Or you could buy good PCs and see the price is pretty much the same.



Lol @budzos. Mac people have always said this, and it has always been funny. They used to have some magic wiggle room because so many parts were different (different processor, especially) - but that's mostly gone now. OK, so here you can get a quad core Mac Pro for $2499. Let's see what those parts it lists are worth:

Processor: $316 (here's the specific model)
Graphics Card: $109 (here's actually a slightly better model)
6GB of RAM: $100 (good RAM for that premium)
1TB hard disk: $100 (decent hard disk for that)
Motherboard: $250 (let's get a nice one)
Case: $250 (let's get a nice one)
Optical drive: $100

So far we're at $1225. Maybe they've got some Apple magic (whoo! Superdrive!) to make up a couple hundred more dollars - but it's going to take a lot to spend another $1275 (ie. more than double). If you prefer a Mac, go ahead and get one - but pretending they're the same price is silly.

To be clear, I don't hate Apple and some of their products are reasonably priced now. A Macbook Air, for example, has been a good deal for a while and is still much nicer than its competitors. But their hardware has historically been way more expensive, and lots of it still has a significant premium attached.

Serious professionalism from the kids, here, to keep on dancing and stay pretty close to in-sync. And Beyonce really knows how to work a crowd and play-off them - good at her job. Hard to imagine how that could have gone any better. Good job everybody.

seems like it would be much safer (in this scenario) to have computer controlled acceleration. You know everything about the track so it's a relatively easy physics and control problem.




It would be even safer if there was no driver at all; also, they could also make the gap much smaller so they don't need to be going so fast. Maybe no engine, and scale the car down to an inch or so big. It would be pretty safe, then.

Or, actually, maybe just not do the jump at all. That would be very, very safe.

It seems this IT Crowd segment should be part of the discussion: here.

I imagine that, because they don't require human input to operate, these might be Sabbath legal for some subset of Jews that couldn't use regular elevators.

Edit: Screw it, I don't want to be part of this discussion. Sorry.

She doesn't seem to have any kind of convincing case for her positions.

I think by far the most important variable in successful education (assuming a generally non-variant curriculum) is the student, second their parents, and third the quality of their teacher. A distant twelfth is teaching methods, administrative environment, how teachers are evaluated, etc...

This makes it absurdly hard to compare different teaching methods, because the signal from other factors is so much stronger. I think defining outcomes is about the best we're likely to do - define a goal, and let teachers and students figure out how they're going to get there.

Yes, some students would do better in a different scenario. Probably. But there's always going to be this kind of variance, and - whatever the specifics - somehow you've got to have the same teacher teaching a bunch of kids so it's never going to be optimal for everyone.

Also, equating rape to diabetes is just moronic.


I'd put the order something like Holocaust > rape > diabetes in terms of offensiveness potential. And I think Holocaust jokes are just fine. I think that people making Holocaust, rape, pancake, diabetes, and "everything else" jokes is a positive thing for the world, even if most of those jokes have no particular insight. I don't think it matters whether a joke is good or insightful as to whether it's an "OK" thing to do.

If a comedian tells jokes I don't like, I think of that person as a bad comedian, not a bad person. Sounds like this guy did some poor material. I probably wouldn't go to his show. I don't want to hear poorly done rape jokes (as it sounds like these were). I'm 100% in favor of people sharing the type of comedy someone does - it helps people make good decisions on what they watch. But I don't think his intention was anything other than to entertain; from this I don't think we know anything about whether he's a bad person, just whether he's good at his job.

I think people should try not to be offended by things, and if they can't then they shouldn't go to comedy shows where jokes like this are likely to happen. Personally (and for personal reasons) I can't deal well with media that has violence against human infants (or even sick children). It affects me physically; I pretty much have to turn away. And I've heard arguments that movies and games and whatever shouldn't have violence against children. While I have no desire to see babies hurt in a game, I am 100% against any kind of ban (hard or otherwise). I shouldn't get to decide this for other people. Let people decide what to produce and what to watch.

We'll never agree on some set of "community standards" for what's acceptable in a comedy show - the best solution is just to publicize what kind of comedy a person does; then people can decide based on that whether it's a show they want to see and/or participate in.

I live just down the road from Jasper. That Tiger Lilly is very impressive - don't know that I've ever seen one as big and well-formed. The other flowers he shows are very common, but beautiful all the same (though not nearly as beautiful as a huckleberry patch when you're hiking).

Curious why the video has a Russia tag? We, uh, can't exactly see it from here.

It's interesting to look at the shape of the circle American Christians have drawn. This guy clearly doesn't want atheists or Satanists in his circle - but doesn't seem to have a problem with, say, Hindus in the military (despite the fact they're clearly not worshiping the same God). I mean, by Biblical standards aren't they pretty much just worshipping idols? Conversely, Muslims don't get much of a pass despite the fact that they do (at least to a large extent) share a conception of God.

All in all, it seems very transparent. They aren't worried about what God thinks, they're worried about their place in the marketplace of ideas, and their notion of correct politics.

The other thing I'll note is that many of these people (if they stay with their beliefs, which many won't) may come to regret espousing this hardline "if you don't agree with us, leave" stance. Supposedly Christian churches have abused those who disagreed for millenia. It's precisely that history of abuse and conflict that led the US founders to be so careful about establishment.

The position and power of white male Christians in the US is teetering; they may come to regret the precedent of minority-abuse they've set and continue to push.

what would be the point of working so much when we have robots doing all the stuff we need? They would reduce our costs of living, so we wouldn't need to work as much.


Oh - certainly it's a good problem. Once we've adjusted to it, people will be free do great things and a ton of other problems will disappear. However, some of adjustments are going to be big - and while they won't be instant, they'll still be very fast. The balance could tip over the course of just a decade or so, and many people won't want to change.

But the old way won't work. Of the remaining jobs, many won't be sharable - and other people won't want to share, assuming we're still allocating resources how we do now. It would make sense for many people to be involved in doing creative works (even if those works are only appreciated by a small group), but the market won't support them in doing so (just as it doesn't now). You'd get huge positive feedback cycles for owners of remaining scarce resources.

Anyways, there will still be scarcity (of something) - and I don't think we'll able to distribute stuff based solely on how the market values our contribution. If we do, we'll end up with a cruel, unsustainable level of inequality (if we aren't there already).

But that's exactly what some people will want. Many people believe in the current setup of capitalism as not just a "more practical economic system than its competitors", but as a kind of divine perfection of fairness and just rewards. People have bought into capitalism as quasi-religion, and many - especially the people who are currently "winning" - aren't going to want to switch.

I will be dead, but it scares me to think what jobs the un-educated will be able to do in 50 years.


I don't think it'll take that long before this becomes a much bigger issue.

Right now there's a few important barriers that are holding back a huge flood of automation: driving on public roads, recognizing and handling awkward materials, interfacing in delicate, safe ways with people (and recognizing their subtle cues for motion, etc..). We could see computers solving most of those challenges to acceptable levels in the next 5-10 years.

I think driving will be a big watershed. Once you meet that kind of competence standard reliably - once people put their lives in the hands of automated judgement like this - I think you could see large percentages of jobs go very quickly. I'm not just thinking of unskilled jobs either.

For example, there's no reason a computer couldn't handle a good percentage of optometrist visits right now (with humans only required in odder scenarios). All that's stopping it is a lack of public confidence - but, again, once robots are driving I think people will come to accept them in all sorts of scenarios... and it'll spiral out very quickly.

Things are going to have to change a lot in terms of what we expect people to do all their lives, and what it means to contribute your share to the economy. Once it starts I think it's going to change very quickly.

@enoch

Howdy. First off, thanks; coming back to this discussion is kind of interesting after a few years.

My thoughts:

1. I wasn't a huge Obama supporter - but I did expect more from him in terms of change on health care (the US system is still a crazy-quilt of expensive nonsense) and reduced military expenditure (I expected a faster withdraw timetable from both Iraq and Afghanistan). I thought he could sell his vision, but it hasn't worked; he's lost people and as a result doesn't have the political will to make real change. It's too bad, because I think he did intend some good things.

2. I think the Occupy movement is a good illustration of the point I wanted to make. They had a good thing going and some scattered good ideas - but they didn't integrate themselves into the political movement. They distrusted it, shunned it. Candidates couldn't espouse Occupy ideals to get elected because Occupy people were poorly organized, had vague goals, and were not reliable voters. Nobody worried about not getting re-elected because they didn't line up with Occupy.

3. By contrast, the Tea Partiers had a much more substantial impact on policy because they did connect to the Republican party, connected with candidates, and they got out the vote (sometimes at least). If they could have found anyone who wasn't a complete and utter moron to lead them (I guess it's hard to find sane leaders when your policies are nuts), they could have got a lot of stuff changed (mostly for the worse, of course, but change nonetheless).

I think if Occupy could have organized better (maybe have some leaders, or at least rallied behind some statement of principle and ideas for change), it could have been a huge force for good. I think they were hampered by exactly this sense of hopelessness. They didn't actually believe they could make a difference in political decisions, so they didn't really try - and because of this, in the end I don't think they've had much lasting effect. A lot of their ideas resonated with a powerful number of people, but all that effort and will got channeled nowhere - just anger and hopelessness and failure.

I still think positive change is very possible in the US (and the world in general), and I think it's still most likely to happen (in the US) through the normal democratic process. It'll take some real leadership, though. Someone like Ron Paul - but with much less crazy and more charisma - could turn the Occupy-type crowd into a very potent political force that could do some real good. (On Ron Paul: he did certainly face some unfair extra hurdles as an anti-establishment candidate - but I think his main problem was that too many people legitimately disagreed with him).

Will it happen? I don't know. As I've said, I think a big problem is that the current generation - the students and young people who've driven change throughout history - distrusts the entire political process. More than that, they distrust "leadership" in general. Returning to Occupy, they seemed to be actively against leaders emerging or having cohesive policies to rally around.

That's cool and fun and Internet-like, but it doesn't get the job done.

It's bizarre that there isn't better tools out there for this kind of thing - in particular, I was surprised that MS didn't develop a simplified "movie maker" tool for Kinect.

To not take extreme measures against sin would actually be a point against Him, and not for Him.


I assume it isn't a point against Jesus that he got that aldulteress out of her perfectly lawful punishment.