A newspaper is not a self-renewing subscription. I'm sending a check for X dollars for X issues, after which they send me a bill and I pay for another X issues.
When people buy a piece of software, they expect they bought a piece of software. If it has an auto-renewing maintenance subscription, this should be very clear, not buried deep in a EULA as the summary states.
Maybe not, but perception sure does.
on
Wired for War
·
· Score: 1
If America could go forth and kill people at little cost in lives or money using robots, do you think Americans would care as much?
California should tell Microsoft they have to pay for the textbooks and the netbooks that they will be used on.
If Microsoft agrees, then the netbooks will run Windows. If they won't do it, then the netbooks will run Linux.
At stake are generations of school children who will grow up with a familiarity and probably preference for the operating system their textbooks were presented on.
I think Microsoft would pay big money for access to that target market.
>Read "Teach Like Your Hair's on Fire" (Rafe Esquith, actual teacher in LA) and then >tell me teachers can't make a difference with tactics other than paying for grades.
Instead, I shared two 7-hour plane rides with a high school teacher.
>Motivating students is great, but as soon as you remove the extrinsic motivation you end up with a lot >of kids who have no intrinsic motivation to do anything they're not paid for.
Wow, just like real life!
>No volunteering, no helping out around the community, no smiling at people on the street.
Wow, just like real life!
>They work because they're paid, not because they have any desire to contribute to society in a >positive manner or because they take any pleasure or pride in their work.
Wow, just like real life!
I do things I don't want to do because I get paid or receive some other kind of compensation. That's the way the world works in real life. Everything else I do because it's pleasurable. If it ain't fun, I ain't doing it unless there's something in it for me. Life's too short to volunteer for misery.
>Maybe if we brought better teachers on board FIRST, we wouldn't have to resort to such drastic >measures to positively motivate kids to do what kids ought to be doing naturally - >exploring the world around them.
As the father of two kids, I can tell you from experience that that is not what kids do naturally. What kids do naturally is be self-centered, hedonistic, selfish little beings. True, they will explore the world around them - while satisfying their self-centered, hedonistic, selfish instincts.
If you could craft an educational system that catered to their self-centered, hedonistic, selfish instincts, you'd probably have an excellent vehicle for conveying knowledge. But the fact is, learning is, for most of us, hard work and thus not terribly fun. Thus kids need other things besides pleasure to motivate them to learn. For me, it was fear of my parents' reprisals for failure to succeed academically that motivated me.
Again, as my teacher friend explained to me, you can get all the better teachers you want on board. Unless you have kids that are motivated BY SOMETHING to learn, it won't matter. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink unless he's motivated.
>Ah, but improving the pay of a single teacher can not only improve the teacher's motivation to work, it can affect >an entire class of pupils and all subsequent classes whereas paying each pupil individually only improves that single >student and as soon as you quit paying they quit playing. Compare giving a teacher a $500 bonus every month they meet >teaching standards (which granted is as stupid as paying for test scores, but we'll keep it all on the same level) >with paying a class of 30 kids for meeting a standardized test score, then multiply by the number of standardized >tests generally given in one year. The teacher's pay raise will save you money in the long run and might provide >incentives for better teachers to stick around.
Perhaps I'm a skeptic, but I believe if I spent an extra $30,000 a year on 30 students worth of grade-incentive money, or spent an extra $30,000 on one teacher's salary for the same year, you'd get far better results out of the former tactic.
You just can't beat motivation for learning. You can have the most qualified, compassionate, skilled teacher in the world - Albert Einstein crossed with Mother Theresa, but if the students aren't motivated to learn it won't matter. This is why I do not advocate holding teachers accountable for student performance. Student performance is mostly dictated by their motivation to learn. Some very few students are naturally motivated to learn, but most have to be motivated by an external force, such as punishment by their parents if they do not perform up to expectations. Since teachers are extremely limited in their abilities to motivate children to learn, there is little they can do to affect student academic performance. Teachers are the water. Children are brought to them to drink, but the teachers cannot make them drink if they do not want to.
Paying students is one way the state can positively motivate students to learn.
>And what test metric measures a students creativity, critical thinking, and capacity for independent thought?
You'll have to come up with that yourself. I imagine something like and IQ test might do. The point I am trying to make is that if you are unhappy with what is currently being taught and the metric used to determine success or failure of teaching it, then you will need to come up with alternatives.
All of this is beside paying students for achieving whatever metric you deem suitable. If you aren't able to create a metric to measure the success of your curriculum, well, you have your work cut out for you, then.
>The medium is the message. Tests aren't designed to teach that kind of knowledge. You can change the questions on the tests, but >the fact that they are tests means they will always be test questions. In other words, questions with a clear simple answer. >How do we test students on subjects without simple answers? Essays are probably more effective in that area, as would be the >type of experiential testing that I'm advocating.
That's fine by me. Come up with a superior method of teaching and metrics to measure your success or failure of the processes you employ and I'm all for it.
I'm still all for paying students as an incentive for scoring highly on your metric.
>While I don't agree with this program, I do agree that kids need to see the immediate benefits >of education. Kids in poor cities do worse in school, and it's no surprise why: Everyone they >see around them is poor. When all you see is poverty, you give up hope of rising above it. >And once you've given up on your dreams, education seems like a waste of time. Why bother >succeeding in school if you're destined to work in a crappy job for low pay.
I agree with you here.
>I think the answer lies in changing the way we teach. You don't need to think in order to get >good grades in today's schools. You only need to memorize, study, and bullshit your way through >school. Paying kids for grades will only encourage them to get better at taking tests and spewing >out facts and definitions. It doesn't mean they actually understand the material, or care about it.
Then alter the standardized tests to check the metric you are actually interested in. This is a separate issue from paying students who achieve the metric.
>We need to show kids the benefit of education... but we also need to teach the intrinsic value of >education and the joy of thinking. I think the best way for students to learn both lessons is to >get experience doing real work where they get to think for themselves, make decisions, and become >a valued member of a team. Experience learning. They can see the benefits of having a rewarding >job where you feel valued, while learning to think on their feet and become leaders. When I went >to college, I had a class in public relations where teams of students were paired up with local >non-profits, and had to create a pr campaign for them. It was the hardest thing I ever did in >school, but I learned more in that class than I ever did in all 4 years of high school.
I don't know that you can teach the value of they joy of anything. As they say, there's no accounting for taste, and what one person finds joyful someone else may not.
Nonetheless, if you desire to reward students for their ability to think, make decisions, and be a team member, then you need to alter the test metrics. Again, this is a separate issue from paying those who achieve the metric.
>What I'm saying is, paying kids is nice, but if you really want them to learn, get them involved in >what their learning. Instead of drilling kids on the menus in microsoft word, how about we let them >explore computers on their own in a supervised environment. Lets have more science experiments and less >science quizzes. It will unlock the benefits of education right away, while teaching them how to >learn on their own. They will learn lessons they'll never forget.
The trick is developing a metric that can measure the success or failure of teaching those things.
Personally, I'm not to terribly put out with the metric I was put to when I was in school, the SAT. You can either do the math or you can't, and you either comprehend English or you don't.
If you want to come up with a similar metric that captures the student's ability and/or desire to think, I'm fine with that.
In short, I'm less concerned with the metric as I am with coming up with ways to motivate kids to achieve the metric. Once you've mastered the latter, the former can be whatever you want it to be.
Many kids see no immediate positive benefit to education. I know I didn't as a kid. Oh, sure, I knew that "In order to get a good job, you need to go to college!" but I didn't really feel that my efforts got me any semi-immediate gratification. I mean, you're telling a teenager or younger to put out efforts for something that is years, or even decades, away for them.
Put an immediate, serious benefit within their grasp of months and you will see a lot of kids go for it.
The only thing that made me perform in school was fear of my parents' retribution for failure. Lots of kids don't get that encouragement so I think this is a wise use of school money.
I bet it pays better dividends, dollar for dollar, than pay raises for teachers. Paying teachers more might make them better teachers, which might impact their students. Paying students for good grades will DEFINITELY improve motivation.
I frequent an online BBS, the Armour Archive (www.armourarchive.org). It is a hobbiest board for people who make medieval armour.
At one time, the.org (or.com, I can't remembernow) domain got snapped up by a squatter when it expired. It was not a big deal, as the BBS owner switched domains to the.com domain and the BBS went on.
As a way to give back to the community, however, I approached the squatter and offered to buy the.org domain back. He was hesitant at first, thinking that it had something to do with "amor" (love). When I explained that the domain he had squatted on was used by a bunch of hobbyists and they would never pay a lot of money to get it back, and I offered him like $200 for it, he agreed, and I got the domain and gave it to the BBS owner.
I think the trick here is to simply be up-front with what you are willing to pay. If you're only willing to pay $500 for it, say so. Either he'll sell or he won't.
I don't have a problem with domain squatters. Anyone who utilizes their intellect to have the foresight to figure out what text strings might make profitable domain names has a skill and they are making money off of that skill. People who get mad at domain squatters are really just mad that they didn't have that skill themselves.
>And I guarantee that regardless of how easy or how cheap it is to download; people want >to see bands they like LIVE. And people don't mind paying for the privilege. However this >is money that goes almost directly to the band (in many cases) and the Distributors don't >get to leech of a significant cut like they do with record sales.
See, I just don't buy this. In my life of 38 years I have paid money to go to a grand total of 2 concerts. Most of the music I listen to is recorded, and I've listened to countless hours of recorded music, most of it for free.
>Do you really want a bunch of inexperienced divers with no bouyancy control >slamming into natural reefs & kicking up silt?
Who suggested that?
>Aside from being something different to see, wrecks make good training sites for all >sorts of skills.
My point was, and continues to be, that it is funny that you take a nasty, dilapidated stripped chunk of industrial machinery that no one would want to walk aboard if it were tied to a pier, sink it in 100 feet of water and suddenly it's a cool place to visit.
>As an added bonus they have a commercial/tourist value that helps >make providing and improving marine habitat more affordable.
No doubt. Again, it's just funny that a nasty, dilapidated, stripped chunk of industrial machinery makes a valuable commercial/tourist attraction.
>So when you hear people chanting Death to America, its meaning is more along the lines of "Fuck those assholes" than "We want to kill all Americans".
Then they might want to re-think what they are saying and to whom they are saying it.
When some boy comes to my door and say, "I'd like to rape your daughter" when he really meant, "I'd like to take your daughter out on a date" he shouldn't be surprised at the reaction he gets.
>Have you ever said "I'm going to kill somebody"?
No.
>Ever said "Damn it"
Yes, though I don't think hammers, nails, etc., mind too much about that one.
As a scuba diver myself, I've never been terribly impressed with wreck diving. Oh, I suppose it would be interesting to dive on a historical wreck, as you are experiencing a part of history.
But when they take an old ship, strip it to dilapidated wreckage you wouldn't take money to set foot on while it was floating, and sink it, suddenly I'm supposed to be all excited about seeing it underwater.
I guess you could say that all the wildlife it attracts is what is really interesting to dive on, but then, why not dive on a natural reef?
>Do you play WoW? >Have you ever tried to play it offline?
No, I have never played WoW. I do, however, play Call of Duty, which, while lots more fun when COMMUNICATING over the internet with other players, is still an application I own on my computer and on physical media, and is quite fun to play stand-alone also.
Maybe I'm just getting old, but to me, the "online" is just the communication channel, not the content arena.
When it comes to content I create, I want to create it and store it on my computer, not on someone else's computer.
Yes, I love the internet and the ability it gives me to send and receive content (which I then, again, store on my computer). And yes, the utility of my computer is greatly compromised when I can't access the internet.
But I don't want to rely on someone else's computer to run applications like Office, or Email, or games, or...anything I can think of right now.
I don't want to rely on someone else's computer to store my data.
The reason why I don't want these things is
1) There might come a reason at some point where I can't access the data (they go out of business, internet is down, I can't afford internet access anymore, etc.)
but mostly:
2) I don't trust that the people who so graciously store my things online won't use them or cripple them in some manner not in my best interest, but is instead in someone else's money-making interest.
Having been involved with computers since the days of the TI99/4A, what seems clear to me is the future of computing is about CONTROL OF DATA. So the fundamental question becomes, do YOU want the control over your data and applications, or are you going to give that control to someone else?
Slashdot Mirror
A newspaper is not a self-renewing subscription. I'm sending a check for X dollars for X issues, after which they send me a bill and I pay for another X issues.
When people buy a piece of software, they expect they bought a piece of software. If it has an auto-renewing maintenance subscription, this should be very clear, not buried deep in a EULA as the summary states.
If America could go forth and kill people at little cost in lives or money using robots, do you think Americans would care as much?
Put Microsoft over a barrel for once.
California should tell Microsoft they have to pay for the textbooks and the netbooks that they will be used on.
If Microsoft agrees, then the netbooks will run Windows. If they won't do it, then the netbooks will run Linux.
At stake are generations of school children who will grow up with a familiarity and probably preference for the operating system their textbooks were presented on.
I think Microsoft would pay big money for access to that target market.
>Read "Teach Like Your Hair's on Fire" (Rafe Esquith, actual teacher in LA) and then
>tell me teachers can't make a difference with tactics other than paying for grades.
Instead, I shared two 7-hour plane rides with a high school teacher.
>Motivating students is great, but as soon as you remove the extrinsic motivation you end up with a lot
>of kids who have no intrinsic motivation to do anything they're not paid for.
Wow, just like real life!
>No volunteering, no helping out around the community, no smiling at people on the street.
Wow, just like real life!
>They work because they're paid, not because they have any desire to contribute to society in a
>positive manner or because they take any pleasure or pride in their work.
Wow, just like real life!
I do things I don't want to do because I get paid or receive some other kind of compensation. That's the way the world works in real life. Everything else I do because it's pleasurable. If it ain't fun, I ain't doing it unless there's something in it for me. Life's too short to volunteer for misery.
>Maybe if we brought better teachers on board FIRST, we wouldn't have to resort to such drastic
>measures to positively motivate kids to do what kids ought to be doing naturally -
>exploring the world around them.
As the father of two kids, I can tell you from experience that that is not what kids do naturally. What kids do naturally is be self-centered, hedonistic, selfish little beings. True, they will explore the world around them - while satisfying their self-centered, hedonistic, selfish instincts.
If you could craft an educational system that catered to their self-centered, hedonistic, selfish instincts, you'd probably have an excellent vehicle for conveying knowledge. But the fact is, learning is, for most of us, hard work and thus not terribly fun. Thus kids need other things besides pleasure to motivate them to learn. For me, it was fear of my parents' reprisals for failure to succeed academically that motivated me.
Again, as my teacher friend explained to me, you can get all the better teachers you want on board. Unless you have kids that are motivated BY SOMETHING to learn, it won't matter. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink unless he's motivated.
>Ah, but improving the pay of a single teacher can not only improve the teacher's motivation to work, it can affect
>an entire class of pupils and all subsequent classes whereas paying each pupil individually only improves that single
>student and as soon as you quit paying they quit playing. Compare giving a teacher a $500 bonus every month they meet
>teaching standards (which granted is as stupid as paying for test scores, but we'll keep it all on the same level)
>with paying a class of 30 kids for meeting a standardized test score, then multiply by the number of standardized
>tests generally given in one year. The teacher's pay raise will save you money in the long run and might provide
>incentives for better teachers to stick around.
Perhaps I'm a skeptic, but I believe if I spent an extra $30,000 a year on 30 students worth of grade-incentive money, or spent an extra $30,000 on one teacher's salary for the same year, you'd get far better results out of the former tactic.
You just can't beat motivation for learning. You can have the most qualified, compassionate, skilled teacher in the world - Albert Einstein crossed with Mother Theresa, but if the students aren't motivated to learn it won't matter. This is why I do not advocate holding teachers accountable for student performance. Student performance is mostly dictated by their motivation to learn. Some very few students are naturally motivated to learn, but most have to be motivated by an external force, such as punishment by their parents if they do not perform up to expectations. Since teachers are extremely limited in their abilities to motivate children to learn, there is little they can do to affect student academic performance. Teachers are the water. Children are brought to them to drink, but the teachers cannot make them drink if they do not want to.
Paying students is one way the state can positively motivate students to learn.
>And what test metric measures a students creativity, critical thinking, and capacity for independent thought?
You'll have to come up with that yourself. I imagine something like and IQ test might do. The point I am trying to make is that if you are unhappy with what is currently being taught and the metric used to determine success or failure of teaching it, then you will need to come up with alternatives.
All of this is beside paying students for achieving whatever metric you deem suitable. If you aren't able to create a metric to measure the success of your curriculum, well, you have your work cut out for you, then.
>The medium is the message. Tests aren't designed to teach that kind of knowledge. You can change the questions on the tests, but
>the fact that they are tests means they will always be test questions. In other words, questions with a clear simple answer.
>How do we test students on subjects without simple answers? Essays are probably more effective in that area, as would be the
>type of experiential testing that I'm advocating.
That's fine by me. Come up with a superior method of teaching and metrics to measure your success or failure of the processes you employ and I'm all for it.
I'm still all for paying students as an incentive for scoring highly on your metric.
>While I don't agree with this program, I do agree that kids need to see the immediate benefits
>of education. Kids in poor cities do worse in school, and it's no surprise why: Everyone they
>see around them is poor. When all you see is poverty, you give up hope of rising above it.
>And once you've given up on your dreams, education seems like a waste of time. Why bother
>succeeding in school if you're destined to work in a crappy job for low pay.
I agree with you here.
>I think the answer lies in changing the way we teach. You don't need to think in order to get
>good grades in today's schools. You only need to memorize, study, and bullshit your way through
>school. Paying kids for grades will only encourage them to get better at taking tests and spewing
>out facts and definitions. It doesn't mean they actually understand the material, or care about it.
Then alter the standardized tests to check the metric you are actually interested in. This is a separate issue from paying students who achieve the metric.
>We need to show kids the benefit of education... but we also need to teach the intrinsic value of
>education and the joy of thinking. I think the best way for students to learn both lessons is to
>get experience doing real work where they get to think for themselves, make decisions, and become
>a valued member of a team. Experience learning. They can see the benefits of having a rewarding
>job where you feel valued, while learning to think on their feet and become leaders. When I went
>to college, I had a class in public relations where teams of students were paired up with local
>non-profits, and had to create a pr campaign for them. It was the hardest thing I ever did in
>school, but I learned more in that class than I ever did in all 4 years of high school.
I don't know that you can teach the value of they joy of anything. As they say, there's no accounting for taste, and what one person finds joyful someone else may not.
Nonetheless, if you desire to reward students for their ability to think, make decisions, and be a team member, then you need to alter the test metrics. Again, this is a separate issue from paying those who achieve the metric.
>What I'm saying is, paying kids is nice, but if you really want them to learn, get them involved in
>what their learning. Instead of drilling kids on the menus in microsoft word, how about we let them
>explore computers on their own in a supervised environment. Lets have more science experiments and less
>science quizzes. It will unlock the benefits of education right away, while teaching them how to
>learn on their own. They will learn lessons they'll never forget.
The trick is developing a metric that can measure the success or failure of teaching those things.
Personally, I'm not to terribly put out with the metric I was put to when I was in school, the SAT. You can either do the math or you can't, and you either comprehend English or you don't.
If you want to come up with a similar metric that captures the student's ability and/or desire to think, I'm fine with that.
In short, I'm less concerned with the metric as I am with coming up with ways to motivate kids to achieve the metric. Once you've mastered the latter, the former can be whatever you want it to be.
I think this is a fantastic idea.
Many kids see no immediate positive benefit to education. I know I didn't as a kid. Oh, sure, I knew that "In order to get a good job, you need to go to college!" but I didn't really feel that my efforts got me any semi-immediate gratification. I mean, you're telling a teenager or younger to put out efforts for something that is years, or even decades, away for them.
Put an immediate, serious benefit within their grasp of months and you will see a lot of kids go for it.
The only thing that made me perform in school was fear of my parents' retribution for failure. Lots of kids don't get that encouragement so I think this is a wise use of school money.
I bet it pays better dividends, dollar for dollar, than pay raises for teachers. Paying teachers more might make them better teachers, which might impact their students. Paying students for good grades will DEFINITELY improve motivation.
I'm not going to pay $60 a month for the access to the internet and then more money on top of that for content.
$60 a month is about all I'm willing to pay for the whole shebang.
I frequent an online BBS, the Armour Archive (www.armourarchive.org). It is a hobbiest board for people who make medieval armour.
At one time, the .org (or .com, I can't remembernow) domain got snapped up by a squatter when it expired. It was not a big deal, as the BBS owner switched domains to the .com domain and the BBS went on.
As a way to give back to the community, however, I approached the squatter and offered to buy the .org domain back. He was hesitant at first, thinking that it had something to do with "amor" (love). When I explained that the domain he had squatted on was used by a bunch of hobbyists and they would never pay a lot of money to get it back, and I offered him like $200 for it, he agreed, and I got the domain and gave it to the BBS owner.
I think the trick here is to simply be up-front with what you are willing to pay. If you're only willing to pay $500 for it, say so. Either he'll sell or he won't.
I don't have a problem with domain squatters. Anyone who utilizes their intellect to have the foresight to figure out what text strings might make profitable domain names has a skill and they are making money off of that skill. People who get mad at domain squatters are really just mad that they didn't have that skill themselves.
First of all, no I did not suggest that anyone should slam into natural reefs and kick up silt.
Second of all, since wreck diving is more advanced than simple open water diving, THE INEXPERIENCED DIVERS WILL BE DIVING ON NATURAL REEFS ANYWAY.
Can't you just proxy around it?
>And I guarantee that regardless of how easy or how cheap it is to download; people want
>to see bands they like LIVE. And people don't mind paying for the privilege. However this
>is money that goes almost directly to the band (in many cases) and the Distributors don't
>get to leech of a significant cut like they do with record sales.
See, I just don't buy this. In my life of 38 years I have paid money to go to a grand total of 2 concerts. Most of the music I listen to is recorded, and I've listened to countless hours of recorded music, most of it for free.
>Do you really want a bunch of inexperienced divers with no bouyancy control
>slamming into natural reefs & kicking up silt?
Who suggested that?
>Aside from being something different to see, wrecks make good training sites for all
>sorts of skills.
My point was, and continues to be, that it is funny that you take a nasty, dilapidated stripped chunk of industrial machinery that no one would want to walk aboard if it were tied to a pier, sink it in 100 feet of water and suddenly it's a cool place to visit.
>As an added bonus they have a commercial/tourist value that helps
>make providing and improving marine habitat more affordable.
No doubt. Again, it's just funny that a nasty, dilapidated, stripped chunk of industrial machinery makes a valuable commercial/tourist attraction.
>So when you hear people chanting Death to America, its meaning is more along the lines of "Fuck those assholes" than "We want to kill all Americans".
Then they might want to re-think what they are saying and to whom they are saying it.
When some boy comes to my door and say, "I'd like to rape your daughter" when he really meant, "I'd like to take your daughter out on a date" he shouldn't be surprised at the reaction he gets.
>Have you ever said "I'm going to kill somebody"?
No.
>Ever said "Damn it"
Yes, though I don't think hammers, nails, etc., mind too much about that one.
>"Damn them"?
No.
As a scuba diver myself, I've never been terribly impressed with wreck diving. Oh, I suppose it would be interesting to dive on a historical wreck, as you are experiencing a part of history.
But when they take an old ship, strip it to dilapidated wreckage you wouldn't take money to set foot on while it was floating, and sink it, suddenly I'm supposed to be all excited about seeing it underwater.
I guess you could say that all the wildlife it attracts is what is really interesting to dive on, but then, why not dive on a natural reef?
I never caught more than a few minutes of a couple of episodes, and trailers. Never saw any robots.
Informal conversations, such as internet BBS postings, do not constitute valuable data to me. I don't care what happens to my post.
>Do you play WoW?
>Have you ever tried to play it offline?
No, I have never played WoW. I do, however, play Call of Duty, which, while lots more fun when COMMUNICATING over the internet with other players, is still an application I own on my computer and on physical media, and is quite fun to play stand-alone also.
>Then you're watching the wrong show. I'm guessing you thought the movies were a "yawn" as well??
No, because the movies had good CGI showing cool robots.
Maybe I'm just getting old, but to me, the "online" is just the communication channel, not the content arena.
When it comes to content I create, I want to create it and store it on my computer, not on someone else's computer.
Yes, I love the internet and the ability it gives me to send and receive content (which I then, again, store on my computer). And yes, the utility of my computer is greatly compromised when I can't access the internet.
But I don't want to rely on someone else's computer to run applications like Office, or Email, or games, or...anything I can think of right now.
I don't want to rely on someone else's computer to store my data.
The reason why I don't want these things is
1) There might come a reason at some point where I can't access the data (they go out of business, internet is down, I can't afford internet access anymore, etc.)
but mostly:
2) I don't trust that the people who so graciously store my things online won't use them or cripple them in some manner not in my best interest, but is instead in someone else's money-making interest.
Having been involved with computers since the days of the TI99/4A, what seems clear to me is the future of computing is about CONTROL OF DATA. So the fundamental question becomes, do YOU want the control over your data and applications, or are you going to give that control to someone else?
Look, if I'm watching a movie about humanity's war against machines, then I want to see machines and humans fighting it out.
Making the machines look like humans is simply a budgetary cop-out.
If I wanted to use my imagination for such epic battles I'd read a book.
...of a heart attack while jogging.
I watched it a couple of times to see some cool terminator robots. Everyone was human-looking. Yawn for no-budget and no cool terminator robots.
>robots and machines that can predict war, formulate resolutions to our current wars,
>and advance mankind as a civilization.
Such machines and algorithms will be developed, but they will be used to create better, more efficient machines of war.
So long as there are scarce resources, there will be men who's greed for them drives them to kill for them.