He is saying that the parameters tested on a IQ test are wrong because it puts him in a less favorable light. On the other hand, the empirical parameters "can think faster and come up with more elegant solutions in a shorter timeframe" are the definative parameters because they are the one that put him in a more favorable light compared to his brother.
Any discussion of IQ always brings out the people not happy with their score. It is just a limited measurement, but it is still a measurement that tends to work for certain situations.
>>>>But none of that means that IQ is *not* a measure of intelligence - it is. It just is not the *only* measure of intelligence.
>>In it's given context, it's a meaningless statement. As said, IQ is simply a (somewhat)objective observation of certain traits which some people think is intelligent. However, there is no clear cut and dried way of looking at this: there are so many aspects of intelligence as to make basing theory on one aspect a meaningless exercise.
It's not a meaningless statement. Those who study intelligence have reduced intelligence down to a handful or two of different areas. IQ tests cover a particular subset of these areas. Generally, higher IQ means you have a better aptitude at learning.
I don't know if "reinforced learning" necessarily equates to higher IQ, but I think the experience itself stimulates the mind and forces it to grow in areas it would not otherwise. I think the mind itself will grow when it adapts to dispense information, not just absorb it.
IQ is a measurement of intelligence, but not of total intelligence; it just measures a particular subset of it. I read something once where there are multiple areas of intelligence.
I do think people with higher IQ can learn new material faster and easier, but the 2 to 3 points difference mentioned is insignificant on a individual basis.
There is probably a significant "nurture" factor. First borns are an only child for awhile and get more attention. Once they do have siblings the environment can help stimulate the brain as they both have to learn new things as well as help teach the younger ones at the same time.
>>About the only reason to send a person to Mars and back without a sustainable presence there, is because it would be good PR for NASA and possibly result in a lot more funding for long-term projects.
I think it would be another moon shot. People would be excited at first, then bored and then "Mission complete. Let's spend money on something else."
(Unless of course we were to "find" some "possible alien artifacts". Then there would be some good Nasa funding.)
When Bush first announced this initiative, the director of Nasa was a Bush lackey and immediately moved to cut funding to other Nasa program likes Hubble to pay for it. (Eventhough presidents change every 4 to 8 years and with them their initiatives.) Congress pays for Nasa activities, and usually they have control. It just turned out that their was a Bush lackey in charge at Nasa and he started gutting other programs to pay for all this.
This was just a way to call the president out to have him pay for his initiative. You don't want to start a precedent where every time the president changes then existing programs are all gutted just because the president makes some random policy speech.
>>Give me a way to do my work once, doesn't matter what it is, and live from it until I'm dead, and I'll think it's fair for musicians to have the same privilege. Otherwise, forget it. It's simply fair that they work everyday, as everyone else does, by doing whatever they're good at, as everyone else also does.
DRM on itunes probably only deters casual file sharing with friends. The songs downloaded off the internet that RIAA is going after probably were just ripped off CDs. DRM on itunes is irrelevant to wide scale downloading.
Depends on what you mean by a long time. I think software patents are ultimately the issue that most people have the most problems with. There are some fundamental as well as practical problems to software patents, and something does need to be done about it.
Actually, the role of patents is to support incremental advances. Everbody gets to see the design rather than it remaining hidden. You don't have to re-invent the wheel, but instead focus on how to make it better.
I thought I have heard statements that if the war had lasted just 6 months longer then the V-2s could have changed the face of the war. The Germans put all their money into the V-2s because they thought they would have already won the war by the time the A-bomb was ready and thought the V-2 would be of some use before then. The A-bomb's effect on WWII is arguable, but it (and ICBMs sprung from the V-2 program) was responsible for the Cold War. That seems like a pretty major impact on society.
I just scanned the article but it seemed kind of rambling without much point other than technology is not as important as we think it is. Or something like that.
I think the more interesting part of technology is how once it began to utilize science is when things really took off. The whole technological revolution that occurred over the last century or so is due in large part to its adaptation to science.
I have not read that short story, but there may be some confusion about what is actually new in the article and what specific idea the short story was employing. The summary states an old concept and a new concept in the same sentence so there has been some confusion here concerning this. Time dilation effects have been known about since General Relativity was first formulated.
Read over some of the posts above, particulary the "I'm Confused" thread for a better explanation about what part is the new part.
It is also possible that MS just considers this such a trivial issue that it was easier all the way around just to make the change.
It doesn't really affect MS one way or the other, but I could see it eventually causing problems for some users. Anybody remember trying to help out a friend who let a third party product take over their operating system? Norton. AOL. You get the picture.
>>Virtually all modern plans for Mars missions follow the same basic timeline: 6 months travel to Mars, 2 years on the planet, and 8 months back.
They need to really wait on a Mars mission until this is fairly cheap and easy, or it will kill the manned space program. 2 years of media coverage will overload the general public's appetite. It will be like the moon program all over again; people will get bored with it and say "mission complete" and start saying we should be spending our money on something else.
>>Can you give any evidence that software companies would not innovate without patents?
I think software is a special case. I think software patents need a drastic reform, or they need to be done away with all togeather. They are a rather recent addition to patent law, and if you look at the vast majority of complaints about the patent system they always seem to center around software.
Software should have never been patentable to begin with, but it does not mean that patent system is bad otherwise. The biggest technological growth spurt in human history occurred with a patent system in place.
>>Or was it instead driven mostly by VC's hoping to profit from first mover advantage? In my mind, it was clearly the latter.
VC's by thier nature try to find a good idea and dump a lot of money on it, but VC systems has problems too. The dotcom boom turned about to be a bust because of all the stupid money.
Without patents it would be a "first mover" kind of world, and I think that would stifle innovation to a degree as all the stupid money got wasted and the VC's became more conservative and began to demand better and better deals for themselves. The VC's would have much more power over the innovators, and in the long run people would be less likely to innovate if the knew their only hope was to sell their soul to a VC.
I do agree the patent system needs to be reformed. One of the problems is the software patents turned into a land rush and everybody starting patenting ideas from years ago as you said. When people start complaining about the patent system, it seems they always talking about software patents or are using software examples.
The quickest growth in technology that ever occurred on Earth happened over the last century with a patent system in place. The complaints did not really start piling up until software patents came about. Software patents need to be drastically reformed or completely done away with.
I did not RTFA (glanced at first page), but first off, I doubt there is a perfect phone that is perfect for everybody. Every product has tradeoffs, and certain product directions appeal to some people but not others, especially when they affect price. Sometimes it is just plane personal preference.
I think in certain respects patents spur competition and make every phone better. Each company tries to come up with something that their competitor hasn't thought of to help differentiate their product. They would be less likely to invest the time and effort to develop innovations if they knew their competitor would just immediately copy it. The really perfect phone would not be possible to begin with without all these previous innovations. One could argue that patents made the author's ideal phone possible, but it is more a business issue whether it ever comes to market.
During WWII, the British and Germans both independently and secretly discovered chaff as a radar countermeasure. Neither side used it in the beginning because they were more afraid of the enemy copying them and gaining a bigger advantage than they themselves would receive.
(I do think software patents need to be drastically reformed or completely done away with altogether)
The name did not ring a bell for me either. Reading the link it looks like a lot of his working is finding its way into film. That being said, I don't why an annoucement about a book that has not even been written yet makes the front page of Slashdot when he has several movies already about to be released.
Slashdot Mirror
He is saying that the parameters tested on a IQ test are wrong because it puts him in a less favorable light. On the other hand, the empirical parameters "can think faster and come up with more elegant solutions in a shorter timeframe" are the definative parameters because they are the one that put him in a more favorable light compared to his brother.
Any discussion of IQ always brings out the people not happy with their score. It is just a limited measurement, but it is still a measurement that tends to work for certain situations.
>>>>But none of that means that IQ is *not* a measure of intelligence - it is. It just is not the *only* measure of intelligence.
>>In it's given context, it's a meaningless statement. As said, IQ is simply a (somewhat)objective observation of certain traits which some people think is intelligent. However, there is no clear cut and dried way of looking at this: there are so many aspects of intelligence as to make basing theory on one aspect a meaningless exercise.
It's not a meaningless statement. Those who study intelligence have reduced intelligence down to a handful or two of different areas. IQ tests cover a particular subset of these areas. Generally, higher IQ means you have a better aptitude at learning.
It's a measurement. You can debate the accuracy and precision of it, but it is still a measurement.
I don't know if "reinforced learning" necessarily equates to higher IQ, but I think the experience itself stimulates the mind and forces it to grow in areas it would not otherwise. I think the mind itself will grow when it adapts to dispense information, not just absorb it.
IQ is a measurement of intelligence, but not of total intelligence; it just measures a particular subset of it. I read something once where there are multiple areas of intelligence.
I do think people with higher IQ can learn new material faster and easier, but the 2 to 3 points difference mentioned is insignificant on a individual basis.
There is probably a significant "nurture" factor. First borns are an only child for awhile and get more attention. Once they do have siblings the environment can help stimulate the brain as they both have to learn new things as well as help teach the younger ones at the same time.
They want to "upgrade" the operating system. You know like Norton and AOL.
>>About the only reason to send a person to Mars and back without a sustainable presence there, is because it would be good PR for NASA and possibly result in a lot more funding for long-term projects.
I think it would be another moon shot. People would be excited at first, then bored and then "Mission complete. Let's spend money on something else."
(Unless of course we were to "find" some "possible alien artifacts". Then there would be some good Nasa funding.)
I agree with most everything else you said.
Basically telling the president to pay up.
When Bush first announced this initiative, the director of Nasa was a Bush lackey and immediately moved to cut funding to other Nasa program likes Hubble to pay for it. (Eventhough presidents change every 4 to 8 years and with them their initiatives.) Congress pays for Nasa activities, and usually they have control. It just turned out that their was a Bush lackey in charge at Nasa and he started gutting other programs to pay for all this.
This was just a way to call the president out to have him pay for his initiative. You don't want to start a precedent where every time the president changes then existing programs are all gutted just because the president makes some random policy speech.
>>Give me a way to do my work once, doesn't matter what it is, and live from it until I'm dead, and I'll think it's fair for musicians to have the same privilege. Otherwise, forget it. It's simply fair that they work everyday, as everyone else does, by doing whatever they're good at, as everyone else also does.
In Soviet Russia...
DRM on itunes probably only deters casual file sharing with friends. The songs downloaded off the internet that RIAA is going after probably were just ripped off CDs. DRM on itunes is irrelevant to wide scale downloading.
Depends on what you mean by a long time. I think software patents are ultimately the issue that most people have the most problems with. There are some fundamental as well as practical problems to software patents, and something does need to be done about it.
Actually, the role of patents is to support incremental advances. Everbody gets to see the design rather than it remaining hidden. You don't have to re-invent the wheel, but instead focus on how to make it better.
I thought I have heard statements that if the war had lasted just 6 months longer then the V-2s could have changed the face of the war. The Germans put all their money into the V-2s because they thought they would have already won the war by the time the A-bomb was ready and thought the V-2 would be of some use before then. The A-bomb's effect on WWII is arguable, but it (and ICBMs sprung from the V-2 program) was responsible for the Cold War. That seems like a pretty major impact on society.
I just scanned the article but it seemed kind of rambling without much point other than technology is not as important as we think it is. Or something like that.
I think the more interesting part of technology is how once it began to utilize science is when things really took off. The whole technological revolution that occurred over the last century or so is due in large part to its adaptation to science.
I have not read that short story, but there may be some confusion about what is actually new in the article and what specific idea the short story was employing. The summary states an old concept and a new concept in the same sentence so there has been some confusion here concerning this. Time dilation effects have been known about since General Relativity was first formulated.
Read over some of the posts above, particulary the "I'm Confused" thread for a better explanation about what part is the new part.
Good job explaining that. Thanks.
Are they saying black holes are perpetually in the creation phase, or they just don't exist at all unless they formed at the beginning of time?
It is also possible that MS just considers this such a trivial issue that it was easier all the way around just to make the change.
It doesn't really affect MS one way or the other, but I could see it eventually causing problems for some users. Anybody remember trying to help out a friend who let a third party product take over their operating system? Norton. AOL. You get the picture.
>>Virtually all modern plans for Mars missions follow the same basic timeline: 6 months travel to Mars, 2 years on the planet, and 8 months back.
They need to really wait on a Mars mission until this is fairly cheap and easy, or it will kill the manned space program. 2 years of media coverage will overload the general public's appetite. It will be like the moon program all over again; people will get bored with it and say "mission complete" and start saying we should be spending our money on something else.
>>Can you give any evidence that software companies would not innovate without patents?
I think software is a special case. I think software patents need a drastic reform, or they need to be done away with all togeather. They are a rather recent addition to patent law, and if you look at the vast majority of complaints about the patent system they always seem to center around software.
Software should have never been patentable to begin with, but it does not mean that patent system is bad otherwise. The biggest technological growth spurt in human history occurred with a patent system in place.
>>Or was it instead driven mostly by VC's hoping to profit from first mover advantage? In my mind, it was clearly the latter.
VC's by thier nature try to find a good idea and dump a lot of money on it, but VC systems has problems too. The dotcom boom turned about to be a bust because of all the stupid money.
Without patents it would be a "first mover" kind of world, and I think that would stifle innovation to a degree as all the stupid money got wasted and the VC's became more conservative and began to demand better and better deals for themselves. The VC's would have much more power over the innovators, and in the long run people would be less likely to innovate if the knew their only hope was to sell their soul to a VC.
I do agree the patent system needs to be reformed. One of the problems is the software patents turned into a land rush and everybody starting patenting ideas from years ago as you said. When people start complaining about the patent system, it seems they always talking about software patents or are using software examples.
The quickest growth in technology that ever occurred on Earth happened over the last century with a patent system in place. The complaints did not really start piling up until software patents came about. Software patents need to be drastically reformed or completely done away with.
I did not RTFA (glanced at first page), but first off, I doubt there is a perfect phone that is perfect for everybody. Every product has tradeoffs, and certain product directions appeal to some people but not others, especially when they affect price. Sometimes it is just plane personal preference.
I think in certain respects patents spur competition and make every phone better. Each company tries to come up with something that their competitor hasn't thought of to help differentiate their product. They would be less likely to invest the time and effort to develop innovations if they knew their competitor would just immediately copy it. The really perfect phone would not be possible to begin with without all these previous innovations. One could argue that patents made the author's ideal phone possible, but it is more a business issue whether it ever comes to market.
During WWII, the British and Germans both independently and secretly discovered chaff as a radar countermeasure. Neither side used it in the beginning because they were more afraid of the enemy copying them and gaining a bigger advantage than they themselves would receive.
(I do think software patents need to be drastically reformed or completely done away with altogether)
"Gag" gift...
The name did not ring a bell for me either. Reading the link it looks like a lot of his working is finding its way into film. That being said, I don't why an annoucement about a book that has not even been written yet makes the front page of Slashdot when he has several movies already about to be released.
It actually was a direct reference to Star Wars. The OP assumed the Slashdot crowd would know who Joseph Campbell was.
>>Who has 1.5Mb/s connections these days?
AT&T/SBC