No... it's not a Mint Error, nor valuable, 99.999999% of the time

But, but, but.......we shouldn't call them stupid. They have thin skins and will go home and cry to mommy.

Besides, you can get into trouble on CT if you call someone stupid. Maybe you should start referring to them as "the wrong side of the Bell curve".

Chris

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

When someone asks me a question that I answered once before for them, I reply, "Is a word to the wise sufficient?" If they tell me yes, then I don't have to answer the question for the second or fifth time.

 

...or "Participation Trophy Recipients"

 

LoL Were you ever a Nun? OMG how many time did I hear that in the lifetime of grade 1 through 8

 

Not even Catholic. It sure makes people stop and think for a minute - before they turn and walk away.

 

Well if your next post is "empty barrels make the most noise " I'm calling the pope and have you debriefed.

 

This is it in a nutshell. The public education cartel wants to convince EVERYONE they are special, and they just are not. My high school graduating class had 840 kids. Even the most dedicated "special" proponent couldn't come up with enough lies that all 840 were "special". Some were just ordinary losers.

 

I think most of you are wrong. You have the right to be wrong, so that is not a problem. Every generation believes they were the last "smart" one, but the situation is never the same. Was Hawking smarter than Einstein? Feynman smarter than Fermi? Most are measuring another's "intelligence" based on their estimation of their own...A scary situation sometimes. Todays young people are on the average as smart or smarter than 20 years ago. They may process information somewhat differently than the older traditional paper based learners, and the newer generations are electronic based learners. In 1900 knowledge doubled every 100 years ( approx), 1945 , every 25 years, 1982 every 12 years, now , every 13 months, and IBM calculates within 3 years it will be every 12 hours. Give them a lot of slack. They may develop the synthetic molecules that saves our declining brain capacity.

Will all Dinosaurs please line up ...... Jim

 

And MISinformation doubles every 5 minutes. That's the essential problem, Jim. The disappearance of the "editing function" in publishing shows greatly, and it's not a good look.

 

I'm not sure, but I suspect you mean data, not knowledge.

 

http://www.industrytap.com/knowledge-doubling-every-12-months-soon-to-be-every-12-hours/3950

 

I think that is an exaggeration outside of your professional area.

 

Maybe. At least the possible coming demise of Facebook will lead more people to decide that "social media" is actually a societal ill, and slow down the demise of our culture just a little.

 

Yep, they meant "data". If you click through that link, you'll find a paper titled "The toxic terabyte: How data-dumping threatens business efficiency" [emphasis mine].

The challenge is how to turn data into knowledge at an ever-increasing rate. Or, more realistically, how to get knowledge at a still manageable rate, but take advantage of all that data to make the knowledge better, more relevant and useful.

Vernor Vinge has written for a long time about a technological "singularity". If the rate of technological change keeps accelerating, we reach a point where merely human minds can't imagine what comes next. If we can make or become superhuman minds, we can sail past that point. If not, either progress has to slow, or everything has to collapse.

The original thing driving this was Moore's "Law", which states (roughly) that computer hardware doubles in speed or capacity every two years. That progress is slowing now, as we hit more and more fundamental physical limits (can't build smaller than atoms, can't send information faster than light, can't dissipate heat much faster than the core of a nuclear power plant). But hardware keeps getting cheaper, and therefore we keep making more of it, and using it for more things. There's still plenty of room for world-reshaping progress.

 

I am not a scientist nor, am I a college graduate. I don't need to be either of those to have common sense. The world wide web, isn't just full of correct information. Yes, the kids are probably able to retain a lot more information than their predecessors, But is it true and correct information?
Let's put it this way. If a person wanted to write a book on variety's of modern coinage, clad, zincs etc. They could very well do so. Will it be a best seller and an educational tool for the future generations? It might, but that depends on the information that is contain between the covers.

A single video on you tube, done by an ill informed individual, can lead thousands a stray in less than an hour, The problem with that is there is another video, playing next, that is just as wrong as the first.

I agree with Kurt, the mis information is probably doubling faster than the truth, because of social media. It's real easy to tell the Knowledgeable person they are wrong, when you don't have to be held accountable for vomit spewing from your mouth.

 

It takes the "true believer" dogma of an IBM (or a CoinTalk moderator??? ) to conflate "data" with "knowledge". In a key way, my entire living is made distinguishing one from the other. A CLEAR MAJORITY of data is useless... AND POINTLESS.

All this "singularity" talk is due to the fetishization of data and computers coming almost exclusively from Silicon Valley types, and it is very rapidly becoming its very own fringe political ideology.

 

Now define "smart", Jim.

Is the youngster wholly lost without his smartphone really that "smart"? The problem here is that you seem to be arguing something different from what other have addressed. I don't see how anyone could reasonably argue that the young today do not have easy access to knowledge that was but a dream when we were young, but this doesn't automatically make them smarter and sure as hell doesn't mean they can automatically function better than older generations in the real world. You know, the place where common sense as well as the ability to objectively reason have clear benefits?

 

... and until they massively get over BOTH "uptalking" and "vocal fry", they'll be dismissed as morons anyway.

 

Meh. Someone who grew up listening to the vocabulary and grammar and sentence length of an early-20th-century statesman would probably think Cronkite or Reagan or Limbaugh sounds semi-literate.

English is a living language. It goes its own way, whether we like it or not. I'd rather have that than, say, a government body trying to regulate our language (bonjour, France)...

 

Yo, dohn b hatin, dawg.

Fair point, though, even if I could think of a handful of others the same would aptly apply to just to spread the love around.

Another fair point. All considered, one would think there more important things for the French to regulate.