With that attitude, yet you're posting on Slashdot?
If nerd culture means anything, it means abandoning any pressure on trying to "Get a Life" whatever that means. It means instead to do what you instinctively feel, matters.
Embrace your nerdness. One of us, one of us...
The tribe analogy is inapt, because tribes didn't have distinctions like employer/employee, government/citizen, rich/poor. Currently within each of those pairs the surveillance levels are almost completely one-sided in favour of the former. There seems to be very little trend to address that imbalance, and the surveillance described in the article would increase it. If anything the balance should be more surveillance of the former, since those are the ones with more power, and as the great Stan Lee said, "With great power comes great responsibility". Sadly the former in each case wants to increase their power over the latter, and increased surveillance is just one of the tools.
Attempts to have disclosure of information from the former to the latter exist (eg google "freedom of information", "open government" or "corporate disclosue") but they are usually weak, because of the laziness of members of the latter.
Re:Can we please talk about physics now?
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
The big problem is the media reporting a
tiny group of crackpots as if they represented
mainstream views. They don't.
Stop talking about the climate change "debate" and get back on topic!
People often complain along the lines of "these two parties are exactly the same! there is no real choice here", But there is a very good reason for this.
Both political organization have the same very accurate modern techniques for finding out what the people actually want, via methods like phone polls and such. After determining this, they will both then tend to make promises and policies that are very close to it - after all, why should a party try to have policies that go against what the largest number of people want? It's impractical and undemocratic.
So the complaint really is "the majority view (which is closely matched by both parties) does not match very well with my own individual view" - and that's just too bad for you.
The conclusion is that your vote in the election itself is not particularly important except in a symbolic way: the time when your voice is *really* heard is when the you get the spam phone call to ask you a series of questions on the iraq war, climate change, economy etc. Plus the fact that for each one survey phone call, you are effectively representing thousands of people in your answers.
Intelligent people of the slashdot world, I hope you are aware of this and do not ignore those survey calls. It's your civic duty.
So asking practitioners that work in the industry itself is somehow wrong? Heaven forbid it might turn up something contradicting academia, which is of course the only valid source of knowledge (/sarcasm)
Also, you've jumped to the false conclusion that asking slashdot is all he is doing.
I teach college-level courses and have multiple graduate degrees...and I'm continuously amazed at the quality that schools put out nowadays. Me too.
I'm amazed at the lack of respect that academics seem to have for the knowledge of people working in the field.
Disagree. Speaking as a member of the "Rest of the World", I think it's important to make a distinction between the American people, and the current American government:
We don't hate the American people (though the tourists can be a bit loud sometimes, they still mean well.)
But we hate the American government with a passion.
The distinction happens because the democratic process sometimes doesn't run as smoothly as one would hope - that can happen to any country.
Wow... your logic seems to be: This finding about sodium benzoate disagrees with the previous FDA position. Therefore it must be wrong.
You seem to have completely missed the point of the article, which that this is a new finding about the dangers of this substance. Naturally the previous FDA numbers would be out of date if the new finding is true. And your example of a factor of ten is completely spurious - where did you get the ten figure from?
I do not wish to deprive others of their religious beliefs.
If someone believed in leprechauns, would you not want to change this belief if you could? Why should we treat religion differently than any other belief in the supernatural?
Religion has somehow managed to achieve a special status where we are discouraged from applying normal conversation against it, for no other reason that because it is "disrespectful". It is almost unique in that sense. If the same status was applied to a politician, that would be called a totalitarian regime.
The role of science is not to manage public perception. It's to find out how things work.
No. The role of a scientist includes finding out how things work, AND communicating this effectively to others. Effective communication is incredibly important to science, and it needs to be free of influence from politics. Of course it never will be completely un-influenced by politics, but still this is something that we should strive for.
Speaking of one who has a mac (work-provided) I have to say that apple has nice packaging but they are bum (to use a technical term). They don't support the software I want. They're good for design but that's about it. Not wanting to start a religious war, just stating an opinion.
I cannot believe the parent post got modded insightful.
It's a mouse... unlikely to survive more than a couple years...So you're engaged in a futile war against death
I think you're missing the point here - they are going to transition this research to use in humans, mice are just a stepping stone in the research.
The other thing... WTF, its a mouse.
*sigh*, repitition is the last resort of someone without a cogent argument.
My family's dog died... and I've accepted that
Sad for you, but what does this have to do with scientists discovering a method for treating cancer? I think you're transferring anger here
there are people starving to death every day in Africa
This was the last straw that was so off-topic for me I just had to respond. A discussion about distribution of wealth in the world is fine, but just makes no sense as a response to this article. Look, whenever scientists come up with some great new discovery, there's always some who complain about it, like "Oh, so you've made a faster computer, or flown to the moon - well why haven't you don't something really useful like come up with a cure for cancer?" Now these guys are actually doing it and you talking about your dead dog and people in Africa? I refer you to your post's subject.
Not always. Thought experiment: you break your leg, then you're faced with the choice of:
A. Use typical medical technology to fix it with a cast
B. Avoid the use of the cast and accept the broken leg. After all, like all medicine, there will probably be "a price" (there will be a monetary cost, but I don't think that's the kind of price you were talking about)
Just live a healthy life - eat well and exercise
No offense, but that's a non-specific platitude and sounds like a boring life.
Like coffee, cognitive enhancements should be treated that same way we treat all things that may be used to ehnance our quality of life - we establish a reasonable level of "moderation" and go with that, always being careful to watch for potential pitfalls. Don't write them off out of hand just because they are new and unfamiliar.
"Aren't there any terrorists out there?" she said.
People need to be more objective about how priorities are chosen in what the government should be spending it's time and money on. Terrorism seems to have become the #1 issue in the election, but why is that?
Here's a more rational criterion: how does terrorism rate in terms of a ranked list of causes of death? Accoridng to the CDC, pretty low.
No offense to the victims of September 11, it was a great tragedy. But realistically, how do americans justify the amount of time/money spent on fighting this imho overhyped "war on terror"?
Slashdot Mirror
With that attitude, yet you're posting on Slashdot? If nerd culture means anything, it means abandoning any pressure on trying to "Get a Life" whatever that means. It means instead to do what you instinctively feel, matters. Embrace your nerdness. One of us, one of us ...
Attempts to have disclosure of information from the former to the latter exist (eg google "freedom of information", "open government" or "corporate disclosue") but they are usually weak, because of the laziness of members of the latter.
The big problem is the media reporting a tiny group of crackpots as if they represented mainstream views. They don't.
Stop talking about the climate change "debate" and get back on topic!
Details from TFA:
Correction: not the rank of captain, a lower rank, but you do start as someone in charge of your own ship.
Timeline is a few generations after Nemesis
Correction: 30 years after Nemesis was stated by the lead designer in the webcast.
No release date yet
Correction: he said less than four years, likely less than three years.
It used to be the three most important things in Journalism were accuracy, accuracy and accuracy. In slashdot it's being the first post?
D) And have has shirt ripped or taken off, as part of A), B) or C)
Sound is the propagation of a wave within a medium, and in space, there is no medium with the density required to propagate a wave of any kind.
The sentence above is the initial, much geekier version of the tagline, which was later reduced to "In space, no one can hear you scream"
Both political organization have the same very accurate modern techniques for finding out what the people actually want, via methods like phone polls and such. After determining this, they will both then tend to make promises and policies that are very close to it - after all, why should a party try to have policies that go against what the largest number of people want? It's impractical and undemocratic.
So the complaint really is "the majority view (which is closely matched by both parties) does not match very well with my own individual view" - and that's just too bad for you.
The conclusion is that your vote in the election itself is not particularly important except in a symbolic way: the time when your voice is *really* heard is when the you get the spam phone call to ask you a series of questions on the iraq war, climate change, economy etc. Plus the fact that for each one survey phone call, you are effectively representing thousands of people in your answers.
Intelligent people of the slashdot world, I hope you are aware of this and do not ignore those survey calls. It's your civic duty.
Remember: no bush, no dick.
(damn I was all set for +5 insightful and had to spoil it down to +5 funny with that last line ...)
- You want to live somewhere? Cool. So does everyone else. Rents are ridiculously high
Dude, that's called supply and demand. What is your problem? Do you prefer rents to be lower and unavailable to anyone? Your complaint makes no sense.
- You want to go to the movies? Awesome! Plan on either buying your tickets 5 hours in advance online
Wow that's so difficult.
- You want to have a car in Manhattan?
No. The public transport in NY is the best in any city I've ever lived in. Not to mentioned cabs are way cheaper than say London.
- complain, complain
Whatever. New York is great, if you don't like it why do you live there?
Hey now! Even Tom Selleck wasn't rude enough to call Higgins a boson
We don't hate the American people (though the tourists can be a bit loud sometimes, they still mean well.)
But we hate the American government with a passion.
The distinction happens because the democratic process sometimes doesn't run as smoothly as one would hope - that can happen to any country.
Evolution is a theory. Religion is only a mythology.
hey, this argument by simile is fun!
Wow ... your logic seems to be: This finding about sodium benzoate disagrees with the previous FDA position. Therefore it must be wrong.
You seem to have completely missed the point of the article, which that this is a new finding about the dangers of this substance. Naturally the previous FDA numbers would be out of date if the new finding is true. And your example of a factor of ten is completely spurious - where did you get the ten figure from?
More thought, less posts. Thank you.
I do not wish to deprive others of their religious beliefs.
If someone believed in leprechauns, would you not want to change this belief if you could? Why should we treat religion differently than any other belief in the supernatural?
Religion has somehow managed to achieve a special status where we are discouraged from applying normal conversation against it, for no other reason that because it is "disrespectful". It is almost unique in that sense. If the same status was applied to a politician, that would be called a totalitarian regime.
The role of science is not to manage public perception. It's to find out how things work.
No. The role of a scientist includes finding out how things work, AND communicating this effectively to others. Effective communication is incredibly important to science, and it needs to be free of influence from politics. Of course it never will be completely un-influenced by politics, but still this is something that we should strive for.
Speaking of one who has a mac (work-provided) I have to say that apple has nice packaging but they are bum (to use a technical term). They don't support the software I want. They're good for design but that's about it. Not wanting to start a religious war, just stating an opinion.
It's a mouse... unlikely to survive more than a couple years...So you're engaged in a futile war against death
I think you're missing the point here - they are going to transition this research to use in humans, mice are just a stepping stone in the research.
The other thing... WTF, its a mouse.
*sigh*, repitition is the last resort of someone without a cogent argument.
My family's dog died ... and I've accepted that
Sad for you, but what does this have to do with scientists discovering a method for treating cancer? I think you're transferring anger here
there are people starving to death every day in Africa
This was the last straw that was so off-topic for me I just had to respond. A discussion about distribution of wealth in the world is fine, but just makes no sense as a response to this article. Look, whenever scientists come up with some great new discovery, there's always some who complain about it, like "Oh, so you've made a faster computer, or flown to the moon - well why haven't you don't something really useful like come up with a cure for cancer?" Now these guys are actually doing it and you talking about your dead dog and people in Africa? I refer you to your post's subject.
When will we have flying cars?
When will we have X-ray goggles?
When will we have solved the Slashdot Effect?
But in some jobs a degree is an official requirement. So maybe we will reach a point where the drug-taking will be too.
Not always. Thought experiment: you break your leg, then you're faced with the choice of:
No offense, but that's a non-specific platitude and sounds like a boring life.A. Use typical medical technology to fix it with a cast
B. Avoid the use of the cast and accept the broken leg. After all, like all medicine, there will probably be "a price" (there will be a monetary cost, but I don't think that's the kind of price you were talking about)
Like coffee, cognitive enhancements should be treated that same way we treat all things that may be used to ehnance our quality of life - we establish a reasonable level of "moderation" and go with that, always being careful to watch for potential pitfalls. Don't write them off out of hand just because they are new and unfamiliar.
Many have been working on this for some time. Now maybe they will more support.
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
People need to be more objective about how priorities are chosen in what the government should be spending it's time and money on. Terrorism seems to have become the #1 issue in the election, but why is that?
Here's a more rational criterion: how does terrorism rate in terms of a ranked list of causes of death? Accoridng to the CDC, pretty low.
No offense to the victims of September 11, it was a great tragedy. But realistically, how do americans justify the amount of time/money spent on fighting this imho overhyped "war on terror"?
Actually come to think of it maybe they did, and the non-porn section is just too small to see.
uh... you're new here aren't you?
Sounds like a problem waiting to happen.
Maybe somebody would like to mirror.