Re:And do we really want to?
on
The Prodigy Puzzle
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I don't care how smart your kid is they're GOING to learn something in their "boring" classes. Otherwise just get the exams and see how well they do.
You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. True, everybody is going to learn something in the mainstream classes, but what?
I'm sure I speak for many "above average intelligence" people when I say the only thing I learned in school was that hard work is pointless, my peers are dullards, and I am a freak of nature.
If you have a clue about socialization processes, you'd realize that smart kids will be more "normal" if you let them interact with as many of their intellectual equals as possible. After all, it's these people with whom social interraction is the most stimulating.
The "great thing" about the US is a smarmy blanket of nationalism wrapped in layers of ahistorical mythology. Ask any American which president did the most to make the USA what it is today and odds are (s)he will say Washington or Lincoln. Everybody conventiently forgets that the legacy of Polk has done more to shape the coutry today than either of those two - geographically, ideologically, politically, and economically.
The USA does not have substantially more freedom than many other countries in the world. It is definitely one of the most "free" countries, but it is no longer very different. Back when the USA was new, it was a lot more free than its contemporaries. However, the rest of the world has caught up in many (not all) ways since then. And the USA has gone a few steps backwards in many ways. (Granted, it has gone forward in other areas.)
Don't get me wrong. I think that the USA is a fabulous coutry, with a lot going for it, but the flag-wavers who sing songs like "Only in America" are simply displaying their own ignorance of the state of the world.
Capitalism is a side effect of freedom.
No, it isn't. Capitalism is one form of fredom - that of fiscal self-determination. That freedom is an important and valuable one, but it is often at odds with other (more important) freedoms - like the right to clean drinking water (a la Erin Brokovitch). These need to be balanced. This is where the true value of an effective, independent, non-corrupt judiciary can be seen.
When addressing the large question of how a society will allocate its good, the most important thing is not the particular pricing regime that gets implemented, but rather how accurately expectations can be forecasted. This is the one thing that has driven economic growth more than anything else - at least according to Alan Greenspan in a recent interview on C-SPAN. And it makes sense.
It's not difficult to see that corruption is a big implediment to accurate forecasting of prices. (In many parts of the world it's the biggest impediment - by far.)
Every country with freedom has capitalism.
That's not the point.
Even those Scandanavian nations who proudly proclaim their socialism-ness have scads of capitalism.
Once again, I'm not goin to flatter your lame generalizations with the deconstruction they are begging for. If you want to discuss details, then please do so.
Corrupt capitalism is just as oppressive as corrupt socialism. To modify your "oh so poignant" point slightly:
Armchair capitalism is very nice until it is YOU who finds himself working 3 hours to earn enough to buy a loaf of bread.
It's not capitalism that makes the USA a good place to work. It's the fact that there are effective, independent courts that do a fairly good job of maintaining the rule of law. In more socialist countries where there is a similarly effective judiciary, you will find that the three hour lines you refer to don't exist. In fact, you'll find that society does a pretty decent job of allocating goods. Note, I'm talking about socialism here - not central planning. There is a BIG difference. Distinctions like that tend to be glossed over or completely lied about in the brainwashing that a some (a lot of?) American schoolchildren get.
First and most important: Who mandates it? Nobody has authority over the interwebbernet.
Actually, lots of people have authority over the internet. Let's see: the FCC, each and every state government, and oh yeah - the federal government. Each of these bodies has some authority over some aspect(s) of the internet - within their jurisdiction, of course. The fact that these bodies choose (I think wisely) not to exercise much of this authority does not mean that it couldn't happen.
You could have asked the same question about roads. They lead all over the world. (Except for that peskyBering Strait.) Surely nobody has the authority to keep children from driving cars on them...
On second glance, there's a good number of people talking sense about the role of the legislature and the judiciary. I just had to dig deeper into the posts to find them.
What the senator is quoted as trying to do is interpret the constitution (and his bill). Granted, the senator is actually only speculating about how his bill would be read. The article makes a bigger deal of it than is appropriate.
The point is that, in the end, interpreting the law is the job of the courts - not congress. And this particular issue - who is and who is not "the press" will remain the domain of the courts until an unambiguous definition is legislated.
It's clear from reading the text of the bill (here), that the senator has tried to make it clear what he means, but the terms employed are problematic: "periodical", "magazine", etc. Whether a particular blog qualifies as "the press" or not is pretty clearly going to be handled case by case, as the issues are murky enough to require litigation. Once again for the libertarians out there: NO, WE ARE NOT ALL "THE PRESS"... at least according to current case law - which is what is relevant here.
The point of all this is: The senator's opinion is irrelevant.
My apologies to anyone who has already pointed this out - it just seems like most people who've commented so far just don't get it... or maybe they know that the senator's opinion doesn't matter, but just want to vent about the issue anyways. But I digress.
When you look at the sun, what do you think you're looking at? That's right, the surface of the sun. The brightness of the sun per angle doesn't change whether you're viewing from earth, or standing right next to it, apart from filtering effects of the atmosphere, which reduces the visible-light brightness by perhaps a factor of two at noon. (Someone know the actual numbers?) Other stars are just as bright as the sun per angle, despite being light-years away; the only reason they don't burn tiny holes in our retinae at night is that the angle is so tiny, and our eyes don't have sufficient focusing power to resolve them completely. (They are very, very subpixel, so to speak.) I wonder if any large telescopes have ever been damaged by starlight?
We're using different definitions of brightness. (But both are equally correct in their respective contexts.)
It seems like you're talking about the astronomer's meaning - which refers to the amount of energy radiated by a star. Well, it's used in any context when one is interested in a measure of the radiation put out by the object, like lights, transmitters, etc. This is typically a measure of radiant power per steradian (or other angular measure).
I was refering to the amount of light observed by an observing instrument (i.e. an eyeball). This is typically what is meant by brightness when refering to how bright something "looks". This is the relevant measure if you are concerned about damage inflicted by the radiation in question - like when you need to know how dark you have to tint a lens to look at a solar eclipse. This is typically a measure of radiant power per unit area.
Both of these quantities are commonly refered to as brightness. I should have been more clear about which one I meant at first.
This research has nothing to do with the stem cell ban in the USA. Only fetal stem cells are restricted. This research used umbilical cord stem cells. The use of cord blood stem cells is completely unrestricted.
Actually, I don't secretly think this at all. I personally think the US is too soft on prisoners. I say bring back chain gangs. Make those suckers pay for their own incarceration. I am proud to say I support "Stop, or I'll shoot."
Well, it seems we agree abou ta lot more than I thought.
I'm all for harsher sentences for many crimes. I just think that it's a tragedy that people in favor of harsher penalties are willing to turn a blind eye to prison malfeasance, as they are willing to let it act as a surrogate for those harsher sentences.
I was overstating the point for effect. I do believe that when a prison rape case sees a courtroom, that the judge takes it seriously. But my comparison is not flawed in the least.
Everyone knows that prison rapes happen. A lot. If any other government institution had similar numbers, there would be a public outcry about the violation of human rights. The sad fact is that (IMHO) most people secretly don't think that prisoners deserve the full range of rights that are afforded to them. That's why society turns a blind eye to the elephant in the room.
And, to be clear, I didn't really mean that you hallow all judges simply because they are judges. I meant that it seemed like you hold the institution of judge in high regard.
Is it just me, or does the fact that an alternative use for this process is the enrichment of uranium seem like a bad idea for the third world (read terrorist training ground)?
It's just you.
That's like saying that the fact that concrete is used in nuclear reactors makes it a bad idea to let third world use concrete.
Please tell me you're not American.
Please tell me McCarthy wasn't an American.
Please tell me that the clause in the DMCA that allows circumvention research, as long as "... the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is employed, or is appropriately trained or experienced, in the field of encryption technology" isn't in an American piece of legislation.
The fact that the founding documents of the USA make strong statements about liberty seemingly has no bearing on whether or not authorities will erode said liberties. (Not that the founding fathers thought it would.) And there's always PATR...
So, while I agree big pharma would love to pursue the policy you suggest (develop chronic treatments rather than cures), I don't think they can do so. There are just too many smart people snapping at their heels, hungry to get a slice of the market.
You hold this opinion while simultaneously being aware (I presume) of the painfully obvious fact that all the pharmaceutical companies do exactly what you say they can't?
Wait a few generations when the % of women with a lifetime intellectual focus/interest is equal to men, then run the study!
The thing is, women are hard-wired to care more about social stimulation than men. Unless brain chemistry/development processes change, the percentages aren't ever going to be equal.. After all, the fields labeled as "intellectual" have their labels as legacies from more male-dominated times.
It's too bad the humanities aren't respected like they used to be. If modern physics hadn't stolen the limelight so dramatically in the 20th century, I think we'd have a more balanced view of what a true "intellectual" is.* It's well-known that there's a very rich history of women making great achievements in humanities and arts, considering that many of them were working in times that were very discriminatory. It's too bad that the only vestige of the liberal arts tradition of higher education is a list of silly cluster courses. The point is lost on most university students these days. The importance of learning within the context of academic history isn't communicated effectively anymore.
Mathematics and mathematically oriented fields will never have equal representation without artificial manipulation of the numbers (i.e. subsidies). All I'm concerned about is that opportunities not be closed. I'm all for women taking up physics, etc. but I don't ever see the numbers being equal. And I'm okay with that.
* I'm a male doing a PhD in mathematics, so I'm not saying this because from any resentment I may have.
Problem is it's a judgement call as to what exactly constitutes a simpler answer. The OP's theory boils down to: 'People are spending less because they have less.' That's no less simple than your theory.
People have been complaining about the quality of Hollywood's products for decades now. To think that things are much worse than before is IMHO, a pastoral myth.
Going back to your incorrect application of Occam's razor, the razor is inappropriate in this case. Movie attendance is obviously something that depends on a variety of factors. Assuming that it is simpler to attribute it to any one thing just because you've chosen to ignore most of the variables is completely ignorant. Each variable you choose to ignore constitutes an implicit assumption (unless you know that it can be ignored from some other knowledge you have). Therefore, the simplest explanation is actually to say something nebulous like, 'Movie attendance has declined due to a combination of factors working together.'
A little knowledge of philosophy is a dangerous thing indeed.
Uh huh, and you bought what your bosses were selling?
In any financial sector where real time commodity (or derivative) pricing is needed, then being an hour behind the market could easily cost millions - or more. The $100,000 he quoted is peanuts.
Slashdot Mirror
You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. True, everybody is going to learn something in the mainstream classes, but what?
I'm sure I speak for many "above average intelligence" people when I say the only thing I learned in school was that hard work is pointless, my peers are dullards, and I am a freak of nature.
If you have a clue about socialization processes, you'd realize that smart kids will be more "normal" if you let them interact with as many of their intellectual equals as possible. After all, it's these people with whom social interraction is the most stimulating.
a child gets... left behind?... :)
But in the post-Wikipedia world, authority is irrelevant to knowledge.
That's no good at all then. After all, it's well documented that harnessing a single lightning bolt can yield 1.21 GW.
That's jig-a-watts of course. ;)
Ugh.
The "great thing" about the US is a smarmy blanket of nationalism wrapped in layers of ahistorical mythology. Ask any American which president did the most to make the USA what it is today and odds are (s)he will say Washington or Lincoln. Everybody conventiently forgets that the legacy of Polk has done more to shape the coutry today than either of those two - geographically, ideologically, politically, and economically.
The USA does not have substantially more freedom than many other countries in the world. It is definitely one of the most "free" countries, but it is no longer very different. Back when the USA was new, it was a lot more free than its contemporaries. However, the rest of the world has caught up in many (not all) ways since then. And the USA has gone a few steps backwards in many ways. (Granted, it has gone forward in other areas.)
Don't get me wrong. I think that the USA is a fabulous coutry, with a lot going for it, but the flag-wavers who sing songs like "Only in America" are simply displaying their own ignorance of the state of the world.
Capitalism is a side effect of freedom.
No, it isn't. Capitalism is one form of fredom - that of fiscal self-determination. That freedom is an important and valuable one, but it is often at odds with other (more important) freedoms - like the right to clean drinking water (a la Erin Brokovitch). These need to be balanced. This is where the true value of an effective, independent, non-corrupt judiciary can be seen.When addressing the large question of how a society will allocate its good, the most important thing is not the particular pricing regime that gets implemented, but rather how accurately expectations can be forecasted. This is the one thing that has driven economic growth more than anything else - at least according to Alan Greenspan in a recent interview on C-SPAN. And it makes sense.
It's not difficult to see that corruption is a big implediment to accurate forecasting of prices. (In many parts of the world it's the biggest impediment - by far.)
Every country with freedom has capitalism.
That's not the point.
Even those Scandanavian nations who proudly proclaim their socialism-ness have scads of capitalism.
Once again, I'm not goin to flatter your lame generalizations with the deconstruction they are begging for. If you want to discuss details, then please do so.
Corrupt capitalism is just as oppressive as corrupt socialism. To modify your "oh so poignant" point slightly:
Armchair capitalism is very nice until it is YOU who finds himself working 3 hours to earn enough to buy a loaf of bread.
It's not capitalism that makes the USA a good place to work. It's the fact that there are effective, independent courts that do a fairly good job of maintaining the rule of law. In more socialist countries where there is a similarly effective judiciary, you will find that the three hour lines you refer to don't exist. In fact, you'll find that society does a pretty decent job of allocating goods. Note, I'm talking about socialism here - not central planning. There is a BIG difference. Distinctions like that tend to be glossed over or completely lied about in the brainwashing that a some (a lot of?) American schoolchildren get.
Google Hires GAIN's Main Developer
Actually, lots of people have authority over the internet. Let's see: the FCC, each and every state government, and oh yeah - the federal government. Each of these bodies has some authority over some aspect(s) of the internet - within their jurisdiction, of course. The fact that these bodies choose (I think wisely) not to exercise much of this authority does not mean that it couldn't happen.
You could have asked the same question about roads. They lead all over the world. (Except for that peskyBering Strait.) Surely nobody has the authority to keep children from driving cars on them...
On second glance, there's a good number of people talking sense about the role of the legislature and the judiciary. I just had to dig deeper into the posts to find them.
The point is that, in the end, interpreting the law is the job of the courts - not congress. And this particular issue - who is and who is not "the press" will remain the domain of the courts until an unambiguous definition is legislated.
It's clear from reading the text of the bill (here), that the senator has tried to make it clear what he means, but the terms employed are problematic: "periodical", "magazine", etc. Whether a particular blog qualifies as "the press" or not is pretty clearly going to be handled case by case, as the issues are murky enough to require litigation. Once again for the libertarians out there: NO, WE ARE NOT ALL "THE PRESS"... at least according to current case law - which is what is relevant here.
The point of all this is: The senator's opinion is irrelevant.
My apologies to anyone who has already pointed this out - it just seems like most people who've commented so far just don't get it... or maybe they know that the senator's opinion doesn't matter, but just want to vent about the issue anyways. But I digress.
You meant to say "regardless". Irregardless would mean regarding.
That's funny!
That should be obvious from the fact that all this happened under the jurisdiction of the state of Delaware - it's not even a federal issue.
We're using different definitions of brightness. (But both are equally correct in their respective contexts.)
It seems like you're talking about the astronomer's meaning - which refers to the amount of energy radiated by a star. Well, it's used in any context when one is interested in a measure of the radiation put out by the object, like lights, transmitters, etc. This is typically a measure of radiant power per steradian (or other angular measure).
I was refering to the amount of light observed by an observing instrument (i.e. an eyeball). This is typically what is meant by brightness when refering to how bright something "looks". This is the relevant measure if you are concerned about damage inflicted by the radiation in question - like when you need to know how dark you have to tint a lens to look at a solar eclipse. This is typically a measure of radiant power per unit area.
Both of these quantities are commonly refered to as brightness. I should have been more clear about which one I meant at first.
Sorry for getting pedantic.
If it was as bright as the sun you would probably need a fusion reactor to power it!
Actually, a typical welding arc is brighter than the sun, and doesn't take nearly that much power. Now, to be as bright as the surface of the sun...
This research has nothing to do with the stem cell ban in the USA. Only fetal stem cells are restricted. This research used umbilical cord stem cells. The use of cord blood stem cells is completely unrestricted.
Well, it seems we agree abou ta lot more than I thought.
I'm all for harsher sentences for many crimes. I just think that it's a tragedy that people in favor of harsher penalties are willing to turn a blind eye to prison malfeasance, as they are willing to let it act as a surrogate for those harsher sentences.
Everyone knows that prison rapes happen. A lot. If any other government institution had similar numbers, there would be a public outcry about the violation of human rights. The sad fact is that (IMHO) most people secretly don't think that prisoners deserve the full range of rights that are afforded to them. That's why society turns a blind eye to the elephant in the room.
And, to be clear, I didn't really mean that you hallow all judges simply because they are judges. I meant that it seemed like you hold the institution of judge in high regard.
And what is so wrong with a sentence of caning?
But are those rapes systematically ignored by the prison system and your hallowed judges? YES.
It's just you.
That's like saying that the fact that concrete is used in nuclear reactors makes it a bad idea to let third world use concrete.
Please tell me that the clause in the DMCA that allows circumvention research, as long as "... the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is employed, or is appropriately trained or experienced, in the field of encryption technology" isn't in an American piece of legislation.
The fact that the founding documents of the USA make strong statements about liberty seemingly has no bearing on whether or not authorities will erode said liberties. (Not that the founding fathers thought it would.) And there's always PATR...
And no, I'm not an avid Bush-basher.
You hold this opinion while simultaneously being aware (I presume) of the painfully obvious fact that all the pharmaceutical companies do exactly what you say they can't?
The thing is, women are hard-wired to care more about social stimulation than men. Unless brain chemistry/development processes change, the percentages aren't ever going to be equal.. After all, the fields labeled as "intellectual" have their labels as legacies from more male-dominated times.
It's too bad the humanities aren't respected like they used to be. If modern physics hadn't stolen the limelight so dramatically in the 20th century, I think we'd have a more balanced view of what a true "intellectual" is.* It's well-known that there's a very rich history of women making great achievements in humanities and arts, considering that many of them were working in times that were very discriminatory. It's too bad that the only vestige of the liberal arts tradition of higher education is a list of silly cluster courses. The point is lost on most university students these days. The importance of learning within the context of academic history isn't communicated effectively anymore.
Mathematics and mathematically oriented fields will never have equal representation without artificial manipulation of the numbers (i.e. subsidies). All I'm concerned about is that opportunities not be closed. I'm all for women taking up physics, etc. but I don't ever see the numbers being equal. And I'm okay with that.
* I'm a male doing a PhD in mathematics, so I'm not saying this because from any resentment I may have.
Problem is it's a judgement call as to what exactly constitutes a simpler answer. The OP's theory boils down to: 'People are spending less because they have less.' That's no less simple than your theory.
People have been complaining about the quality of Hollywood's products for decades now. To think that things are much worse than before is IMHO, a pastoral myth.
Going back to your incorrect application of Occam's razor, the razor is inappropriate in this case. Movie attendance is obviously something that depends on a variety of factors. Assuming that it is simpler to attribute it to any one thing just because you've chosen to ignore most of the variables is completely ignorant. Each variable you choose to ignore constitutes an implicit assumption (unless you know that it can be ignored from some other knowledge you have). Therefore, the simplest explanation is actually to say something nebulous like, 'Movie attendance has declined due to a combination of factors working together.'
A little knowledge of philosophy is a dangerous thing indeed.
In any financial sector where real time commodity (or derivative) pricing is needed, then being an hour behind the market could easily cost millions - or more. The $100,000 he quoted is peanuts.