The article isn't really about making biofuel from self-destructing trees. It's about introducing the mechanism through which the lignin (in the trees) destructs to other crops that grow much faster and leave a lot of waste, like corn.
Personally, I think that sourcing energy from biofuel will never really scale, anyway...
"Should", while pointing to the ideal, does not reflect what works in the real world.
I don't think that Mr. Eich will change his opinions as a result of this, but I'm damn sure he'll be much more careful how he airs and acts upon them in the future.
I'll leave it to others to decide whether that's a good thing.
...Keep your political views well hidden if you plan to head up an organisation that is sensitive as to how it is perceived by a cross-section of society.
So what if there was sound? Who cares? Do people who like the Tesla like it because it is relatively quiet, or do they like it for other reasons (because it looks great, runs on electricity, smooth acceleration, etc.)?
I don't see why the original post thinks that we should all see the addition of engine noise as funny. Mildly perplexing, yes, but that's about it.
I don't know that having too much time on one's hands leads to crime.
It's arguable that crime happens because:
- people are poor (I assume this won't be an issue in a TNG world);
- the adults who should be acting as good role models for children either don't have the time to do this right, or are just simply absent (again, not a problem in a world where there's more than enough time to do the things we want.
Of course, there will always be sociopaths who commit crime for whatever reason.
Where I live, self-checkouts are still going strong in grocery stores. In fact, I prefer to use them because wait times are much less for me.
I do wonder how they deal with the possibility of fraud, but I guess I live in an area where the level of fraud is not high enough to outweigh the advantages of cost/scale.
The reason the news on Ukraine is such a big deal is that it's largely been engineered by Russia.
But - what if the people in Crimea had agitated to secede from Ukraine and join Russia, without any provocation from Russia? This is not entirely far fetched, given the region's history and ethnic makeup.
Should the fact that Ukraine would not want this to happen be a reason for it not to happen?
Shouldn't the people who live in a locality be the main people who decide their destiny?
I'm not sure how #1 is a reason. The pervasiveness of the internet is not in itself a problem, any more than air being everywhere is a problem. Show me how the pervasiveness is an issue.
# 2 is weak; it talks about what could happen, rather than what is likely to happen. I understand that when arguing against something, if the outcome of letting that thing happen is catastrophic, that will determine how convincing the argument is, but I prefer to look at the probability of the outcome occuring, and I would like to see more evidential arguments for more privacy.
#3 is just vague. You can't say that I'm paying for privacy and then not even be specific about it. Why should I care if I decide that the amount I'm paying is minuscule?
Who cares. Women can do anything men can do, so why is this a big deal.
Article Summary;
"I am a woman, therefore I deserve special treatment. All men have it easy because they are men. I have statistics to prove that I deserve special consideration because there are less women then men in certain fields."
That is not the sense I came away with from reading the article.
What I read was that she said that:
- there were far more men than women in engineering and science.
- many women are discouraged from entering a field where they are in a clear minority. (By the way, I think this isn't just a woman thing; most people are self-conscious about being the odd person out)
- she had been scared off from doing some potentially interesting engineering work, sometimes by someone saying the work was not for her (she wasn't specific, so I don't know whether she was acting on her own perceptions/interpretations of other people)
- women who are interested in going into science should tell their stories so that other women don't feel that it's not for them - something I agree with.
> These traits are a result of hormones acting on the brain
What do you think controls the release of hormones? The thinking part of the brain, of course. You don't feel fear until you see that you are in danger, and you don't feel love until you recognize the one you love. These things don't happen automatically - you have to think to make them happen, and once the AI has been programmed to think of these things, it is only a small step to simulate hormone release and its effects. You can think of hormones as global variables of state.
I'm not sure that thinking is involved in the scenarios you describe. For example, say I've had a bad experience with pigeons in the past. If I see a few pigeons land in front of my house, I might freak out, despite the thinking, logical part of my brain telling me that they cannot possibly harm me.
Please do. It did a great job of filling in the gaps in my knowledge of Bitcoin, by constructing it step by step, using simple example scenarios and showing the issues involved in implementing a digital currency.
Now if only I could find a article to explain monetary policy in the same style...
Then again, reading some of the other comments here, I think I may need to do more explaning in future articles about just what's happening in many countries now. A lot of views seem to be about 30 years out of date...
I wouldn't bother, really. The holders of those views hold them more for emotional than logical reasons.
Fortunately Afrimakers isn't that kind of story. The guys behind it were invited to try and visit by the people who run tech hubs all over the continent - the only reason it's 'Africa' rather than individual countries is that there is a pan-continental network of hubs that work together to try and do exactly those things you mention. They've asked Afrimakers to visit to supplement that work they do around entrepreneurship etc.
As for developers leaving the continent - there is also an opposite effect taking place. Diaspora who've gone overseas, learned skills, and are returning to set up social enterprises or take advantage of the big growth rates and start businesses.
Thanks. I read the original article, and I got the impression that there was more emphasis about teaching tech to children than working with would-be entrepreneurs to help with their businesses.
I know that there are Africans who have worked abroad returning to their home countries, but sadly, there are far more Africans remaining abroad, or worse still, seeking to leave. But perhaps it doesn't matter - you only need a few enterprising souls to kickstart something good.
Not another "technology will save 'Africa'" story - as though 'Africa' was a monolithic entity.
It's possible that this program will produce some enthusiastic and talented programmers in Africa... but when those programmers realise that it's frustrating writing programs when there's only a few hours of power a day, internet access is flaky, corrupt and predatory government frustrates their efforts to set up a business, and some big company overseas beckons them to work, they probably won't remain in Africa for very long.
In any event, I think it would be better to focus more on the business side of things (i.e. how can technology aid your business) rather than technology for technology's sake).
...the ability to learn things without being specifically taught.
I'm not sure what the specifically means here, but for one to learn something, either you actually do something and get some feedback that enables you to build a model of the world and thereby predict what might happen in similar circumstances, or you receive sensory input and have someone explain to you what the input means.
Either way, there's some kind of teaching going on.
what makes you think that 20 000 contractors wouldn't be a way for the information to leak to criminals or that 20 000 contractors wouldn't use in a fashion that would be criminal for anyone else?(you know, like using your identity to email hack someone else and you ending up as the fall guy...).
Is it possible for this to happen? Absolutely.
Is it likely that this could happen? I have no idea, but I doubt it.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not going to spend too much time worrying about an event whose probability is hard to estimate.
I'm less worried about the likes of the NSA, and more worried about criminal gangs getting hold of my data and using it to make my life a misery through identity theft.
Anyhow, the way these things work is:
- Either a very small percentage of people are seriously affected by breaches in privacy, in which case I don't need to worry too much about it, or
- A significantly large number of people are seriously affected, so that it becomes a political issue and there's a push to do something about it.
Slashdot Mirror
The article isn't really about making biofuel from self-destructing trees. It's about introducing the mechanism through which the lignin (in the trees) destructs to other crops that grow much faster and leave a lot of waste, like corn.
Personally, I think that sourcing energy from biofuel will never really scale, anyway...
"Everyone should..."
Ah, but that's the problem.
"Should", while pointing to the ideal, does not reflect what works in the real world.
I don't think that Mr. Eich will change his opinions as a result of this, but I'm damn sure he'll be much more careful how he airs and acts upon them in the future.
I'll leave it to others to decide whether that's a good thing.
...Keep your political views well hidden if you plan to head up an organisation that is sensitive as to how it is perceived by a cross-section of society.
So what if there was sound? Who cares? Do people who like the Tesla like it because it is relatively quiet, or do they like it for other reasons (because it looks great, runs on electricity, smooth acceleration, etc.)?
I don't see why the original post thinks that we should all see the addition of engine noise as funny. Mildly perplexing, yes, but that's about it.
It's kind of getting old hearing about the latest spying activity of the NSA.
It would be more interesting to hear who they're *not* spying on these days.
I don't know that having too much time on one's hands leads to crime.
It's arguable that crime happens because:
- people are poor (I assume this won't be an issue in a TNG world);
- the adults who should be acting as good role models for children either don't have the time to do this right, or are just simply absent (again, not a problem in a world where there's more than enough time to do the things we want.
Of course, there will always be sociopaths who commit crime for whatever reason.
Where I live, self-checkouts are still going strong in grocery stores. In fact, I prefer to use them because wait times are much less for me.
I do wonder how they deal with the possibility of fraud, but I guess I live in an area where the level of fraud is not high enough to outweigh the advantages of cost/scale.
The reason the news on Ukraine is such a big deal is that it's largely been engineered by Russia.
But - what if the people in Crimea had agitated to secede from Ukraine and join Russia, without any provocation from Russia? This is not entirely far fetched, given the region's history and ethnic makeup.
Should the fact that Ukraine would not want this to happen be a reason for it not to happen?
Shouldn't the people who live in a locality be the main people who decide their destiny?
I feel that these three reasons are rather weak.
I'm not sure how #1 is a reason. The pervasiveness of the internet is not in itself a problem, any more than air being everywhere is a problem. Show me how the pervasiveness is an issue.
# 2 is weak; it talks about what could happen, rather than what is likely to happen. I understand that when arguing against something, if the outcome of letting that thing happen is catastrophic, that will determine how convincing the argument is, but I prefer to look at the probability of the outcome occuring, and I would like to see more evidential arguments for more privacy.
#3 is just vague. You can't say that I'm paying for privacy and then not even be specific about it. Why should I care if I decide that the amount I'm paying is minuscule?
Who cares. Women can do anything men can do, so why is this a big deal.
Article Summary;
"I am a woman, therefore I deserve special treatment. All men have it easy because they are men. I have statistics to prove that I deserve special consideration because there are less women then men in certain fields."
That is not the sense I came away with from reading the article.
What I read was that she said that:
- there were far more men than women in engineering and science.
- many women are discouraged from entering a field where they are in a clear minority. (By the way, I think this isn't just a woman thing; most people are self-conscious about being the odd person out)
- she had been scared off from doing some potentially interesting engineering work, sometimes by someone saying the work was not for her (she wasn't specific, so I don't know whether she was acting on her own perceptions/interpretations of other people)
- women who are interested in going into science should tell their stories so that other women don't feel that it's not for them - something I agree with.
> These traits are a result of hormones acting on the brain
What do you think controls the release of hormones? The thinking part of the brain, of course. You don't feel fear until you see that you are in danger, and you don't feel love until you recognize the one you love. These things don't happen automatically - you have to think to make them happen, and once the AI has been programmed to think of these things, it is only a small step to simulate hormone release and its effects. You can think of hormones as global variables of state.
I'm not sure that thinking is involved in the scenarios you describe. For example, say I've had a bad experience with pigeons in the past. If I see a few pigeons land in front of my house, I might freak out, despite the thinking, logical part of my brain telling me that they cannot possibly harm me.
It's fine getting students to learn programming languages; I just feel funny about having them classified as foreign languages.
If only they could have such speeds over wireless connections...
I can't see people who live in areas that are hard for cable to reach benefitting much from this.
I think that the problem is that Netflix is making the assumption that "A" player + "A" player + "A" player + "A" player = "A" team.
Unfortunately, it often doesn't work that way.
... I'll be reading the rest soon.
Please do. It did a great job of filling in the gaps in my knowledge of Bitcoin, by constructing it step by step, using simple example scenarios and showing the issues involved in implementing a digital currency.
Now if only I could find a article to explain monetary policy in the same style...
Then again, reading some of the other comments here, I think I may need to do more explaning in future articles about just what's happening in many countries now. A lot of views seem to be about 30 years out of date...
I wouldn't bother, really. The holders of those views hold them more for emotional than logical reasons.
Fortunately Afrimakers isn't that kind of story. The guys behind it were invited to try and visit by the people who run tech hubs all over the continent - the only reason it's 'Africa' rather than individual countries is that there is a pan-continental network of hubs that work together to try and do exactly those things you mention. They've asked Afrimakers to visit to supplement that work they do around entrepreneurship etc. As for developers leaving the continent - there is also an opposite effect taking place. Diaspora who've gone overseas, learned skills, and are returning to set up social enterprises or take advantage of the big growth rates and start businesses.
Thanks. I read the original article, and I got the impression that there was more emphasis about teaching tech to children than working with would-be entrepreneurs to help with their businesses.
I know that there are Africans who have worked abroad returning to their home countries, but sadly, there are far more Africans remaining abroad, or worse still, seeking to leave. But perhaps it doesn't matter - you only need a few enterprising souls to kickstart something good.
Not another "technology will save 'Africa'" story - as though 'Africa' was a monolithic entity.
It's possible that this program will produce some enthusiastic and talented programmers in Africa... but when those programmers realise that it's frustrating writing programs when there's only a few hours of power a day, internet access is flaky, corrupt and predatory government frustrates their efforts to set up a business, and some big company overseas beckons them to work, they probably won't remain in Africa for very long.
In any event, I think it would be better to focus more on the business side of things (i.e. how can technology aid your business) rather than technology for technology's sake).
I thought slashvertisements were supposed to be about companies that were growing, not companies that were closing down?
Not so sure how good this is. From what I can see, the equal error rate of palm identification is 0.17, compared to 0.01 for fingerprint identification.
Science is when you teach yourself by experimentation.
...the ability to learn things without being specifically taught.
I'm not sure what the specifically means here, but for one to learn something, either you actually do something and get some feedback that enables you to build a model of the world and thereby predict what might happen in similar circumstances, or you receive sensory input and have someone explain to you what the input means.
Either way, there's some kind of teaching going on.
what makes you think that 20 000 contractors wouldn't be a way for the information to leak to criminals or that 20 000 contractors wouldn't use in a fashion that would be criminal for anyone else?(you know, like using your identity to email hack someone else and you ending up as the fall guy...).
Is it possible for this to happen? Absolutely.
Is it likely that this could happen? I have no idea, but I doubt it.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not going to spend too much time worrying about an event whose probability is hard to estimate.
I'm less worried about the likes of the NSA, and more worried about criminal gangs getting hold of my data and using it to make my life a misery through identity theft.
Anyhow, the way these things work is:
- Either a very small percentage of people are seriously affected by breaches in privacy, in which case I don't need to worry too much about it, or
- A significantly large number of people are seriously affected, so that it becomes a political issue and there's a push to do something about it.
Please pull this story - it has already been posted today!