Silliness aside, our entire economy is geared towards encouraging (though maybe 'coercing' or 'brainwashing' would be better words) people to spend and consume more. Your suggestion, while fair and reasonable, is unlikely to happen while the marketing-droids hold the reins of our society.
In my opinion, geeks/nerds are particularly big suckers for marketing hype. Just as bad as the fashion victims...
Hmm. Well since there's no demonstrated correlation between brain size and intelligence (within a species), I don't see how this could be used by Eugenicists.
Furthermore, the amount of migration that has occured in the last 70000 years probably makes it moot anyway.
I vote we kill the eugenicists - they're ruining the gene-pool!;-)
My fiance is a geophysicist. I attented a conference with her recently, and one of the presentation streams there was regarding climate change. There were several speakers from CSIRO (an Australian research institute). They all considered that anthropogenic climate change was occuring. It was painted in a manner similar to evolution vs creationism. The scientific consensus is that climate change is occuring, but the specifics of _exactly_ what/how is happening is not known.
Thoughts: - There's something comforting about being a skeptic. It's a bit like "I'm better than everybody else, because I know something that they don't." There are some aspects in the climate change debate that try to appeal to this trait in us. -There are _clear_ vested interests that want to keep a "business as usual" economic model. Imagine you're sitting on a couple of billion barrels of oil - you definitely wouldn't want Kyoto ratified!
I heard this at a presentation: How many people have insurance to cover fire damage in their home? How many people have lost their homes to fires? This illustrates an important principle. If there's a relatively small risk of something absolutely catastrophic occuring, then it's wise to take steps to reduce that risk. It's called the expected outcome. Let's think about climate change for a moment. If it's false, then we get business as usual - the world goes on mostly as it is. If it's true, we potentially get global famine, and hundreds of millions of refugees, as well as disease, etc. We don't know what the probabilities of these outcomes are, but we can be sure that the probability of the second is NOT zero.
Here in the West, we're very secure. I've never been worried about where my next meal comes from. That security can definitley breed complacency. We should not assume that catastrophic change can't happen, just because we've never experienced it. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1315- 1317 - interestingly this was caused by a "little ice age";-)
Wow. That is, at the same time, both ignorant and stupid. Well done!
1. You implicitly assume that addiction is related to genetics, and therefore by letting addicts die you are improving the gene-pool. Please provide some evidence of this.
2. You confuse stupidity with ignorance
3. You ignore a plethora of social factors involved in drug use
4. You ignore the negative effects that drug users have on society
5. You ignore the negative effects that the drug barons have on society (organised crime of other kinds).
The idea that 'people should be allowed to do what they want with their own body' is wrong. It's wrong because it's based on the premise that we don't owe anything to society. No matter how independant you might think you are, you still owe a huge debt to society, and its ancestry. Just going with the flow isn't good enough, and we have a responsibility to each other to ensure that people pull their weight.
That's one reason why I think 'libertarians' are wrong - they think all this is optional.
"watch the young folks there when they discover politics"
In general, young people tend to have more extreme views than older people. That's why societies with a larger proportion of young people tend to have more radical governments (and why Western governments are becoming more conservative as their populations get older). Young people are also more impressionable. (my opinion - unsubstantiated)
I think freedom of speech is a really difficult (yet important) issue. It's certainly *not* as simple as "everyone should be able to say whatever they want."
"You have to be 100% pro gay or be classed as a hater."
I'm not sure what pro gay actually means, but from the examples you cite I gather there are many aspects of political correctness that you do not agree with. P.C. does need to be recognised as an agenda, whether or not you agree with it (personally, I think it has some good and bad aspects). It's agenda could probably be described as "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything," which is probably a bit simplistic, but if everyone practiced it would probably result in a more harmonious society.
A big problem facing our society is lack of respect and manners, and if people were a little more tolerant, and a little less quick to point the finger ("How about those "everything hispanic is just so damn cool" sites") I reckon that'd go a long way.
I suggest you chill out a bit. There are problems with what people say. Israel ain't perfect, Hispanics ain't perfect, the West (whatever that means) ain't perfect. Let's accept that, and not get too hung up on the minority of dickheads in each society - how's that sound?:-)
Well, this will at least lay to rest the arguement about whether Linux and MacOS have fewer exploits than MS Windows, merely _because_ they have fewer users.
We've recently read about the schism between Debian/firefox. Commenters here have described it as "how free software dies" Compare the freedoms of Free Software with the arbitrary and arrogant restrictions emerging in non-Free software. What's next?
Microsoft EULA, circa 2011: "You may only drink Coca Cola products while using said software - consumption of Pepsi is explicitly forbidden"
While you're right that Apple have less restrictive DRM, they're not as great as you make out.
eMusic, by comparison, sell un-DRMd mp3s. Once I've bought an mp3, I can download it (apparently limitless) times.
So while what you say is correct, it's still the case that anyone who buys from iTunes to use with their iPod now, and then buys a non-iPod music player, or loses access to iTunes (from switching to Linux, etc), later will still be screwed.
Also, it is very important to know that Apple can change the conditions of use for music (number of computers, cd burning, ipod downloading, expiry) later, and these changes will apply retro-actively to music already purchased. To me it seems crazy to buy music that has DRM hanging over it!
I can't comment on Windows - haven't used it for years.. but...
I'm running MacOS 10.4 on my (almost) 3 year old iBook, very nicely. It's a G4 800 Mhz (only 256k cache!), with 640mb RAM (yes, upping the RAM surely helps with a *NIX based OS). I typically have about 10 - 15 apps open at once, and reboot about once every 10 days. I can run OpenOffice and GIMP in X11 (although this taxes things a bit.;-) I even use this machine for multi-track music recording! (not too many tracks though)
I run Ubuntu on my PC, and just upgraded form a P4 to a dual-core AMD64, 2GB RAM (think... MATLAB). On the P4 2400, there was a noticable lag when opening the gnome menu. This machine was *substantially* more powerful than my lowly iBook, which leads me to conclude that Apple has done a fantastic job of enabling their latest OS to run on old hardware. On my new PC, Ubuntu runs like a dream...
Having said that, I *do* think that my iBook would be faster if I was running Linux on it (though it wouldn't be a huge difference). I'd probably do that, except that Linux doesn't support my external USB soundcard.. Damn Digidesign!
While I agree with most of your post, I question this: "...photoelectric solar panels are already close to their maximum possible energy effeciency..."
my understanding is that current PV cells are only around 30% efficient. This suggests to me that there is large room for improvement.
'No new R&D is required....' This is so true. we don't need to wait for a magic bullet. We already have the technological solutions to our energy problems - we just lack the political and social will to implement the necessary changes.
If you accept that we cannot dump limitless rubbish (into landfill, the atmosphere, ocean, whatever) then the process of dumping has value, and hence should be assigned a monetary amount so that capitalism can balance things.
The idea is that we work out 'how much' can be safely dumped, and then let economics decide who's going to do the dumping. At the moment, people are getting a free ride, but this is unsustainable in the long term.
This is what Kyoto, and 'carbon trading' is all about. It's not about being 'cool' or 'trendy' (although being Green may have marketing value to companies) - it's about being realistic, and considering the consequences of our actions.
What a silly arguement. Let's try turning it around to show just how silly it is:
OS/2 was a commercial failure and was disbanded, Netscape became bloated and unusable, and ended up being disbanded as a commercial entity. therefore commercial software is inherantly problematic.
I mean... come on! There are many examples of working OS/GNU/BSD/etc projects. To cite two, and from these conclude that 'Free Software' has 'reached the limits' is disingenious. (Note that you could list a million failed F.S. projects and it wouldn't change a thing - I can show projects that are working well, and that invalidates your arguement.)
Note to mods: think about what you read. Don't just mod something 'Insightful' because it's written with conviction!
There was a thread a while ago where you mentioned traditional violin playing making use of microtones. I love traditional fiddle music (I play guitar, and have had a few violin lessons). Can you please recommend some recordings? You made mention of traditional Scottish and Briton music..
I'm a member of emusic, and have found these recordings: The Beaton Family of Mabou: Cape Breton Fiddle and Piano Music (http://www.emusic.com/album/10864/10864323.html) Various Artists: Smithsonian Folkways: The Heart of Cape Breton (http://www.emusic.com/album/10864/10864412.html)
Recently, there was an article here about a website that was trying to incite people to attack researchers using animal models. The general consensus here (if I may summarise) was that they shared responsibility for vigilante attacks, although they disclaimed it. This is a summary I agree with.
I reckon this is a very difficult issue.. should people be allowed to incite violence and hatred (be it religious or homophobic, racist, etc) under the guise of 'free-speech'? Personally I think free speech is very important in a free society, but I think there comes a point when one person exercising their right to free speech impinges on the freedoms of lots of other people.
I guess I'm saying that there are rights that are more important than freedom of speech (such as life, liberty and happiness) and that they should have precedence.
What a disingenious thing to say. Perhaps you should say that you have 'no idea how to properly predict climatology'
I don't pretend to be an expert, but it seems to me that a concept known as momentum could easily account for this. Perhaps you've heard of such a thing?
To clarify, the changes to CO2 levels that occured in the ice ages might have taken thousands of years to occur, whereas our change has taken 20 years. In control theory terms, we've just applied a step function to the climate, and of course it is going to take some time to react.
First to the people who say it's unnecessary to use incentives, I say they're wrong. I think it definitely boosts attendance at lectures, and that it's a Good Thing when lots of students attend lectures. Having them online is also good, as it enables them to revise later, and will reduce dependance on hand-written notes made during lectures (which are a distraction). I think helping people (particularly young people) to make good decisions is a good thing. Lectures are better than just watching a podcast because they're interactive - one can interrupt and ask a question (of a decent lecturer, anyway)
In the department where I work, lots of lecturers use small assessment pieces during the lecture to encourage attendance. Usually it's a small test (more suited to empirical subjects - I work in engineering) that covers the material from last week's lecture. This has the added benefit of encouraging students to revise as they go. Typically each test is only worth about 1% of their total grade, but combined that's about 10% (there's not a test *every* week, and usually students can knock off their worst grade) so most students come.
Then it's just a matter of making the lecture engaging enough that the students stick around after the test...
Slashdot Mirror
What are you - some kind of communist?!?
Silliness aside, our entire economy is geared towards encouraging (though maybe 'coercing' or 'brainwashing' would be better words) people to spend and consume more. Your suggestion, while fair and reasonable, is unlikely to happen while the marketing-droids hold the reins of our society.
In my opinion, geeks/nerds are particularly big suckers for marketing hype. Just as bad as the fashion victims...
And here I've been criticising Windows all this time.
Well... time to sell my iBook, remove Linux from my PC, and buy a copy of Vista. I'll be set for life!
Hmm. Well since there's no demonstrated correlation between brain size and intelligence (within a species), I don't see how this could be used by Eugenicists.
;-)
Furthermore, the amount of migration that has occured in the last 70000 years probably makes it moot anyway.
I vote we kill the eugenicists - they're ruining the gene-pool!
My fiance is a geophysicist. I attented a conference with her recently, and one of the presentation streams there was regarding climate change. There were several speakers from CSIRO (an Australian research institute). They all considered that anthropogenic climate change was occuring. It was painted in a manner similar to evolution vs creationism. The scientific consensus is that climate change is occuring, but the specifics of _exactly_ what/how is happening is not known.
- 1317 - interestingly this was caused by a "little ice age" ;-)
Thoughts:
- There's something comforting about being a skeptic. It's a bit like "I'm better than everybody else, because I know something that they don't." There are some aspects in the climate change debate that try to appeal to this trait in us.
-There are _clear_ vested interests that want to keep a "business as usual" economic model. Imagine you're sitting on a couple of billion barrels of oil - you definitely wouldn't want Kyoto ratified!
I heard this at a presentation: How many people have insurance to cover fire damage in their home? How many people have lost their homes to fires?
This illustrates an important principle. If there's a relatively small risk of something absolutely catastrophic occuring, then it's wise to take steps to reduce that risk. It's called the expected outcome. Let's think about climate change for a moment. If it's false, then we get business as usual - the world goes on mostly as it is. If it's true, we potentially get global famine, and hundreds of millions of refugees, as well as disease, etc.
We don't know what the probabilities of these outcomes are, but we can be sure that the probability of the second is NOT zero.
Here in the West, we're very secure. I've never been worried about where my next meal comes from. That security can definitley breed complacency. We should not assume that catastrophic change can't happen, just because we've never experienced it. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1315
Wow. That is, at the same time, both ignorant and stupid. Well done!
1. You implicitly assume that addiction is related to genetics, and therefore by letting addicts die you are improving the gene-pool. Please provide some evidence of this.
2. You confuse stupidity with ignorance
3. You ignore a plethora of social factors involved in drug use
4. You ignore the negative effects that drug users have on society
5. You ignore the negative effects that the drug barons have on society (organised crime of other kinds).
The idea that 'people should be allowed to do what they want with their own body' is wrong. It's wrong because it's based on the premise that we don't owe anything to society. No matter how independant you might think you are, you still owe a huge debt to society, and its ancestry. Just going with the flow isn't good enough, and we have a responsibility to each other to ensure that people pull their weight.
That's one reason why I think 'libertarians' are wrong - they think all this is optional.
"watch the young folks there when they discover politics"
:-)
In general, young people tend to have more extreme views than older people. That's why societies with a larger proportion of young people tend to have more radical governments (and why Western governments are becoming more conservative as their populations get older). Young people are also more impressionable. (my opinion - unsubstantiated)
I think freedom of speech is a really difficult (yet important) issue. It's certainly *not* as simple as "everyone should be able to say whatever they want."
"You have to be 100% pro gay or be classed as a hater."
I'm not sure what pro gay actually means, but from the examples you cite I gather there are many aspects of political correctness that you do not agree with. P.C. does need to be recognised as an agenda, whether or not you agree with it (personally, I think it has some good and bad aspects). It's agenda could probably be described as "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything," which is probably a bit simplistic, but if everyone practiced it would probably result in a more harmonious society.
A big problem facing our society is lack of respect and manners, and if people were a little more tolerant, and a little less quick to point the finger ("How about those "everything hispanic is just so damn cool" sites") I reckon that'd go a long way.
I suggest you chill out a bit. There are problems with what people say. Israel ain't perfect, Hispanics ain't perfect, the West (whatever that means) ain't perfect. Let's accept that, and not get too hung up on the minority of dickheads in each society - how's that sound?
Of course, we all know that the cockroaches will rule by then..
I, for one, welcome them..
Well, this will at least lay to rest the arguement about whether Linux and MacOS have fewer exploits than MS Windows, merely _because_ they have fewer users.
(an arguement I've always thought was bollocks)
We've recently read about the schism between Debian/firefox. Commenters here have described it as "how free software dies"
Compare the freedoms of Free Software with the arbitrary and arrogant restrictions emerging in non-Free software. What's next?
Microsoft EULA, circa 2011:
"You may only drink Coca Cola products while using said software - consumption of Pepsi is explicitly forbidden"
Could that be analogous to 'the boy who cried wolf'?
It's because we try to show how intelligent and sophisticated we are by using words we can't spell, and whose meaning we don't really know.
aren't we humans a bunch of wankers?
While you're right that Apple have less restrictive DRM, they're not as great as you make out.
eMusic, by comparison, sell un-DRMd mp3s. Once I've bought an mp3, I can download it (apparently limitless) times.
So while what you say is correct, it's still the case that anyone who buys from iTunes to use with their iPod now, and then buys a non-iPod music player, or loses access to iTunes (from switching to Linux, etc), later will still be screwed.
Also, it is very important to know that Apple can change the conditions of use for music (number of computers, cd burning, ipod downloading, expiry) later, and these changes will apply retro-actively to music already purchased. To me it seems crazy to buy music that has DRM hanging over it!
I can't comment on Windows - haven't used it for years.. but...
;-) I even use this machine for multi-track music recording! (not too many tracks though)
I'm running MacOS 10.4 on my (almost) 3 year old iBook, very nicely. It's a G4 800 Mhz (only 256k cache!), with 640mb RAM (yes, upping the RAM surely helps with a *NIX based OS). I typically have about 10 - 15 apps open at once, and reboot about once every 10 days. I can run OpenOffice and GIMP in X11 (although this taxes things a bit.
I run Ubuntu on my PC, and just upgraded form a P4 to a dual-core AMD64, 2GB RAM (think... MATLAB). On the P4 2400, there was a noticable lag when opening the gnome menu. This machine was *substantially* more powerful than my lowly iBook, which leads me to conclude that Apple has done a fantastic job of enabling their latest OS to run on old hardware. On my new PC, Ubuntu runs like a dream...
Having said that, I *do* think that my iBook would be faster if I was running Linux on it (though it wouldn't be a huge difference). I'd probably do that, except that Linux doesn't support my external USB soundcard.. Damn Digidesign!
While I agree with most of your post, I question this:
"...photoelectric solar panels are already close to their maximum possible energy effeciency..."
my understanding is that current PV cells are only around 30% efficient. This suggests to me that there is large room for improvement.
'No new R&D is required....'
This is so true. we don't need to wait for a magic bullet. We already have the technological solutions to our energy problems - we just lack the political and social will to implement the necessary changes.
It's called Total Cost Accounting.
If you accept that we cannot dump limitless rubbish (into landfill, the atmosphere, ocean, whatever) then the process of dumping has value, and hence should be assigned a monetary amount so that capitalism can balance things.
The idea is that we work out 'how much' can be safely dumped, and then let economics decide who's going to do the dumping. At the moment, people are getting a free ride, but this is unsustainable in the long term.
This is what Kyoto, and 'carbon trading' is all about. It's not about being 'cool' or 'trendy' (although being Green may have marketing value to companies) - it's about being realistic, and considering the consequences of our actions.
"in case a really big war breaks out.."
just an accident, like catching a cold: 'mummy, I've caught a cold...' 'mummy, we've caught a war...'
Remember kids - countries and politicians decide when to make war and when to make peace. it doesn't 'just happen'
in case... we really need to 'help democracy' in some country where there just _happens_ to be a huge economic advantage to us becoming involved...
What a silly arguement. Let's try turning it around to show just how silly it is:
OS/2 was a commercial failure and was disbanded, Netscape became bloated and unusable, and ended up being disbanded as a commercial entity. therefore commercial software is inherantly problematic.
I mean... come on! There are many examples of working OS/GNU/BSD/etc projects. To cite two, and from these conclude that 'Free Software' has 'reached the limits' is disingenious. (Note that you could list a million failed F.S. projects and it wouldn't change a thing - I can show projects that are working well, and that invalidates your arguement.)
Note to mods: think about what you read. Don't just mod something 'Insightful' because it's written with conviction!
Why will there be a price war when the same interests are behind both sites? The face looks different, but the gizzards are the same.
What?? There's no such thing as an article that is not someone's point of view. There is no neutral point of view. Go and study some history.
(offtopic)
There was a thread a while ago where you mentioned traditional violin playing making use of microtones. I love traditional fiddle music (I play guitar, and have had a few violin lessons). Can you please recommend some recordings? You made mention of traditional Scottish and Briton music..
I'm a member of emusic, and have found these recordings:
The Beaton Family of Mabou: Cape Breton Fiddle and Piano Music (http://www.emusic.com/album/10864/10864323.html)
Various Artists: Smithsonian Folkways: The Heart of Cape Breton (http://www.emusic.com/album/10864/10864412.html)
do you know these?
Any suggestions appreciated!
Thanks..
Recently, there was an article here about a website that was trying to incite people to attack researchers using animal models. The general consensus here (if I may summarise) was that they shared responsibility for vigilante attacks, although they disclaimed it. This is a summary I agree with.
I reckon this is a very difficult issue.. should people be allowed to incite violence and hatred (be it religious or homophobic, racist, etc) under the guise of 'free-speech'? Personally I think free speech is very important in a free society, but I think there comes a point when one person exercising their right to free speech impinges on the freedoms of lots of other people.
I guess I'm saying that there are rights that are more important than freedom of speech (such as life, liberty and happiness) and that they should have precedence.
What a disingenious thing to say. Perhaps you should say that you have 'no idea how to properly predict climatology'
I don't pretend to be an expert, but it seems to me that a concept known as momentum could easily account for this. Perhaps you've heard of such a thing?
To clarify, the changes to CO2 levels that occured in the ice ages might have taken thousands of years to occur, whereas our change has taken 20 years. In control theory terms, we've just applied a step function to the climate, and of course it is going to take some time to react.
First to the people who say it's unnecessary to use incentives, I say they're wrong. I think it definitely boosts attendance at lectures, and that it's a Good Thing when lots of students attend lectures. Having them online is also good, as it enables them to revise later, and will reduce dependance on hand-written notes made during lectures (which are a distraction). I think helping people (particularly young people) to make good decisions is a good thing.
Lectures are better than just watching a podcast because they're interactive - one can interrupt and ask a question (of a decent lecturer, anyway)
In the department where I work, lots of lecturers use small assessment pieces during the lecture to encourage attendance. Usually it's a small test (more suited to empirical subjects - I work in engineering) that covers the material from last week's lecture. This has the added benefit of encouraging students to revise as they go. Typically each test is only worth about 1% of their total grade, but combined that's about 10% (there's not a test *every* week, and usually students can knock off their worst grade) so most students come.
Then it's just a matter of making the lecture engaging enough that the students stick around after the test...