It's easy to think 'this gene means the posessor won't learn from his mistakes. We don't want that! Here's a little edit...'
But the article goes on to talk about mellow kids who don't take lessons from their parents as well as difficult children. Then maybe these kids who don't learn are not so much "not learning" as resistant to "bad learning".
The fact that this gene shows up in as much of the population as it does - 1/3 - shows that something is selecting for it. "Fixing" this may upset some sort of societal balance.
Imagine if parents all chose to have mellow kids instead of difficult ones, and then bad / unlucky parents began producing more profoundly screwed up kids instead of kids who were able to shrug off the negative influences in their childhood...
According to TFA, the threats were numerous enough to appear in the first page of results when the Jane Does' names were searched for, leading to all sorts of employment and personal issues for the two women involved.
The people who actually create difficulty for these young ladies are the ones who read this nonsense and use it as input on important decisions.
Threats of physical violence can be actual indicators of danger, but more often are leftover playground trashtalk. It's hurtful, yes, but that's part of communicating with/about people we don't necessarily like. Unless it rises to the point of being actual crime the government shouldn't have to enforce that we all be nice to each other.
I would personally rather the government not restrict what I say / is said about me on the internet AND potential authority figures be barred from searching my personal online history RATHER THAN the government restrict online speech and give tacit approval to the concept that interviewers should be expected to be able to take whatever gossip they can find about me online as gospel.
I think the blame here is going in the wrong direction.
Blame the posters? Idle threats and childish insults have a longer history than the intarweb. How can anyone think that the internet should be open to everyone - even the irresponsible - and somehow not contain irresponsible material?
If the article is correct, and these girls suffered because of the online information about them, then wouldn't the people to punish be those who acted on incorrect / inappropriate information? Seriously, what employer denies someone a job because someone called the applicant a bitch online?
Professional decisions made based on personal information found online shouldn't be ok. Not that that's any more enforceable than preventing children from calling each other names. If you want to blame someone for irresponsibility blame the person who was supposed to be responsible - not someone who is clearly just spouting off.
I always wanted to see The Dark Knight Returns w/ Clint Eastwood as Batman, Mick Jagger as the joker. As old as they are in that comic, however, that window is pretty much closed.
Can someone explain this to me? My coworkers have been talking about it, even my Dad, spurred by $4 gas, no doubt. I feel sure that it must be some kind of hogwash.
My understanding is that the scheme is to use electricity from the alternator to electrolize water for H and O. Then burn the hydrogen and oxygen, which turns it back into water. So that is pretty much no net gain in energy, right? Given that nothing is 100% efficient, it'll be a loss.
But they say that the electricity is spare, b/c your car is turning the alternator either way. I'm a little sketchy on this part. By putting a load on the electrical output of the generator (electrolyzing the water) don't you make it harder to to turn?
Presuming success, and nonzero cost of treatment, who gets extended life? If you monetize treatment what are the ethical and societal repercussions of allowing only the rich to live a long time?
Yes, you keep shoveling horse manure at your kids and they will grow up with a taste for horse manure.
I read 5 or 7 Heinlein books as a youngster before realizing that they were lame. I read a few L. Ron Hubbard books as well before it became clear to me that they were not good, despite the shelfspace the author occupied.
Don't worry about exposing children to stuff that sucks - they'll be able to decide they don't like it. The point is to make sure they're exposed to stuff that's good.
It takes an enormous amount of work to make a good academic text.
I wonder what would happen if all the redundant texts out there were no longer financially motivated? Where would all the resultant free time be spent? Perhaps in no productive way. Or maybe advancing the field. Or in working more closely with students. Or in some other productive, non-redundant pursuit. Perhaps if textbook production decreased, not to zero but to a smallish number, then courses and curriculum could become more standardized. If books weren't forced to keep changing then perhaps selection pressure for quality writing could be increased.
Perhaps thinning the textbook industry would not necessarily be a detriment to learning.
I had a prof in college who distributed photocopies of a book he had written that had gone out of print. I have seen in the comments here academic professionals complain about the state of the industry. Why don't professors distribute their own e-texts?
You can discuss wether 'getting there is half the fun'. But it seems to me that 'high margin, low volume' seems to work, while 'low margin, high volume' does not. This as an industry wide strategy, not an individual company one.
I think it would perhaps be interesting to skip game 2. Game 3 would pretend to presume you had knowledge of Game 2, and you-the-player would have a strong knowledge dissonance with you-the-charecter. I think of one of my favorite moments in TV - watching the Cowboy Bebob episode in the casino, having missed the first 5 min of the show (and it being ~2nd episode of it I had ever seen). Figuring out WTF was going on only as the show progressed really made the plot elements *snap* as they fell into place.
But then I really enjoy media about the interplay of order and chaos.
Skipping game 2 could be an interesting experiment in narrative structure.
Not only could basic arithmetic functions and memory be built in, but also internet connectivity and even interfacing with body-protecting nanobots (personal control side steps the privacy problems). They could be designed to pass on to offspring (sperm and ova carry them)(would be necessary because it makes them permanent and secure in the perception of the general world).
Why would someone go to the effort of inventing and commercializing nanobots if they don't get to keep selling them to your offspring? How much do you expect to pay for nanobots? How much would you pay?
Absolutely fascinating what he foresees in the near future (~20 years). I believe it is 2028 when he believes a machine will pass the Turing Test. Even sooner, he predicts that we will have nanobots roaming around inside our bodies, fixing things and improving on our inherent deficiencies. Very cool.
I agree, very cool. But who pays for it all? How much do I have to pay for MY nanobots? What about people in the 3rd world? How will they react to my enhanced lifespan - assuming I can afford it? What do the unaugmented think of the semi-transcendent?
My concern is less for the scientific possibilities than for the economic realities. Remember: we flew no further than the moon not because it is impossible, but because we couldn't allocate resources for it.
Anyway, Mormonism: Their origins are a bit flaky, but only because they happened in the 1800s and not 1800 BC. Just about every major, currently active religion started out with one guy who claimed some special knowledge that only he could know, and was tasked him with spreading that knowledge to the world. See: Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Gautama Buddha. The fact that people thousands of years ago didn't blink an eye when people made claims like this doesn't make the claim any more or less crazy. And like most other mainstream religions, as time went on Mormonism has tended to shed the most bizarre or "out-there" claims and stick with the basics of preaching their ideas of morality.
This is an interesting and good point, good job. I'd like to say that I also kind of cling to its flipside, however. LDS (and other religions) still contain hokey BS for which they deserve derision. Ethical teachings need to be held to the highest standards.
And they stole my girlfriend about 10 years back. So while I don't desire to date her again, I do retain a special little 'fuck you!' in my heart for the Mormon Church.
The first group of doom games was pretty fun. Initially you could gain some benefit from being careful and scouting around. I seem to remember it being more about finding your way through interlocking fields of fire. There would be the occational trap, but it wasn't a big deal.
Eventually it turned into pressure-plate + teleporter lameness, but Doom was a very popular game initially and it wasn't without reason... hopefully they can find some of that aspect to get back to.
Sounds like some of my fellow commenters are expecting this guy to get screwed over this. I don't find myself hoping for that, however. I simply would like to know what his IP views were back in the day, what they are now, and how he reconciles the two. I want to know his position.
Slashdot Mirror
What? No. NO! I'm doing science when I comment on slashdot. Do you hear me? SCIENCE!
NNNNNNNNGGGGGGGYYYYAAAAA! MY COMMENTS MATTER BECAUSE OF SCIENCE! +5, SCIENCE!
So, the question is, can we fix this?
DANGER WILL ROBINSON! DANGER!
It's easy to think 'this gene means the posessor won't learn from his mistakes. We don't want that! Here's a little edit...'
But the article goes on to talk about mellow kids who don't take lessons from their parents as well as difficult children. Then maybe these kids who don't learn are not so much "not learning" as resistant to "bad learning".
The fact that this gene shows up in as much of the population as it does - 1/3 - shows that something is selecting for it. "Fixing" this may upset some sort of societal balance.
Imagine if parents all chose to have mellow kids instead of difficult ones, and then bad / unlucky parents began producing more profoundly screwed up kids instead of kids who were able to shrug off the negative influences in their childhood...
The franchise really depends on me coming up with a good idea
George. It really doesn't. You could hire someone. It would be ok.
ach, mod parent up! particularly the in-browser view is handy for those of us at work.
According to TFA, the threats were numerous enough to appear in the first page of results when the Jane Does' names were searched for, leading to all sorts of employment and personal issues for the two women involved.
The people who actually create difficulty for these young ladies are the ones who read this nonsense and use it as input on important decisions.
Threats of physical violence can be actual indicators of danger, but more often are leftover playground trashtalk. It's hurtful, yes, but that's part of communicating with/about people we don't necessarily like. Unless it rises to the point of being actual crime the government shouldn't have to enforce that we all be nice to each other.
I would personally rather the government not restrict what I say / is said about me on the internet AND potential authority figures be barred from searching my personal online history RATHER THAN the government restrict online speech and give tacit approval to the concept that interviewers should be expected to be able to take whatever gossip they can find about me online as gospel.
If I ever meet any of you in real life, keep in mind that I'm a redneck from the southern US and I will shoot you if you try anything.
Now who's making threats? Should you go to jail?
I think the blame here is going in the wrong direction.
Blame the posters? Idle threats and childish insults have a longer history than the intarweb. How can anyone think that the internet should be open to everyone - even the irresponsible - and somehow not contain irresponsible material?
If the article is correct, and these girls suffered because of the online information about them, then wouldn't the people to punish be those who acted on incorrect / inappropriate information? Seriously, what employer denies someone a job because someone called the applicant a bitch online?
Professional decisions made based on personal information found online shouldn't be ok. Not that that's any more enforceable than preventing children from calling each other names. If you want to blame someone for irresponsibility blame the person who was supposed to be responsible - not someone who is clearly just spouting off.
I always wanted to see The Dark Knight Returns w/ Clint Eastwood as Batman, Mick Jagger as the joker. As old as they are in that comic, however, that window is pretty much closed.
Oh well.
PFFF! As if any candy bar has a chance stuck in a room with a bunch of MMOPRGers!
Godzilla, yo.
What else lurks in the deep that we don't know about?
THE SHADOW KNOWS!
ICAHN!!!
IKIRK!!!
Can someone explain this to me? My coworkers have been talking about it, even my Dad, spurred by $4 gas, no doubt. I feel sure that it must be some kind of hogwash.
My understanding is that the scheme is to use electricity from the alternator to electrolize water for H and O. Then burn the hydrogen and oxygen, which turns it back into water. So that is pretty much no net gain in energy, right? Given that nothing is 100% efficient, it'll be a loss.
But they say that the electricity is spare, b/c your car is turning the alternator either way. I'm a little sketchy on this part. By putting a load on the electrical output of the generator (electrolyzing the water) don't you make it harder to to turn?
Presuming success, and nonzero cost of treatment, who gets extended life? If you monetize treatment what are the ethical and societal repercussions of allowing only the rich to live a long time?
Yes, you keep shoveling horse manure at your kids and they will grow up with a taste for horse manure.
I read 5 or 7 Heinlein books as a youngster before realizing that they were lame. I read a few L. Ron Hubbard books as well before it became clear to me that they were not good, despite the shelfspace the author occupied.
Don't worry about exposing children to stuff that sucks - they'll be able to decide they don't like it. The point is to make sure they're exposed to stuff that's good.
It takes an enormous amount of work to make a good academic text.
I wonder what would happen if all the redundant texts out there were no longer financially motivated? Where would all the resultant free time be spent? Perhaps in no productive way. Or maybe advancing the field. Or in working more closely with students. Or in some other productive, non-redundant pursuit. Perhaps if textbook production decreased, not to zero but to a smallish number, then courses and curriculum could become more standardized. If books weren't forced to keep changing then perhaps selection pressure for quality writing could be increased.
Perhaps thinning the textbook industry would not necessarily be a detriment to learning.
I had a prof in college who distributed photocopies of a book he had written that had gone out of print. I have seen in the comments here academic professionals complain about the state of the industry. Why don't professors distribute their own e-texts?
Parent (go AC!) has the key.
You can discuss wether 'getting there is half the fun'. But it seems to me that 'high margin, low volume' seems to work, while 'low margin, high volume' does not. This as an industry wide strategy, not an individual company one.
Nuclear plant -> electricity -> plug-in electric vehicle = less gasoline (oil) consumption
Or even better:
Nuclear plant -> electricity -> air compressor -> compressed air vehicle = less gasoline (oil) consumption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_car
I think it would perhaps be interesting to skip game 2. Game 3 would pretend to presume you had knowledge of Game 2, and you-the-player would have a strong knowledge dissonance with you-the-charecter. I think of one of my favorite moments in TV - watching the Cowboy Bebob episode in the casino, having missed the first 5 min of the show (and it being ~2nd episode of it I had ever seen). Figuring out WTF was going on only as the show progressed really made the plot elements *snap* as they fell into place.
But then I really enjoy media about the interplay of order and chaos.
Skipping game 2 could be an interesting experiment in narrative structure.
Not only could basic arithmetic functions and memory be built in, but also internet connectivity and even interfacing with body-protecting nanobots (personal control side steps the privacy problems). They could be designed to pass on to offspring (sperm and ova carry them)(would be necessary because it makes them permanent and secure in the perception of the general world).
Why would someone go to the effort of inventing and commercializing nanobots if they don't get to keep selling them to your offspring? How much do you expect to pay for nanobots? How much would you pay?
Absolutely fascinating what he foresees in the near future (~20 years). I believe it is 2028 when he believes a machine will pass the Turing Test. Even sooner, he predicts that we will have nanobots roaming around inside our bodies, fixing things and improving on our inherent deficiencies. Very cool.
I agree, very cool. But who pays for it all? How much do I have to pay for MY nanobots? What about people in the 3rd world? How will they react to my enhanced lifespan - assuming I can afford it? What do the unaugmented think of the semi-transcendent?
My concern is less for the scientific possibilities than for the economic realities. Remember: we flew no further than the moon not because it is impossible, but because we couldn't allocate resources for it.
I feel the same way about steam. But their content is good enough that people can't bring themselves to care.
Anyway, Mormonism: Their origins are a bit flaky, but only because they happened in the 1800s and not 1800 BC. Just about every major, currently active religion started out with one guy who claimed some special knowledge that only he could know, and was tasked him with spreading that knowledge to the world. See: Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Gautama Buddha. The fact that people thousands of years ago didn't blink an eye when people made claims like this doesn't make the claim any more or less crazy. And like most other mainstream religions, as time went on Mormonism has tended to shed the most bizarre or "out-there" claims and stick with the basics of preaching their ideas of morality.
This is an interesting and good point, good job. I'd like to say that I also kind of cling to its flipside, however. LDS (and other religions) still contain hokey BS for which they deserve derision. Ethical teachings need to be held to the highest standards.
And they stole my girlfriend about 10 years back. So while I don't desire to date her again, I do retain a special little 'fuck you!' in my heart for the Mormon Church.
The first group of doom games was pretty fun. Initially you could gain some benefit from being careful and scouting around. I seem to remember it being more about finding your way through interlocking fields of fire. There would be the occational trap, but it wasn't a big deal.
Eventually it turned into pressure-plate + teleporter lameness, but Doom was a very popular game initially and it wasn't without reason... hopefully they can find some of that aspect to get back to.
Sounds like some of my fellow commenters are expecting this guy to get screwed over this. I don't find myself hoping for that, however. I simply would like to know what his IP views were back in the day, what they are now, and how he reconciles the two. I want to know his position.