Thank you. How have you guys been?
I had forgotten about this one. It is a cool Christmas article, though, isn't it?
I'm still here, but I've got a lot to cope with offline right now. You might not see much of me online for a few months.
Take Five, by Dave Brubeck, and Getz/Gilberto. West Coast and Latin jazz are the way to go. Less "I forgot what I was doing," and more "I know where I'm going."
If you're only using your microwave oven to heat-up frozen dinners or re-heat leftovers, you're not making very good use of it. It's an effective cooking appliance, if you use it correctly.
From the London Eye:
Perhaps the intent should be made more clear, then. Instead of saying "follow mk," you should say "subcribe to mk's content." If I could only follow tags, I may as well be subcribing to a sub-Reddit. And I have no desire to do that again. So, I don't follow tags, and, honestly, I think the ability to do so only confuses new users, who will decide Hubski is just like Reddit, but with updots instead of upvotes. Just try to make it clear how the site was designed to be used, and only add features that enhance that use.it resembles Facebook friending.
In many ways that addresses my own discontent. Our intentions are far less important than the effect.
Yes, they can, and the liberal arts do just that. Want to learn to think? Study philosophy. It teaches reasoning. Want to learn to solve problems? Study literature, history, and social studies. They teach how people, organizations, and societies have solved problems. Want to learn creativity? Study the fine arts. They teach you how to create. If we abandon the humanities, we abandon education.it’s not conducive to thinking, problem solving or creativity.
What does that mean? Those things can be inspired -- to a degree. But they can't be taught
True, but the article points out that people "hear" the words they're typing and will sometimes type a word which sounds the same instead of the one they meant to, especially if it's a word they type more often than the other.
Zork
If it's 2 in the morning, this must be Zork. Not even Ted Koppel can keep the nation up so late -- The Washington Post
It was the first computer-gaming fad. You'll find references to it throughout modern computer games.
We've made the economy our dominant institution. If we wish to regain control over it, or replace it, we'll have to strengthen our other institutions, which will mean making them independent of the economy first. It'll happen, but who knows what will spur the change or when it'll occur.
We consider people to be intelligent, and people frequently pursue seemingly innocuous goals to the extent that they harm themselves and others. A critical difference is that AIs are potentially immortal, so even death can't put an end to their shenanigans.Douglas Hofstadter has made strong arguments why AI simply cannot be so narrow in scope or objective, or exist without many of the same flaws that we have.
1) Aesop's Fables 2) The Iliad 3) The New Testament 4) Tales of the Brothers Grimm 5) The Old Testament 6) The Republic 7) Candide 8) Discourse on the Method
"I don't really know too much about the facts and allegations of what's going on." -- C.J. Anderson, Broncos running backWhy ... would anyone want to play in the NFL?
If that were the case, colleges would have the opportunity to revert to the educational institutions they used to be. Believe it or not, many people want to learn. These people are the reason that the liberal arts still exist in schools.If this were the case, colleges would crash and burn overnight.
This is the problem the author was addressing. If we insist on seeing college as an economic good, then we, both students and schools, will ignore and neglect the educational aspect of it. Since education is the primary purpose of schools, we end up with an education that isn't. I don't think employers should be able to use degrees as a qualification for any sort of work.Secondly, colleges, or my college, has not felt like a place that you go to learn and expand your mind anymore. It's a place where you jump through hoops to get a degree to hopefully get a job that requires one, to hopefully make more money.
The movie also implies that getting past our technology will become necessary for our survival. Notice that HAL decides that people are just getting in the way of its mission and tries to get rid of them.Man will eventually outgrow his machines, or be drawn beyond them by some cosmic awareness. He will then become a child again, but a child of an infinitely more advanced, more ancient race, just as apes once became, to their own dismay, the infant stage of man.
It's pretty similar to rugby, and I don't think rugby players get injured the way football players do. I'd bet that getting rid of football players' pads and helmets would change the kind of violence we see on the field.It's not really comparable to other team sports in terms of violence.
I didn't even know there was a lionfish. Vicious looking critter.
The deep blue is probably a result of the direction of the light. It was pretty late in the afternoon when I took the shot.
My ladle is plastic (and has a sieve extended from one side), so, I'm afraid, it's not really much of a weapon.
Let's be more generous than that. Let's say everyone needs at least $27,000 per year. 150,000,000 people make less than $27,000 a year. Let's assume they make an average of $13,500 a year. A reverse income-tax would need to double that to allow everyone to pay for the cost of living. So, we need to budget for $2.1 trillion. If we decreased our military budget to the per capita rate of developed countries we get $1.14 trillion. (We spend $1.3 trillion, most developed countries spend $550 per person, or $0.16 trillion for a country the size of the U.S.). If we closed other means-tested welfare programs, we get $0.93 trillion. If we closed social security, we get $0.78 trillion. If we closed corporate tax loopholes, we get $0.15 trillion. Who knows what we'd get if we reinstated the tax rates from the '50s through the '70s, or if we stopped spying on everyone, or if we stopped imprisoning so many people for so long, but we already have more than enough: $3 trillion. I think we the reason we aren't already doing this is because of our priorities, not because we can't afford to.
It's fascinating watching someone whose world-view is dominated by a specialized discipline try to come to terms with how most other people see things. It'd be even more interesting if they ever got it right. Of course, since they're determined to see anyone who thinks differently from them as ignorant fools, they're bound to mess it up. For most people "chemical" doesn't mean "toxic," it means "synthetic chemical." And the reason most people are suspicious of synthetic chemicals isn't because they regard "nature as good" and "artifact as evil," it's because they recognize that we have millennia's worth of shared experience which tells us how to cope with the things already found in nature, but we have very little experience telling us how to cope with something someone just cooked up in the lab. It's really pretty simple to understand, and it's not as ignorant or foolish as chemists would like to believe.
NotPhil's Notions is a blog where I say "stop breaking things!" in a lot of different ways. I intend to get back to that sometime soon. WhereIsNotPhil is a series of photo essays on Hubski where I post pictures of cool-looking places and ask people to guess where I was. I also intend to get back to that sometime soon.