It has already been done, I've seen bios's GUI's with a long time ago but I'm not sure why they never caught on, imagine cost/space in the rom? Not sure.
Except the "service" is bullshit, you can relabel anything and call it a "service" that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean I'm ignorant you fuck.
"You've to realize that this game is a service provided not for a single person, but for everyone who is in one the game."
If this is the case they have a monopoly, and should open up the game to legit modification. No more $25 mounts, these people are already paying for the game and blizzard has a captive audience in it's own right WoW is a market, and blizzard has the WoW market to itself.
You really need to grow up. Think about this for a minute.
You're omniscient, you cannot fail any task you do, even the fallible human being _you_ created. But the bible claims _god cannot lie_. Therefore those charged with "Spreading the truth" made a whole bunch of mistakes (i.e. errors) therefore those writers were not inspired of god.
Most religious people have terribly low standards for their gods, i.e. their god is fallible.
Religious people always like to say "it's ok the inspired people were fallible!" that's just a liberal religious nutter cop-out.
Truth is simple, i.e. the earth exists. Truth is simple, ireffutable and boring. It's a mundane everyday kind of thing.
"I was referring more to people's personal beliefs."
But those beliefs have consequences. If I believe I'm going to heaven after I die and see my family again, and someone tells me science disproves it, that is going to upset my emotional stability or the ability to face the challenges and hardships of life as a human being.
So what people believe and how much they believe it matters a lot, since it ties into whether or not their personal beliefs will spill ou to effect others. So knowing what is the source of these peoples personal beliefs matters.
Most people don't think too hard about their beliefs they are mostly backwards rationalionizations of feelings, instincts or longings within that person.
So you have a few options:
1) The person made up their own beliefs (whether they are aware of it or not) 2) It's speculation (philosophy,etc, think deism) 3) From past or ancient sources. 4) From institutions (religion, education, where one was born in history) parents, etc
A lot of people also can't stand uncertainty, so they cling to whatever is closest / feels good to them. Most religions/cultural beliefs act as a attractive force to hold a large body of people together.
Think of how varied different groups of people have lived and behaved, RITUAL and trying to make sense of the world is part of human society. Many beliefs are just models trying to make sense of the world, since the human mind is limited. This means short and easy ideas to understand usually take hold. Over time all sorts of rules develop are are included in what is called morality.
But when it comes down to it peoples personal beliefs effect what they consider right and wrong and that's what's mainly so upsetting to people. What society formerly considered taboo becoming normal upsets many people i.e. gays, ethnic groups, inter racial marriage, etc, etc.
It's ultimately about human sensibilities about what people are attracted to and disgusted by. Their way of life is usually built around those strong biological/sociological underpinnings.
"I never understood why evolution is such a threat to religion."
Omniscient god cannot make mistakes, science undermines all the errors those "inspired" writers made.
Roman 5:12
i.e. "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--"
"When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned."
The problem with that is _Death_ always existed from the beginning, that's a huge falsification of religion right their. Sin doesn't exist since death and bloodshed is natural part of evolution, no matter how much "liberal christians" want to compartmentalize bastardize the plain meaning of these words. Christ existence serves _no purpose_ in christian religion. Since sin and death was their before any human beings were around.
Even if you learned all the above, this does not make you immune from poor thinking and closed mindedness, history is littered with educated dullards that vilified people that whose thinking they could not understand. I'm making a general claim that _human brain_ is not a very good truth assessing device _in general_. It takes a lot of time to understand the thoughts of others and their is no guarantee that even given an entire lifetime you will ever understand the thought of another.
The idea of universal rationality is false. There are innumerable different ways of reasoning that traditional academics, logicians do not understand that neurologists and neuroscientists are trying to figure out at this moment.
If god did do it, and it was demonstrable via science, it would also be demonstrable via science that the scientific process and nature is how to discover god. Not ancient holy books, and through science we would be certain it was NOT the god of christianity, islam, etc, it would be an here to for UNKNOWN god that hasn't put any rules on us or any requirements at all.
This would never sit well for traditional god believers who would not accept such a god. Science's god would be very deistic/pantheistic.
... It might be time for the OS to compartmentalize the browser to have the net enclosed from the main system within a virtual machine. This way even if the "computer" were infected by malware it would disappear whne the VM was closed down, also a whitelist of Executables on the host machine would go a long way to stopping malware and the permanent logging/monitoring of executables or dlls being loaded that are unrecognized so they can be analyzed.
"Most of us try to do exactly as you suggest when speaking with laymen, but there are two problems with this approach: 1. We are so used to thinking "in jargon" that we use it just as we use everyday language. We unconsciously assume people understand certain words or ideas, because with think about them all the time"
But this is exactly why there needs to be a science of "communicating science" to others who will never have the education. I think scienceo of propaganda and the psychology of persuasion should be used to maximum effect quite frankly, human beings are not rational creatures. There is an excellent video here, if you skip to about 18:20 in the video and watch till about 25 (when you have the time all the videos aren't too bad). But most scientists suffer from the enlightenments view of reason.
I know I am replying to my own thread here but I submitted it without the proecessing links!... you want to give the kid something easy for a beginner that gives him visual feedback and isn't "plumbing" like C++.
C++ is a good first language to learn but ONLY after the person discovers whether or not they like programming or not. A book I highly recommend is C++ Primer plus, because it starts from simple examples and explains why things are the way they are and gives you an idea of all the work that goes into "coding" a computer.
"What is needed is a more educated populace, that can better understand the precise language of scientific results and the implications of those results. Then people who did not accept scientific results really would look like idiots, and they would stand out as idiots."
You are incredibly naive, education is not the solution - human beings are *LAZY* when it comes to putting forth effort into things they don't want to learn, there is only a finite amount of time to spend in ones life. With all the "public needs to be better educated about X issue" the average human being would never get anything done.
The onus is on the scientist to take what the scientists and marketers have been doing for politics and apply what science has learned about politics and selling messages to their own work.
... you want to give the kid something easy that gives him visual feedback and isn't "plumbing" like C++. C++ is a good first language to learn but ONLY after the person discoveres whether or not they like programming or not. A book I highly recommend is C++ Primer plus, because it starts from simple examples and explains why things are the way they are and gives you an idea of all the work that goes into "coding" a computer.
... aren't intelligent enough to assess the quality of their own thinking. In fact most people aren't even able to think straight most of the time. The human mind is not built for the kind of obtuse rationality that scientists often communicate in.
Scientists really have to do a better job at communicating clearly with less jargon, I think part of the problem is not being able to demonstrate the effects in a tangible way that is undenibale. I think the use of metaphors and communicating complex things in terms of everyday things that people can understand would go a long ways to help people understanding the contradictions.
You really have to catch people in contradictions in a public venue with an argument that is simple to understand and you'd look like an idiot for not accepting.
"Be careful what you wish for, in a Progressive/Liberal government world you just might get it."
As if the conservative free market and it's gigantic oil spills and lowest common denominator and cut corners thinking is any bettter! Conservative mindset: find the absolute baseline cheapest materials to build complex oil drilling rigs with. and staff them with the lowest qualified people and materials for cheapest amount of money... for maximum profit and don't worry about those oil spills or ecological damage to the environment that is priceless and cannot be calculated by dumbass business men.
But so is splurging, if you splurge big and ride that splurge for many years the cost can tend to average out to be the same or less as the 2nd hand buyer. For instance I bought at the high edge of the curve 4 ish years ago and I _still_ don't have to upgrade, I can still ride what I bought 4 years ago at a "higher price".
One should not forget companies might have "chip lotteries", i.e. use chips that are less robust and cheaper to manufacture without majority of consumers knowing the difference.
They do this in the LCD monitor industry where they have "panel lotteries" that use cheaper parts and are not what is advertised due to consumer ignorance. See Article on Anand here about panel lotteries:
"Everyone gets up on Intel integrated GPUs because they are slow, but they are looking at it from a gamer perspective. "
Everyone SHOULD get up on intel. Intel doesn't approach computers as a platform like it should, and that's a huge problem for the #1 player in the industry when it comes to CPU's and motherboard chipsets. Nvidia and AMD are the few companies approaching the PC as a _platform in itself_. The idea that the "gamers perspective" doesn't matter is short-sighted and NAIVE, imagine you told Matrox, ATI, 3Dfx and nvidia that they should not "focus on gamers", Nvidia and 3Dfx practically pioneered and industry into existence based on providing hardware to make games run faster and prettier since even today NO CPU can compete with dedicated graphics hardware in software rendering.
Neither will integration be the death knelll for discrete GPU's because people forget 1) Heat 2) Power and 3) Bandwidth, I really don't care what the naysayer say - there is no fucking way you are going to be able to push computation in an integrated CPU/GPU hybrid like you can with dedicated hardware - the bandwidth problem is ALWAYS overlooked by the integrations. Mark Reign of epic games and many others predicted "the death of discrete graphics" in 2-5 years and they've bee nsaying that since 1997-98 or so and it's now 2010 and there is NO END IN SIGHT for discrete graphics since now they are targetting high performance computing space.
Who thought a bunch of hardware guys providing chips for graphic acceleration for gamers would grow into such multi-purpose behemoths?
"Having said that, very few unions are worthwhile these days. Most of them just exist to make sure people get more wages than their work is worth."
And who determines what work is worth? Why should human beings who have ownership of capital get to determine how much work is worth? The market is not efficient or even good much of the time at pricing and if you believe it is this you are incredibly stupid.
Because human beings have limited lifespan and no one really wants to work for the man. people want to have as much money as possible as fast as possible to exit the rat race and have their own kingdom as well. This is the basis of capitalism - greed.
"Great, SoS was the last big buzzword around corporations who wanted to charge the government a lot for doing LSI (large scale integration)."
What this is really about is planning, you learn to design better by experience and considering what goals you are trying to achieve and then you should spent time looking at other projects historically. Quite frankly planning ("design of design") is an experimentalist discipline since the human mind is limited and can't see all the details of large systems quickly and easily, and hence we need to iterate a lot or experiment with a lot of projects and their problems first. Notice that simple systems that the human mind can grasp it can make great designs provided the combinations of elements are not numerous and the pieces of the design you want are not severely conflicted by the system (universe, compuational limit of CPU, memory, etc) of what you are trying to harness and design _around_ (the goals vs the universe/systems limitations). Designs are ultimately about balancing possibilities of a system against and limitations and constraints it puts on the goals you want to achieve.
"Why can't we just move on and apply the sweet R&D money on the SSDs?"
We already are spending money on SSD's, just because you can afford them doesn't mean everyone or every business needs them. It's a simple cost benefit analysis.
Until the Entertainment lobby stops lobbying for extensions and we overhaul copyright law, vive la piracy. Corporatists stole the public domain for so long, it's only fair the public take back what is rightfully theirs.
Slashdot Mirror
link?
It has already been done, I've seen bios's GUI's with a long time ago but I'm not sure why they never caught on, imagine cost/space in the rom? Not sure.
Except the "service" is bullshit, you can relabel anything and call it a "service" that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean I'm ignorant you fuck.
"You've to realize that this game is a service provided not for a single person, but for everyone who is in one the game."
If this is the case they have a monopoly, and should open up the game to legit modification. No more $25 mounts, these people are already paying for the game and blizzard has a captive audience in it's own right WoW is a market, and blizzard has the WoW market to itself.
You really need to grow up. Think about this for a minute.
You're omniscient, you cannot fail any task you do, even the fallible human being _you_ created. But the bible claims _god cannot lie_. Therefore those charged with "Spreading the truth" made a whole bunch of mistakes (i.e. errors) therefore those writers were not inspired of god.
Most religious people have terribly low standards for their gods, i.e. their god is fallible.
Religious people always like to say "it's ok the inspired people were fallible!" that's just a liberal religious nutter cop-out.
Truth is simple, i.e. the earth exists. Truth is simple, ireffutable and boring. It's a mundane everyday kind of thing.
"I was referring more to people's personal beliefs."
But those beliefs have consequences. If I believe I'm going to heaven after I die and see my family again, and someone tells me science disproves it, that is going to upset my emotional stability or the ability to face the challenges and hardships of life as a human being.
So what people believe and how much they believe it matters a lot, since it ties into whether or not their personal beliefs will spill ou to effect others. So knowing what is the source of these peoples personal beliefs matters.
Most people don't think too hard about their beliefs they are mostly backwards rationalionizations of feelings, instincts or longings within that person.
So you have a few options:
1) The person made up their own beliefs (whether they are aware of it or not)
2) It's speculation (philosophy,etc, think deism)
3) From past or ancient sources.
4) From institutions (religion, education, where one was born in history)
parents, etc
A lot of people also can't stand uncertainty, so they cling to whatever is closest / feels good to them. Most religions/cultural beliefs act as a attractive force to hold a large body of people together.
Think of how varied different groups of people have lived and behaved, RITUAL and trying to make sense of the world is part of human society. Many beliefs are just models trying to make sense of the world, since the human mind is limited. This means short and easy ideas to understand usually take hold. Over time all sorts of rules develop are are included in what is called morality.
But when it comes down to it peoples personal beliefs effect what they consider right and wrong and that's what's mainly so upsetting to people. What society formerly considered taboo becoming normal upsets many people i.e. gays, ethnic groups, inter racial marriage, etc, etc.
It's ultimately about human sensibilities about what people are attracted to and disgusted by. Their way of life is usually built around those strong biological/sociological underpinnings.
"I never understood why evolution is such a threat to religion."
Omniscient god cannot make mistakes, science undermines all the errors those "inspired" writers made.
Roman 5:12
i.e. "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--"
"When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned."
The problem with that is _Death_ always existed from the beginning, that's a huge falsification of religion right their. Sin doesn't exist since death and bloodshed is natural part of evolution, no matter how much "liberal christians" want to compartmentalize bastardize the plain meaning of these words. Christ existence serves _no purpose_ in christian religion. Since sin and death was their before any human beings were around.
Even if you learned all the above, this does not make you immune from poor thinking and closed mindedness, history is littered with educated dullards that vilified people that whose thinking they could not understand. I'm making a general claim that _human brain_ is not a very good truth assessing device _in general_. It takes a lot of time to understand the thoughts of others and their is no guarantee that even given an entire lifetime you will ever understand the thought of another.
The idea of universal rationality is false. There are innumerable different ways of reasoning that traditional academics, logicians do not understand that neurologists and neuroscientists are trying to figure out at this moment.
Consider Daniel tammet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbASOcqc1Ss
(part 4 is the best one if you want to skip to the best part)
If god did do it, and it was demonstrable via science, it would also be demonstrable via science that the scientific process and nature is how to discover god. Not ancient holy books, and through science we would be certain it was NOT the god of christianity, islam, etc, it would be an here to for UNKNOWN god that hasn't put any rules on us or any requirements at all.
This would never sit well for traditional god believers who would not accept such a god. Science's god would be very deistic/pantheistic.
... It might be time for the OS to compartmentalize the browser to have the net enclosed from the main system within a virtual machine. This way even if the "computer" were infected by malware it would disappear whne the VM was closed down, also a whitelist of Executables on the host machine would go a long way to stopping malware and the permanent logging/monitoring of executables or dlls being loaded that are unrecognized so they can be analyzed.
"Most of us try to do exactly as you suggest when speaking with laymen, but there are two problems with this approach: 1. We are so used to thinking "in jargon" that we use it just as we use everyday language. We unconsciously assume people understand certain words or ideas, because with think about them all the time"
But this is exactly why there needs to be a science of "communicating science" to others who will never have the education. I think scienceo of propaganda and the psychology of persuasion should be used to maximum effect quite frankly, human beings are not rational creatures. There is an excellent video here, if you skip to about 18:20 in the video and watch till about 25 (when you have the time all the videos aren't too bad). But most scientists suffer from the enlightenments view of reason.
http://www.linktv.org/video/2142
I know I am replying to my own thread here but I submitted it without the proecessing links! ... you want to give the kid something easy for a beginner that gives him visual feedback and isn't "plumbing" like C++.
http://www.processing.org/
http://www.amazon.com/Learning-Processing-Beginners-Programming-Interaction/dp/0123736021/
C++ is a good first language to learn but ONLY after the person discovers whether or not they like programming or not. A book I highly recommend is C++ Primer plus, because it starts from simple examples and explains why things are the way they are and gives you an idea of all the work that goes into "coding" a computer.
http://www.amazon.com/Primer-Plus-5th-Stephen-Prata/dp/0672326973
"What is needed is a more educated populace, that can better understand the precise language of scientific results and the implications of those results. Then people who did not accept scientific results really would look like idiots, and they would stand out as idiots."
You are incredibly naive, education is not the solution - human beings are *LAZY* when it comes to putting forth effort into things they don't want to learn, there is only a finite amount of time to spend in ones life. With all the "public needs to be better educated about X issue" the average human being would never get anything done.
The onus is on the scientist to take what the scientists and marketers have been doing for politics and apply what science has learned about politics and selling messages to their own work.
... you want to give the kid something easy that gives him visual feedback and isn't "plumbing" like C++. C++ is a good first language to learn but ONLY after the person discoveres whether or not they like programming or not. A book I highly recommend is C++ Primer plus, because it starts from simple examples and explains why things are the way they are and gives you an idea of all the work that goes into "coding" a computer.
http://www.amazon.com/Primer-Plus-5th-Stephen-Prata/dp/0672326973
... aren't intelligent enough to assess the quality of their own thinking. In fact most people aren't even able to think straight most of the time. The human mind is not built for the kind of obtuse rationality that scientists often communicate in.
Scientists really have to do a better job at communicating clearly with less jargon, I think part of the problem is not being able to demonstrate the effects in a tangible way that is undenibale. I think the use of metaphors and communicating complex things in terms of everyday things that people can understand would go a long ways to help people understanding the contradictions.
You really have to catch people in contradictions in a public venue with an argument that is simple to understand and you'd look like an idiot for not accepting.
"Be careful what you wish for, in a Progressive/Liberal government world you just might get it."
As if the conservative free market and it's gigantic oil spills and lowest common denominator and cut corners thinking is any bettter! Conservative mindset: find the absolute baseline cheapest materials to build complex oil drilling rigs with. and staff them with the lowest qualified people and materials for cheapest amount of money... for maximum profit and don't worry about those oil spills or ecological damage to the environment that is priceless and cannot be calculated by dumbass business men.
"Delayed gratification can be a beautiful thing."
But so is splurging, if you splurge big and ride that splurge for many years the cost can tend to average out to be the same or less as the 2nd hand buyer. For instance I bought at the high edge of the curve 4 ish years ago and I _still_ don't have to upgrade, I can still ride what I bought 4 years ago at a "higher price".
One should not forget companies might have "chip lotteries", i.e. use chips that are less robust and cheaper to manufacture without majority of consumers knowing the difference.
They do this in the LCD monitor industry where they have "panel lotteries" that use cheaper parts and are not what is advertised due to consumer ignorance. See Article on Anand here about panel lotteries:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=39226
... Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the citadel!
"Everyone gets up on Intel integrated GPUs because they are slow, but they are looking at it from a gamer perspective. "
Everyone SHOULD get up on intel. Intel doesn't approach computers as a platform like it should, and that's a huge problem for the #1 player in the industry when it comes to CPU's and motherboard chipsets. Nvidia and AMD are the few companies approaching the PC as a _platform in itself_. The idea that the "gamers perspective" doesn't matter is short-sighted and NAIVE, imagine you told Matrox, ATI, 3Dfx and nvidia that they should not "focus on gamers", Nvidia and 3Dfx practically pioneered and industry into existence based on providing hardware to make games run faster and prettier since even today NO CPU can compete with dedicated graphics hardware in software rendering.
Neither will integration be the death knelll for discrete GPU's because people forget 1) Heat 2) Power and 3) Bandwidth, I really don't care what the naysayer say - there is no fucking way you are going to be able to push computation in an integrated CPU/GPU hybrid like you can with dedicated hardware - the bandwidth problem is ALWAYS overlooked by the integrations. Mark Reign of epic games and many others predicted "the death of discrete graphics" in 2-5 years and they've bee nsaying that since 1997-98 or so and it's now 2010 and there is NO END IN SIGHT for discrete graphics since now they are targetting high performance computing space.
Who thought a bunch of hardware guys providing chips for graphic acceleration for gamers would grow into such multi-purpose behemoths?
"Having said that, very few unions are worthwhile these days. Most of them just exist to make sure people get more wages than their work is worth."
And who determines what work is worth? Why should human beings who have ownership of capital get to determine how much work is worth? The market is not efficient or even good much of the time at pricing and if you believe it is this you are incredibly stupid.
"Why this absolute pressure to trade nownowNOW?"
Because human beings have limited lifespan and no one really wants to work for the man. people want to have as much money as possible as fast as possible to exit the rat race and have their own kingdom as well. This is the basis of capitalism - greed.
"Great, SoS was the last big buzzword around corporations who wanted to charge the government a lot for doing LSI (large scale integration)."
What this is really about is planning, you learn to design better by experience and considering what goals you are trying to achieve and then you should spent time looking at other projects historically. Quite frankly planning ("design of design") is an experimentalist discipline since the human mind is limited and can't see all the details of large systems quickly and easily, and hence we need to iterate a lot or experiment with a lot of projects and their problems first. Notice that simple systems that the human mind can grasp it can make great designs provided the combinations of elements are not numerous and the pieces of the design you want are not severely conflicted by the system (universe, compuational limit of CPU, memory, etc) of what you are trying to harness and design _around_ (the goals vs the universe/systems limitations). Designs are ultimately about balancing possibilities of a system against and limitations and constraints it puts on the goals you want to achieve.
"Why can't we just move on and apply the sweet R&D money on the SSDs?"
We already are spending money on SSD's, just because you can afford them doesn't mean everyone or every business needs them. It's a simple cost benefit analysis.
Until the Entertainment lobby stops lobbying for extensions and we overhaul copyright law, vive la piracy. Corporatists stole the public domain for so long, it's only fair the public take back what is rightfully theirs.