HTML5, Calculators & Compilers: Three Paragraphs

[dre]

Pick your robot to be a replica of some ultra-hot pornstar, actress, or model, keep it in your closet for access whenever you want,

If I put a robot in my closet what the hell am I gonna do with the REAL pornstar I keep there now?

[bleeding heart]

I assume that prostitution will never be replaced by sex robots, because prostitution isn't always and only about sex. I think the "human touch" undoubtedly plays a significant role.

I think sex robots will be a wildly successful enterprise, however.

[August1991]

If true, that's actually pretty impressive. Cite?

Yahoo Link

The link implies the number of people who understand differential calculus is closer to 5% of the world. (I think that's exaggerated.) OTOH, the Central Limit Theorem is more intuitive but taught later in life.

I agree, Bonam, that these accurate/inaccurate percentages are impressive. We now live in a world where a large minority understand the fundamental basis of the universe. Compare this to our world 500 years ago - when a few, very smart people could at best imagine our universe.

Amazing.

And yet, I still think the most important turning point was teaching humans satire, and then irony. In this 21st century, we in the West are still surrounded by people who can count, but don't understand why we laugh when milk is spilled.

Aside from teaching such a concept as "speed" (distance vs time), how do we teach "satire"? How do we bring someone, for the first time, to understand that while we show/say one thing, we actually mean something else.

A: "Sorry, I spilled some milk."

B: "That was a smart move."

Edited May 27, 2014 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

I agree, Bonam, that these accurate/inaccurate percentages are impressive. We now live in a world where a large minority understand the fundamental basis of the universe. Compare this to our world 500 years ago - when a few, very smart people could at best imagine our universe.

Amazing.

And yet, I still think the most important turning point was teaching humans satire, and then irony. In this 21st century, we in the West are still surrounded by people who can count, but don't understand why we laugh when milk is spilled.

How about the fact that many people understand that religion is mythology ? Or that racial and religious superiority theories are just incorrect ? Social progress, too, also helps us.

Maybe the next thing for us to understand is how we process information, as a species. That would fundamentally change how politics work, wouldn't it ?

[TimG]

Or that racial and religious superiority theories are just incorrect?

Who says they are wrong? From a purely scientific perspective it is perfectly plausible that natural selection has created subspecies of humans which are superior with respect to a given set of traits/abilities. The only problem with the "racial and religious superiority theories" is their advocates tend to assume that they apply more broadly than they do (i.e. they assume that superiority in a narrow set of traits equates to a superiority in all traits which is most likely false). Edited May 27, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Who says they are wrong? From a purely scientific perspective it is perfectly plausible that natural selection has created subspecies of humans which are superior with respect to a given set of traits/abilities.

I was speaking about the general perception that racist thinking is wrong, as a measure of social progress. If in fact what you're saying is true (which I'm not arguing either way) then at some point people will be able to discuss it without shame or personalization.

The only problem with the "racial and religious superiority theories" is their advocates tend to assume that they apply more broadly than they do (i.e. they assume that superiority in a narrow set of traits equates to a superiority in all traits which is most likely false).

It may be possible that certain races are better at certain specific things, generally... I don't know and I don't think it's important or relevant to discuss. In any case, variance between people means that it's useless to generalize that information. Furthermore, people are still insulted by these ideas whether or not they're true. ( See "the war on Christianity" for a review of how people are insulted by generalizations, btw)

Given the fact that I'm not even able to convince Argus that his suggestion of religion causing certain traits is wrong - even here on MLW - the chances of having a civilized discussion in "the" public are low IMO.

[GostHacked]

I assume that prostitution will never be replaced by sex robots, because prostitution isn't always and only about sex. I think the "human touch" undoubtedly plays a significant role.

I think sex robots will be a wildly successful enterprise, however.

Apparently sex through the net is 'possible'. Using haptic like feeback technology. So it's already getting popular.

Not very work safe ---> http://kinseyconfidential.org/technologasm-rise-teledildonics-adult-haptic-devices/

[August1991]

From a purely scientific perspective it is perfectly plausible that natural selection has created subspecies of humans which are superior with respect to a given set of traits/abilities.

And measureable intelligence is not one of them.

I suspect that all four of my grandparents were illiterate (my suspicion turns on one of my grandmothers who could possibly read). Within two generations, I am writing this text to you.

Sorry TimG, DNA and natural selection do not work that fast.

If you object to my own family story, then consider anyone alive today. From that person, go back 60 generations (2000 years more or less - to the time of Christ; anyone alive today must have had an ancestor who lived at that time). Well, almost all of our great-great-great etc grandparents were crude, ignorant, illiterate. Yet, DNA code does not change radically in 60 generations. (In 60 generations, the stripes on a cat's fur will change.)

----

Here's my point Tim: Evolution, race and DNA do not distinguish us; it is education that makes the difference. And to me, a better question to ask is why illiterate people in Africa can learn to use a cellphone - yet remain illiterate.

Edited June 1, 2014 by August1991

[TimG]

And measureable intelligence is not one of them.

The maximum IQ obtainable by an individual is determined by DNA (if this was not true then genetic diseases like Down Syndrome would not affect intelligence). Nurture only affects how much of that natural intelligence is unlocked.

Sorry TimG, DNA and natural selection do not work that fast.

Thousands of animal breeders would disagree. Many of the distinct dog and cat breeds around today did not exist 100-200 years ago. It is naive to claim that a similar process is not taking place among humans as different social structures select for different traits. Edited June 1, 2014 by TimG