There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. You get only what you pay for. No more, but sometimes less.
Re:Why does nobody ask Google anything today?
on
Googling Security
·
· Score: 1
"why does nobody - no regulatory body that is - demand that Google explain exactly what data they collect and what the heck they do with it?"
Great question. I think that the answer is obvious. Those regulatory bodies must see a benefit (either now or in the future) in not asking.
There is actually a great short story about the idea of Google using its collected information for Homeland Security. The story is called "Scroogled". Good read. I'd link to it but I thought it more appropriate to have you Google the title.
Actually I guess my post should have read... "it is not possible to force an education on anyone". If they don't want to learn, they won't. Forcing them to sit in a public school and teaching at them without their participation won't break the cycle of poverty you mentioned.
From what I have read, there is a difference between creationism and intelligent design. ID posits that there are certain aspects of existent life that cannot be explained by a random evolutionary process. Now ID need not imply a God (think 2001 A space Odyssey), it implies a purpose. From the standpoint of the recipient of such a purposed design, there would not be much difference between God and an advanced civilization. We currently take an active role in the evolution of many species on Earth (the directed breeding of domesticated dogs comes to mind). Dogs, as a species, are not aware of the process. Who is the dog in this scenario? We are the dog. To get to our civilization from the Big Bang, you have to pile one improbable event on top of another for a long time. Not that I am convinced but ID is at least trying to take that into account.
Read "parents who care about education" as "Children who want to learn" and you've got it right. Do you believe that it is the states responsibility to force an education on kids who don't care and parents who care less at the expense of those who do? Public schools full of kids who don't care to learn are not about education. They are about containment.
I know this question is about which candidate is best for education. However, I think we should also consider that perhaps neither is best. The topic presumes that government's role in education is a given. Why? Name me a government institution that is both effective AND efficient. Then decide if it is government that should be in charge of educating your children. At the risk of sounding paranoid, ask yourself if education is government's ultimate goal. While you're at it, try reading John Taylor Gatto's "The Underground History of Education"
"In trials using 140 volunteers those told to act suspicious were detected with 'about 78% accuracy on mal-intent detection, and 80% on deception,' says a DHS spokesman."
What I like about this is that the people on whom this was tested were not actually suspicious people but were merely acting suspicious. It seems possible then, that someone who actually was suspicious might successfully act not so.
Are you kidding me?
OK - Sorry so long to respond. From reading your post I think we are arguing the same point, so let me state mine plainly. I am arguing that simple life (bacteria, virus etc) are probably common & widespread, and that complex life (plants and up) are either extremely rare or that Earth is it. I think any argument stating that intelligent life is abundant due to the shear number of stars in the galaxy is neglecting the age of the galaxy and the implications associated with that.
Take care.
In all the time the galaxy has existed you posit that no one would ever look to colonize the it? It has been around for a very long time. I'll stay with your premise and move to a smaller scale. Let's not talk about civilizations but people instead. In the history of the human race how many people have existed? Let's use a nice round number like 10 Billion. In that time, how many of those 10B have undertaken to conquer the planet? 1,000? 5,000? Some have even succeeded. Even if the number were only 100, I argue that an archeologist could find evidence of the efforts of those 100 people. Now apply that reasoning to civilizations.
I am a big fan of nano tech. Loved "Engines of Creation". But the more a civilization advances, the more it realizes the vulnerability of only being on one planet or one solar system. With all of our advances in nano tech, we are still thinking about how the human race could survive if the Earth were hit by an asteroid. One way to survive is to expand. Not to mention the limits of population growth on one planet / system. Given enough time (and I think the galaxy has given enough) advancement = expansion.
Also, I didn't mean that you would sign your work literally. I meant that you would leave some evidence of the fact that it had actually been done by someone. Not necessarily who. Intelligent design anyone? Attracting attention has nothing to do with it. The act of colonization itself attracts attention. But if, like you mention, there are only a few smart planets out there, they would not notice until it was too late.
Your last point actually makes my argument. "Maybe the reason why we haven't been visited is because those civilizations which do attempt galactic colonization are promptly destroyed by hostile interstellar neighbors . ..". Do you mean hostile interstellar neighbors bent on galactic domination? The more hostile they are, the more likely that they would look to expand.
I was once one of the believers. I was sure that Star Trek like civilizations were out there just waiting to shake my hand one day.
Then I heard about the Fermi Paradox and the missing link hit me. All of those people who point at the Drake equation are only seeing half of the story.
The Drake equation tells us that because of the incredible size of the galaxy, even if the probability of intelligent life is very small, there would still be millions of smart planets.
What it fails to address is that not only is the galaxy very big, it is also very old. Assuming that there are lots of intelligent planets out there, and that given our own technology level we could colonize the entire galaxy in about 50 million years if we put our minds to it, we should have seen evidence of some colonization effort from some other civilization by now.
Try reading "Rare Earth" to see the long list of things that had to happen to make intelligent life on Earth possible. The basic premise of that text is that basic life (bacteria etc) is common but complex life (plants and up) is either very rare or we are it.
There is no paradox. They are not there. We are special.
It sounds like what this is saying is that survival of the fittest if only true for humans in the macro sense and not necessarily at the individual level.
Humannity as a whole is the fittest in that humans in general are able to survive even though the surviving individuals of our species are not well suited to our environment (ie surviving diseases that we would not normally without medical advances).
What would you have thought in 1969 (had you been alive) when Armstrong landed on the moon, if someone asked you where the US space program would be in 2007?
Colonies on the Moon? Sure. Humans on Mars? Check. Remote exploration of the outer planets? Probably.
The US unable to launch a manned mission into orbit? Absolutely not.
But here we are. Armstrong will most likely be dead before we go back to the Moon.
Ayn Rand once wrote, "It's difficult to rule a society of honest men. So if there aren't enough criminals, we will simply write more laws."
Is this a law that is meant to stop you from downloading music or is it meant to be broken so that the people whom it "protects" can have some power over you?
I think that many here are confusing the act of enjoying a piece of literature, which is largely solitary experience and the act of learning which is interactive and collaborative nature.
The idea of restricted information is much more palatable to those who simply wish to read a piece for their own enjoyment and never return to it.
However, once the idea and process of restricted information is accepted, which will be established in the realm of enjoying a piece of literature mentioned above, the way will be clear to expand this established process to that of learning and textbooks.
It is the restrictions on interaction and sharing and their effect on the act of learning that this piece deals with and that we should be concerned about.
Today we read articles about people being sued for sharing a $5.00 piece of music. How soon will it be before we see the first lawsuit for sharing a digital copy of a $200 textbook?
Whether you agree with the bill or not (I don't), the Real problem with it is that it was not debated. The bill for the Real ID Act was attached to a "Money for the troops" bill. I don't know which, look it up.
Without an open discussion no sides were heard. The legislature did not make a decision about this particular issue. No one wants to be seen as not voting for giving the troops funding.
OK so there are 22M papers in the database now, with more being added every year. The likelihood that another paper will come close enough to a stored paper, and thus labeled a cheat, increases dramatically as the database grows.
This issue will be complicated by the fact that there are only so many points to make on how Holden Caulfield lost his innocence.
Even a paper typed by 10K monkeys will eventually be duplicated given enough time.
Don't even get me started on the database not owning the content it charges access for.
On the surface your suggestion to not be a part of the failing business model sounds simple. Don't like it? Stop using it. But the reality of that is quite different.
That business model just happens to control more or less all of the music ever written. To abandon it simply to make a statement is just not practical.
I'm not saying that all music belongs to "the people". I'm a capitalist. But what your suggesting sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Everyone talks about Brittney Spears as an example of the end product of the music industry but that same industry also own the Beatles, Rolling Stones etc.
When an experiment is performed does not matter...
Unless the time in which it is performed happens to be in the VERY early stages of the creation of the universe. At which point, the long established laws of nature break down.
Check me if I'm wrong but quasars are remnants of the very early state of the universe.
I am all for fair use. Time shifting and even making copies for personal use.
That is not what was going on here. I heard this guy on the radio yesterday.
He maintained that this was a service. That his customers would purchase the original movie, send it to him, he would edit it and send the edited version back.
What struck me as strange was that he mentioned that they did not do edit on request. That he had a "standard" that he followed and that every movie was edited for the same things.
Here is what I think is most likely happening.
1 - Customer buys DVD. 2- Customer sends DVD to him 3 - He checks to see if he has ever edited this movie before 4 - if no, edit and send back (saving an edited copy for his archives) 5 - if yes, copy edited copy from archives and send to customer
Therefore this is not a service but a product he is selling (the edited version of the movie).
I'm not a big Ayn Rand fan but something in Atlas Shrugged did strike me as interesting... To paraphrase (because Rand would take over 40 pages to say the following)
It's impossible to rule a society of honest men. So when there aren't enough criminals, those who would rule create laws that turn honest men into criminals.
The laws serve no purpose except to be used as leverage on otherwise honest people.
"Maybe we should take a step back and realise our beliefs aren't everyone's elses."
I think you should take a step back, about 200 years, and read the following...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Read this for what it is, a declaration that these things are not relative, they are absolute. If you subscribe to The Declaration & its principals, then the views of the Chinese government are irrelevant.
Yahoo interfered with this persons pursuit of Liberty, and that can never happen.
I like this. On the surface this sounds like Disney is aquiring Pixar. But it's really Jobs aquiring Disney.
Now Jobs controls pixar - Height of digital movie content, Disney - very large store of movie content and and general great reputation for entertainment, and Apple - the new distribution channel in i pod.
Is it feasible that we could be effectively imprisoned on our own planet by the accumulation of such debris?
If enough accumulates, the chances that a spacecraft will hit it go up dramatically.
Disasters similar to the Columbia might become commonplace. I know that was not caused by debris the came from an external source but you get my point.
A program designed to clear the LEO area would be necessary.
Something like a giant carbon fiber net designed to collect debris and bring it back to Earth or a large enough explosion to vaporize the junk.
Slashdot Mirror
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. You get only what you pay for. No more, but sometimes less.
"why does nobody - no regulatory body that is - demand that Google explain exactly what data they collect and what the heck they do with it?" Great question. I think that the answer is obvious. Those regulatory bodies must see a benefit (either now or in the future) in not asking.
There is actually a great short story about the idea of Google using its collected information for Homeland Security. The story is called "Scroogled". Good read. I'd link to it but I thought it more appropriate to have you Google the title.
Actually I guess my post should have read... "it is not possible to force an education on anyone". If they don't want to learn, they won't. Forcing them to sit in a public school and teaching at them without their participation won't break the cycle of poverty you mentioned.
From what I have read, there is a difference between creationism and intelligent design. ID posits that there are certain aspects of existent life that cannot be explained by a random evolutionary process. Now ID need not imply a God (think 2001 A space Odyssey), it implies a purpose. From the standpoint of the recipient of such a purposed design, there would not be much difference between God and an advanced civilization. We currently take an active role in the evolution of many species on Earth (the directed breeding of domesticated dogs comes to mind). Dogs, as a species, are not aware of the process. Who is the dog in this scenario? We are the dog. To get to our civilization from the Big Bang, you have to pile one improbable event on top of another for a long time. Not that I am convinced but ID is at least trying to take that into account.
Read "parents who care about education" as "Children who want to learn" and you've got it right. Do you believe that it is the states responsibility to force an education on kids who don't care and parents who care less at the expense of those who do? Public schools full of kids who don't care to learn are not about education. They are about containment.
Well said.
I know this question is about which candidate is best for education. However, I think we should also consider that perhaps neither is best. The topic presumes that government's role in education is a given. Why? Name me a government institution that is both effective AND efficient. Then decide if it is government that should be in charge of educating your children. At the risk of sounding paranoid, ask yourself if education is government's ultimate goal. While you're at it, try reading John Taylor Gatto's "The Underground History of Education"
"In trials using 140 volunteers those told to act suspicious were detected with 'about 78% accuracy on mal-intent detection, and 80% on deception,' says a DHS spokesman." What I like about this is that the people on whom this was tested were not actually suspicious people but were merely acting suspicious. It seems possible then, that someone who actually was suspicious might successfully act not so. Are you kidding me?
OK - Sorry so long to respond. From reading your post I think we are arguing the same point, so let me state mine plainly. I am arguing that simple life (bacteria, virus etc) are probably common & widespread, and that complex life (plants and up) are either extremely rare or that Earth is it. I think any argument stating that intelligent life is abundant due to the shear number of stars in the galaxy is neglecting the age of the galaxy and the implications associated with that. Take care.
In all the time the galaxy has existed you posit that no one would ever look to colonize the it? It has been around for a very long time. I'll stay with your premise and move to a smaller scale. Let's not talk about civilizations but people instead. In the history of the human race how many people have existed? Let's use a nice round number like 10 Billion. In that time, how many of those 10B have undertaken to conquer the planet? 1,000? 5,000? Some have even succeeded. Even if the number were only 100, I argue that an archeologist could find evidence of the efforts of those 100 people. Now apply that reasoning to civilizations. I am a big fan of nano tech. Loved "Engines of Creation". But the more a civilization advances, the more it realizes the vulnerability of only being on one planet or one solar system. With all of our advances in nano tech, we are still thinking about how the human race could survive if the Earth were hit by an asteroid. One way to survive is to expand. Not to mention the limits of population growth on one planet / system. Given enough time (and I think the galaxy has given enough) advancement = expansion. Also, I didn't mean that you would sign your work literally. I meant that you would leave some evidence of the fact that it had actually been done by someone. Not necessarily who. Intelligent design anyone? Attracting attention has nothing to do with it. The act of colonization itself attracts attention. But if, like you mention, there are only a few smart planets out there, they would not notice until it was too late. Your last point actually makes my argument. "Maybe the reason why we haven't been visited is because those civilizations which do attempt galactic colonization are promptly destroyed by hostile interstellar neighbors . . .". Do you mean hostile interstellar neighbors bent on galactic domination? The more hostile they are, the more likely that they would look to expand.
I was once one of the believers. I was sure that Star Trek like civilizations were out there just waiting to shake my hand one day. Then I heard about the Fermi Paradox and the missing link hit me. All of those people who point at the Drake equation are only seeing half of the story. The Drake equation tells us that because of the incredible size of the galaxy, even if the probability of intelligent life is very small, there would still be millions of smart planets. What it fails to address is that not only is the galaxy very big, it is also very old. Assuming that there are lots of intelligent planets out there, and that given our own technology level we could colonize the entire galaxy in about 50 million years if we put our minds to it, we should have seen evidence of some colonization effort from some other civilization by now. Try reading "Rare Earth" to see the long list of things that had to happen to make intelligent life on Earth possible. The basic premise of that text is that basic life (bacteria etc) is common but complex life (plants and up) is either very rare or we are it. There is no paradox. They are not there. We are special.
It sounds like what this is saying is that survival of the fittest if only true for humans in the macro sense and not necessarily at the individual level.
Humannity as a whole is the fittest in that humans in general are able to survive even though the surviving individuals of our species are not well suited to our environment (ie surviving diseases that we would not normally without medical advances).
What would you have thought in 1969 (had you been alive) when Armstrong landed on the moon, if someone asked you where the US space program would be in 2007?
Colonies on the Moon? Sure.
Humans on Mars? Check.
Remote exploration of the outer planets? Probably.
The US unable to launch a manned mission into orbit? Absolutely not.
But here we are. Armstrong will most likely be dead before we go back to the Moon.
What a terrible shame.
Ayn Rand once wrote, "It's difficult to rule a society of honest men. So if there aren't enough criminals, we will simply write more laws."
Is this a law that is meant to stop you from downloading music or is it meant to be broken so that the people whom it "protects" can have some power over you?
I think that many here are confusing the act of enjoying a piece of literature, which is largely solitary experience and the act of learning which is interactive and collaborative nature.
The idea of restricted information is much more palatable to those who simply wish to read a piece for their own enjoyment and never return to it.
However, once the idea and process of restricted information is accepted, which will be established in the realm of enjoying a piece of literature mentioned above, the way will be clear to expand this established process to that of learning and textbooks.
It is the restrictions on interaction and sharing and their effect on the act of learning that this piece deals with and that we should be concerned about.
Today we read articles about people being sued for sharing a $5.00 piece of music. How soon will it be before we see the first lawsuit for sharing a digital copy of a $200 textbook?
Whether you agree with the bill or not (I don't), the Real problem with it is that it was not debated. The bill for the Real ID Act was attached to a "Money for the troops" bill. I don't know which, look it up.
Without an open discussion no sides were heard. The legislature did not make a decision about this particular issue. No one wants to be seen as not voting for giving the troops funding.
It should not be because there was no debate.
OK so there are 22M papers in the database now, with more being added every year. The likelihood that another paper will come close enough to a stored paper, and thus labeled a cheat, increases dramatically as the database grows.
This issue will be complicated by the fact that there are only so many points to make on how Holden Caulfield lost his innocence.
Even a paper typed by 10K monkeys will eventually be duplicated given enough time.
Don't even get me started on the database not owning the content it charges access for.
On the surface your suggestion to not be a part of the failing business model sounds simple. Don't like it? Stop using it. But the reality of that is quite different.
That business model just happens to control more or less all of the music ever written. To abandon it simply to make a statement is just not practical.
I'm not saying that all music belongs to "the people". I'm a capitalist. But what your suggesting sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Everyone talks about Brittney Spears as an example of the end product of the music industry but that same industry also own the Beatles, Rolling Stones etc.
I call BS.
When an experiment is performed does not matter...
Unless the time in which it is performed happens to be in the VERY early stages of the creation of the universe. At which point, the long established laws of nature break down.
Check me if I'm wrong but quasars are remnants of the very early state of the universe.
I am all for fair use. Time shifting and even making copies for personal use.
That is not what was going on here. I heard this guy on the radio yesterday.
He maintained that this was a service. That his customers would purchase the original movie, send it to him, he would edit it and send the edited version back.
What struck me as strange was that he mentioned that they did not do edit on request. That he had a "standard" that he followed and that every movie was edited for the same things.
Here is what I think is most likely happening.
1 - Customer buys DVD.
2- Customer sends DVD to him
3 - He checks to see if he has ever edited this movie before
4 - if no, edit and send back (saving an edited copy for his archives)
5 - if yes, copy edited copy from archives and send to customer
Therefore this is not a service but a product he is selling (the edited version of the movie).
A product he does not own.
QED
I'm not a big Ayn Rand fan but something in Atlas Shrugged did strike me as interesting... To paraphrase (because Rand would take over 40 pages to say the following)
It's impossible to rule a society of honest men. So when there aren't enough criminals, those who would rule create laws that turn honest men into criminals.
The laws serve no purpose except to be used as leverage on otherwise honest people.
"Maybe we should take a step back and realise our beliefs aren't everyone's elses."
I think you should take a step back, about 200 years, and read the following...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Read this for what it is, a declaration that these things are not relative, they are absolute. If you subscribe to The Declaration & its principals, then the views of the Chinese government are irrelevant.
Yahoo interfered with this persons pursuit of Liberty, and that can never happen.
I like this. On the surface this sounds like Disney is aquiring Pixar. But it's really Jobs aquiring Disney.
Now Jobs controls pixar - Height of digital movie content, Disney - very large store of movie content and and general great reputation for entertainment, and Apple - the new distribution channel in i pod.
Jobs will own the living room in a short time.
Is it feasible that we could be effectively imprisoned on our own planet by the accumulation of such debris?
If enough accumulates, the chances that a spacecraft will hit it go up dramatically.
Disasters similar to the Columbia might become commonplace. I know that was not caused by debris the came from an external source but you get my point.
A program designed to clear the LEO area would be necessary.
Something like a giant carbon fiber net designed to collect debris and bring it back to Earth or a large enough explosion to vaporize the junk.