One step at a time, the tired, the poor, the huddled masses, the wretched refuse, and the homeless will get used to that kind of tracking and will find it normal.
FTFY, but I had to delete "yearning to breathe free".
One of the main indignities of old age is that young people regard all old people as the same, we don't see them as protagonists in their own right. It's tragic, because not all grandmothers are created equal, and don't wish to be regarded as such.
If grandma can't use her computer the way she wants without my help then the designer of the software has failed.
Seriously, you're making the disciples of Roland Barthes look good, and that isn't easy. I suppose what grandma wants is a technological experience devoid of human interaction.
Grandma goes to the store to buy a lb of hamburger. Let's not tell her about genetic engineering or bovine growth hormone, or heaven forbid, pink slime at the drive through. She doesn't want to know.
Grandma logs onto Facebook to check out her grandchild. Let's not tell her about privacy settings, or phishing, or heaven forbid, sexting. She doesn't want to know.
This magically disappearing technological shim you're so fond of doesn't exist. There are many magic rings in this world, Grandma Baggins, and none of them should be used lightly.
I'll venture a guess that in 10 years, RIM's fall from grace will probably be a great case study in business schools around the world.
With CliffNotes supplied by Isaac Asimov, whose psychometrics first foresaw the distortion in the personal reality field.
RIM was in the same place two years ago, with a nasty software stack and no ecosystem. They responded by buying QNX. Even with the latest delays they are still going to from purchase to market faster than Apple did with OS X. Same fundamental problem, same solution, dramatically different outcomes.
Actually, I think RIM severely underestimated gluttony and narcissism, but your points are largely correct.
Hard to say RIM has been managed any worse than Apple at their worst.
My Streisand is bigger than your Streisand. Troy had Achilles. We have... Streisand. You know, you can't accuse someone of ignorance unless you know that they don't actually want that outcome. No wonder so many young men have trouble comprehending women: stated purpose is a weak omen.
dangerous precedents are being set that this type of warfare is without consequences
No one is this world is that stupid who doesn't chose to be. Even a four year old knows that N=1 sets a precedent if your cheeks are chubby and you engage the waterworks.
1:23.4 works out to 603 watts on the C2 calculator. Lightweight is 72.5 kg (160 lb) max. He's cranking out 8.3 watts/kg for 85 seconds (assuming peak weight). And he's old.
Chris Anker's average for 6:50 min was 433 watts (6.7 w/kg), his heart rate went from 139 to 170 bpm. That was his max heart rate for the day - after three weeks and especially after three hard days in the Alps he is not able to get even close to his max heart rate recorded at the beginning of the Tour.
Part of the reason is that rowers work additional muscle groups, which really helps over anaerobic duration. Another great things about this guy is he's really smooth and consistent, up until the last ten strokes.
The energy expended throwing your body up and down the slide is not counted. Probably gets him closer to Tour standards for watts/kg if this expenditure was also included.
For a copter, you'd design the machine so that the foot pedestal moved and the body stays still over its center of mass (the seat needs to slide slightly).
In short, this might just be exactly what our congested wireless spectrum needs.
Good judgement comes from experience :: Experience comes from bad judgement :::: Abundance comes from alleviating congestion :: Congestion comes from delivering abundance.
It's pretty much a theorem in transportation systems that you can't alleviate congestion by boosting capacity until the less direct or desirable routes are destitute.
There should have been a Star Trek episode where high-end subspace polarizers keep disappearing from engineering consoles because the Ferengi have taken on a contract from Monster Cable to supply private Holodeck enthusiasts with the finest detail in nose hair.
It was assumed in many of the classic sci fi books that hard stuff, like calculations, would be done by hand while easy stuff like cleaning the house would be done by robots.
In nearly 100% of these cases, the author was more invested in his success as a writer than his success as a futurist. You found this stuff sitting right beside accounts that were nowhere near this stupid. It's pretty hard to write a convincing story (that men will buy) where doing your own vacuuming helps you get laid.
I read a fair amount of Arthur C. Clarke and never once tripped over a Roomba.
I was there, and from where I sat, there was no confusion whatsoever between science based speculation and Gadget Boy, bachelor at large.
My university had one of these early terminals on display in the main lobby of the math building. It updated the colour screen (extremely vivid, but not terribly detailed) at about the same speed as four elite Counterstrike players enrolled in a team Etch-a-Sketch competition. You could learn about the world faster flipping through the advertising supplement in the Yellow Pages. The machine was used for about 2 minutes an hour.
It was with the introduction of the CDROM when I realized that the future of the information economy would never be the same again. The main hold-up seemed to be the lack of a decent display (megapixel with at least 8-bit colour). I severely underestimated how incremental distribution (the internet) was essential to content creation. The present-day en.Wikipedia could be condensed to 500MB and retain 90% of its utility (as a static reference). CDROMs would have sufficed as a distribution method. Was Encarta a reference work, or just a parental-wallet compatible way to promote multimedia, and yet more rounds of expensive hardware upgrades? I never looked at it, suspecting it was more of the later.
It was plainly obvious how these technologies amplified information. It wasn't nearly so obvious how these technologies amplified collaboration. Ask any programmer who had just cashed a fat Y2K consulting cheque if they saw Wikipedia coming.
Jetsons: Having stuff. Dominant corporation: Leviton.
These days, some people worry if children can tell the difference between video violence and the real world. I assure you, in my childhood, I could already tell the difference between cartoons about the future and the future as it was likely to unfold.
The copyleft allows *for profit* webpages to use my work. I find this intolerable; my hard work is used to make some loathsome 1%er rich?
In theory, but do you really think that's easy to pull off? Can they really charge more than their middle-man repackaging justifies? Repacking is a value add if done to high standards.
The mandate is to spread knowledge to the whole of the world's population. If middle-men can't make engage in any kind of fee-based recovery concerning editorial costs, you're not going to attract much participation with the dissemination task. I don't see many flowering plants harshing honey bees. I think you've got the wrong picture of the ecosystem.
I have to keep correcting, and recorrecting, and re re re correcting stuff
I learned that lesson early. It's a huge mistake to take pride in bunny-suited textual purity. Wikipedia is a pig farm. Even the most conscientious farmer gets shit on his boots. Also, Wikipedia doesn't exactly encourage subject matter experts to take on leading editorial roles. It's more into the kind of loose accuracy obtained at arm's length remove. I would almost say that Wikipedia actively resists excellence. This is hard concept for many people to comprehend. The highly cultivated "feature articles" are a bit of a Potemkin village. Featureness degrades rapidly after the parade moves on.
My sense is that you'd have been happier contributing to uberpedia. "wiki" is German for "I wouldn't go so far as to call the brother fat. He's got a weight problem. What's the nigger gonna do? He's Samoan." For all its warts, the constructive sentiment is loud and clear.
Usually a sign of someone working in a field is the lack of binary spectrum disorder, so I'm surprised by your comment. Amateurs find it convenient to think that algorithmic cognition comes in only two flavours, like coffee in a grimy truckstop: weak and strong. Now if we could only upgrade that to a nice filet at your favorite neighborhood steak house we'd be getting somewhere: blue, rare, medium rare, medium, well done.
The era we're moving into is medium rare. I completely agree with Norvig/Pearl. And Daphne Koller. And, for once, Daniel Dennett.
Personally, I don't really want my AI well done. I'd like to still have something I'm good at before the machines take over. Medium rare would be excellent, because you can hand over the tedious stuff and not get a complete disaster.
Probability theory, possibility measures, ranking theory, plausibility measures, Dempster-Shafer and all these slight variations of the same theme are altogether computationally intractable.
I wouldn't count on it. Processors haven't followed Moore's law since Prescott set the high mark in marketectural delusion. Flash is sailed past the first scaling inflection pre-pubescent, and has only clung to the coattails of Moore's law due to incredible efforts in ECC middleware. Capacitors don't scale the same as transistors, solid state or otherwise.
Hard drives had a couple of glory years where they improved at double the pace of Moore's law. A 60% improvement in price/performance year over year was achieved four times as often as predicted by the Mayan calendar.
Flash has become is the poster child of silicon valley in this strange era where every business model involves poaching eyeballs from Facebook faster than Cisco replaced laser diodes during the dotcom bubble. Flash has hardly made a dent in the less sexy domain of exabyte near-line storage, and there's little to indicate that it ever will, unless something lets the yeast out of vanity self-portraits.
This is the problem we have in society where instead of advancing thought and morals, we advance an atheist agenda lacking in morals.
Atheists lack a defining text. And people think managing programmers is like herding cats. Unification of agenda under a grand banner is mostly a theist creation.
More simply put, without any moral guide lines we only have survival of the fittest to guide us.
Apparently, we hadn't properly solved the equations for Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma after three decades of study and you suspect on gut instinct that the grand mechanism of fitness is tapped out? Let me guess, you're soon about to argue that lack of a moral code correlates with lack of fitness?
Guess what happens to people with no moral guide lines? Well, you simply need to look at the declining mental and moral health of the USA to see how this turns out.
Bee Eye Enn Gee Oh.
Shortly after the 1983 Korean Air Lines Flight 007 incident I attended some Sunday services at a televised evangelical church in Toronto out of courtesy to the family I was boarding with. One of the speakers they invited was Hal Lindsey. I don't recall the other guests by name. In one service it was preached that America engage in eye-for-eye tactics and shoot down an equivalent aircraft from the Soviet sphere. Nice. Well, America evened the score on quick trigger fingers not long after with the Iran Air Flight 655 incident in 1988. If we had deliberately boarded the eye-for-an-eye bus, we'd now be asking the Irish for advice on how to cool the exchange.
The other sermon I recall rather vividly was the claim that the rapidly rising disease in western society was a sign of God's wrath. He was referring in particular to the number of distinct diagnostic categories, completely oblivious to the fact that refinements in diagnostic category are the hallmark of science making progress. Where we used to have one lump for infectious disease, we now distinguish thousands of pathogens, all the way down to minor strains.
FOX News excluded, mental health in America has probably never been better. I watched the extremely difficult movie Breaking the Waves over the weekend. There wasn't a shred of mental health in evidence in that nasty Calvinist congregation. Every one of them would rather crush pint glasses with their bare hands than seek help for depression. Hitchens was exceedingly vocal about how Mother Teresa defined misery as next to godliness. She did almost nothing to alleviate suffering.
MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God.
As society less frequently accepts that suffering is next to godliness, more people seek treatment for minor mental health conditions. The same data you cite reads to me as major progress.
There is currently a responsibility-dodging contest between industry and academia...
It's entirely unclear to me whether there is any responsibility to duck or blame to take from any quarter. When did normative statistics become the consensus secular god?
Ironically, Keen never mentions the fact that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was born in 1984.
With irony like that, who needs literature?
I figure if the author or movie director wasted my finite time...
Pardon us all for existing. Standing in line at the grocery store, do you pull out a Glock? There's a wonderful filter on crap called time: never attend a movie on the opening weekend. Try it sometime, you might like it, plus you never know how your life might change sounding less like an apologist for Jong-il.
He can voice his opinion but there's a massive difference between encouraging improved support for Linux, and basically trolling companies who do support Linux, one is productive, the other isn't. Torvald's is carrying out the unproductive one.
Every time I hear of some couple in the process of splitting up I walk up to them and ask them if they haven't tried to work it out by productive methods.
That's how they protected Salmon Rushdie during the height of the fatwa. They would set up a conspicuous crazy, then put Salmon into the costume for one night to move him across town. Masquerading as some crazy who holds his hand in front of his face works every time.
What was the actual topic again? Oh, yeah. Picks up hammer and bashes head. Ouch. So, anyone got a bag of ice and a good digression... ?
1) If your universal lossless compression doesn't actually work, we want no part of it; if it does work, you already have enough funding in your personal checking account to succeed beyond your wildest dreams. What would you do if someone showed up asking you to invest in a 50lb bar of 28 carat gold? It's either fake, or the person bearing it is too stupid to live.
2) Your idea is great, but you simply showed up at the wrong address, not having done your basic due diligence to determine that we're too all dumb around here to recognize brilliance even if it bites us in the ass. If you also invent the cure for stupidity, come around again and give us another shot.
Me thinks Sgt Schultz doth protest too much. Since my first post here in the early days of URL speak-and-spell, I've propounded that the disadvantages of x86 to RISC in performance were almost entirely illusory (brazen bubbles in the fabric of reality now feeding the worms notwithstanding).
That said, on the power front, x86 bites. Possibly it bites like an undershot chihuahua in some small way that a billion dollars of doggy dentistry could adequately rectify—but it most certainly bites. Jumbles of instruction prefix opcodes and the inconsistent and partial nature of flag register updates spring to mind in bow-legged glory. A time machine erected in the lobby of an Intel design center with a small do-not-disturb sign hung above the door would sit unmolested by the stampede of pocket-protectors for not so long as a virgin newly arrived in 72 member frat-house of Perpetual Erection. (Turns out the prophet was a touch dyslexic. [snide]I've been reading God Is Not Great which I've privately subtitled Ridicule, Where Art Thou?. "Seventy-two virgins each? WTF? Do you think virgins grow on trees? It's a regrettable misprint. Sorry, you'll have to share—but not until you reach consensus on who goes first. I see nothing that prevents you from enjoying a satisfying afterlife all the same, so quit your bitching."[/snide]) The shrewdest Intel engineers will set the time machine to the late 1960s, enjoy the party for a year or two (virgins will be in short supply), before charting a cruise ship to California to doctor some 8008 family architectural specifications when no-one is looking.
I'm kind of looking forward to the success of the SETI program so we can conduct some proper black-box bake-offs. Let's boxgram up the C language specification along with the ARM and x86 instruction set specifications and warble them into subspace to a couple of competitive Ferengi monasteries (Shaolin temples of combinatoric reasoning), giving only the fabrication detail the the embodied processors are fabricated primarily in the element silicon, and that we really care about power consumption. Then run the generated code from the Xeno-compilers side by side on the chips where Sgt Schultz presently sees nothing to see which wins and by what margin.
The point I'm making is that over the years Intel has contributed an awful lot to the dentistry of GCC and other compilers to promulgate this mirage that there's nothing to see here.
Yet rare is the architecture so trammelled by men it doesn't freshen up nicely advantaged by a die shrink.
I personally think this article is destructive in claiming that there is no mental facility for getting underneath bias. Clearly if it exists it's something other than rationality alone, and it's rare enough that it barely moves the needle in group norms.
Kahneman is doing us a service to point out that universal tendency toward bias is the best first approximation, and that intelligence on its own is no antidote.
Kahneman is doing us a disservice to presume that there's no human capacity which does make a difference.
It's like the old blunder about race. Individual differences dominate group differences, but that doesn't mean there are no group differences at all. Furthermore, only the pig-headed latch onto the fact that group differences actually exist. They aren't large enough to support any broad conclusion. But still, there are group differences, and group differences can potentially be large, or evolution couldn't work.
Kahneman is falling prey to the mistake of thinking that since there's hardly any upside to presuming any select group of people is less biased than another, that we might as well conclude that no such mechanism exists.
In most people, the rational and the emotional ends are deeply conflated. I think both systems generate proposals and the brain then sifts for overlap. The rational cover story for our motives is as essential in many social contexts as wearing clothes. Don't leave home without it.
I think the people with skill at penetrating bias tend not to live highly acceptable lives. I'm thinking mainly about writers. Did Nabokov not know something about his nature that other people would not wish to know? Another that comes to mind was Somerset Maugham's The Summing Up. George Orwell considered Maugham "The modern writer who has influenced me the most." I might also include George Orwell. I'm also reminded of My Happy Days in Hell by Gy(slashcode fuckup)rgy Faludy. He recounts a scene where he was peering down the blouse of an attractive young woman who finally noticed and demurred. He describes himself as immediately barking "Back as you were!" and relates that she complied. There's a lot of that tone, not especially flattering by the usual norms. I'm also thinking Kahneman should have tested Henry Miller.
Those who excel at perceiving their own bias are likely to have two traits: a strong tendency to double-check or triangulate social hypotheses, and the ability to embrace contradiction. People don't operate in a system of singular motives. Motive swirls around and intersects like smoke rings in a toxic pub.
I think it's the reductive tendency of the over-thinker that's most inimical to harvesting the tender shoots.
But don't take it bad. Canonical couldn't figure out why any user would configure dual-head displays, and this was after providing the feature for seven years.
So long, Canonical, and thanks for the use-case siesta.
This is a nice piece of work where he uses incremental modifications of existing password templates to show that password "seasoning" with a few stray twiddles such as s/o/0/ or s/$/! isn't worth much.
linkedin is the only social network I've signed up for, and I visit less than twice a year. Don't think I used a strong password, but I do know I used a password totally unrelated to any other password on any other active account.
Sure beats being the guy with the password lsw4facebook or lsw4citibank on sites that might be easy to guess.
Sending a txt while going 5mph in a traffic jam is not going to kill anyone.
You're putting an awful lot of faith in car doors engineered to prevent children from rolling out at low speeds. I did that once as a child while the car was moving at a slow speed turning onto an on-ramp to a major highway. If there was a button or lever and I was bored, sooner or later I pushed or pulled it. Wasn't hurt at all but it must have freaked my parents right out.
I've also seen a lot of people from the social underclass weaving through low-speed traffic jams on route for smokes or rotgut.
Glad to know your low-speed use-case analysis draws a safe box around all members of society who are valuable and competent.
Slashdot Mirror
FTFY, but I had to delete "yearning to breathe free".
Depends whether it's an iPhone. Twenty years ago I might have agreed with you.
One of the main indignities of old age is that young people regard all old people as the same, we don't see them as protagonists in their own right. It's tragic, because not all grandmothers are created equal, and don't wish to be regarded as such.
Seriously, you're making the disciples of Roland Barthes look good, and that isn't easy. I suppose what grandma wants is a technological experience devoid of human interaction.
Grandma goes to the store to buy a lb of hamburger. Let's not tell her about genetic engineering or bovine growth hormone, or heaven forbid, pink slime at the drive through. She doesn't want to know.
Grandma logs onto Facebook to check out her grandchild. Let's not tell her about privacy settings, or phishing, or heaven forbid, sexting. She doesn't want to know.
This magically disappearing technological shim you're so fond of doesn't exist. There are many magic rings in this world, Grandma Baggins, and none of them should be used lightly.
From a different post:
With CliffNotes supplied by Isaac Asimov, whose psychometrics first foresaw the distortion in the personal reality field.
Actually, I think RIM severely underestimated gluttony and narcissism, but your points are largely correct.
Hard to say RIM has been managed any worse than Apple at their worst.
My Streisand is bigger than your Streisand. Troy had Achilles. We have ... Streisand. You know, you can't accuse someone of ignorance unless you know that they don't actually want that outcome. No wonder so many young men have trouble comprehending women: stated purpose is a weak omen.
No one is this world is that stupid who doesn't chose to be. Even a four year old knows that N=1 sets a precedent if your cheeks are chubby and you engage the waterworks.
Well, duh. A minute is pretty much entirely anaerobic.
You want a guy like this: 500m Lightweight Men's 40-49 Indoor Rowing World Record
1:23.4 works out to 603 watts on the C2 calculator. Lightweight is 72.5 kg (160 lb) max. He's cranking out 8.3 watts/kg for 85 seconds (assuming peak weight). And he's old.
Tour de France 2011 - Analysis Stage 19
Part of the reason is that rowers work additional muscle groups, which really helps over anaerobic duration. Another great things about this guy is he's really smooth and consistent, up until the last ten strokes.
Here's a guy who's no lightweight delivering 513 watts for 6 minutes: Bernhard "THE MACHINE" Pfaller
The energy expended throwing your body up and down the slide is not counted. Probably gets him closer to Tour standards for watts/kg if this expenditure was also included.
For a copter, you'd design the machine so that the foot pedestal moved and the body stays still over its center of mass (the seat needs to slide slightly).
Super geek bonus: Converting a Concept 2 static erg to a dynamic erg.
Good judgement comes from experience
:: Experience comes from bad judgement
:::: Abundance comes from alleviating congestion
:: Congestion comes from delivering abundance.
It's pretty much a theorem in transportation systems that you can't alleviate congestion by boosting capacity until the less direct or desirable routes are destitute.
There should have been a Star Trek episode where high-end subspace polarizers keep disappearing from engineering consoles because the Ferengi have taken on a contract from Monster Cable to supply private Holodeck enthusiasts with the finest detail in nose hair.
In nearly 100% of these cases, the author was more invested in his success as a writer than his success as a futurist. You found this stuff sitting right beside accounts that were nowhere near this stupid. It's pretty hard to write a convincing story (that men will buy) where doing your own vacuuming helps you get laid.
I read a fair amount of Arthur C. Clarke and never once tripped over a Roomba.
I was there, and from where I sat, there was no confusion whatsoever between science based speculation and Gadget Boy, bachelor at large.
My university had one of these early terminals on display in the main lobby of the math building. It updated the colour screen (extremely vivid, but not terribly detailed) at about the same speed as four elite Counterstrike players enrolled in a team Etch-a-Sketch competition. You could learn about the world faster flipping through the advertising supplement in the Yellow Pages. The machine was used for about 2 minutes an hour.
It was with the introduction of the CDROM when I realized that the future of the information economy would never be the same again. The main hold-up seemed to be the lack of a decent display (megapixel with at least 8-bit colour). I severely underestimated how incremental distribution (the internet) was essential to content creation. The present-day en.Wikipedia could be condensed to 500MB and retain 90% of its utility (as a static reference). CDROMs would have sufficed as a distribution method. Was Encarta a reference work, or just a parental-wallet compatible way to promote multimedia, and yet more rounds of expensive hardware upgrades? I never looked at it, suspecting it was more of the later.
It was plainly obvious how these technologies amplified information. It wasn't nearly so obvious how these technologies amplified collaboration. Ask any programmer who had just cashed a fat Y2K consulting cheque if they saw Wikipedia coming.
Jetsons: Having stuff. Dominant corporation: Leviton.
These days, some people worry if children can tell the difference between video violence and the real world. I assure you, in my childhood, I could already tell the difference between cartoons about the future and the future as it was likely to unfold.
In theory, but do you really think that's easy to pull off? Can they really charge more than their middle-man repackaging justifies? Repacking is a value add if done to high standards.
The mandate is to spread knowledge to the whole of the world's population. If middle-men can't make engage in any kind of fee-based recovery concerning editorial costs, you're not going to attract much participation with the dissemination task. I don't see many flowering plants harshing honey bees. I think you've got the wrong picture of the ecosystem.
I learned that lesson early. It's a huge mistake to take pride in bunny-suited textual purity. Wikipedia is a pig farm. Even the most conscientious farmer gets shit on his boots. Also, Wikipedia doesn't exactly encourage subject matter experts to take on leading editorial roles. It's more into the kind of loose accuracy obtained at arm's length remove. I would almost say that Wikipedia actively resists excellence. This is hard concept for many people to comprehend. The highly cultivated "feature articles" are a bit of a Potemkin village. Featureness degrades rapidly after the parade moves on.
My sense is that you'd have been happier contributing to uberpedia. "wiki" is German for "I wouldn't go so far as to call the brother fat. He's got a weight problem. What's the nigger gonna do? He's Samoan." For all its warts, the constructive sentiment is loud and clear.
Usually a sign of someone working in a field is the lack of binary spectrum disorder, so I'm surprised by your comment. Amateurs find it convenient to think that algorithmic cognition comes in only two flavours, like coffee in a grimy truckstop: weak and strong. Now if we could only upgrade that to a nice filet at your favorite neighborhood steak house we'd be getting somewhere: blue, rare, medium rare, medium, well done.
The era we're moving into is medium rare. I completely agree with Norvig/Pearl. And Daphne Koller. And, for once, Daniel Dennett.
Personally, I don't really want my AI well done. I'd like to still have something I'm good at before the machines take over. Medium rare would be excellent, because you can hand over the tedious stuff and not get a complete disaster.
Dude, that's moving well into medium.
Four times Belgium triple IPA, a style which I don't believe I've ever had before.
I wouldn't count on it. Processors haven't followed Moore's law since Prescott set the high mark in marketectural delusion. Flash is sailed past the first scaling inflection pre-pubescent, and has only clung to the coattails of Moore's law due to incredible efforts in ECC middleware. Capacitors don't scale the same as transistors, solid state or otherwise.
Hard drives had a couple of glory years where they improved at double the pace of Moore's law. A 60% improvement in price/performance year over year was achieved four times as often as predicted by the Mayan calendar.
Flash has become is the poster child of silicon valley in this strange era where every business model involves poaching eyeballs from Facebook faster than Cisco replaced laser diodes during the dotcom bubble. Flash has hardly made a dent in the less sexy domain of exabyte near-line storage, and there's little to indicate that it ever will, unless something lets the yeast out of vanity self-portraits.
Atheists lack a defining text. And people think managing programmers is like herding cats. Unification of agenda under a grand banner is mostly a theist creation.
Apparently, we hadn't properly solved the equations for Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma after three decades of study and you suspect on gut instinct that the grand mechanism of fitness is tapped out? Let me guess, you're soon about to argue that lack of a moral code correlates with lack of fitness?
Bee Eye Enn Gee Oh.
Shortly after the 1983 Korean Air Lines Flight 007 incident I attended some Sunday services at a televised evangelical church in Toronto out of courtesy to the family I was boarding with. One of the speakers they invited was Hal Lindsey. I don't recall the other guests by name. In one service it was preached that America engage in eye-for-eye tactics and shoot down an equivalent aircraft from the Soviet sphere. Nice. Well, America evened the score on quick trigger fingers not long after with the Iran Air Flight 655 incident in 1988. If we had deliberately boarded the eye-for-an-eye bus, we'd now be asking the Irish for advice on how to cool the exchange.
The other sermon I recall rather vividly was the claim that the rapidly rising disease in western society was a sign of God's wrath. He was referring in particular to the number of distinct diagnostic categories, completely oblivious to the fact that refinements in diagnostic category are the hallmark of science making progress. Where we used to have one lump for infectious disease, we now distinguish thousands of pathogens, all the way down to minor strains.
FOX News excluded, mental health in America has probably never been better. I watched the extremely difficult movie Breaking the Waves over the weekend. There wasn't a shred of mental health in evidence in that nasty Calvinist congregation. Every one of them would rather crush pint glasses with their bare hands than seek help for depression. Hitchens was exceedingly vocal about how Mother Teresa defined misery as next to godliness. She did almost nothing to alleviate suffering.
As society less frequently accepts that suffering is next to godliness, more people seek treatment for minor mental health conditions. The same data you cite reads to me as major progress.
It's entirely unclear to me whether there is any responsibility to duck or blame to take from any quarter. When did normative statistics become the consensus secular god?
I had hoped the Berkeley gender bias case had put this kind of trite formulation to rest.
With irony like that, who needs literature?
Pardon us all for existing. Standing in line at the grocery store, do you pull out a Glock? There's a wonderful filter on crap called time: never attend a movie on the opening weekend. Try it sometime, you might like it, plus you never know how your life might change sounding less like an apologist for Jong-il.
Every time I hear of some couple in the process of splitting up I walk up to them and ask them if they haven't tried to work it out by productive methods.
That's how they protected Salmon Rushdie during the height of the fatwa. They would set up a conspicuous crazy, then put Salmon into the costume for one night to move him across town. Masquerading as some crazy who holds his hand in front of his face works every time.
What was the actual topic again? Oh, yeah. Picks up hammer and bashes head. Ouch. So, anyone got a bag of ice and a good digression ... ?
1) If your universal lossless compression doesn't actually work, we want no part of it; if it does work, you already have enough funding in your personal checking account to succeed beyond your wildest dreams. What would you do if someone showed up asking you to invest in a 50lb bar of 28 carat gold? It's either fake, or the person bearing it is too stupid to live.
2) Your idea is great, but you simply showed up at the wrong address, not having done your basic due diligence to determine that we're too all dumb around here to recognize brilliance even if it bites us in the ass. If you also invent the cure for stupidity, come around again and give us another shot.
Me thinks Sgt Schultz doth protest too much. Since my first post here in the early days of URL speak-and-spell, I've propounded that the disadvantages of x86 to RISC in performance were almost entirely illusory (brazen bubbles in the fabric of reality now feeding the worms notwithstanding).
That said, on the power front, x86 bites. Possibly it bites like an undershot chihuahua in some small way that a billion dollars of doggy dentistry could adequately rectify—but it most certainly bites. Jumbles of instruction prefix opcodes and the inconsistent and partial nature of flag register updates spring to mind in bow-legged glory. A time machine erected in the lobby of an Intel design center with a small do-not-disturb sign hung above the door would sit unmolested by the stampede of pocket-protectors for not so long as a virgin newly arrived in 72 member frat-house of Perpetual Erection. (Turns out the prophet was a touch dyslexic. [snide]I've been reading God Is Not Great which I've privately subtitled Ridicule, Where Art Thou?. "Seventy-two virgins each? WTF? Do you think virgins grow on trees? It's a regrettable misprint. Sorry, you'll have to share—but not until you reach consensus on who goes first. I see nothing that prevents you from enjoying a satisfying afterlife all the same, so quit your bitching."[/snide]) The shrewdest Intel engineers will set the time machine to the late 1960s, enjoy the party for a year or two (virgins will be in short supply), before charting a cruise ship to California to doctor some 8008 family architectural specifications when no-one is looking.
I'm kind of looking forward to the success of the SETI program so we can conduct some proper black-box bake-offs. Let's boxgram up the C language specification along with the ARM and x86 instruction set specifications and warble them into subspace to a couple of competitive Ferengi monasteries (Shaolin temples of combinatoric reasoning), giving only the fabrication detail the the embodied processors are fabricated primarily in the element silicon, and that we really care about power consumption. Then run the generated code from the Xeno-compilers side by side on the chips where Sgt Schultz presently sees nothing to see which wins and by what margin.
The point I'm making is that over the years Intel has contributed an awful lot to the dentistry of GCC and other compilers to promulgate this mirage that there's nothing to see here.
Yet rare is the architecture so trammelled by men it doesn't freshen up nicely advantaged by a die shrink.
I personally think this article is destructive in claiming that there is no mental facility for getting underneath bias. Clearly if it exists it's something other than rationality alone, and it's rare enough that it barely moves the needle in group norms.
Kahneman is doing us a service to point out that universal tendency toward bias is the best first approximation, and that intelligence on its own is no antidote.
Kahneman is doing us a disservice to presume that there's no human capacity which does make a difference.
It's like the old blunder about race. Individual differences dominate group differences, but that doesn't mean there are no group differences at all. Furthermore, only the pig-headed latch onto the fact that group differences actually exist. They aren't large enough to support any broad conclusion. But still, there are group differences, and group differences can potentially be large, or evolution couldn't work.
Kahneman is falling prey to the mistake of thinking that since there's hardly any upside to presuming any select group of people is less biased than another, that we might as well conclude that no such mechanism exists.
In most people, the rational and the emotional ends are deeply conflated. I think both systems generate proposals and the brain then sifts for overlap. The rational cover story for our motives is as essential in many social contexts as wearing clothes. Don't leave home without it.
I think the people with skill at penetrating bias tend not to live highly acceptable lives. I'm thinking mainly about writers. Did Nabokov not know something about his nature that other people would not wish to know? Another that comes to mind was Somerset Maugham's The Summing Up. George Orwell considered Maugham "The modern writer who has influenced me the most." I might also include George Orwell. I'm also reminded of My Happy Days in Hell by Gy(slashcode fuckup)rgy Faludy. He recounts a scene where he was peering down the blouse of an attractive young woman who finally noticed and demurred. He describes himself as immediately barking "Back as you were!" and relates that she complied. There's a lot of that tone, not especially flattering by the usual norms. I'm also thinking Kahneman should have tested Henry Miller.
Those who excel at perceiving their own bias are likely to have two traits: a strong tendency to double-check or triangulate social hypotheses, and the ability to embrace contradiction. People don't operate in a system of singular motives. Motive swirls around and intersects like smoke rings in a toxic pub.
I think it's the reductive tendency of the over-thinker that's most inimical to harvesting the tender shoots.
In addition to having no imagination, you must have a leaky memory as well. Didn't you see Universal Android Laptop Dock: Microsoft Nightmare, Or Toy?? Wherever paltry imaginations congregate, the Toys! have it. Those of us wise to the ways of generativity work hard to avoid consulting availability heuristics altogether.
But don't take it bad. Canonical couldn't figure out why any user would configure dual-head displays, and this was after providing the feature for seven years.
So long, Canonical, and thanks for the use-case siesta.
This is a nice piece of work where he uses incremental modifications of existing password templates to show that password "seasoning" with a few stray twiddles such as s/o/0/ or s/$/! isn't worth much.
linkedin is the only social network I've signed up for, and I visit less than twice a year. Don't think I used a strong password, but I do know I used a password totally unrelated to any other password on any other active account.
Sure beats being the guy with the password lsw4facebook or lsw4citibank on sites that might be easy to guess.
You're putting an awful lot of faith in car doors engineered to prevent children from rolling out at low speeds. I did that once as a child while the car was moving at a slow speed turning onto an on-ramp to a major highway. If there was a button or lever and I was bored, sooner or later I pushed or pulled it. Wasn't hurt at all but it must have freaked my parents right out.
I've also seen a lot of people from the social underclass weaving through low-speed traffic jams on route for smokes or rotgut.
Glad to know your low-speed use-case analysis draws a safe box around all members of society who are valuable and competent.
Fly much?