot.
Meanwhile, though, yeah, I stillwent over to whitehouse.gov and signed both petitions: Snowden AND Manning.
Ummm, how about the University of Utah's chemical fusion lab?
That's only defining it in terms of posessions, which is an iffy issue at best. Instead, perhaps define it as the point at which destruction of wealth passed creation of wealth: though many would put that 60 years ago, , arguably I'd put it just about 80 years ago.
I'm going to point out that when your case is rotten, you fight the battle in the public sphere.
Having read the article, it looks to me like it was practically a PR release by apple. That being the case, I suspect that for some reason, Apple isn't likely to win this one.
Why???I don't know. But will point out that the law firm involved seems to have acted with privledged information against the interests of Flatworld. It is entirely possible that the same law firm represents two companies, and if that is the case here, then their liability could be huge--to Flatworld. It does not matter that one of their lawyers also owns a noncontrolling interest in the company, any more than if one owned stock in Disney and the lawsuit was between Disney and Apple.
Nor is it reasonable to require the plaintiff to suddenly change law firms. That looks like a delay-and-increase-costs move.
I suspect Apple therefore is soon going to be quietly making payments.
Correction: that they would not support^h^h^h^h *report* it.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/21/chilling-one-reporters-sources/
Of course, you won't have been aware that Bush DID do this, because it won't have been on FOX FARE'N'BALANSED(TM) news.
Fox has no honesty. They are not news. They are simply a fascist propaganda outlet.
There is no "most honest". There is only honest or not honest. Now, by my memory, Fox news did not cover the Libertarian Party when they were doing well in the elections, going so fvr as to explain their position that if Libertarians WON the election, they would not support it. They have performed similarly with Libertarian leaning Republicans, supporting instead fascist-leaning Republicans.
As such, they fall into the category of "dishonest".
Before I begin, let me say that I do value all the hard statements you made. They give me something to check out, and consider. The sneer I could do without.
It'll be hard for me to answer a lot of the statements, though, until I *have* checked them out, and considered them. Things like "don't start trapping daughter products..." doesn't seem to me to apply to Pb/Pb dating. Other things, like the claim that "radioactive Mt. St. Helens" is a stretch, I intend to check out.
AFAIK, the De Meijer / Van Westrenen theory is not pure speculation with no evidence. Among other things, the evidence that the moon is mostly earth mantle is pretty significant. Yes, there is dispute about that: with any scientific discussion, there *should* be dispute.
The impact melt and shocked tectites would only apply to a crater if it was an impact site. It would not apply to a crater that was a blowout site.
The bit about parroting "young Earth" creationist nonsense, is itself nonsense. Yes, I do suspect our dating is off, though the I also suspect the order of events is not, and the difference is less than an order of magnitude. No, I don't think the Earth is 10k years old. And no, I don't discount evidence simply because it is brought up by political pariahs [yes, the currently educational establishment does have its own political pariahs].
On the crater around the Hudson, take a look where the Hudson moved from, at the time of Pangea. See if I am not correct that it was approximately at the location of the New England Plume. Now look and see where the Carribean Plate moved from in that time. Again, it came from that same location. Now, go down to the African Karoo, and see where *it* was at the time of Pangea. Now, compare the Karoo at that time to the location, orientation, size and shape of the Scotia Plate, as it is now. I contend that the two plates are upper mantle scars, and the surface features coincide with them. Such alignments do not seem to me to be coincidental, but of similar causation.
As for Vredefort, Vredefort contains a lot of similarities to a megavolcano, such that it would have been assumed to be a megavolcano except for the massive scattering of tectites and shocked minerals. So yes, there was an asteroid strike there.
Let me propose that plumes like the one that make Hawaii *could* have a collection of de Meijer style Ca/U bergs in the mantle. As long as there is no major catastrophe to bring them together, the vapor pressure made by the nuclear fission might well be enough to keep them apart. On the other hand, if an asteroid punches through the mantle at a shallow angle, and drives one of a collection of Ca/U bergs into the center, then it would force the plume georeactor to go massively supercritical.
Once one georeactor went massively supercritical, the shock waves could force other georeactors 1/3 of the way around the globe into going supercritical. So you would be reasonably likely to have a double blowout, a cracking of the Earth's crust that would form a new ocean [the Atlantic].
Aside from that, a double blowout would shatter the earth's crust like a bullet through glass, at both locations. See if there aren't massive kimberlite and lamproite dikes [not pipes], at 850 miles radius around both the Hudson and the Karoo [at the time of pangea: Greenland's separation breaks the circle for now... but not for Pangea]. Kimberlite and lamproites are formed in supersonic explosions that can throw material into orbit. Estimate the energy that got expended when the kimberlites and lamproites were formed. Tell me how that happened, since there was not asteroid strike at the Hudson.
Proof? Nope. Evidence? I'd say there's plenty.
Do note that in most contracts, if (author != publisher) author= publisher; That is, authorship is assignod to the publisher, as author-at-law, without various risks that still remain with the person who did the work.
You have to remember that these books have far more authors than the headline authors, and although the headline authors might have a pretty good contract, the others won't.
The measurements are valid, but IIUC, the dating typically uses the assumption that ther is/was not significant radioactivity in the region.
Yet for dating of rocks, that would require that magma and lava not be radioactive. Tests on Mt. st. Helens lava, though, showed that it is.
Moreover, the oldest areas on earth are where evidence indicates at least the possibility of their having been deMeijer/Van Westrenen style georeactor explosions: the craton around the Hudson, and South Africa (specifically the African Karoo).
That being the case, I find this data interesting, but the conclusions questionable.
Most of your intracellular bacteria -- and that includes toxiplasmosis, which can trigger schizophrenia -- can pass the blood-brain barrier. Intracellular bacteria also include a number of your organelles, which definitely not only have an effect, but are vital to cellular operation.
The organelles we are aware of, of course, do not survive outside the cell, nor do they move from one to another. But that doesn't mean that there can't be others (like toxiplasmosis) that do.
I really consider that the amount we don't know far exceeds the amount we do know. Or, to put it another way, if we really understood the brain enough to make a digital version of it, then why can't we make a digital brain *without* a model? Thus, I think there is so vastly more to the brain than we understand, that what he is doing will end up being a useless failure.
Don't forget that historically, when the top of technology was muscles and levers, the brain was a kind of muscle. When the top tech was hydraulics, the brain was a type of hydraulic motor. When the top tech was telegraphs, the brain was a telegraph network. When the top tech was computers, the brain was a kind of computer. When the top tech was neural networks, the brain was a kind of neural network. At every stage, there were those who were sure that this time was different, who were sure that they could build a working model of a brain, and they failed miserably. I see no evidence that this time, which admittedly is different, is any different from the other times, which were also different.
I don't mind him trying to model other creatures' brains, though. But I don't find it to be currently worthwhile -- thus, I shouldn't work on such a project.
Do you really think that we'll model -- for example -- all the different blood cells and lymph cells that might possibly interact with the brain? The blood pressure? The various bacteria? There are perhaps 700 billion cells that we would have to model, and most we don't even know what they are, much less how they would work.
I don't think it's currently possible. Maybe he intends to deconstruct a person to get the data. I hope not.
Also not to mention that we have no clear understanding of what cells do what. We now know that the human glia cells -- well, some of them, anyhow -- when injected into mouse brains, make them human-smart mice.
So obviously those glia cells do something. What?
Now, glia cells weren't mentioned in the simulation. But lets be generous, and say that when this guy discovers that something is amiss, and researches more, and decides to put in glia cells, he'll be sure to make them do ... .... something.
Yes. I want to build a robot to make my bed in the morning. It'll save me from having to do all that work. It'll just take tinker toys, and a cardboard box, and a grant. Oh, and it has to have flashlight eyes, I almost forgot. It won't work without flashlight eyes. But first that grant. Dad, could I have $50?
Mostly, I lived in Virginia, though we spent 3 years in Lithuania. Also, 1985 was still a good year, economically speaking. By 1992, when I graduated from college, NASA was involved in a huge layoff, there were few jobs for new graduates who were not in a preferred minority, the Alumni association made the specific (and publicised) decision not to help new graduates who had not yet held a job, and that year was t_e year Generation X got its definition in a novel.
Clinton, whowas running for his first term, declared, in response, that if Generation X had been x'd out of everything by the greedy and spendthrift Baby boomers, they would fix everything by volunteering their time to Baby boomers for free.
It was not the best of years to graduate.
I don't intend for my kids to work for others. I hope to buy a eight acre plot of property, and they get started in biointensive organic gardening, specifically in the form of a community christian garden. First hour, reading Bible and praying. Subsequent hours, limited talk as needed for work and training, but working the garden in a planned manner. Those who work use their working hours to bid on the produce it yields.
Doesn't sound profitable, maybe, but I could see it being a very valid way to live in this coming era. Plus,I suspect they'll have far more free time for learning and engineering, than I ever had.
The budgeting I do as well as I can, but there are certain costs that are not in my control, and that does hamper me a little. One of the other posters very nearly hit my current family income on the head --sixty, which is just barely poverty level in our area--but before that, counting backwards year by year, it was probably pretty close to 60,60, 53,47, 43, 37, 35, 33, 30, 30, 12, 45, 30,25,22, and thn splitting my work and my wife's work, (17/43, 11/41, 8/40). Before that we weren't married. I made 4,12, 10. All numbers in thousands. We had all our children late (heavily related to the poverty.)
The dollar does not have innate value. Fair dealing, honesty, people working together for good, charity, hope, investment, diligence: these things have innate value.
Once upon a time, the dollar was a mathematical variablerepresentation of these things. At that time, it appeared to have innate value. However, as people started to value it as having its own innate value, they separated the dollar from its represented values, and its actual innate value has started to become apparent.
It is entirely possible that the day could come when people will offer vast estates, for any who is willing to separate them from their dollars.
Because the last time, when the Republic Revolution frehmen impeached a guilty Clinton, they were removed from office by the Management.
See my reply to another nearby thread; it applies to your post, too.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3742531&cid=43709853
More to the point of your post, I think my horizons are pretty broad. My career has bounced through programming, ancillary textbook creation, education, and prestressed concrete/surveying through project management.
It's not just a cynical view of life. Record numbers of people are buying into the "retraining" hype... doctors retraining as plumbers, plumbers going to med school to be doctors, and they're just getting school debt without ever getting a job.
That isn't cynicism, that's pragmantism you're seeing in me.
My other post, that I referenced, tells what I think a better path is, that I am going to be suggesting for my kids.
Let me remind you of a standard career guidance. Ask yourself, "what kind of a standard of living do I want? What will it cost?" Then ask yourself, "What jobs does society find valuable enough, to pay for that standard of living?". That kind of thing, in the past, has led actors to abandon acting for insurance sales. It's really good advice. Acting is a great career move for maybe, what, twenty people a year. It's okay for another thousand. It's lousy for everyone else: our society really does not value acting.
But let me point out that recently, our society also does not value... computer coding, and grocery store clerks, and drafting, and drawing, and manufacturing automobile rivets, and ... the list goes on. Our society does not value the laborer. Unlike "the laborer is worth his wage", our society says "the manager is worth the laborer's wage", even when the manager couldn't do the laborer's job to save his life. But our society then took it a step farther: the owner is worth...
Yes, I have a job. That's a great positive. But the rate of actual unemployment/underemployment/no longer considered unemployed due to overly long unemployment is so great, I can validly say that there is almost no job that our society places a living ... much less family ... wage on.
In light of that, going to college doesn't make sense. I rather say, prepare yourself as if you *would* go to college, and then wait on that.
One of the most successful people at our high school reunion was a girl who got married in her senior year of high school to another of my classmates.
When she got divorced from him, she went into business with her father, as executive janitorial services [janitors for rental business locations].
She's a millionaire.
Waited till the trolls left. Specifically, (1) Negotiating pay, and (2) budgeting. I contend that those I worked for profited heavily from my work, therefore I'm good at my job.
Ever take Serway's College Physics (CP) /PSE/POP? Did you end up buying the study guide? If so, why did you pick that study guide to buy? I did the page layout, the formatting, all the artwork, some rewriting, etc. A lot of what went into that was what I put into it. My customer's contact (Saunders/Harcourt) mentioned that I was the best at this, that she was aware of.
For a long time, that particular text was the top seller in the world -- no credit to me, all credit to others on that one. However, the study guide is typically a major money-maker.
Jump ahead to a career change, into prestressed concrete. The last place I worked -- where I was told to put a subordinate in a brakeless water truck, and asked "are the brakes fixed?", and was told that I had no right to ask that question... and subsequently fired in great betrayal, I was still later told that I was the best field engineer he ever knew, by the guy who betrayed me.
Now, I did get another job, nearby, at the same wage, doing the same thing, and was subsequently promoted to project manager. But I can say that it isn't that I suck at my job.
But I am not free to move. And I do suck at negotiating pay. But that is not just cause for a top performer to receive bottom pay; and I have seen enough other evidence that college degrees no longer pay off, that I do not intend to send my kid to college. Moreover, I have seen the colleges fail miserably at their primary mandate, and I don't intend to support that either.
I have told my kids, that they need to work at school such that they *could* go to college if they want to. But if they want a further education they should forget the degree, and just find out what the courses are, get the books, work through every single problem, try the stuff out themselves. If they still want a college degree, they should do 2 years of tech school, 2 years of work, 2 years of community college, 2 years of work, 2 years of university, and then they *might* have a chance of getting a job. But I'm not going to send them to that, because I don't consider it to be an idea that is likely to pay off.
At this point, my advice is more along the lines of agricultural and Christianity. Forget business and tech -- in our society's glorification of "greed is good/more for me, none for you", it made too much use of an empty promises.