Personally, I think home schooling is a bad thing for kids since it doesn't teach them the proper socialization they will need as adults.
I had a pretty abysmal public school experience through elementary. And, quite frankly, I didn't start actually socializing with other kids until my parents started homeschooling me. Admittedly, it was only for a couple years, and I went to a public high school, but all of the friends I made while homeschooling had zero problems developing normal nerd-level social skills. Socialization isn't really something you can teach, considering it's so deeply instinctive to us as humans. Albeit, under extreme circumstances, kids struggle with it, but I wouldn't worry. Maybe someday it'll just make for a good story.
Oh, well then your comment adds absolutely nothing to this thread. This is something we all already know. C# (and.NET, and CLR) is the new kid on the block, of course it's not going to have the same market presence as Java. But I'd argue that that's the primary impetus behind opening it up: the common excuse for why people don't use.NET is because it's tied to Windows.
Given that Java is older than C# by more than a decade I have problems accepting your assertion that C# has historically been years ahead of Java at nothing.
And there's the irony: Java got successful enough to rest on its laurels in lieu of external competition. Then it got tossed around around between companies, so it hasn't had a smooth existence. For instance, C# has had lambda expressions since 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Sharp_%28programming_language%29#Versions). Java finally got lambdas literally just this year. Now, admittedly, they are two very different languages when it comes to design philosophy, but their markets do overlap, and these features are incredibly useful in those markets.
In which ways? C# has historically been years ahead of Java in terms of features and flexibility. Now, if you want to argue about JVM vs..NET, then you might have an argument.
... [A]mericans are blabbering imbeciles. There's no other way to put it.
But the question remains: are they imbeciles in Science education (the subject of the survey itself), or reading comprehension? I'm willing to bet there's a healthy mix of both, skewing towards the latter if you sample the Slashdot crowd;)
I'd argue that (if we're going down the path I think you think you're trying to go) a "purer" state is the absence of opinion or naïveté. But that never lasts very long, now does it? So, what fills that innocence? The worldly wisdom of *insert philosopher here*? Or the still, small voice of a real-actual God?
Yes, better they covertly film, than overtly wear something that could covertly film.
Yup, exactly!
Restaurants, for the most part, are in the business of more than just serving food, they're also in the business of a hospitable, cultural experience. If said cultural experience is disrupted by something--even if it's as innocent as the natural curiosity that goes with seeing something as novel as Google Glass headset--then it's in their best interest to mitigate that disruption. Why do you think they say "no shirt. no shoes..." in the first place? Obviously, there is no law against walking barefoot, but, in most western cultures, it's considered rude to do so. Of course, this pattern changes depending upon cuisine/culture, so don't be offended if you're asked to remove your shoes when entering that authentic Japanese restaurant.
tl;dr: Google Glass headsets will be considered rude until they've been integrated into a culture as normal. If you're not sensitive to that culture's norms or etiquette, then you don't deserve to enjoy it.
This is not an "important step" towards anything. The NIF system cannot be used as the basis for a power plant, something everyone, including the NIF, is very much aware of. It is an experimental system for studying matter at high densities, and not even very good at that.
It is incredibly important. At the very least, it's proof that the problems associated with fusion power are solvable. But most importantly, this news will funnel more cash towards further fusion research, further accelerating progress towards real actual power plants.
Okay, admittedly, that came off a bit more abrasively than intended...
The only validity IQ has, in my mind, is that it could possibly loosely correlate to a more accurate metric such as active cerebral neurons, or something of that sort. Anything more than that is comparing apples and oranges: it's a bit simplistic to place a brilliant composer in the same category as a Nobel laureate, as both are quite valuable to society in very different ways.
Since the IQ figure of 170 essentially means (almost) acing the more advanced tests, I suspect that if that day ever comes, the society will be so much different by then that trying to extrapolate what they will be striving for would be futile.
The results of many IQ tests tend to highly correlate with the g-factor. Given that, I don't see how dismissing them as "antiquated BS" can be justified.
Where would all the sub-50th-percentile people disappear?
To give you the benefit of the doubt: the parent is using the 170 IQ points figure relative to the current average intelligence of people.
Of course, if you're actually splitting hairs, then we could start talking about how the IQ metric, to begin with, is antiquated BS. But, of course, we won't have to go there, right?
I see your point, and tend to agree, however saying...
a simulation at a higher level of complexity will suffice
...kind of makes your original argument a bit moot, considering the proposed mathematical model really only applies to QM interactions;)
So, to reiterate, is the Singularity near? A little more so than it was yesterday, but that's just about it.
P.S.: Sorry if it seemed like I was stealing your fire. I, too, have to wonder what feats this and other related new Maths are capable of accomplishing.
You miss the point: until we can violate the current model of relativity (i.e. somebody invents a Tachyon-based computer), or something equally as wild, there is no way to "shortcut" our way into simulating interactions at that level with that kind of scale without spending orders of magnitude more, in this case, space-time.
The problem with this statement: Moore's Law was formulated (as an empirical approximation) in the current age of Physics. Simulating any meaningfully complex high-level system, such as intelligence, with particle-sized granularity/precision requires Physics that delves deeper than those particles themselves; i.e. simulating particles with particles is, well, just plain redundant, and might as well just be done experimentally.
Exactly. The point of the ruling (or what I'm reading of it) is to indicate that both parties share responsibility if there's, say, an active conversation on the road.
In a sense, you're right, modern Philosophy doesn't have much immediate value; Philosophy has never even had tangible value, immediate or otherwise. The value that Philosophy has, and always has had, is in refining how we perceive--and thus subconsciously process--this strange realm we call reality. It's a subtle effect, but it's definitely there and quite pervasive. Take the study of ethics, for instance: I think we can agree that John Rawls is considerably more "modern" than most of Philosophy, but yet his arguments shed light on swath of ethical structures that had never been before categorized in such a way.
The fact is, philosophy is literally everywhere that there are living, thinking people: Politicians' worldviews dictate policy decisions. Mathematicians' worldviews direct and inspire new mathematical mechanisms. Scientists' worldviews drive paradigm shifts. Joe Nobody's worldview lets him eat pork and beans on a Friday night. There's nowhere you can go without running into it.
Our own cognitive abilities are far more malleable and prone to deception than it seems most people realize. The fruits of studying Philosophy, even if on the side, aren't found by merely understanding the arguments posited by philosophers, but in developing sane and contiguous perceptions of reality.
In the last few decades academia has tried to split Philosophy away from "Science".
And I'd argue that the academia of which you speak are shooting themselves--and their students--in the foot. Of all my Physics professors, the best were the ones who clearly had thoroughly thought out their philosophical standpoint. Admittedly, it's not very public or advertized, but when it comes to the professor-pupil relationship, I'm convinced that teachers having gaping holes in their worldview paves the road to their student's failure. This is the case regardless of where they are on the educational totem pole, it just seems easier to spot when studying the hard sciences.
...science was seen as an offshoot of philosophy...
And it remains a descendent: Science research eventually relies upon arguments set forth by Mathematics, which relies upon arguments set forth by Philosophy.
Heck, even the fact that you can have a logical argument relies upon the work of Philosophers. The biggest reason why modern Philosophers are not typically proficient Scientists boils down to the fact that they likely occupy their time reading different books, and thus aren't well-versed in the necessary esoterica.
This is exactly how it works. The only difference is, at longer wavelength/lower frequencies, the size/density of objects that are considered opaque is higher (a person is roughly large/dense enough to block RF, a toothbrush is not), while each photon is less easily scattered or refracted.
You could even go so far as to say the perceived color also depends upon the channel within the Wi-Fi spectrum, much like the false-colored images of non-visible astronomical imagery (e.g.: Cosmic Microwave Background radiation).
Perhaps the parent meant to refer simply to Chomsky's entire theory, outlined by the his publication I.Q. Tests: Building Blocks for the New Class System in 1972. I'd be willing to bet (in lieu of actually reading it) that this was the hypothesis for Bell Curve.
I'm a physicist and software engineer, and although I agree that the idea is fantastic, I'm skeptical of the execution. Photovoltaics, as I understand, are economically less viable than concentrated solar power (even Concentrated Photovoltaics, which are more efficient than your run-of-the-mill solar panel, aren't quite there yet), particularly in the form of Solar Power Towers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower). I'm not sure what the obsession is with solar panels: they're not only resource-intensive, but they're still quite inefficient (commercial units now have ~20% efficiency, only recently has research broken the 30% limit). They require materials that are more difficult to obtain (rare earths) than what's require to build Solar power towers (steel, lots of steel, and water).
Please, somebody tell me what the obsession with photovoltaic solar power is...
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I think home schooling is a bad thing for kids since it doesn't teach them the proper socialization they will need as adults.
I had a pretty abysmal public school experience through elementary. And, quite frankly, I didn't start actually socializing with other kids until my parents started homeschooling me. Admittedly, it was only for a couple years, and I went to a public high school, but all of the friends I made while homeschooling had zero problems developing normal nerd-level social skills. Socialization isn't really something you can teach, considering it's so deeply instinctive to us as humans. Albeit, under extreme circumstances, kids struggle with it, but I wouldn't worry. Maybe someday it'll just make for a good story.
Oh, well then your comment adds absolutely nothing to this thread. This is something we all already know. C# (and .NET, and CLR) is the new kid on the block, of course it's not going to have the same market presence as Java. But I'd argue that that's the primary impetus behind opening it up: the common excuse for why people don't use .NET is because it's tied to Windows.
Given that Java is older than C# by more than a decade I have problems accepting your assertion that C# has historically been years ahead of Java at nothing.
And there's the irony: Java got successful enough to rest on its laurels in lieu of external competition. Then it got tossed around around between companies, so it hasn't had a smooth existence. For instance, C# has had lambda expressions since 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Sharp_%28programming_language%29#Versions). Java finally got lambdas literally just this year. Now, admittedly, they are two very different languages when it comes to design philosophy, but their markets do overlap, and these features are incredibly useful in those markets.
In which ways? C# has historically been years ahead of Java in terms of features and flexibility. Now, if you want to argue about JVM vs. .NET, then you might have an argument.
... [A]mericans are blabbering imbeciles. There's no other way to put it.
But the question remains: are they imbeciles in Science education (the subject of the survey itself), or reading comprehension? I'm willing to bet there's a healthy mix of both, skewing towards the latter if you sample the Slashdot crowd ;)
The pure state is the absence of religion. Once you accept that completely obvious point, everything else follows.
Is that an axiom? Or a conjecture?
I'd argue that (if we're going down the path I think you think you're trying to go) a "purer" state is the absence of opinion or naïveté. But that never lasts very long, now does it? So, what fills that innocence? The worldly wisdom of *insert philosopher here*? Or the still, small voice of a real-actual God?
Yes, better they covertly film, than overtly wear something that could covertly film.
Yup, exactly!
Restaurants, for the most part, are in the business of more than just serving food, they're also in the business of a hospitable, cultural experience. If said cultural experience is disrupted by something--even if it's as innocent as the natural curiosity that goes with seeing something as novel as Google Glass headset--then it's in their best interest to mitigate that disruption. Why do you think they say "no shirt. no shoes..." in the first place? Obviously, there is no law against walking barefoot, but, in most western cultures, it's considered rude to do so. Of course, this pattern changes depending upon cuisine/culture, so don't be offended if you're asked to remove your shoes when entering that authentic Japanese restaurant.
tl;dr: Google Glass headsets will be considered rude until they've been integrated into a culture as normal. If you're not sensitive to that culture's norms or etiquette, then you don't deserve to enjoy it.
This is not an "important step" towards anything. The NIF system cannot be used as the basis for a power plant, something everyone, including the NIF, is very much aware of. It is an experimental system for studying matter at high densities, and not even very good at that.
It is incredibly important. At the very least, it's proof that the problems associated with fusion power are solvable. But most importantly, this news will funnel more cash towards further fusion research, further accelerating progress towards real actual power plants.
Okay, admittedly, that came off a bit more abrasively than intended...
The only validity IQ has, in my mind, is that it could possibly loosely correlate to a more accurate metric such as active cerebral neurons, or something of that sort. Anything more than that is comparing apples and oranges: it's a bit simplistic to place a brilliant composer in the same category as a Nobel laureate, as both are quite valuable to society in very different ways.
Since the IQ figure of 170 essentially means (almost) acing the more advanced tests, I suspect that if that day ever comes, the society will be so much different by then that trying to extrapolate what they will be striving for would be futile.
Yup, obliviously splitting hairs.
The results of many IQ tests tend to highly correlate with the g-factor. Given that, I don't see how dismissing them as "antiquated BS" can be justified.
Yes, the argument is, in fact, justified.
P.S.: Yes, I'm aware anyone with half a brain can simply link to Wikipedia. I just don't feel like reiterating widely-known arguments.
Where would all the sub-50th-percentile people disappear?
To give you the benefit of the doubt: the parent is using the 170 IQ points figure relative to the current average intelligence of people.
Of course, if you're actually splitting hairs, then we could start talking about how the IQ metric, to begin with, is antiquated BS. But, of course, we won't have to go there, right?
I see your point, and tend to agree, however saying...
a simulation at a higher level of complexity will suffice
...kind of makes your original argument a bit moot, considering the proposed mathematical model really only applies to QM interactions ;)
So, to reiterate, is the Singularity near? A little more so than it was yesterday, but that's just about it.
P.S.: Sorry if it seemed like I was stealing your fire. I, too, have to wonder what feats this and other related new Maths are capable of accomplishing.
You miss the point: until we can violate the current model of relativity (i.e. somebody invents a Tachyon-based computer), or something equally as wild, there is no way to "shortcut" our way into simulating interactions at that level with that kind of scale without spending orders of magnitude more, in this case, space-time.
To put it another way: you can't use Newton's Law of Gravitation to derive a general solution to a problem set up by that very equation.
Or, to stretch the analogy even further: you can't use a word in its own definition.
individual particles interacting...Moore's law
The problem with this statement: Moore's Law was formulated (as an empirical approximation) in the current age of Physics. Simulating any meaningfully complex high-level system, such as intelligence, with particle-sized granularity/precision requires Physics that delves deeper than those particles themselves; i.e. simulating particles with particles is, well, just plain redundant, and might as well just be done experimentally.
Exactly. The point of the ruling (or what I'm reading of it) is to indicate that both parties share responsibility if there's, say, an active conversation on the road.
It's the driver's duty to not do dangerous stupid shit.
So, if I knowingly incite somebody to commit murder, I'm not to blame, right?
No, that's called Accessory to Murder.
In a sense, you're right, modern Philosophy doesn't have much immediate value; Philosophy has never even had tangible value, immediate or otherwise. The value that Philosophy has, and always has had, is in refining how we perceive--and thus subconsciously process--this strange realm we call reality. It's a subtle effect, but it's definitely there and quite pervasive. Take the study of ethics, for instance: I think we can agree that John Rawls is considerably more "modern" than most of Philosophy, but yet his arguments shed light on swath of ethical structures that had never been before categorized in such a way.
The fact is, philosophy is literally everywhere that there are living, thinking people: Politicians' worldviews dictate policy decisions. Mathematicians' worldviews direct and inspire new mathematical mechanisms. Scientists' worldviews drive paradigm shifts. Joe Nobody's worldview lets him eat pork and beans on a Friday night. There's nowhere you can go without running into it.
Our own cognitive abilities are far more malleable and prone to deception than it seems most people realize. The fruits of studying Philosophy, even if on the side, aren't found by merely understanding the arguments posited by philosophers, but in developing sane and contiguous perceptions of reality.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: any good Scientist is, to an extent, also a Philosopher by necessity.
In the last few decades academia has tried to split Philosophy away from "Science".
And I'd argue that the academia of which you speak are shooting themselves--and their students--in the foot. Of all my Physics professors, the best were the ones who clearly had thoroughly thought out their philosophical standpoint. Admittedly, it's not very public or advertized, but when it comes to the professor-pupil relationship, I'm convinced that teachers having gaping holes in their worldview paves the road to their student's failure. This is the case regardless of where they are on the educational totem pole, it just seems easier to spot when studying the hard sciences.
...they are uninterested in putting on the necessary effort to accomplish this goal...
sounds a lot like...
...they don't spend their time putting effort towards learning the necessary material...
which sounds a lot like...
...they don't likely occupy their time reading the right kind of books...
...and you see where I'm going. It's called "boiling it down", in case you were wondering.
But, seriously, what do you have against Philosophy? I'm willing to bet you weren't very appreciative of History class, either.
...science was seen as an offshoot of philosophy...
And it remains a descendent: Science research eventually relies upon arguments set forth by Mathematics, which relies upon arguments set forth by Philosophy.
Heck, even the fact that you can have a logical argument relies upon the work of Philosophers. The biggest reason why modern Philosophers are not typically proficient Scientists boils down to the fact that they likely occupy their time reading different books, and thus aren't well-versed in the necessary esoterica.
I'd like to see that data, too. People forget how young Software Engineering is compared to more established fields like, say, Chemistry.
This is exactly how it works. The only difference is, at longer wavelength/lower frequencies, the size/density of objects that are considered opaque is higher (a person is roughly large/dense enough to block RF, a toothbrush is not), while each photon is less easily scattered or refracted.
You could even go so far as to say the perceived color also depends upon the channel within the Wi-Fi spectrum, much like the false-colored images of non-visible astronomical imagery (e.g.: Cosmic Microwave Background radiation).
Perhaps the parent meant to refer simply to Chomsky's entire theory, outlined by the his publication I.Q. Tests: Building Blocks for the New Class System in 1972. I'd be willing to bet (in lieu of actually reading it) that this was the hypothesis for Bell Curve.
I'm a physicist and software engineer, and although I agree that the idea is fantastic, I'm skeptical of the execution. Photovoltaics, as I understand, are economically less viable than concentrated solar power (even Concentrated Photovoltaics, which are more efficient than your run-of-the-mill solar panel, aren't quite there yet), particularly in the form of Solar Power Towers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower). I'm not sure what the obsession is with solar panels: they're not only resource-intensive, but they're still quite inefficient (commercial units now have ~20% efficiency, only recently has research broken the 30% limit). They require materials that are more difficult to obtain (rare earths) than what's require to build Solar power towers (steel, lots of steel, and water).
Please, somebody tell me what the obsession with photovoltaic solar power is...