So your phone or whatever records some audio clip, sends it to this server where for the sake of argument it is one-way hashed. So that leaves them with...what? A hash of a sound recorded by you at time X? How exactly is that worth ANYTHING?
I also don't see how hashing would allow you to find similar sound clips, it seems to me most of them would be unique and even similar "adjacent" sounds would have a unique hash.
How much do you wanna bet this mathematical alteration is just a FFT?
I don't know if DirectX is a good comparison here. While I doubt it's wholly responsible for the state of the PC gaming industry today, I'd say it's made things signifanctly better than if there were multiple, independent systems backed by different graphics mfgs, game developers, etc. Hell if it wasn't for DX I wouldn't even use Windows anymore.
This wont be nearly as effective because there's no serious demand for such a framework. While I admit I'd really rather have one or the other but not both, there's enough people out there who will pick sides and keep things independent.
Unlike DirectX where its creation came at a crucial period in the evolution of the desktop PC, this "solution" would have been better years ago when both DEs were young. As other posters have mentioned, there are too many dissimilarities that programmers will require for such a framework to be useful. It'll be interesting to see how this project evolves and if it's effective at all, but I wont hold my breath waiting for this to revolutionize the Linux desktop experience.
But I learned that the skin depth is a measure of the depth to which an EM wave can penetrate a medium (I assume this is what you're refering to.) IIRC, it's something like d = 1/(pi*f*u*s), where d is the skin depth, f is the frequency, u is the permeability, and s is the conductance. I don't see how you can make such a broad assumption that "The penetration depth of EM waves is roughly of the size of wavelength." Especially when this depth would be HIGHLY dependent on wether or not the medium is a good conductor. Therefore, I call BS on your post until you can prove it mathematically. To make it easier on you, you only need to show me that the penetration depth is ~= wavelength for microwaves (100 MHz to 1 THz).
I'm going to assume you're not including Apple in your "good companies" list. They might be a lot smaller than Microsoft but they're no less evil. Apple is simply a wolf in sheeps clothing, while Microsoft is a wolf in a lawyers clothing (which isn't saying much about wolfs).
While I can't comment on Apple's customer service (having never dealt with them), I have to respond to the rest of your post.
Apple is trendy like big boobs and heavy gold chains. They're very noticable and hard to ignore, are well marketed as such (well, maybe not the gold chains anymore), and are aimed squarely at a market of people who have money to burn. It's all about setting a trend and then covering your ass with an army of lawyers with a library of IP. I wouldn't say they innovate so much as sense which direction the wind is blowing and run with it (don't get me wrong, that's a great business strategy). But they're not exactly the gods of innovation, I'm sure a myriad of other corporations would have developed an ipod-like device with or without Apple's existence.
As you may have surmised from post, I'm not an Apple fan. I'd say the best word to describe such people are 'yuppies'. But frankly, all modern operating systems come with fairly simple, useful applications. Honestly, it doesn't get much damn simpler than Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, and Windows Media Player. If you can't figure out the basic uses of those you're probably legally retarded.
Compared to the competition...it's bling-bling, it's shiny, and it's simple enough that an airheaded poli-sci major can figure it out. And most of all, it's expensive. And expensive == status.
For an example of this, drive to your nearest university campus and observe people during passing periods. I swear to God people make it a point to have those white, ergonomic ipod earphones stand out as much as possible. I shit you not when I say that having an ipod is as much a fashion accessory to college girls as those damn fugly bug eyed glasses they all wear. The fact that ipods play music is just an added bonus.
On that subject... does anyone know why people feel they have to defend their choice to the extent that they lose all rational capability?
They're human. There are fanboys for everything, some are more zealous than others, and some are more brainwashed than others.
It seems to be the same with games consoles. I know very few people that have a PS2 and an Xbox - Most people seem to go for one or the other then rant about how much the other one sucks. I find it kinda confusing as I liked aspects of all the last gen consoles so I bought them all when the price dropped.
In my experiences, I've actually found the opposite to be true, many people (eventually) buy both.
Humans just have a natural tendency to choose sides; ergo their side is the right side. You can see this in almost every market, but it seems most pronounced in technology: XBox vs Playstation, AMD vs Intel, ATI vs nVidia, etc. Politics is, of course, no exception.
While I agree that it's a very smart business move, I highly doubt that MS allowing homebrewed games would change the chances of their console being compromised.
Not only would making SDKs publicly available increase the amount of information about the system (and thus, increase the chances of someone "cracking" it), very, very, very few of their marketshare plays homebrew games. Just think about their XBox live service; I doubt homebrew would mesh well there - too much room for exploitation.
Of everyone I know with an xbox (about 10 people), 4 have modded theirs. None of them play any homebrew games (unless you count emulators, which I'd hardly call homebrewed). No one I know has expressed intrest of any homebrew games. Maybe homebrew games are the shit and I'm just living in totally ignorance of them, but I have a hard time imagining any homebrewers creating anything impressive enough to really catch peoples' eye. Feel free to disprove me on this count, though (if there's some great homebrew xbox games I'd like to give them a shot).
In Professor's defense, many students still act like children. For example, I haven't encountered very many mature freshmen who were under 20 years old. Frankly, if you're not mature enough to behave like an adult you don't deserve to be treated like one.
I once had a professor who literally flashed the lights on and off in a lecture hall to get peoples' attention. At first, I was annoyed and *very* offended that we were being treated like children. Then I realized there was a fairly large group of noisy kids who wouldn't STFU. I jokingly mentioned it during office hours and she explained that it was one of the few ways she could acquire the attention of everyone.
Yeah, I agree with your statement that some (I wouldn't say many, at least not at my school) professors do spend too much time in their ivory tower and it can make them frustrating and intimidating to work with. Others are very humane (for lack of a better word) and open to students.
And we wonder why so many drop out...
I don't. A good portion of the people end up dropping out because they didn't belong here in the first place. Not everyone should go to college.
You're right. Fsck the market system, let's bring back the barter system that served us so well in the past!
Deliberately choosing to do a "right thing" that would reduce profit can put a CEO in jail.
Sounds like a huge pile of FUD. I'd love to see a case of "The people vs. CEO of XYZ Corp." where s/he was sentenced to jail time for having a reduced profit. Name the court case and not some news clip bullshit, please.
We need to eliminate the concept of corporations having the same rights as people.
They don't. They have similar. Explain to me why corporations shouldn't have the right to, say, due process or property ownership.
We need to eliminate the idea that those leading corporations are not liable for the actions that are required by their mandates AND de facto requirements that result from them.
They are, to a degree. But I agree that their liability is too limited and corporations have a resonsibility to the people and should be brought under a court of the people when violating this responsibiltiy.
The problem with the system is that not enough checks are placed to keep corporations honest. Unfortunately, this ties directly to their ability to "donate" money to political candidates/parties/politicians. This should be completely outlawed, and any loopholes found and closed. Still, this is a far, far better system than others. I sure as hell wouldn't want to try the barter system.
Anyways, the "culture of corruption" refered to in your post and the grandparent is not the fault of the US government. You may just as well blame a child for being born. The people who elect these officials are to blame (democrat and republican alike). Unfortunately, most people are too retarded to actually bother thinking and instead vote from their heart/feelings/ideaologies/religions/etc. The system failed us because we failed the system.
If I can't optimally absorb knowlege then there is a problem, and I will make sure damn sure that problem is resolved. Quite honestly, the students don't need your self-centered, self-absorbed pompous self either.
If you can't optimally absorb knowledge without disrupting others, then and only then is there a problem. I've met a few students like you, who have egos as big as the sun and think they can do no wrong. Usually you're just pissed because some professor put you in your place or you discovered that just because you're in college now doesn't mean you can do whatever the hell you want. Or you're just an attention whore. This may not be the case, but considering the battles at my university for "fairness" I highly doubt it.
Professors have the privilege of being self-centered and pompous because they're PROFESSORS. It's their classroom, they'll decide if they want to use lecture slides or write on the chalkboard, if late homework is a zero, etc. If they say laptops are distrupting the class I'm sure they are. 99% of the people who have them are usually IMing or emailing or watching march madness clips, anyways.
Yes. Eventually the transistors used to store data will be physically damaged and unusable. This number is very hardware dependent. Depending on the technology it can be from as little as ~100 to ~10^5 times. Flash memory should be at least 10^4 to 10^5 times...if anyone has more accurate data, I'd be interested in knowing it.
In addition, he is now trying to play with the definition of tenure at the universities. In light of this article, as the witch hunt against Churchill, it is no wonder that premer American scientists are leaving.
I hear this a lot on Slashdot, that scientists are just migrating out of America en masse. My university professors seem to disagree. Do you (or anyone else for that matter) have any sources to back up your claims? Does anyone have any professors who say that other countries are kicking America's ass at engineering (or science in general)? Leave any rhetoric aside, please:)
This falls under what I'd call "public stupidity." Your post lightly touches on an issue that's been bugging me for some time.
There's a growing gap between the public and the edge of scientific research. As this gap widens, the public (and through them, politicians) have become increasingly critical of science in general. And naturally, anything they don't understand, they fear, and must therefore control.
Examples of this gap are plentiful: nuclear power, genetic engineering, evolution, big bang theory, environmental science, etc, have all sparked huge debates among an uninformed public who have *no* understanding of the science behind the issues, and instead respond with their feelings/morals/'un'opinions/religion. Science has become less "look, using this lever makes your work easier!" and more "I turn it out and music plays, it must be magic!" in the eyes of the public.
This is an Extremely Bad Thing(TM). Situations like this one are the reason that the Great Library doesn't exist anymore, why humanity spent hundreds of years in the Dark Ages, and why we let people raise their children in a scientific vacuum (do you hear me, bible belt?).
I'd say one of the root causes of this breakdown is due to America's higher education system. For example, I attend one of the Universities of California. As a budding engineer, I'm required to meet a number of liberal arts requirements to receive my degree, and, consequently, engineers have one of the highest unit limits (read: we have to take a shitload of classes). While most of us insist that this is merely a ploy to make our lives more difficult, they pass it off as a "broadening of your education." So be it.
If you reverse the situation, however, and look at your average communications/psych/poli sci/lit major, they barely require any hard science/math/eng. And thus they have a much lower unit limit (to the point where some of these majors are considered three or even *two* year majors!).
Which leads me to my point: the majority of people leaving schools are not being trained in hard science/math/engineering and consequently have little to no understanding of how or why things work, which leads to terribly uninformed, not-critically thought out opinions (just read myspace or google for some blogs). Their opinions are based on whatever propaganda they read and their previously instilled biases. Until science, math, and engineering education is forced onto the masses, the problems you mention will remain problems and not solutions.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone try to write off a geoshities site as a credible source of information (or as any source of information, for that matter).
I'm a hair over 20 years old and I've heard people bitch and moan about the end of the world, global warming, WW3, etc, since I was born. And frankly, I'm a lot more afraid of WW3 than global warming. While I'm all for alternative energy, recycling, minimizing fossil fuel consumption, and what not, all the bullshit from BOTH SIDES of the global warming argument have made me extremely cynical of wether or not it should be taken seriously.
Frankly (and I have absolutely no credentials to back up my opinion) I think the sea levels rising several meters of more in the next 20-30 years has about as much chance of occuring as Bush resigning from office so he can star in the next gay cowboy movie. Maybe if people would stop bitching about nuclear power and accept the fact it's 19233274928734 times better than burning shit loads of carbon compounds, the world would be a better place.
All your points are certainly valid, but I'd say the next era of physics in games is just around the corner. Go watch the spore video to see an example of what's coming.
Besides, who doesn't like rag dolling? I played through HL2 just so I could toss bodies around with the gravity gun.:)
Why do companies absolutely insist on keeping records of everything? (I make (temporary) exceptions for the following: backups, absolutely non-identifable data for site monitoring and traffic flow, and security logs).
If I ran an ISP/Service provider and a customer clicked the delete button I'd make sure that stuff was either erased immediately or very very soon (such as a cron job which expunges selected emails every half hour). I can understand logging something like, safe, people trying to telnet or SSH into a system of mine, but not every page view of my site. Why bother? Is it a legal requirement? Are they just trying to cover their collective asses? Sounds like a shitload of work for absolutely zero payoff (other than pissing your customers off...which really isn't a payoff at all.)
Your argument (if you can call it an argument) doesn't make sense, and here's why:
Other companies (hereafter, content providers) supply video and whatnot for Google to display on Google Video. Content providers own this content, but don't want to pay for a distribution system when one (Google Video) is already in place. At the same time, content providers don't want to give their stuff away for free (a la your typical Google Video clip). Like any company they want to make a profit and protect *THEIR* content.
So Google has a choice: They can either 1) Accept the content providers content with the provision that they include DRM to protect said content, or 2) Not offer the content at all. Period.
Since Google would probably like to turn a profit on things like Google video (duh), they choose option #1. Sadly the software is XP/2000 only (which makes me sad), but their *requirement* to protect the content is understandable.
I don't see how you connect this to a trust issue. It's not Google's content to trust you with. It is the content provider's content and their decision of wether or not to trust you. So if you have a trust issue with anyone, it's with the people who own the content. In this case, don't shoot the messenger.
I know if I was poor and barely had enough food to eat, I'd happily trade a fortune I don't have that could feed my family for god knows how long for a laptop! Maybe we can give the kids "I'M STARVING AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS LAPTOP" T-shirts while we're at it.
Seriously, laptops like this would better help people in developing countries (that is, countries where people have some money to spend that they don't need for survival). It could certainly enable them to educate themselves, their children, etc.
But in a lot of countries the last thing the people need is a laptop. Sure, they'll be able to watch porn, read your blog, and purchase Trogdor polos online, but that wont solve their immediate needs. A laptop might help you plant smarter, and a tractor might help you plant faster, but neither will feed your children or stop the neighboring tribe from slaughtering you.
This is an argument a hear a lot in rallys/debates by the democratic group at my college. That it is somehow the government's job to run around the school yard and topple anyone who gets too big.
The Death tax hurts little people, too. I have a friend who's parents died recently, and as an only child, left him pretty much everything. Unfortunately, he couldn't afford the taxes associated with his parent's estate, mainly the house his parents were living in - a house that had been in their family for four generations. Yeah, that death tax was real fair!
Because the property you earned during you life work and investiments was due to a stable society, economy and government investment in infastructure.
Indeed, that is why your parents pay taxes during their entire working lives. And that is why I'll also be paying taxes my entire working life.
I would prefer to have a society were wealth is based more on merit and hard work and not just because some distant ancestor made it big in plastics. There are several key arguments for an estate tax.
Great, so teach your kids the value of a dollar and a hard days work. My parents did. Not everyone has megawealthy ancestors who are responsible for their wealth - my parents simply worked their entire lives for it (and were the first generation to ever graduate high school, let alone college).
Continued concentrate of power in the elite...
It is undeniable that there is a connection between wealth and political power. And unfortunately, no one, not democrat, and not republican, seems willing to separate the two, by any means. I don't think the solution, however, is letting the gov't jump in and say "HA! You died, now gimme half!!!1" Protecting consumers has nothing to do with an Estate tax and everything to do with regulatory bodies such as the FTC. There are other ways with dealing with such issues and a Death Tax is certainly an indirect and overly broad method.
Limit Innovation.
Please, it is a gross generalization that all rich kids are snobs and do nothing with their lives, and some kid being rich hardly limits your ability to innovate. If anything, your argument would eliminate your competition and make it easier for you to innovate!
Govt research and investments. Reducing taxes could crimp government research and investments in education -- the source of innovations that create jobs. With less education, growing numbers of workers can't get ahead.
Neither of which, I would argue, are the purpose of government. With the exception of military research, the government has no business funding research. Sure, it's a great pie-in-the-sky concept, the government dumping billions of dollars into cancer research to help humanity. But is that their job? No. If I want to fund cancer research I'll fund it myself knowing that it was *my* decision, not the government's, to do good.
Clearly, education has worked its way into the purpose of government (and it has done a terrible job) and that fact wont be changing. I would love to see the government give interest free loans to ANYONE, regardless of race/ethnicity/class/religion/sexual orientation/geographic location, who wishes to go to college (I'd say you need to be a citizen, however). But that's pretty pie-in-the-sky as well, isn't it?
Instead of solving the problems of society by giving the single thing we should keep in check the most - the federal government - why do people (especially democrats, who always say they are looking out for the "little guy") insist that giving more wealth, and by your own statement, power, to the government is the solution to all of societies ills? When did we stop being grown ups and instead being children of the government our parents gave their blood and sweat for? Giving the government more power is a sure fire wire to give yourself less.
Hitler did not just say, "Gee, I wish all these jews would die." He issued orders. Orders are action. You keep making this spurious difference between speaking privately to people and making "an effort to convince others to hate a visible group you don't like." It's a difference of scale, not character. Freedom of the press is a neccessary part of freedom of speech. Incidentally, slander and libel are civil rather than criminal matters in the US.
When you compare Hitler's orders to exterminate jews to your average not-a-totalitarian-dictator joe, you're comparing apples to oranges. It's not a difference of scale or character, but a difference of control and authority. When Hitler spoke you listened because he was your commander. The circumstances are vastly different.
Free speech in all of its forms - including hate speech - should be equally protected. If someone says "lets all get together and kill group X" in any medium to any number of people, it should be protected as speech. The people who carry it out are the ones who take action. Just because some people aren't smart enough to think for themselves before they do something doesn't mean that all of society should forfeit their rights.
The idea that speech should be limited based on scale is a frightening one. Who gets to draw the lines and where? What about the internet where your potential audience is everyone? No, the idea that your freedom of speech should be scaled by the size of your audience is definitely not a Good Thing(TM).
that eugenics is ok. It's definitely not the right direction to go in and I certainly didn't mean to suggest we should move in that direction. Some people have a bit too much of a knee jerk reaction;) I was just pointing out one of the current problems we as a species face. You'll notice I never even suggested eugenics as an answer, just observing a potential problem.
Of course without randomness we'd genetically stagnate. The benefit of randomness is that it is genetic growth in every direction, so to speak. This is effectively brute force genetic survival - should something cataclysmic happen to the species, such as a particularly virulent virus, there's a good chance that at least some members of the population will survive and continue on. (This is the exact opposite of a specialized species, as you pointed out in your post.) I totally agree.
Since we can't predict the future we can't tell what genes will be beneficial. I don't know how you really went from my comment of "Aren't we effectively letting people piss into the pool?" to "Yet you want to throw out the single most powerful aspect of evolution. Random chance." Let's try not to put words into my mouth.;)
To counter your point of "which genes are good/bad at what time" (and to reaffirm what I meant in my first post) I don't think ALL genes are a shade of grey. Take for instance, a gene that inhibits the bodies ability to produce a key protein. This is detected at birth and the solution is a pill that must be taken for the rest of a child's life. Not only is this extremely dangerous, but it is arguably unethical to pass on such curse to your offspring. Is it wise to have portions of the population completely reliant on a drug?
I'd say a *lot* of research needs to be done in genetics and biochemistry before we can start deciding what genes really are good, bad, and/or absolutely necessary. Oh, and I love that evolved antenna example. Thanks for the link!:)
Yeah, but GATTACA was a little bit extreme. I don't think humanity will so quickly render up its freedoms. More exactly, I don't think that governments will step into a 'genetic arms race.' Infact, they might be the only ones in power to stop it. I'd suggest that it's more likely genetic arms races will start in the private sector - by corporations. What's scary about this is that while we might ban genetic engineering of humans in some countries, especially Western ones, there's going to be governments that either allow, encourage, or even control these technologies to their own benefit.
Now, it might spark a stem cell debate in civilized countries, but most people are going to be too afraid of letting this genie out of the bottle to let that happen.
Slashdot Mirror
So your phone or whatever records some audio clip, sends it to this server where for the sake of argument it is one-way hashed. So that leaves them with...what? A hash of a sound recorded by you at time X? How exactly is that worth ANYTHING?
I also don't see how hashing would allow you to find similar sound clips, it seems to me most of them would be unique and even similar "adjacent" sounds would have a unique hash.
How much do you wanna bet this mathematical alteration is just a FFT?
I don't know if DirectX is a good comparison here. While I doubt it's wholly responsible for the state of the PC gaming industry today, I'd say it's made things signifanctly better than if there were multiple, independent systems backed by different graphics mfgs, game developers, etc. Hell if it wasn't for DX I wouldn't even use Windows anymore.
This wont be nearly as effective because there's no serious demand for such a framework. While I admit I'd really rather have one or the other but not both, there's enough people out there who will pick sides and keep things independent.
Unlike DirectX where its creation came at a crucial period in the evolution of the desktop PC, this "solution" would have been better years ago when both DEs were young. As other posters have mentioned, there are too many dissimilarities that programmers will require for such a framework to be useful. It'll be interesting to see how this project evolves and if it's effective at all, but I wont hold my breath waiting for this to revolutionize the Linux desktop experience.
But I learned that the skin depth is a measure of the depth to which an EM wave can penetrate a medium (I assume this is what you're refering to.) IIRC, it's something like d = 1/(pi*f*u*s), where d is the skin depth, f is the frequency, u is the permeability, and s is the conductance. I don't see how you can make such a broad assumption that "The penetration depth of EM waves is roughly of the size of wavelength." Especially when this depth would be HIGHLY dependent on wether or not the medium is a good conductor. Therefore, I call BS on your post until you can prove it mathematically. To make it easier on you, you only need to show me that the penetration depth is ~= wavelength for microwaves (100 MHz to 1 THz).
Cowyboy Neal
I'm going to assume you're not including Apple in your "good companies" list. They might be a lot smaller than Microsoft but they're no less evil. Apple is simply a wolf in sheeps clothing, while Microsoft is a wolf in a lawyers clothing (which isn't saying much about wolfs).
While I can't comment on Apple's customer service (having never dealt with them), I have to respond to the rest of your post.
Apple is trendy like big boobs and heavy gold chains. They're very noticable and hard to ignore, are well marketed as such (well, maybe not the gold chains anymore), and are aimed squarely at a market of people who have money to burn. It's all about setting a trend and then covering your ass with an army of lawyers with a library of IP. I wouldn't say they innovate so much as sense which direction the wind is blowing and run with it (don't get me wrong, that's a great business strategy). But they're not exactly the gods of innovation, I'm sure a myriad of other corporations would have developed an ipod-like device with or without Apple's existence.
As you may have surmised from post, I'm not an Apple fan. I'd say the best word to describe such people are 'yuppies'. But frankly, all modern operating systems come with fairly simple, useful applications. Honestly, it doesn't get much damn simpler than Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, and Windows Media Player. If you can't figure out the basic uses of those you're probably legally retarded.
Compared to the competition...it's bling-bling, it's shiny, and it's simple enough that an airheaded poli-sci major can figure it out. And most of all, it's expensive. And expensive == status.
For an example of this, drive to your nearest university campus and observe people during passing periods. I swear to God people make it a point to have those white, ergonomic ipod earphones stand out as much as possible. I shit you not when I say that having an ipod is as much a fashion accessory to college girls as those damn fugly bug eyed glasses they all wear. The fact that ipods play music is just an added bonus.
On that subject... does anyone know why people feel they have to defend their choice to the extent that they lose all rational capability?
They're human. There are fanboys for everything, some are more zealous than others, and some are more brainwashed than others.
It seems to be the same with games consoles. I know very few people that have a PS2 and an Xbox - Most people seem to go for one or the other then rant about how much the other one sucks. I find it kinda confusing as I liked aspects of all the last gen consoles so I bought them all when the price dropped.
In my experiences, I've actually found the opposite to be true, many people (eventually) buy both.
Humans just have a natural tendency to choose sides; ergo their side is the right side. You can see this in almost every market, but it seems most pronounced in technology: XBox vs Playstation, AMD vs Intel, ATI vs nVidia, etc. Politics is, of course, no exception.
While I agree that it's a very smart business move, I highly doubt that MS allowing homebrewed games would change the chances of their console being compromised.
Not only would making SDKs publicly available increase the amount of information about the system (and thus, increase the chances of someone "cracking" it), very, very, very few of their marketshare plays homebrew games. Just think about their XBox live service; I doubt homebrew would mesh well there - too much room for exploitation.
Of everyone I know with an xbox (about 10 people), 4 have modded theirs. None of them play any homebrew games (unless you count emulators, which I'd hardly call homebrewed). No one I know has expressed intrest of any homebrew games. Maybe homebrew games are the shit and I'm just living in totally ignorance of them, but I have a hard time imagining any homebrewers creating anything impressive enough to really catch peoples' eye. Feel free to disprove me on this count, though (if there's some great homebrew xbox games I'd like to give them a shot).
In Professor's defense, many students still act like children. For example, I haven't encountered very many mature freshmen who were under 20 years old. Frankly, if you're not mature enough to behave like an adult you don't deserve to be treated like one.
...
I once had a professor who literally flashed the lights on and off in a lecture hall to get peoples' attention. At first, I was annoyed and *very* offended that we were being treated like children. Then I realized there was a fairly large group of noisy kids who wouldn't STFU. I jokingly mentioned it during office hours and she explained that it was one of the few ways she could acquire the attention of everyone.
Yeah, I agree with your statement that some (I wouldn't say many, at least not at my school) professors do spend too much time in their ivory tower and it can make them frustrating and intimidating to work with. Others are very humane (for lack of a better word) and open to students.
And we wonder why so many drop out
I don't. A good portion of the people end up dropping out because they didn't belong here in the first place. Not everyone should go to college.
Oh, and pencils and paper ftw.
You're right. Fsck the market system, let's bring back the barter system that served us so well in the past!
Deliberately choosing to do a "right thing" that would reduce profit can put a CEO in jail.
Sounds like a huge pile of FUD. I'd love to see a case of "The people vs. CEO of XYZ Corp." where s/he was sentenced to jail time for having a reduced profit. Name the court case and not some news clip bullshit, please.
We need to eliminate the concept of corporations having the same rights as people.
They don't. They have similar. Explain to me why corporations shouldn't have the right to, say, due process or property ownership.
We need to eliminate the idea that those leading corporations are not liable for the actions that are required by their mandates AND de facto requirements that result from them.
They are, to a degree. But I agree that their liability is too limited and corporations have a resonsibility to the people and should be brought under a court of the people when violating this responsibiltiy.
The problem with the system is that not enough checks are placed to keep corporations honest. Unfortunately, this ties directly to their ability to "donate" money to political candidates/parties/politicians. This should be completely outlawed, and any loopholes found and closed. Still, this is a far, far better system than others. I sure as hell wouldn't want to try the barter system.
Anyways, the "culture of corruption" refered to in your post and the grandparent is not the fault of the US government. You may just as well blame a child for being born. The people who elect these officials are to blame (democrat and republican alike). Unfortunately, most people are too retarded to actually bother thinking and instead vote from their heart/feelings/ideaologies/religions/etc. The system failed us because we failed the system.
Does chip wiring or transistors waste the most heat ?
Good question. It depends on the technology you use, among other things. I'll hazard a guess and say transistors do.
I don't understand why there aren't any attempts made to move away from silicon & copper/aluminum wiring ?
There are. That's the point of R&D. But do you want to front the cash to retool a billion+ dollar mfg plant? Neither does Intel.
We have quantum tunneling transistors that work right now !
See previous answer.
If I can't optimally absorb knowlege then there is a problem, and I will make sure damn sure that problem is resolved. Quite honestly, the students don't need your self-centered, self-absorbed pompous self either.
If you can't optimally absorb knowledge without disrupting others, then and only then is there a problem. I've met a few students like you, who have egos as big as the sun and think they can do no wrong. Usually you're just pissed because some professor put you in your place or you discovered that just because you're in college now doesn't mean you can do whatever the hell you want. Or you're just an attention whore. This may not be the case, but considering the battles at my university for "fairness" I highly doubt it.
Professors have the privilege of being self-centered and pompous because they're PROFESSORS. It's their classroom, they'll decide if they want to use lecture slides or write on the chalkboard, if late homework is a zero, etc. If they say laptops are distrupting the class I'm sure they are. 99% of the people who have them are usually IMing or emailing or watching march madness clips, anyways.
Yes. Eventually the transistors used to store data will be physically damaged and unusable. This number is very hardware dependent. Depending on the technology it can be from as little as ~100 to ~10^5 times. Flash memory should be at least 10^4 to 10^5 times...if anyone has more accurate data, I'd be interested in knowing it.
In addition, he is now trying to play with the definition of tenure at the universities. In light of this article, as the witch hunt against Churchill, it is no wonder that premer American scientists are leaving.
:)
I hear this a lot on Slashdot, that scientists are just migrating out of America en masse. My university professors seem to disagree. Do you (or anyone else for that matter) have any sources to back up your claims? Does anyone have any professors who say that other countries are kicking America's ass at engineering (or science in general)? Leave any rhetoric aside, please
This falls under what I'd call "public stupidity." Your post lightly touches on an issue that's been bugging me for some time.
There's a growing gap between the public and the edge of scientific research. As this gap widens, the public (and through them, politicians) have become increasingly critical of science in general. And naturally, anything they don't understand, they fear, and must therefore control.
Examples of this gap are plentiful: nuclear power, genetic engineering, evolution, big bang theory, environmental science, etc, have all sparked huge debates among an uninformed public who have *no* understanding of the science behind the issues, and instead respond with their feelings/morals/'un'opinions/religion. Science has become less "look, using this lever makes your work easier!" and more "I turn it out and music plays, it must be magic!" in the eyes of the public.
This is an Extremely Bad Thing(TM). Situations like this one are the reason that the Great Library doesn't exist anymore, why humanity spent hundreds of years in the Dark Ages, and why we let people raise their children in a scientific vacuum (do you hear me, bible belt?).
I'd say one of the root causes of this breakdown is due to America's higher education system. For example, I attend one of the Universities of California. As a budding engineer, I'm required to meet a number of liberal arts requirements to receive my degree, and, consequently, engineers have one of the highest unit limits (read: we have to take a shitload of classes). While most of us insist that this is merely a ploy to make our lives more difficult, they pass it off as a "broadening of your education." So be it.
If you reverse the situation, however, and look at your average communications/psych/poli sci/lit major, they barely require any hard science/math/eng. And thus they have a much lower unit limit (to the point where some of these majors are considered three or even *two* year majors!).
Which leads me to my point: the majority of people leaving schools are not being trained in hard science/math/engineering and consequently have little to no understanding of how or why things work, which leads to terribly uninformed, not-critically thought out opinions (just read myspace or google for some blogs). Their opinions are based on whatever propaganda they read and their previously instilled biases. Until science, math, and engineering education is forced onto the masses, the problems you mention will remain problems and not solutions.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone try to write off a geoshities site as a credible source of information (or as any source of information, for that matter).
I'm a hair over 20 years old and I've heard people bitch and moan about the end of the world, global warming, WW3, etc, since I was born. And frankly, I'm a lot more afraid of WW3 than global warming. While I'm all for alternative energy, recycling, minimizing fossil fuel consumption, and what not, all the bullshit from BOTH SIDES of the global warming argument have made me extremely cynical of wether or not it should be taken seriously.
Frankly (and I have absolutely no credentials to back up my opinion) I think the sea levels rising several meters of more in the next 20-30 years has about as much chance of occuring as Bush resigning from office so he can star in the next gay cowboy movie. Maybe if people would stop bitching about nuclear power and accept the fact it's 19233274928734 times better than burning shit loads of carbon compounds, the world would be a better place.
All your points are certainly valid, but I'd say the next era of physics in games is just around the corner. Go watch the spore video to see an example of what's coming.
:)
Besides, who doesn't like rag dolling? I played through HL2 just so I could toss bodies around with the gravity gun.
Why do companies absolutely insist on keeping records of everything? (I make (temporary) exceptions for the following: backups, absolutely non-identifable data for site monitoring and traffic flow, and security logs).
If I ran an ISP/Service provider and a customer clicked the delete button I'd make sure that stuff was either erased immediately or very very soon (such as a cron job which expunges selected emails every half hour). I can understand logging something like, safe, people trying to telnet or SSH into a system of mine, but not every page view of my site. Why bother? Is it a legal requirement? Are they just trying to cover their collective asses? Sounds like a shitload of work for absolutely zero payoff (other than pissing your customers off...which really isn't a payoff at all.)
Your argument (if you can call it an argument) doesn't make sense, and here's why:
Other companies (hereafter, content providers) supply video and whatnot for Google to display on Google Video. Content providers own this content, but don't want to pay for a distribution system when one (Google Video) is already in place. At the same time, content providers don't want to give their stuff away for free (a la your typical Google Video clip). Like any company they want to make a profit and protect *THEIR* content.
So Google has a choice: They can either 1) Accept the content providers content with the provision that
they include DRM to protect said content, or 2) Not offer the content at all. Period.
Since Google would probably like to turn a profit on things like Google video (duh), they choose option #1. Sadly the software is XP/2000 only (which makes me sad), but their *requirement* to protect the content is understandable.
I don't see how you connect this to a trust issue. It's not Google's content to trust you with. It is the content provider's content and their decision of wether or not to trust you. So if you have a trust issue with anyone, it's with the people who own the content. In this case, don't shoot the messenger.
Now, with Gmail on the other hand...
I know if I was poor and barely had enough food to eat, I'd happily trade a fortune I don't have that could feed my family for god knows how long for a laptop! Maybe we can give the kids "I'M STARVING AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS LAPTOP" T-shirts while we're at it.
Seriously, laptops like this would better help people in developing countries (that is, countries where people have some money to spend that they don't need for survival). It could certainly enable them to educate themselves, their children, etc.
But in a lot of countries the last thing the people need is a laptop. Sure, they'll be able to watch porn, read your blog, and purchase Trogdor polos online, but that wont solve their immediate needs. A laptop might help you plant smarter, and a tractor might help you plant faster, but neither will feed your children or stop the neighboring tribe from slaughtering you.
Are Mac users born stupid, or do they just become stupid after buying Macs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_Investment
This is an argument a hear a lot in rallys/debates by the democratic group at my college. That it is somehow the government's job to run around the school yard and topple anyone who gets too big.
The Death tax hurts little people, too. I have a friend who's parents died recently, and as an only child, left him pretty much everything. Unfortunately, he couldn't afford the taxes associated with his parent's estate, mainly the house his parents were living in - a house that had been in their family for four generations. Yeah, that death tax was real fair!
Because the property you earned during you life work and investiments was due to a stable society, economy and government investment in infastructure.
Indeed, that is why your parents pay taxes during their entire working lives. And that is why I'll also be paying taxes my entire working life.
I would prefer to have a society were wealth is based more on merit and hard work and not just because some distant ancestor made it big in plastics. There are several key arguments for an estate tax.
Great, so teach your kids the value of a dollar and a hard days work. My parents did. Not everyone has megawealthy ancestors who are responsible for their wealth - my parents simply worked their entire lives for it (and were the first generation to ever graduate high school, let alone college).
Continued concentrate of power in the elite...
It is undeniable that there is a connection between wealth and political power. And unfortunately, no one, not democrat, and not republican, seems willing to separate the two, by any means. I don't think the solution, however, is letting the gov't jump in and say "HA! You died, now gimme half!!!1" Protecting consumers has nothing to do with an Estate tax and everything to do with regulatory bodies such as the FTC. There are other ways with dealing with such issues and a Death Tax is certainly an indirect and overly broad method.
Limit Innovation.
Please, it is a gross generalization that all rich kids are snobs and do nothing with their lives, and some kid being rich hardly limits your ability to innovate. If anything, your argument would eliminate your competition and make it easier for you to innovate!
Govt research and investments. Reducing taxes could crimp government research and investments in education -- the source of innovations that create jobs. With less education, growing numbers of workers can't get ahead.
Neither of which, I would argue, are the purpose of government. With the exception of military research, the government has no business funding research. Sure, it's a great pie-in-the-sky concept, the government dumping billions of dollars into cancer research to help humanity. But is that their job? No. If I want to fund cancer research I'll fund it myself knowing that it was *my* decision, not the government's, to do good.
Clearly, education has worked its way into the purpose of government (and it has done a terrible job) and that fact wont be changing. I would love to see the government give interest free loans to ANYONE, regardless of race/ethnicity/class/religion/sexual orientation/geographic location, who wishes to go to college (I'd say you need to be a citizen, however). But that's pretty pie-in-the-sky as well, isn't it?
Instead of solving the problems of society by giving the single thing we should keep in check the most - the federal government - why do people (especially democrats, who always say they are looking out for the "little guy") insist that giving more wealth, and by your own statement, power, to the government is the solution to all of societies ills? When did we stop being grown ups and instead being children of the government our parents gave their blood and sweat for? Giving the government more power is a sure fire wire to give yourself less.
Hitler did not just say, "Gee, I wish all these jews would die." He issued orders. Orders are action. You keep making this spurious difference between speaking privately to people and making "an effort to convince others to hate a visible group you don't like." It's a difference of scale, not character. Freedom of the press is a neccessary part of freedom of speech. Incidentally, slander and libel are civil rather than criminal matters in the US.
When you compare Hitler's orders to exterminate jews to your average not-a-totalitarian-dictator joe, you're comparing apples to oranges. It's not a difference of scale or character, but a difference of control and authority. When Hitler spoke you listened because he was your commander. The circumstances are vastly different.
Free speech in all of its forms - including hate speech - should be equally protected. If someone says "lets all get together and kill group X" in any medium to any number of people, it should be protected as speech. The people who carry it out are the ones who take action. Just because some people aren't smart enough to think for themselves before they do something doesn't mean that all of society should forfeit their rights.
The idea that speech should be limited based on scale is a frightening one. Who gets to draw the lines and where? What about the internet where your potential audience is everyone? No, the idea that your freedom of speech should be scaled by the size of your audience is definitely not a Good Thing(TM).
that eugenics is ok. It's definitely not the right direction to go in and I certainly didn't mean to suggest we should move in that direction. Some people have a bit too much of a knee jerk reaction ;) I was just pointing out one of the current problems we as a species face. You'll notice I never even suggested eugenics as an answer, just observing a potential problem.
;)
:)
Of course without randomness we'd genetically stagnate. The benefit of randomness is that it is genetic growth in every direction, so to speak. This is effectively brute force genetic survival - should something cataclysmic happen to the species, such as a particularly virulent virus, there's a good chance that at least some members of the population will survive and continue on. (This is the exact opposite of a specialized species, as you pointed out in your post.) I totally agree.
Since we can't predict the future we can't tell what genes will be beneficial. I don't know how you really went from my comment of "Aren't we effectively letting people piss into the pool?" to "Yet you want to throw out the single most powerful aspect of evolution. Random chance." Let's try not to put words into my mouth.
To counter your point of "which genes are good/bad at what time" (and to reaffirm what I meant in my first post) I don't think ALL genes are a shade of grey. Take for instance, a gene that inhibits the bodies ability to produce a key protein. This is detected at birth and the solution is a pill that must be taken for the rest of a child's life. Not only is this extremely dangerous, but it is arguably unethical to pass on such curse to your offspring. Is it wise to have portions of the population completely reliant on a drug?
I'd say a *lot* of research needs to be done in genetics and biochemistry before we can start deciding what genes really are good, bad, and/or absolutely necessary. Oh, and I love that evolved antenna example. Thanks for the link!
Yeah, but GATTACA was a little bit extreme. I don't think humanity will so quickly render up its freedoms. More exactly, I don't think that governments will step into a 'genetic arms race.' Infact, they might be the only ones in power to stop it. I'd suggest that it's more likely genetic arms races will start in the private sector - by corporations. What's scary about this is that while we might ban genetic engineering of humans in some countries, especially Western ones, there's going to be governments that either allow, encourage, or even control these technologies to their own benefit.
Now, it might spark a stem cell debate in civilized countries, but most people are going to be too afraid of letting this genie out of the bottle to let that happen.