He was probably in the top 5 mathematicians of this century. He's responsible for nearly all the foundations of modern computer science, and he saved us from the Nazi's. I feel like this token gesture isn't enough. Have they thought about legalizing same-sex marriage for one?

1. What is your idea of perfect happiness?
Being in love.
2. What is your greatest fear?
Dying (not death, because by then I'll be dead).
3. What is the trait you most deplore in yourself?
Jealousy.
4. What is the trait you most deplore in others?
Dishonesty or abuse.
5. Which living person do you most admire?
Daniel Dennett
6. What is your greatest extravagance?
I don't think I really have any great extravagance. Maybe my computer?
7. What is your current state of mind?
Relaxed and thoughtful.
8. What do you consider the most overrated virtue?
Altruism and faith.
9. On what occasion do you lie?
Rarely, but if my lie can save a lot of grief, by avoiding an unnecessary confrontation about something stupid, I might.
10. What do you most dislike about your appearance?
My gut.
11. Which living person do you most despise?
Hmm, so hard to choose: Kent Hovind, Kenn Hamm (all those creationist dumbfucks), and televangelists. And Rasch187.
12. What is the quality you most like in a man?
Honesty, humor, friendship, intellect.
13. What is the quality you most like in a woman?
Awesome beewbage. Heh. Nah, humor, honesty, straight-forwardness, intellect, friendship.. I look for the same qualities in both guys and girls, to be honest.
14. Which words or phrases do you most overuse?
"Fantastic", "super", "In a minute"
15. What or who is the greatest love of your life?
For now, music.
16. When and where were you happiest?
I don't know. Maybe when I was in Ireland in 2002 and was entangled with a girl from my high school, or one summer in 2003 I think, where we were a bunch of people in a summer house where I played guitar and we all sang and stuff. I liked that.
17. Which talent would you most like to have?
Better song-writing skills.
18. If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?
Physically, I'd trim up. (Already on it)
More cosmically, I'd like to be able to have a better overview of a situation during, instead of after it happens.
19. What do you consider your greatest achievement?
My education, my music skills and the website I ran in 2004-2007, which I was very prolific on. (www.edb-tidende.dk it's dead in the water now though)
20. If you were to die and come back as a person or a thing, what would it be?
I would come back as a young version of myself and try to change things up, see what would happen if I made different choices.
21. Where would you most like to live?
With a loved one. Don't really care where.
22. What is your most treasured possession?
My mind. Of things outside myself, then I think the things I can't replace. The data on my computer, pictures, documents etc. I think. All other "possessions" can be replaced. They're just things. I would say friendships, but that's hardly a possession.
23. What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery?
Depression, then everything sucks. Been there, no fun.
24. What is your favorite occupation?
Playing music, engaging in reasonable discussions, masturbation. (at the same time)
25. What is your most marked characteristic?
I say my mind. I'm a pretty straight-forward, no-nonsense kinda guy. Other than that, I don't know. Other people are better judges of that than me.
26. What do you most value in your friends?
Honesty and humor.
27. Who are your favorite writers?
Frank Herbert, Neal Stephenson, William King, Scott McGough.
28. Who is your hero of fiction?
Randy Marsh. Heh, or Rorsharch and Dr. Manhattan. Randy epitomizes the human condition, weak, narrow sighted and everything. Rosharch represents a view of the world in black and white, which I like the concept of; and Dr. Manhattan represents the way the world is and he is basically intellect personified, which I also like.
29. Which historical figure do you most identify with?
This requires me to know a lot of history. I don't, because I don't care much about it. I identify with me, because I am me, no one else.
30. Who are your heroes in real life?
The four horsemen, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens.
31. What are your favorite names?
Lisa, Cecilia, Michael, Jason, off the top of my head.
32. What is it that you most dislike?
People lying to me or in general who are dicks to me. I have no interest in these people.
33. What is your greatest regret?
Two things, I think. Not doing anything about the girl I had a serious crush on for most of my elementary school until high school; and not realizing that Computer Science was not for me earlier, instead of fucking around there for two years.
34. How would you like to die?
I'd rather not.
35. What is your motto?
"Don't be a dick" is something I can stand by.

obscenesimian, I was genuinely surprised to hear Penn come to such a forward thinking conclusion. I've watched the majority of the Bullshit series, and he doesn't always come across as such.

Memory is something that is prime for offloading as far as our thinking goes. We have always been taking steps to do this. Storytelling is at the heart of humanity because it gives us a way to pass lessons on to younger generations. We developed written language to get stories out of our memories and onto something more permanent. In the modern day, we rely on written records scores of times every day.

To tie this into Penn's phone reference, how many phone numbers do you remember? The only two phone numbers I know that I've learned in the past 10 years are my current cell number and my office number. Beyond that, I remember my home number growing up, my aunt's number, and my best friend from high school's number. This is hugely beneficial. The effort I would need to exert remembering phone numbers is now available for other, more important tasks.

In college, we had only open book tests in my computer science program. The reason? At any time, if I need to know what the fastest sorting algorithm is, I can look it up and have the answer in 5 minutes. But if I need to figure out whether or not using a sorting algorithm is appropriate, more analytical and diagnostic skills are needed. Which is more important? I don't think it's debatable that knowing when it's appropriate to use something is more important than knowing exactly what that thing is. This is because it's easy to write down what the thing is, but in what situations it will be useful is a harder if not impossible job to write de facto laws on.

Someone with a poor education will attempt to win arguments by accessing facts online, but education doesn't teach you facts, which I think you're aware of from that statement. Education teaches you how to think. And you can't just pull out a fact and all of a sudden be right. Regurgitation of facts will never be a replacement for logic, experience, and education. I need to look facts up all the time. Yesterday I looked up statistics on shootings in Philadelphia. Do you think I could ever memorize how many there were in 2007, how many of those were of African Americans, and how many of those were of African American males? I could, but would there be any point to it? Probably not. However, the internet made those statistics available to me, and they were very useful for making a point in the discussion I was a part of at the time.

Thinking outside the human body is a wonderful gift. As interaction with this information becomes more seemless, we'll be able to offload more of the legwork to allow our brains to do what simple memory banks can't. Embrace it. It's one of the main devices that allows our silly little species to advance at the rate that we do.

Wow for once a british voice actually pissed me off. I think it's his apathetic tone.

I understand why people don't want to pay for services -- The misappropriation of funds due to lack of transparency, and the sheer size of the number of transactions, makes it impossible to really know anything.

It is not an insurmountable problem. I'm pretty sure you could do it with PeopleSoft and some fancy SQL work. If you could follow that 2 cents to where it goes, you could then make the claim it was wasted.

I'll never understand why people don't get the connection between the insane gas prices last year and taxes:

One is willing to pay a random, exorbitant increase...for nothing... but won't... if it specifically goes to local services. Transparency will take care of this problem. "wow i helped to fund that". Pride may well ensue.

The problem now is NO ONE knows anything about anything, at all, when it comes to where the money comes and goes. No one. Not the government, and certainly not citizens who barely have time to stop working long enough to watch the evening news.

It would be a true wonder we got this far on the backs of honest hardworking people... if those same people weren't purposely misinformed to allow perpetual abuse of their funds.

We all know generally where the problem is: Military spending and no bid contracts. But what can we do about it when fear is such a strong .. commodity... for the dishonest among us?

I for one, have conceptualized a "truth machine", which, while not detecting lying humans by their physiological responses... would capture, catalogue, and be able to cross index and recall data and facilitate only logical discourse between all people. It will put a stop to people who can speak with golden tongues, or contradict themselves and pretend they didnt, or who make illogical assertions based on fear, by allowing instant recall of data. It involves digital recording and an element of human indexing of data -- very similar to what we have on videosift, in that there is a wealth of data on many things that can be recalled to some extent to prove and strengthen positions. One must be able to say, NO that is WRONG. And here is irrefutably why.

A lofty goal, but then again I am a computer science major in an age of unprecedented techonological advancement. With Obama's encouragement of education and sciences, along with SSD technology and exponentially better and cheaper tech... the manipulation of data by the dishonest will come to an end. All people must be connected and able to access all data to make the best decision.

It will be done. Of course, a real truth machine would be cool too. Read the book of the same name. Really fucking great.

Big f'n surprise - they practically build all the computers and are half the students who show up to class in the Western university Computer Science courses.

Big f'n surprise.

Did I mention I can speak Chinese? Srsly.

UPDATE for my own later edification. Maybe I should start a blog.

Hi Chris. You're 26 now... decided to go back to school to study computer science instead of just sticking with IT.... now a sophomore living off-campus on financial aids and grants... like a real person.

You still have your vaporizer. You don't know anyone out here that likes to get down and smoke.. and still do well in school... It sucks. Maybe You suck.

At least you don't live with your parents anymore... You did get laid on your cheap inflatable bed but it was kind of more trouble then its worth. Need bedsprings for comfort.

You're surrounded by other kids at play, while you try to become like the adults you admire. You feel like you're learning the answer to a question you don't know how to ask yet.

Videosift is still your magnet squirrel at the moment and provides insanely valuable experience in the areas of debate and world views. Your school work has improved because of Videosift, although you are an A student so that's a personal evaluation of your progress.

Good luck buddy... get that degree, do something to help the world be a better place, and try to be less harsh in meatspace. Also find current me/us some pot.

>> ^Psychologic:
Many estimations have artificial intelligence surpassing human intelligence between 2020 and 2030.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but these estimates are garbage. No one has a clue regarding how to efficiently model knowledge or thought processes in software. I worked with AI with automated theorem proving and knowledge representation during my undergrad years, and abandoned the field to work on more tractable problems.

Looking at it from an engineer's (and not a computer scientist's) perspective, I'd say we're no closer to human level AI than we were 10 years ago, despite massive advances in raw computational capacity.

No one really knows how fast technology will progress past that point because computers will be better at designing new computers than we are.

I'm looking forward to all this, especially as someone in the field of Computer Science. However, I fear for all of the people that will be out of work in the beginning stages of this.

I'm guessing you're still an undergraduate student. CS is aggressively outsourced to the lowest bidder, and this includes research. The intellectual pursuit of knowledge is always exciting, but salaries in engineering and computer science don't look very promising. Believe me, it sucks to study your whole life and realise you're making less money than a corporate executive that got barely passing grades in college.

How high do you think unemployment will have to go before most will accept a replacement for capitalism.

There is no replacement for capitalism because there's no such thing as a free lunch.

>> ^jwray:
Within the next 50 years, robotics and artificial intelligence will obsolete almost all manual labour, especially manufacturing. Retail and prostitution will be the only jobs available to people without extensive education, and I'm not sure about retail. The choice will be between reducing the work week and massive unemployment.


I disagree on the jobs that will be available. It will not be limited to manual labor, especially if you are talking about 2060. By that point computers will be orders of magnitude better at even high-education jobs such as physicians or engineers (assuming nothing catastrophic happens before then). I don't think retail is safe either, but that is more of a cost/benefit issue.

Many estimations have artificial intelligence surpassing human intelligence between 2020 and 2030. No one really knows how fast technology will progress past that point because computers will be better at designing new computers than we are. Besides that, computers don't get tired or irritated... they operate 24/7 and don't even require a paycheck.

I personally think that a lot of educated work will be replaced before manual labor. Robotics require a lot of resources to build, but AI software does not. Building robots that can construct buildings on their own will be more difficult than developing AI that can diagnose illness based on symptoms.

I'm looking forward to all this, especially as someone in the field of Computer Science. However, I fear for all of the people that will be out of work in the beginning stages of this. How high do you think unemployment will have to go before most will accept a replacement for capitalism. 30%? 50%?

I really do spend a lot of time thinking about how I can best position myself (education/finances) to avoid being one of those that get left behind during that time. Once most things are automated it will be better, but the road to that time is looking a bit rough.

I think this guy is looking at evidence and seeing what he wants to see. Austrian Economists would look at the same data and conclude that government manipulation of interest rates, along with forced inflation through printing of massive amounts of money (which itself lowers "real wages"), are the causes of the data he presents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias


He does highlight something very important though: computers are changing things. Every year computers can do more, and so can robotics. They've already replaced a great deal of unskilled jobs (and even many education-oriented jobs), and this will only continue (and accelerate).

I certainly don't think capitalism is a bad thing, but I know that it will not survive much longer. The number of people in the world is still increasing, but the number of jobs that require people is not (at least not in the developed world). The number of jobs that computers/robots can do, however, is increasing monthly (if not faster). How does capitalism survive in that scenario?

I'm nearly finished with my Computer Science degree, and I'm already concerned about my value as a worker. Even my possible jobs will be replaced by AI in the near future... I'm guessing within 20 years.

Computers are not evil, but they are damn effective. I see a period of great social unrest ahead, because I cannot think of a transition to a society where most human workers are no longer needed as a smooth one. Not every job can be replaced, but I guarantee that at least 50% of the current jobs will be replaceable within 40 years (at the latest). We may not choose to replace them, but we will have the ability, and I cannot see anything resembling our current economic models working in that world.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
>> ^Psychologic:
Who would you want teaching your kids physics, someone with a masters in Computer Science, or someone with a bachelors in education?

This argument is silly. You are much more likely to find teachers sporting specific high level degrees in your brick and mortar schools than in the home-school variety. Masters degrees are the norm in public education and there are plenty Phd's as well. I'd be willing to wager that this isn't generally the case in home-schooling. Nothing against your Master of Computer Science, but does he also have a degree in English Lit, History and Life Science? It's a double edged sword.



In high school my physics teacher was the physical education instructor. That was a waste my time. Hell, he'd get confused just reading from the text book. There were very few teachers I met during public schooling that I respect... I'm surprised most of them graduated college. I did not meet a competent math teacher until I got to college.

If the children are being taught everything by one person then that is not the way to do home-schooling. Proper homeschooling communities have people who teach their specialties, and when done right it is far better than public schooling. Maybe that's because my state was ranked 48th in public school funding, but home-schooling can be done very well (very often it isn't though).

>> ^Psychologic:
Who would you want teaching your kids physics, someone with a masters in Computer Science, or someone with a bachelors in education?


This argument is silly. You are much more likely to find teachers sporting specific high level degrees in your brick and mortar schools than in the home-school variety. Masters degrees are the norm in public education and there are plenty Phd's as well. I'd be willing to wager that this isn't generally the case in home-schooling. Nothing against your Master of Computer Science, but does he also have a degree in English Lit, History and Life Science? It's a double edged sword.

>> ^joedirt:
>> ^StukaFox:
Also, Americans, World War 2 was over 60 years ago. The Moon landing was almost 40 years ago. What the hell have you done in the near half-century since then to justify your unbridled and grating arrogance?

How about the internet and modern computing you ungrateful twat (and UAVs and cluster bombs and MOAB and GPS)


The internet eh? O Rly?

From Wikipedia:

'Sir Timothy John Berners-Lee OM KBE FRS FREng FRSA (born 8 June 1955) is an English computer scientist credited with inventing the World Wide Web. On 25 December 1990 he implemented the first successful communication between an HTTP client and server via the Internet with the help of Robert Cailliau and a young student staff at CERN. He was ranked Joint First alongside Albert Hofmann in The Telegraph's list of 100 greatest living geniuses. Berners-Lee is the director of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which oversees the Web's continued development, the founder of the World Wide Web Foundation and he is a senior researcher and holder of the 3Com Founders Chair at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL).'

Sure, the concept of packet switching was first documented in New York, and I'm not about to claim the internet for Britain. But that does mean you can't claim the entierty for the US either. The long and the short of it is that it's a joint effort. No one nation can claim the internet. Which is kinda cool, as it emphasises the point of the thing.

On other matters, such as comedy, there's no point in arguing it seeing as its a matter of personal preference, its like arguing what is the best colour or the best number, fucking pointless. I might think that Michael Mcintyre is one of the most promising comedians I've seen in a long time, alot of other people will find him annoying, personal preference is what makes things interesting, arguing your point on it however is like being one of those dipshit hecklers in the crowd. Sit down, shut your mouth and wait for the next act.

On the "socialization" argument:

I once thought that home-schooled kids were missing out on socialization by not being in a large group of children daily, but that was due to my lack of knowledge on the subject.

What is socialization? It is the process of learning about and interacting with the culture in which one lives. Now, who do you think would be more effective at teaching positive methods of interacting with the culture around you... successful adults, or other children? Many problems I've seen in people who have trouble coping with adult life involve having many of the habits of children, and I see this reflected in much of my public education as well. If most of what you learn about the world comes from others as inexperienced as you (at that age) then it isn't surprising that many people don't develop the habits that carry successful people through life.

Something that really opened my eyes to this was my years as a ski instructor during college. Wednesdays were the days that the local homeschooling community chose to bring their children to the mountains. The other days were generally random public school groups of similar ages. The difference in the children was surprising. Not only were the home-schooled children better behaved, but they were much easier to speak with and instruct. They came across as much more well-adjusted than the public school groups that cared more about their own little social structures than what was going on around them.

After speaking with several of the home-schooling parents, I found out that home-schooling is very much like public schooling, only better. The kids are taught in groups, with each parent teaching their particular area of expertise. Who would you want teaching your kids physics, someone with a masters in Computer Science, or someone with a bachelors in education? They get small class sizes (awesome) and they get quality socialization from multiple well-adjusted adults and other kids from the same background.

My work with these groups really reversed much of the ignorance I had towards home-schooling. Most of my previous experience had been creationist parents who didn't want their kids being taught "that evilution crap." I'm sure that many parents who teach their own kids are only doing harm by perpetuating their own ignorance and prejudice, but please do not underestimate the amazing potential of homeschooling when it is done correctly.

I dunno, lucky - not that uneducated. I think the analogy has more to do with the claims made by the YT poster in the description. And I've heard enough "change the world" claims in computer science/engineering before to take 'em all with a grain of salt now.

As for the claim that "scientists are discovering the mathematic equations used to govern memristors are similiar to those which govern synapses in the brain" - that's pretty ridiculous. On the one hand, if all he means is that there is a current discharge in the device when it's depolarized, well, there are lots of biological and synthetic devices that do that. If on the other hand, he means they have similar voltage-gated ion channels that produce a specific response to a huge variety of inputs that are not at all clearly understood by neuroscience, well, then he's just blowing smoke.

I'm not saying it's not a cool tech, but claims of "changing the world" are rather silly for a device whose mechanisms aren't even totally understood, much less how to mass produce them with consistent properties.

btw - why Kurzweil in the tags? Is he involved in developing these? Or because it's something he'd appreciate?