I have compiled a set of benchmarks for scientific computing
applications which are broadly consistent with the posted benchmarks:
http://jsekhon.fas.harvard.edu/macosx/
Computer history, broadly defined, will probably be a growth industry
in academia. The prospective of the properly trained
historian/sociologist/economist is different from that of the
participants. For examples, the key decision makers during the
Vietnam war have written books about what they did, but the best books
on the topic are by professional historians (usually academics) who do
a much better job than the participants in synthesizing the relevant
information and being relatively objective.
If you combined computer history with some policy work, the project
could be really cool. History can teach great lessons about what to
do (and not to do) in the future.
This and related posts are very good and informative. I shouldn't
have gone flying off the handle. But I still think there is serious
corporate hypocrisy here. They are using a database provided by
another provider (UMI) for free (for the public good), but
http://www.contentville.com wants to prohibit others from using their
database. Moreover, they are trying to sell something I would be
happy to give away for free.
My Ph.D. thesis is there. I'm going write them a note telling them
they cannot sell it. If they continue to sell it, they will be
hearing from my lawyers. Hypocritical corporate bastards!
Dr. Wiggy Wrote:
****************
In the same sense, the majority of/. readers spend their lives writing algorithms. They spend their time effectively regurgitating mathematics. They often get paid for it. Hang on, does that mean that we are all claiming that mathematical algos. are not free? That you have to pay us for them? Dispicable!
*************
Mathematical algorithms are (and should be) free. I don't pay anyone
for use of the metropolis algorithm nor SVD decomposition. If someone
wants me to be around to tell them what algorithm they should use and
how to best implement it for their purposes, they will have to pay me.
BUT they are not paying for the metropolis etc. algorithms. I don't
have to pay royalties to the inventors at Los Alamos anymore than I
have to pay royalties to Newton/Leibniz for calculus or Halbert White
for the latest fix for deviations from normality in data. You should
realize how much the work we do depends on the UNCOMPENSATED sweat
and tears of other talented people.
I'm getting really tired of reading posts by people who are silly and
arrogant enough to think that they actually marginally contribute a
lot and that all real work needs to be payed for. Hey dude, unlike
the creators of the Metropolis algorithm, if you died today, the world
of science/technology would progress in a fine manner. But most
merely competent techie people, if they so choose, can make much more
money than these great scientists/technologists.
Time to Pay: Academics have long subsidized the corporate world
Academics have long subsidized the corporate world. Universities have
produced most of the great scientific breakthroughs and many of the
great technological breakthroughs this century. Academics at top
universities are not well payed (relative to what people of similar
merit make in the private sector). Therefore, it is not surprising,
that much of the currently plentiful venture capital money has found
its way to these very smart and gifted people. You want to stop the
corporations from taking over the universities? Then the people
(i.e., government) should adequately pay for the public goods that
academics and their universities produce. But economic theorems (and
mountains of data) show that market economies under pay for and under
provide public goods (such as science).
This is an excellent proposal. The proposal has the added advantage that companies would not be able to successfully lobby Congress to extend their copyrights even after they were supposed to expire. Disney did this with Mickey Mouse. The proposal also brings up the more general issue of how and why companies are so often treated as individuals in the law. When the U.S. constitution was ratified, along with its clauses protecting copyright, companies could now own copyrights. In this case, and a *few* others, the good old days where indeed better.
I'm consternated that someone who has watched the directors cut does not conclude upon some consideration that Deckard in indeed a replicant. The fact that people still argue about this after the directors cut is simply silly. The "textual" evidence is overwhelming. Please see jabber's post for some details. I will only add that the most *obvious* piece of evidence is the unicorn placed by Gaff for Deckard to find as he is trying to escape with Rachel. It is clear a message: "this unicorn is from your dream. A dream I can only know about because you are a replicant."
And people wonder what is the use all of those literature classes! One of the clear benefits is that they help one figure out relatively simple (but *awesome*) films like Blade Runner.
When someone makes some silly claims about programming (usually because of a lack of knowledge or experience), I often say "less talk, more code." I think a lot of geeks say similar things. When it comes to art, similar advice also holds: "less talk, more reading of serious literature and more watching of sublime films." And all of those literature classes do serve some purpose....
I know of extremely few people who have obtained tenure at Stanford or MIT largely because of ass kissing. But when in doubt, many resort to ad homenin attacks without evidence. That indeed is a time-honored strategy.
Your posts have merit even though I don't think one is going to be able to defend the Pushkin line; don't forget that Shakespeare has greatly influenced Eastern literature. I'm most familiar with Hindu literature and his influence was great even before the British took over.
Also, I think the philosophical implications of Einstein's work are VASTLY exagerated. His work implies nothing about morality, human nature or epistemology. WWI and the resulting cultural crisis is a better explanation for the culturally relativist turn in our civilization. But Katz may be referring to a more general influence, and then your point is sound.
Your ad homenin attacks do not serve you well. At best they reveal insecurity and at worst they reveal anti-intellectual resentment.
> Have you ever played Final Fantasy 3 on the > SNES?
Yes. They were amusing, but not about anything interesting.
>By the way, I believe "sublime greatness" is up to the individual's >experience and not what the masses think. I hated Wild Strawberries >and I slept through 2001.
Just like how some of us are better coders than others, some of us are culturally more literate than others. Sleeping through 2001 says more about you than Kubrick. On culture you may be analogous to someone who says ``I prefer Quick Basic to C or C++. I was never able to get through K&R, I fell asleep.''
I am often considered part of the much maligned "intelligentsia"; I'm a professor at the most famous Ivy League University (along with being a partner at a software startup). And I for one *do* think that video games *may* become the central artform of the 21st century. At the beginning of the 20th century, film was a used for little more than silly experiments and peep-shows that people who could not afford the theater attended. But by any reasonable measure film became (along with the novel) the great artform of the 20th century: Kurosawa, Bergman, Kubrick etc.
But greatness is just the promise of video games. No video game has achieved anywhere near the sublime greatness of ``Wild Strawberries'' (a better example for this audience would probably be ``2001''). I do think, however, that video games may achieve greatness sometime in this century. Such video games will almost certainly look vastly different than they do today.
I usually don't bash J. Katz, but this post was aggressively stupid. Katz often rants about the stereotyped, oppressed geek. But I guess stereotyping the ``intelligentsia'' is fair game. Nowhere does he present the arguments that *SOME* in the ``intelligentsia'' would make against video games---arguments with which I do not agree. He just bashes them for their conclusions.
Moreover, I would welcome the next ``Shakespeare''. But given that we haven't had one since the original, I'm not holding my breath. We've had great, fantastic wonderful writers and artists, but no one with the overwhelming culture transforming power which was Shakespeare. I refer Katz to Harold Bloom's masterpiece ``Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human''. But wait, offer a reference? That's just what someone who's part of the ``intelligentsia'' would do! Never mind that Harold Bloom (who is a professor at Yale) is much hated by many members of the literary establishment. Does that still qualify him as a member of the ``intelligentsia''? I thought only geeks were allowed to disagree and have the right not to be stereotyped. Then again, many members of the ``intelligentsia'' are geeks, one would say most members if one follows Katz's very expansive definition of geek. MR. Katz you are full of contradictions. I wish that were the only problem that the post had.
> Free trade can only exist where all parties are > on an equal footing.
This is so absurd it isn't even false. Go read some economics. The beauty of comparative advantage is that under an extremely wide range of conditions, very unequal trading partners both benefit from free trade. Comparative advantage is the one truly profound and universal finding of economics. I suggest you go read the work. But alas you will have to learn math and have to read through a lot of tough logical models as well as complicated statistical models. It is easier to rely on naive intuition. Naive intuition does not take us very far in physics. What makes one think it takes us very far in economics? People far smarter than us have thought very hard about these issues. For starters, I suggest you go pick up any decent intro-Macro text book. Such a book will not give the right argument (it is too complicated for beginners), but it will give one a sense of what is going on.
It is rare in the course of human affairs for the right thing to do to also be the economically beneficial. Free Trade is economically beneficial to the US and it is also the right thing to do because is greatly helps other countries. Of course, some people suffer. But why should I subsidize an illiterate U.S. manufacturing worker so he can buy a new car ever five years instead of taking my business to Mexico where some poor person needs the money to support his family?
I find it odd given the libertarian streak of most geeks to find such support for WTO bashing. I'm all for helping the poor in other countries. That's why I support WTO and NAFTA. Most of the talk about global labor standards is just a way of undermining the comparative advantage of poor countries who desperately need jobs.
Most of the environmental concerns can be dealt with in other forms. It is good that people in rich countries are concerned about the environment. But it is morally reprehensible that these people want poor countries to pay the cost of protecting the environment. That's what environmental protection clauses in the WTO would do. If you care so much about the environment, agree to pay poor countries cold hard cash to not burn forests etc. It is intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible to transfer the costs to poor countries under the guise of protecting "human values versus global capitalism." I'm not great fan of capitalism, but it is capitalism that allows me to consume over 1000 times the resources consumed by an average citizen of India. It is capitalism that gives me the freedom from want.
Even if international law is not clear, determination of succession lies within the power of the Executive Branch. And the Clinton has signed a presidential finding asserting that the US views Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to be collectively bound by the treaty (i.e., collectively allowed one ABM site).
Does Congress want to challenge this executive power? It may not be a bad thing if it did because, during the cold war, the president has accumulate enormous power. In my opinion too much power. But Republicans are hypocrites if they launch such a challenge. They have long argued (as recently as the Bush administration) that Congress ought to delegate to the president such powers. In fact, Congress has gone so far as to delegate to the president the power to effectively declare war. In doing this, Congress has blatently ignored the constitution. And because of separation of powers issues, the U.S. Supreme Court has gone along with Congress' abdication of legislative oversight.
Before the Gulf War many Democrats tried to insist that Congress must formally declare war before U.S. troops could engage in positive action. The Republicans vigorously argued against this position, and they prevailed. It is absurd to argue that the president has the power to effectively declare war but not to decide issues of succession.
International law is very clear here. The ABM treaty signed with the USSR is still in effect. Under international law, the USSR did not die. Some parts of the nation left, and what remained was renamed. But the nation did not disappear. For example, Russia did not have to loose the U.N. security council seat that belonged to the USSR.
Under the ABM treaty, each country is allowed to have one ABM facility. The Russians have built one around Moscow. The U.S. has not yet built one.
The Russians are extremely upset about U.S. actions. The U.S. is moving in a direction that will require the U.S. to either renegotiate the treaty or break it. I sure hope the U.S. does not break it. The last thing we need is a nationalist fascist party to take power in Russia.
American foreign policy is usually governed by "self interest." But American policy makers often make serious misjudgments about what that interest actually is. Recall the US overthrow of a legitimate Iranian government and the installation of the Shaw (this action lead to the Islamic Revolution) and Vietman.
Bill Clinton has many character flaws, a lack of intelligence is not one of them. He is an extremely smart person; he's probably the smartest president since Woodrow Wilson. I agree that most politicians are not as smart as most high tech industry executives. But most corporate executives are not as smart as high tech executives. It should also be noted that the presidents of Ivy League universities are far smarter than most high tech executives. Smart people may work at Micro$oft and Sun, but they are not, in general, as smart as the people working at MIT and Harvard.
It is common on \. to argue that the scientific outlook has no moral center while the religious outlook, having a moral center, ought not make positive claims---i.e., empirically falseifiable claims---about the physical world. This is a relatively modern distinction. The founders of Western Rationalism (which is think is a damn good thing)---i.e., Plato, Socrates etc.---and Western Science---i.e., Descartes---did think that science and/or rationalism has a moral center. Most all moral theories make empirical---i.e., falseifiable---claims. Moreover, the heart of science and rationalism is an understanding that all of our claims are just theories. There is no logic of proof. When it comes to empirical claims, I can not prove anything. I can only attempt to disprove a theory against some alternatives. That's why the true scientist doesn't turn any theory into an unalterable religious doctrine. But a scientist ought to hold all of his/her beliefs to the same standard.
For example, let us examine the claim that homosexuality and bisexuality is morally wrong but that heterosexuality is just fine. The people who claim such things support their views by (a) claims to authority---i.e., usually some text; and (b) empirical claims such as homosexuals are psychologically disturbed because they are homosexuals and not because of society's reaction to them being homosexual. Now any one reasonable ought to see claims of type (a) as just plain silly, and ought to judge claims of type (b) by the scientific method: "You make these claims about the effects of sexuality on psychological wellbeing, let's go test them!" There is no sharp distinction between science and morality. It would have greatly disturbed the leaders of the Enlightenment to think that their revolution had resulted in a world where knowledge is thought to be completely fractured.
(MGM Studios, England) In response to the success of George Lucas' updated "Star Wars" and the interest in Kubrick since his death, Stanley Kubrick's family announced today the planned re-release of "2001: A Space Odyssey". Steven Spielberg has agreed to update the film. The enhanced version of the film will be released early in 2001.
Spielberg explained, "Much of what Kubrick tried to accomplish in 1968 as limited by then-current technology. I feel this greatly impinged on the structure and style of the film, grossly affecting his ability to tell a modern story."
Many of the changes and additions are fairly minor; only a true devotee would be expected to notice. For example, the "Pan Am" space clipper will have its logo changed to "Discount Spaceways." Other logos will be inserted, as deemed appropriate by the sponsors of the updating: "Coke" and "Nikon" will appear on food and photographic products, while the HAL 9000 computer will sport "Intel Inside" and "Microsoft Windows NT 8.5" appliques.
Other sequences are expected to present visual and auditory changes more apparent to those who may only have seen the film a small number of times. * Computer displays will be rendered with true 3D modeling. As an inside joke in one scene, graphics engineers will be inserting images from "Quake 2001." * The "Star Voyage" sequence designed by Trumball and Veevers will be replaced by an entirely computer-generated sequence. * New scenes will be inserted. One known scene involves the "hominid murder;" a new computer-assisted sequence showing a battle between thousands of hominids will be added following this scene. * All of the music will be replaced by a soundtrack performed by U2. The soundtrack will be broadcast in digitized, Dolby-enhanced surround sound. Spielberg explained, "No one liked the music in the original, anyway." * The monolith, which most viewers found "boring" will be redesigned to look like a large human-shaped robot with blinking lights. * Frank Poole's sex will be changed, adding new interest. Also, Francine Poole will not die; She and Dave will be saved by MONOLITHMAN and will live happily every after. Spielberg explains again, "No one understood the ending; we feel that our rewrite will be much more accessible to the typical intelligent moviegoer."
Spielberg summarized the release, codenamed "2" (short for "2001- 1999") as an "Experience for the younger generation, born well after the original. The original film was dated and did not meet the needs of new viewers. The new release will be competitive with today's movies and should provide a fulfilling, enjoyable experience to all."
Kubrick's films have a vision which goes beyond what is common---NONE of Spielberg's do. Kubrick's view of human nature is profoundly disturbing and close to the truth. He was not, however, misanthropic as some have argued. He thought hard about why human beings are cruel and obsessed with the immediate and ignore truth and beauty. Contrary to many reviews, I think that "Eyes Wide Shut" is another extraordinary masterpiece. It shows a wisdom completely missing from Spielberg. The last scene of the movie is particularly interesting. After acknowledging the limited importance of a week...even of a single life-time, the women character forcefully, in the last line, refers to the most basic animal drive. It reminds me of a famous quote by Niels Bohr "[i]t is a great pity that human beings cannot find all of their satisfaction in scientific contemplativeness." Kubrick of course sees beauty to be of greater importance than science...or atleast greater than technology. Kubrick's explanation for the problem raised by Bohr is the sex drive and by implication evolution.
Spielberg has NEVER produced a movie with confronts current sensibilities. In none of his movies does he challenge human nature. Not in Saving Private Ryan (which after the first 30 minutes is incredibly boring and predictable) and not in Shindler's List. One would think that the holocaust of all things would cause one to profoundly examine human nature and critique civilization. But Spielberg does not do this. Does the holocaust say something about all civilization, all countries America included? Note to Spielberg. There is nothing interesting here. Anyone who thinks there is should read more great literature and see the works of more good directors such as Bergman and Kurosawa.
Don't get me wrong. When Spielberg is paying attention, he can tell a good story (e.g., ET etc). Spielberg also has excellent understanding of the technical side of film making. This may have been the foundation of the friendship with Kubrick. But there is a big difference between being able to tell a good story in a technically excellent fashion and creating something sublime.
I completely agree with your judgment of American "Values." I would argue, however, that elite American universities are some of the few places in American society where excellence (instead of profit) plays an important part. The strong presence of European, Indian and Chinese faculty and students is one of the key reasons for this--:)
When excellence is an issue, one is by definition an elitist. Some work is better than other. And some people smarter than others.
Give me a break! Industry is good as turning out toys, but when was the last time it produced something truly profound? And I don't mean WYSIWIG. I mean something at the level of Turing's results or Von Neumann's cellular automata, or Herbert Simon first AI program, or Knuth's Art of Scientific Computing or Holland's genetic algorithms or Koza's genetic programming....
And don't cite Bell Labs and similar institutions at IBM. They are far more tied to academia than industry. I'm referring to the great commercial unwashed. Institutions which are confronted by the market economy and its emphasis on profit over quality.
And while we're on the subject of technology instead of big think, I think it is clear that LINUX could not have been developed without the help of many universities. Many an undergrad, grad, and professor were allowed the time to work on LINUX. This is a luxury few in industry have.
Spend much time in academia, and one will learn that the best and brightest are attracted, for obvious reasons, to precious few universities. The United States is a country in which intellectual enterprises are looked upon, at best, with suspicion. In this country, even more so than others, the best universities provide an intellectual sanctuary filled with unmatched talent and resources. I've spent some time in the private sector. With few exceptions (e.g., Bell Labs), it does not compare favorably with the concentration of good minds (both faculty and student) to be found at the very best universities.
Don't forget to check out Cornell. It has great (and very highly ranked) CS and engineering departments. However, for a top 5 school has gets surprisingly little attention. Go to the best school you get into (calibrated by your field).
Slashdot Mirror
I have compiled a set of benchmarks for scientific computing applications which are broadly consistent with the posted benchmarks:
http://jsekhon.fas.harvard.edu/macosx/
Computer history, broadly defined, will probably be a growth industry
in academia. The prospective of the properly trained
historian/sociologist/economist is different from that of the
participants. For examples, the key decision makers during the
Vietnam war have written books about what they did, but the best books
on the topic are by professional historians (usually academics) who do
a much better job than the participants in synthesizing the relevant
information and being relatively objective.
If you combined computer history with some policy work, the project
could be really cool. History can teach great lessons about what to
do (and not to do) in the future.
This and related posts are very good and informative. I shouldn't
have gone flying off the handle. But I still think there is serious
corporate hypocrisy here. They are using a database provided by
another provider (UMI) for free (for the public good), but
http://www.contentville.com wants to prohibit others from using their
database. Moreover, they are trying to sell something I would be
happy to give away for free.
My Ph.D. thesis is there. I'm going write them a note telling them
they cannot sell it. If they continue to sell it, they will be
hearing from my lawyers. Hypocritical corporate bastards!
Dr. Wiggy Wrote: /. readers spend their lives writing algorithms. They spend their time effectively regurgitating mathematics. They often get paid for it. Hang on, does that mean that we are all claiming that mathematical algos. are not free? That you have to pay us for them? Dispicable!
****************
In the same sense, the majority of
*************
Mathematical algorithms are (and should be) free. I don't pay anyone
for use of the metropolis algorithm nor SVD decomposition. If someone
wants me to be around to tell them what algorithm they should use and
how to best implement it for their purposes, they will have to pay me.
BUT they are not paying for the metropolis etc. algorithms. I don't
have to pay royalties to the inventors at Los Alamos anymore than I
have to pay royalties to Newton/Leibniz for calculus or Halbert White
for the latest fix for deviations from normality in data. You should
realize how much the work we do depends on the UNCOMPENSATED sweat
and tears of other talented people.
I'm getting really tired of reading posts by people who are silly and
arrogant enough to think that they actually marginally contribute a
lot and that all real work needs to be payed for. Hey dude, unlike
the creators of the Metropolis algorithm, if you died today, the world
of science/technology would progress in a fine manner. But most
merely competent techie people, if they so choose, can make much more
money than these great scientists/technologists.
Time to Pay: Academics have long subsidized the corporate world
Academics have long subsidized the corporate world. Universities have
produced most of the great scientific breakthroughs and many of the
great technological breakthroughs this century. Academics at top
universities are not well payed (relative to what people of similar
merit make in the private sector). Therefore, it is not surprising,
that much of the currently plentiful venture capital money has found
its way to these very smart and gifted people. You want to stop the
corporations from taking over the universities? Then the people
(i.e., government) should adequately pay for the public goods that
academics and their universities produce. But economic theorems (and
mountains of data) show that market economies under pay for and under
provide public goods (such as science).
This is an excellent proposal. The proposal has the added advantage
that companies would not be able to successfully lobby Congress to
extend their copyrights even after they were supposed to expire.
Disney did this with Mickey Mouse. The proposal also brings up the
more general issue of how and why companies are so often treated as
individuals in the law. When the U.S. constitution was ratified,
along with its clauses protecting copyright, companies could now own
copyrights. In this case, and a *few* others, the good old days where
indeed better.
I'm consternated that someone who has watched the directors cut does
not conclude upon some consideration that Deckard in indeed a
replicant. The fact that people still argue about this after the
directors cut is simply silly. The "textual" evidence is
overwhelming. Please see jabber's post for some details. I will only
add that the most *obvious* piece of evidence is the unicorn placed by
Gaff for Deckard to find as he is trying to escape with Rachel. It is
clear a message: "this unicorn is from your dream. A dream I can only
know about because you are a replicant."
And people wonder what is the use all of those literature classes!
One of the clear benefits is that they help one figure out relatively
simple (but *awesome*) films like Blade Runner.
When someone makes some silly claims about programming (usually
because of a lack of knowledge or experience), I often say "less talk,
more code." I think a lot of geeks say similar things. When it comes
to art, similar advice also holds: "less talk, more reading of serious
literature and more watching of sublime films." And all of those
literature classes do serve some purpose....
You may contact me at jass@mad.scientist.com.
Cheers
> Asskissing is a time-honored way to get tenure.
I know of extremely few people who have obtained tenure at Stanford or MIT largely because of ass kissing. But when in doubt, many resort to ad homenin attacks without evidence. That indeed is a time-honored strategy.
Your posts have merit even though I don't think one is going to be able to defend the Pushkin line; don't forget that Shakespeare has greatly influenced Eastern literature. I'm most familiar with Hindu literature and his influence was great even before the British took over.
Also, I think the philosophical implications of Einstein's work are VASTLY exagerated. His work implies nothing about morality, human nature or epistemology. WWI and the resulting cultural crisis is a better explanation for the culturally relativist turn in our civilization. But Katz may be referring to a more general influence, and then your point is sound.
Your ad homenin attacks do not serve you well. At best they reveal insecurity and at worst they reveal anti-intellectual resentment.
> Have you ever played Final Fantasy 3 on the
> SNES?
Yes. They were amusing, but not about anything interesting.
>By the way, I believe "sublime greatness" is up to the individual's
>experience and not what the masses think. I hated Wild Strawberries
>and I slept through 2001.
Just like how some of us are better coders than others, some of us are
culturally more literate than others. Sleeping through 2001 says
more about you than Kubrick. On culture you may be
analogous to someone who says ``I prefer Quick Basic to C or C++. I
was never able to get through K&R, I fell asleep.''
I am often considered part of the much maligned "intelligentsia"; I'm
a professor at the most famous Ivy League University (along with being
a partner at a software startup). And I for one *do* think that video
games *may* become the central artform of the 21st century. At the
beginning of the 20th century, film was a used for little more than
silly experiments and peep-shows that people who could not afford the
theater attended. But by any reasonable measure film became (along
with the novel) the great artform of the 20th century: Kurosawa,
Bergman, Kubrick etc.
But greatness is just the promise of video games. No video game has
achieved anywhere near the sublime greatness of ``Wild Strawberries''
(a better example for this audience would probably be ``2001''). I do
think, however, that video games may achieve greatness sometime in
this century. Such video games will almost certainly look vastly
different than they do today.
I usually don't bash J. Katz, but this post was aggressively stupid.
Katz often rants about the stereotyped, oppressed geek. But I guess
stereotyping the ``intelligentsia'' is fair game. Nowhere does he
present the arguments that *SOME* in the ``intelligentsia'' would make
against video games---arguments with which I do not agree. He just
bashes them for their conclusions.
Moreover, I would welcome the next ``Shakespeare''. But given that we
haven't had one since the original, I'm not holding my breath. We've
had great, fantastic wonderful writers and artists, but no one with
the overwhelming culture transforming power which was Shakespeare. I
refer Katz to Harold Bloom's masterpiece ``Shakespeare: The Invention
of the Human''. But wait, offer a reference? That's just what
someone who's part of the ``intelligentsia'' would do! Never mind
that Harold Bloom (who is a professor at Yale) is much hated by many
members of the literary establishment. Does that still qualify him as
a member of the ``intelligentsia''? I thought only geeks were allowed
to disagree and have the right not to be stereotyped. Then again,
many members of the ``intelligentsia'' are geeks, one would say most
members if one follows Katz's very expansive definition of geek. MR.
Katz you are full of contradictions. I wish that were the only
problem that the post had.
> Free trade can only exist where all parties are > on an equal footing.
This is so absurd it isn't even false. Go read some economics. The beauty of comparative advantage is that under an extremely wide range of conditions, very unequal trading partners both benefit from free trade. Comparative advantage is the one truly profound and universal finding of economics. I suggest you go read the work. But alas you will have to learn math and have to read through a lot of tough logical models as well as complicated statistical models. It is easier to rely on naive intuition. Naive intuition does not take us very far in physics. What makes one think it takes us very far in economics? People far smarter than us have thought very hard about these issues. For starters, I suggest you go pick up any decent intro-Macro text book. Such a book will not give the right argument (it is too complicated for beginners), but it will give one a sense of what is going on.
It is rare in the course of human affairs for the right thing to do to also be the economically beneficial. Free Trade is economically beneficial to the US and it is also the right thing to do because is greatly helps other countries. Of course, some people suffer. But why should I subsidize an illiterate U.S. manufacturing worker so he can buy a new car ever five years instead of taking my business to Mexico where some poor person needs the money to support his family?
I find it odd given the libertarian streak of most geeks to find such support for WTO bashing. I'm all for helping the poor in other countries. That's why I support WTO and NAFTA. Most of the talk about global labor standards is just a way of undermining the comparative advantage of poor countries who desperately need jobs.
Most of the environmental concerns can be dealt with in other forms. It is good that people in rich countries are concerned about the environment. But it is morally reprehensible that these people want poor countries to pay the cost of protecting the environment. That's what environmental protection clauses in the WTO would do. If you care so much about the environment, agree to pay poor countries cold hard cash to not burn forests etc. It is intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible to transfer the costs to poor countries under the guise of protecting "human values versus global capitalism." I'm not great fan of capitalism, but it is capitalism that allows me to consume over 1000 times the resources consumed by an average citizen of India. It is capitalism that gives me the freedom from want.
Even if international law is not clear, determination of succession lies within the power of the Executive Branch. And the Clinton has signed a presidential finding asserting that the US views Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to be collectively bound by the treaty (i.e., collectively allowed one ABM site).
Does Congress want to challenge this executive power? It may not be a bad thing if it did because, during the cold war, the president has accumulate enormous power. In my opinion too much power. But Republicans are hypocrites if they launch such a challenge. They have long argued (as recently as the Bush administration) that Congress ought to delegate to the president such powers. In fact, Congress has gone so far as to delegate to the president the power to effectively declare war. In doing this, Congress has blatently ignored the constitution. And because of separation of powers issues, the U.S. Supreme Court has gone along with Congress' abdication of legislative oversight.
Before the Gulf War many Democrats tried to insist that Congress must formally declare war before U.S. troops could engage in positive action. The Republicans vigorously argued against this position, and they prevailed. It is absurd to argue that the president has the power to effectively declare war but not to decide issues of succession.
International law is very clear here. The ABM treaty signed with the USSR is still in effect. Under international law, the USSR did not die. Some parts of the nation left, and what remained was renamed. But the nation did not disappear. For example, Russia did not have to loose the U.N. security council seat that belonged to the USSR.
Under the ABM treaty, each country is allowed to have one ABM facility. The Russians have built one around Moscow. The U.S. has not yet built one.
The Russians are extremely upset about U.S. actions. The U.S. is moving in a direction that will require the U.S. to either renegotiate the treaty or break it. I sure hope the U.S. does not break it. The last thing we need is a nationalist fascist party to take power in Russia.
American foreign policy is usually governed by "self interest." But American policy makers often make serious misjudgments about what that interest actually is. Recall the US overthrow of a legitimate Iranian government and the installation of the Shaw (this action lead to the Islamic Revolution) and Vietman.
Bill Clinton has many character flaws, a lack of intelligence is not one of them. He is an extremely smart person; he's probably the smartest president since Woodrow Wilson. I agree that most politicians are not as smart as most high tech industry executives. But most corporate executives are not as smart as high tech executives. It should also be noted that the presidents of Ivy League universities are far smarter than most high tech executives. Smart people may work at Micro$oft and Sun, but they are not, in general, as smart as the people working at MIT and Harvard.
It is common on \. to argue that the scientific outlook has no moral center while the religious outlook, having a moral center, ought not make positive claims---i.e., empirically falseifiable claims---about the physical world. This is a relatively modern distinction. The founders of Western Rationalism (which is think is a damn good thing)---i.e., Plato, Socrates etc.---and Western Science---i.e., Descartes---did think that science and/or rationalism has a moral center. Most all moral theories make empirical---i.e., falseifiable---claims. Moreover, the heart of science and rationalism is an understanding that all of our claims are just theories. There is no logic of proof. When it comes to empirical claims, I can not prove anything. I can only attempt to disprove a theory against some alternatives. That's why the true scientist doesn't turn any theory into an unalterable religious doctrine. But a scientist ought to hold all of his/her beliefs to the same standard.
For example, let us examine the claim that homosexuality and bisexuality is morally wrong but that heterosexuality is just fine. The people who claim such things support their views by (a) claims to authority---i.e., usually some text; and (b) empirical claims such as homosexuals are psychologically disturbed because they are homosexuals and not because of society's reaction to them being homosexual. Now any one reasonable ought to see claims of type (a) as just plain silly, and ought to judge claims of type (b) by the scientific method: "You make these claims about the effects of sexuality on psychological wellbeing, let's go test them!" There is no sharp distinction between science and morality. It would have greatly disturbed the leaders of the Enlightenment to think that their revolution had resulted in a world where knowledge is thought to be completely fractured.
I found this on the MGM website!!!!
(MGM Studios, England) In response to the success of George Lucas' updated "Star Wars" and the interest in Kubrick since his death, Stanley Kubrick's family announced today the planned re-release of "2001: A Space Odyssey". Steven Spielberg has agreed to update the film. The enhanced version of the film will be released early in 2001.
Spielberg explained, "Much of what Kubrick tried to accomplish in 1968 as limited by then-current technology. I feel this greatly impinged on the structure and style of the film, grossly affecting his ability to tell a modern story."
Many of the changes and additions are fairly minor; only a true devotee would be expected to notice. For example, the "Pan Am" space clipper will have its logo changed to "Discount Spaceways." Other logos will be inserted, as deemed appropriate by the sponsors of the updating: "Coke" and "Nikon" will appear on food and photographic products, while the HAL 9000 computer will sport "Intel Inside" and "Microsoft Windows NT 8.5" appliques.
Other sequences are expected to present visual and auditory changes more apparent to those who may only have seen the film a small number of times.
* Computer displays will be rendered with true 3D modeling. As an inside joke in one scene, graphics engineers will be inserting images from "Quake 2001."
* The "Star Voyage" sequence designed by Trumball and Veevers will be replaced by an entirely computer-generated sequence.
* New scenes will be inserted. One known scene involves the "hominid murder;" a new computer-assisted sequence showing a battle between thousands of hominids will be added following this scene.
* All of the music will be replaced by a soundtrack performed by U2. The soundtrack will be broadcast in digitized, Dolby-enhanced surround sound. Spielberg explained, "No one liked the music in the original, anyway."
* The monolith, which most viewers found "boring" will be redesigned to look like a large human-shaped robot with blinking lights.
* Frank Poole's sex will be changed, adding new interest. Also, Francine Poole will not die; She and Dave will be saved by MONOLITHMAN and will live happily every after. Spielberg explains again, "No one understood the ending; we feel that our rewrite will be much more accessible to the typical intelligent moviegoer."
Spielberg summarized the release, codenamed "2" (short for "2001- 1999") as an "Experience for the younger generation, born well after the original. The original film was dated and did not meet the needs of new viewers. The new release will be competitive with today's movies and should provide a fulfilling, enjoyable experience to all."
A spring, 2001 release is anticipated.
Kubrick's films have a vision which goes beyond what is common---NONE of Spielberg's do. Kubrick's view of human nature is profoundly disturbing and close to the truth. He was not, however, misanthropic as some have argued. He thought hard about why human beings are cruel and obsessed with the immediate and ignore truth and beauty. Contrary to many reviews, I think that "Eyes Wide Shut" is another extraordinary masterpiece. It shows a wisdom completely missing from Spielberg. The last scene of the movie is particularly interesting. After acknowledging the limited importance of a week...even of a single life-time, the women character forcefully, in the last line, refers to the most basic animal drive. It reminds me of a famous quote by Niels Bohr "[i]t is a great pity that human beings cannot find all of their satisfaction in scientific contemplativeness." Kubrick of course sees beauty to be of greater importance than science...or atleast greater than technology. Kubrick's explanation for the problem raised by Bohr is the sex drive and by implication evolution.
Spielberg has NEVER produced a movie with confronts current sensibilities. In none of his movies does he challenge human nature. Not in Saving Private Ryan (which after the first 30 minutes is incredibly boring and predictable) and not in Shindler's List. One would think that the holocaust of all things would cause one to profoundly examine human nature and critique civilization. But Spielberg does not do this. Does the holocaust say something about all civilization, all countries America included? Note to Spielberg. There is nothing interesting here. Anyone who thinks there is should read more great literature and see the works of more good directors such as Bergman and Kurosawa.
Don't get me wrong. When Spielberg is paying attention, he can tell a good story (e.g., ET etc). Spielberg also has excellent understanding of the technical side of film making. This may have been the foundation of the friendship with Kubrick. But there is a big difference between being able to tell a good story in a technically excellent fashion and creating something sublime.
I completely agree with your judgment of American "Values." I would argue, however, that elite American universities are some of the few places in American society where excellence (instead of profit) plays an important part. The strong presence of European, Indian and Chinese faculty and students is one of the key reasons for this--:)
When excellence is an issue, one is by definition an elitist. Some work is better than other. And some people smarter than others.
Give me a break! Industry is good as turning out toys, but when was the last time it produced something truly profound? And I don't mean WYSIWIG. I mean something at the level of Turing's results or Von Neumann's cellular automata, or Herbert Simon first AI program, or Knuth's Art of Scientific Computing or Holland's genetic algorithms or Koza's genetic programming....
And don't cite Bell Labs and similar institutions at IBM. They are far more tied to academia than industry. I'm referring to the great commercial unwashed. Institutions which are confronted by the market economy and its emphasis on profit over quality.
And while we're on the subject of technology instead of big think, I think it is clear that LINUX could not have been developed without the help of many universities. Many an undergrad, grad, and professor were allowed the time to work on LINUX. This is a luxury few in industry have.
Spend much time in academia, and one will learn that the best and brightest are attracted, for obvious reasons, to precious few universities. The United States is a country in which intellectual enterprises are looked upon, at best, with suspicion. In this country, even more so than others, the best universities provide an intellectual sanctuary filled with unmatched talent and resources. I've spent some time in the private sector. With few exceptions (e.g., Bell Labs), it does not compare favorably with the concentration of good minds (both faculty and student) to be found at the very best universities.
Don't forget to check out Cornell. It has great (and very highly ranked) CS and engineering departments. However, for a top 5 school has gets
surprisingly little attention. Go to the best school you get into (calibrated by your field).