If you ask a skilled programmer with years of experience to do open heart surgery, chances are he won't do any better than your average construction worker.
No, but you would be able to learn much faster. You would understand a lot of things (like the way blood flows in the various vessels, what happens if one of them is blocked, etc.), without having them explained (at least not to the same level of detail). I wouldn't trust a programmer to do heart surgery on me if I had the choice, but if I had the choice between a programmer and a construction worker...
I have quite often surprised physicians by what I can piece together from my little medical knowledge and my training in thinking straight;-). There actually is a lot more logic and cause-and-effect in medicine than many people would admit.
At the very top (right after the contents of story and the links to the previous and next stories), there's a bar where you can select the way comments are displayed, etc. There's also a button labeled "Change", and next to it (on the very right) called "Reply". Hit it and share your wisdom with us.
Now as I have taken my interests into more scientific areas I can't hardly sleep anymore becuase I am always trying to invent some crazy new concept in my head. I can't count the number of things I have thought out completely from beginning to end and the said "well that was fun, lets move on"
Yeah, isn't it absolutely great to learn new stuff, and think of many implications yourself (even if you read about that stuff having been discovered by somebody else years ago). There is no question that you train your brain by using it, and you definitely do that more in more mentally challenging fields.
But that doesn't mean that new synapses are actually grown (which is the point of this article, after all). It just tells us that the brain develops, but not how.
Why don't you just stop replying to those morons? Okay, your post was funny, but most of the replies are at the same level as the original. PLEASE just stop that. Ignore them. At the moment, there are more replies to the first poster than to the actual story!
I think that's a misunderstanding. AFAIK, current belief is that no new synapses are built after a certain age (around three or so). After that, your brain will continue to develop (of course!), but not in terms of new synapses being built, but only the existing ones being modified.
Please correct me (and moderate me to kingdom come;-) if I'm wrong.
What would happen if the NSA would simply ignore the lawsuit, or not do as told? What could happen to them (other than somebody "being responsible")? Could the NSA's buildings be searched by police?
But isn't there a difference between product names and company names? I agree that names of products play a role in the decision what to buy (but a bigger role in candy bars than in computers, but that's a different story...).
But a company name? If I want to do business with them, I should be able to tell what they're doing from their name (think "General Motors"), and I don't give a damn about any latin roots or whatever (that stuff is completely random, anyway - you could break these names up in different ways and find that a part of the word means "asshole" in mandarin), but I want to know if they have good products at competetive prices, and if they can be trusted. And I, for one, would much rather deal with "Hewlett-Packard Medical Division" than "Agilent"...
So we should do this for our children... fine. Whose children are you talking about? American children, I suppose.
What about the kids suffering and dying at this moment in Africa? Shouldn't we be doing something for them? Why is going to Mars so much more beneficial to "our children" than feeding them?
And if you want to save them, and enable them to "spread their wings", why don't you do something against pollution, so that they can still breathe on this old planet in a hundred years?
I'm not against space exploration, or spending money on it. But your arguments suck (and I've read your follow-up, and they still don't make any sense to me).
Well I don't think anybody will say "No, let's not do it, let the big bad corps patent our genes!!".
The only problem I see here that developing a distributed client for this takes a lot of time and effort --- and one, which definitely cannot be open-source!
Two reasons:
False results. If the data format etc. are known, it's possible to feed the servers bogus results, which could lead to inconsistencies in the data base. This might even destroy results that are already there (okay, this problem also exists with closed source stuff like SETI@Home, I know).
Data Theft. An open source program could be modified by Big Bad Corporation Inc. to simply harvest raw data and feed it into their own computers, thereby gaining information they would otherwise have to find themselves. Granted, they won't have as much computing power, but when they have their own and the stolen data, they're still saving time. And I am not sure if enough data is produced to keep hundreds of thousands of computers occupied (see the problems SETI@Home had in the beginning).
So, sorry, folks, but I believe this is one of the few things that open source clearly is not suited for. But it would be kinda cool to have a proggy running on my machine that messed with genes...;-)
Don't you think IRC is one of the most difficult translation jobs there is? I mean, with all the abbreviations, misspellings and stuff. And few people use complete sentences at all. You would need an immense amount of knowledge gathered from following the conversation (and several at once!) to be able to get anything useful.
Sorry, but I don't believe it's possible, even if a perfect translator for normal speech existed.
This is kind of on topic here, not only because ACs are becoming a pest again.
What do we need ACs for? I mean, what amount of information about myself do I give away by creating an account? It's not that I need any ID or anything. If I am planning on contributing stuff here (and setting my own preferences, etc.), I *will* create an account. And if I am going to act like an asshole... well, that option isn't absolutely necessary, IMHO.
As mentioned above, no open forum is PRIVATE, and to even think anything of the like is stupid.
It's about as private as you talking to your buddies in a pub. You talk to them, but you never know if the guy at the next table is listening or not. And if that guy sends a transcript of your chat to/.... but still, you will talk about stuff other people don't need to know.
A mailing list is similar, I think. You are more likely to say things there (you're talking to people you know and who you share interests with) than you would in public (not a pub, but in the streets or wherever). It's just different.
I usually agree that media shouldn't create their own news, but this is different.
Okay, it starts out as a kind of excuse for the BP story. But there is much more to it, and I like those "philosophical" stories (or "rants", if you will).
Even in a newspaper you find comments and columns by the editors, where they give their opinions. I think that's perfectly acceptable, also on Slashdot.
Back in the olde days, when you read something in a newspaper or a book you could be sure that it had been read by a few people before it ever got printed. So different newspapers etc. had different "trust levels", depending on their overall quality. But when you read something in a paper you never had heard of before, you were inclined to believe the story anyway. After all, there had to be editors-in-chief, etc. that would do at least some sanity checks.
That is different of course with stuff on the web, so the best way to avoid mistakes would be to trust nobody. But that's a bit paranoid, so you will try to figure out who you trust. And with sites like/., that works quite good (if you read them regularly for some time, you know how trustworthy they are).
But what about stuff on deja, or the homepage of some guy you don't know? You will probably try to judge from the appearance (just like you would try to classify your unknown paper), from the wording, etc. But you can be wrong, of course.
I have a page on my website that deals with artificial intelligence. It's just a collection of thoughts I had a while back, and I am not a researcher in that field (I am kinda, but... never mind). Still, I often get emails from people asking questions about that article, and obviously taking it as an expert's opinion on the topic (I even have a disclaimer at the top, but nobody seems to read it).
So I would say: Don't be too paranoid, but if you want to use information for something important, better find out how credible it is by checking other sources (and the "surrounding" pages). And don't post an email on slashdot that just arrived from a mailing list. You don't know what will come of it. On the other hand, if the guys at/. wait too long, everybody will be crying "that's not new! i read that two weeks ago at xyz.com".
The main problem (I think, and I haven't followed that other story) was the first few words. "It seems that Corel has made one mistake too many." --- that sounded like BP was already suing them.
What about including a click-through counter in every link that's posted on./? And then have a top ten ranking which links got clicked most in the last month or so (or maybe ranked by clicks/time unit).
That would also be interesting to get an idea what load these servers have to deal with. I am not sure if the Slashdot Effect paper is really very representative.
If people would just stop writing replies to them, nobody with a threshold of 0 or more would even know they were there. Maybe that would make them stop it. And if not, nobody would notice the difference.
Does the WTO have any power to do something to a single company? And if, how would that work? I mean, would national courts be involved, or an international one?
And isn't it MS that's thinking about a pay-per-use system for software over the net? Sounds like a service to me... or a leased good (don't know the correct english term), whatever the implications of that would be.
Number of Window Managers: Your average desktop user doesn't even know what that is, and is perfectly happy with *one* wm that works and that he understands (configuration options only make things complicated)
Remote Apps: Your average desktop user doesn't know what they are, either. Nor does he/she care.
Stability: Granted, that's a big bonus. And it's a real pain that one of the "killer" apps (netscape) sucks like it does, even under linux
Cost: I think that the average desktop user would have to pay for installation and configuration anyway, so there isn't such a big difference there.
What Linux needs is a set of working, simple programs, not the (n+1)th window manager or tool kit. People will not want to learn ten different methods to do the same thing, if they're there. Oh, and a simple setup, and support and...
I should have made my point a bit clearer: Program documentation is a part of any serious program, no question. But there is a difference between writing a README, manpages and some additional HTML for your own program, and writing a book with lots of little hints and stuff about something you happen to use and know well.
So I believe there is quite a clear-cut line between absolutely necessary documentation (that is included with most programs I know, anyway) and "3rd party" kind of documentation, HOWTOs (okay, I'm starting to see your point...;-), etc
Please don't get me wrong. I am all for free documentation. I am just wondering about the possible implications to the model put forth in the Manifesto. Or maybe I just didn't understand the original idea...
Okay, I admit, I somehow overlooked that paragraph the first time (I read the whole article, though). But that raises even more questions: If the source of these books is free, everybody can sell books printed from it, right? So Addison-Wesley might sell the same book without having to pay anything to O'Reilly.
I also understand the point of forking documentation when a project forks, but I am not convinced that would be a good thing. Because the original book would still be available at O'Reilly's site, and not your enhanced version!
Slashdot Mirror
No, but you would be able to learn much faster. You would understand a lot of things (like the way blood flows in the various vessels, what happens if one of them is blocked, etc.), without having them explained (at least not to the same level of detail).
I wouldn't trust a programmer to do heart surgery on me if I had the choice, but if I had the choice between a programmer and a construction worker
I have quite often surprised physicians by what I can piece together from my little medical knowledge and my training in thinking straight
At the very top (right after the contents of story and the links to the previous and next stories), there's a bar where you can select the way comments are displayed, etc. There's also a button labeled "Change", and next to it (on the very right) called "Reply". Hit it and share your wisdom with us.
Yeah, isn't it absolutely great to learn new stuff, and think of many implications yourself (even if you read about that stuff having been discovered by somebody else years ago). There is no question that you train your brain by using it, and you definitely do that more in more mentally challenging fields.
But that doesn't mean that new synapses are actually grown (which is the point of this article, after all). It just tells us that the brain develops, but not how.
And that article wasn't about IQ tests, either
(I always wanted to use "chrissakes" ... ;-)
Why don't you just stop replying to those morons? Okay, your post was funny, but most of the replies are at the same level as the original. PLEASE just stop that. Ignore them. At the moment, there are more replies to the first poster than to the actual story!
I think that's a misunderstanding. AFAIK, current belief is that no new synapses are built after a certain age (around three or so). After that, your brain will continue to develop (of course!), but not in terms of new synapses being built, but only the existing ones being modified.
;-) if I'm wrong.
Please correct me (and moderate me to kingdom come
What would happen if the NSA would simply ignore the lawsuit, or not do as told? What could happen to them (other than somebody "being responsible")? Could the NSA's buildings be searched by police?
No, Gateway 2000 is now known only as "Gateway" and Twentieth Century Fox has changed its name to "Searchlight Productions".
I will be your lawyer for a mere $10,000 per case (and each name is separater case ... I knew you would understand).
Same thing with "Gateway 2000" or "Twentieth Century Fox" ... hehe, talk about Y2K problems ... ;-)
But isn't there a difference between product names and company names? I agree that names of products play a role in the decision what to buy (but a bigger role in candy bars than in computers, but that's a different story ...).
...
But a company name? If I want to do business with them, I should be able to tell what they're doing from their name (think "General Motors"), and I don't give a damn about any latin roots or whatever (that stuff is completely random, anyway - you could break these names up in different ways and find that a part of the word means "asshole" in mandarin), but I want to know if they have good products at competetive prices, and if they can be trusted. And I, for one, would much rather deal with "Hewlett-Packard Medical Division" than "Agilent"
So we should do this for our children ... fine. Whose children are you talking about? American children, I suppose.
What about the kids suffering and dying at this moment in Africa? Shouldn't we be doing something for them? Why is going to Mars so much more beneficial to "our children" than feeding them?
And if you want to save them, and enable them to "spread their wings", why don't you do something against pollution, so that they can still breathe on this old planet in a hundred years?
I'm not against space exploration, or spending money on it. But your arguments suck (and I've read your follow-up, and they still don't make any sense to me).
The only problem I see here that developing a distributed client for this takes a lot of time and effort --- and one, which definitely cannot be open-source!
Two reasons:
So, sorry, folks, but I believe this is one of the few things that open source clearly is not suited for. But it would be kinda cool to have a proggy running on my machine that messed with genes ... ;-)
Don't you think IRC is one of the most difficult translation jobs there is? I mean, with all the abbreviations, misspellings and stuff. And few people use complete sentences at all. You would need an immense amount of knowledge gathered from following the conversation (and several at once!) to be able to get anything useful.
Sorry, but I don't believe it's possible, even if a perfect translator for normal speech existed.
This is kind of on topic here, not only because ACs are becoming a pest again.
... well, that option isn't absolutely necessary, IMHO.
What do we need ACs for? I mean, what amount of information about myself do I give away by creating an account? It's not that I need any ID or anything. If I am planning on contributing stuff here (and setting my own preferences, etc.), I *will* create an account. And if I am going to act like an asshole
A mailing list is similar, I think. You are more likely to say things there (you're talking to people you know and who you share interests with) than you would in public (not a pub, but in the streets or wherever). It's just different.
I usually agree that media shouldn't create their own news, but this is different.
Okay, it starts out as a kind of excuse for the BP story. But there is much more to it, and I like those "philosophical" stories (or "rants", if you will).
Even in a newspaper you find comments and columns by the editors, where they give their opinions. I think that's perfectly acceptable, also on Slashdot.
<><
Lame subject, I know, but ...
/., that works quite good (if you read them regularly for some time, you know how trustworthy they are).
... never mind). Still, I often get emails from people asking questions about that article, and obviously taking it as an expert's opinion on the topic (I even have a disclaimer at the top, but nobody seems to read it).
/. wait too long, everybody will be crying "that's not new! i read that two weeks ago at xyz.com".
Back in the olde days, when you read something in a newspaper or a book you could be sure that it had been read by a few people before it ever got printed. So different newspapers etc. had different "trust levels", depending on their overall quality. But when you read something in a paper you never had heard of before, you were inclined to believe the story anyway. After all, there had to be editors-in-chief, etc. that would do at least some sanity checks.
That is different of course with stuff on the web, so the best way to avoid mistakes would be to trust nobody. But that's a bit paranoid, so you will try to figure out who you trust. And with sites like
But what about stuff on deja, or the homepage of some guy you don't know? You will probably try to judge from the appearance (just like you would try to classify your unknown paper), from the wording, etc. But you can be wrong, of course.
I have a page on my website that deals with artificial intelligence. It's just a collection of thoughts I had a while back, and I am not a researcher in that field (I am kinda, but
So I would say: Don't be too paranoid, but if you want to use information for something important, better find out how credible it is by checking other sources (and the "surrounding" pages). And don't post an email on slashdot that just arrived from a mailing list. You don't know what will come of it. On the other hand, if the guys at
The main problem (I think, and I haven't followed that other story) was the first few words. "It seems that Corel has made one mistake too many." --- that sounded like BP was already suing them.
What about including a click-through counter in every link that's posted on ./? And then have a top ten ranking which links got clicked most in the last month or so (or maybe ranked by clicks/time unit).
That would also be interesting to get an idea what load these servers have to deal with. I am not sure if the Slashdot Effect paper is really very representative.
If people would just stop writing replies to them, nobody with a threshold of 0 or more would even know they were there. Maybe that would make them stop it. And if not, nobody would notice the difference.
Does the WTO have any power to do something to a single company? And if, how would that work? I mean, would national courts be involved, or an international one?
And isn't it MS that's thinking about a pay-per-use system for software over the net? Sounds like a service to me ... or a leased good (don't know the correct english term), whatever the implications of that would be.
I also think that something stinks here.
Good Point! But still, people will use that argument, and you will have a hard time trying to convince them otherwise.
...
It's actually something else that needs improvement: Informed people should make decisions, not suits. That would kill a lot of "good arguments"
- Number of Window Managers: Your average desktop user doesn't even know what that is, and is perfectly happy with *one* wm that works and that he understands (configuration options only make things complicated)
- Remote Apps: Your average desktop user doesn't know what they are, either. Nor does he/she care.
- Stability: Granted, that's a big bonus. And it's a real pain that one of the "killer" apps (netscape) sucks like it does, even under linux
- Cost: I think that the average desktop user would have to pay for installation and configuration anyway, so there isn't such a big difference there.
What Linux needs is a set of working, simple programs, not the (n+1)th window manager or tool kit. People will not want to learn ten different methods to do the same thing, if they're there. Oh, and a simple setup, and support andI should have made my point a bit clearer: Program documentation is a part of any serious program, no question. But there is a difference between writing a README, manpages and some additional HTML for your own program, and writing a book with lots of little hints and stuff about something you happen to use and know well.
... ;-), etc
...
So I believe there is quite a clear-cut line between absolutely necessary documentation (that is included with most programs I know, anyway) and "3rd party" kind of documentation, HOWTOs (okay, I'm starting to see your point
Please don't get me wrong. I am all for free documentation. I am just wondering about the possible implications to the model put forth in the Manifesto. Or maybe I just didn't understand the original idea
Okay, I admit, I somehow overlooked that paragraph the first time (I read the whole article, though). But that raises even more questions: If the source of these books is free, everybody can sell books printed from it, right? So Addison-Wesley might sell the same book without having to pay anything to O'Reilly.
I also understand the point of forking documentation when a project forks, but I am not convinced that would be a good thing. Because the original book would still be available at O'Reilly's site, and not your enhanced version!