Change Of Details Form - Live Active: Fill & Download for Free

Have you ever taken an economics course? If not, you may be interested in a conceptually basic yet fundamental concept in economics I’m going to present below; if you have, then bear with me for a moment.My very first lesson in my first year microeconomics course pertained to the concept of “trade-offs”, a lesson which I understood intellectually and conceptually at 17, but didn’t really appreciate it until many, many years later.Here’s an example of a “trade-off” curve, more formally known as the “Production Possibilities Frontier”, which illustrates that improvements to a railway justify the need to raise ticket prices, passing the costs of such improvements onto consumers. (obtained here: Economics blog post 6: More than £1bn to be spent for leading Railway):Without going into all of the details as to why the curve is bowed outwards, what points inside and outside of the curve may represent, etc., the moral of the story is simply this:You can’t have it both ways in life.The above is a fundamental truth about life that I cannot over-emphasize, and you have to appreciate it before you can embark upon a course of change of any sort, lest you experience disappointment.If you’re feeling as if your life is lacking in the “interest” department, you probably already know, or have a fairly decent idea of, what it is you would like to do to make your life more “interesting.” And, when you really think about it, it’s really not that hard, logistically speaking, to make your life “interesting”, if you really know what it is that you want.However, I sense that the fear lies in the somewhat bitter, unpalatable truth that you may have to give up some security and comforts for the liberty that you seek in the form of an “interesting” life.That is to say, you’re going to have to make some sacrifices, and you’re going to have to take some risks and live with the potential consequences, which can be quite painful emotionally (at least at the beginning).For example, you may end up having to disappoint some people who have a stake in the fact that you live your life a certain way right now (e.g. your parents may have paid for your education, leading you to a prestigious career, which you find routine and boring). Or, you may lament over “routine” and “boredom”, while appreciating that your current job/career is a steady source of income for you, and sacrificing a “normal” life for one which is more “interesting” would mean losing that sense of financial certainty.Either way, you must know that you’re not going to make your life very “interesting” if you’re not going to make some bold decisions about your current path. Thankfully, if you’re only 25, then you’ve still got some youth on your side and some time to “settle down”, so the opportunity costs of exploring a different path for your life may be fairly minimal right now.Remember this: no matter your circumstances, you have the freedom to choose your destiny and exercise your willpower accordingly. The “requirement” to subordinate your own decision-making power to your circumstances (in your case, routine and boring) is nothing more than an illusion. However, I reiterate: whatever you decide, you, and only you, must deal with the consequences, no matter how painful.Whatever your decision is, best of luck to you.

A big subject over many years (the Dynabook idea was formed and fleshed out starting in 1968 with a cartoon I drew and a cardboard model I made — so more than 50 years ago now). The first public paper I wrote about this was in 1972.The large idea that motivated the conception of a highly portable tablet computer with a touch-sensitive flat-screen display with stylus and wireless networking was catalyzed by seeing how Seymour Papert was helping children learn to do deep forms of real math by inventing a programming language — Logo — aimed to match up with the kind of thinking they can do at various developmental levels.One of the ways this translated to me was that an interactive computer could be thought of like an active book. A larger idea — a “medium” — than the tool-based and “vehicle”-based metaphors of the 60s. And this brought forth all the connotations of literacy and civilization inducing changes of thinking brought by writing and the printing press. This idea fit very well into the ARPA ideas of inventing “interactive intellectual amplifiers pervasively networked worldwide” and widened it out to thinking of the computer as a “meta-medium” and that in any considerations of a new “literacy” whatever it was had to most strongly include children.Many of the ideas for what a Dynabook should be able to do — and how — were adapted from the advances that the ARPA community had made from the early 60s to 1968. I thought that a language with the flexibility of Logo that was aimed at children in a similar way — and also included object-orientation for several reasons, including simulations; and that had some of the facilities of PLANNER to allow the kids to make systems that could reason — was called for.Pedagogically I wanted to make “a world” that had the environmental properties of a Montessori school (with some echoes of Dewey also), and that was based around the ideas of Jerome Bruner and Seymour Papert. My main aim was to help children learn “science as both sciences and humanities”, so it was a bit wider than aiming at “math” (but included math). One way to think about a Dynabook is that it is mainly centered about all aspects of user interface design, especially for children, and not just about how to access, learn and use a computer but how to access, learn and use ideas.One lesson learned was that Montessori was “even more right” than I thought back then. Her approach was very rich and very tuned to what human beings — and children — actually are. Her deep emphasis on design of environment as a living version of the epistemological stances she wanted the children to absorb — and especially “designing the adults” in this environment — have really stood the test of time. In the late 60s, we hoped that a Montessori environment could be made within the computer itself, and that it would not be necessary to do the extensive finding and training that was required to create a Montessori teacher.After 50 years, I think that she was more right than we were. One of many perspectives on her approach was that she wanted to help many more children become real autodidacts. We on the other hand generally assumed that more children would become autodidactic just given a better environment. But a lot more is needed, and much of the motivation many children need for deep learning is social and especially from adults, that doesn’t fit well into media, even with much better AI than we have today.But, there is a chance that adults and peers can be motivators as kind of partners with computer media that is yet to be invented. If so, that would break a huge log jam today.I don’t think the original goals of “helping children grow up to think much better than most adults today” have become dated. The last 50 years only provide more evidence for how desperately this is needed — and the next 50 years could bring the enormous penalties for not taking this seriously.I did allude slightly to the “cognitive sugar water” problems of making a new wide-spread networked portable public medium, but assumed that we could convince educators to include warnings and sensibilities about all media — writing, television, dynamic media, etc. — as part of a new curriculum for the 20th and 21st centuries. They didn’t get it, are really suffering the consequences of this (as is the country and world), and it’s not clear that they yet understand what has been and is happening.As we progressed with experiments and user interface design in the 70s, we made up many slogans as mantras to help simplify the very complex business of designing for human beings. One was “The end-users are not like us”. Another was “Doing with Images makes Symbols”. And so forth.Something that I think we understood at the time, but didn’t put a lot of effort into was the difference between “instrumental reasoning” and “larger scale thinking”. Humans have the former baked into them by their genetics but not the latter — so we should have made “other than instrumental” a larger part of our approach. Similarly, we have “coping” baked into us by genetics, but not “progress” (the latter was almost an invention — perhaps as late as the 18th century — to even make the idea visible).There’s lots more that could be said (history is difficult because the past is so detailed), but I can sum up an answer to the question by saying: We learned many lessons — most of which were about human nature and how most people react to deep learning situations — and I think the original goals are still good, but could use a few more for better balance.

What would Earth be like if evolution didn’t exist?The question is not entirely clear.Let’s start with cosmological evolution.If the evolution of the big-bang did not exist, there would be no universe.Chronology of the universe - WikipediaIf the evolution of the universe did not exist, there would be no stars.If the evolution of generations of stars did not exist, there would be no nebulae containing heavy elements.Alan Appleby's answer to What is your reflection about the origin of earth?First Detailed Image Of Accretion Disk Around A Young Star - Universe TodayAccording to the Nebula Hypothesis, stars and their systems of planets form from giant clouds of dust and gas. After undergoing gravitational collapse at the center (which creates the star), the remaining matter then forms an accretion disk in orbit around it. Over time, this matter is fed to the star – allowing it to become more massive – and also leads to the creation of a system of planets.If there was no evolution of accretion disks, there would be no Solar System, no planets, and without heavy elements, no rocky planets.If there was no evolution of the Solar System, there would have been no colliding planets, and no Earth-Moon system.Simplistic representation of the giant-impact hypothesis. (Wikipedia)Amino acid detected in space – Physics WorldIf there was no abiogenesis and biological evolution there would be no life, and Earth would be very different.Composition of the AtmosphereEarth's primordial atmosphere was probably similar to the gas cloud that created the sun and planets.It consisted of hydrogen and helium, along with methane, ammonia, and water. This was a reducing atmosphere.There was no molecular oxygen or other reactive oxides.Over time, some of this first atmosphere, particularly the lighter gases, outgassed and was lost. [into space - swept off by the Solar wind]More water may have arrived with comets colliding on the surface of the planet.Volcanic activity in the early, Earth created major changes with release of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ammonia along with small quantities of SO2, H2S, HCl, N2, NO2, He, Ar, and other noble gases.This produced the second atmosphere.Comet impacts may have increased the amount of water. Water vapour formed clouds. These produced rain. Over a period of thousands of years, the liquid water accumulated as rivers, lakes, and oceans on the Earth's surface.Bodies of liquid water acted as sinks for carbon dioxide.Chemical and biological processes transformed CO2 gas to carbonate rocks.The nitrogen and argon accumulated in the atmosphere. They do not react with water or other atmospheric components.Oxygen existed in only trace quantities before life began.So if we look at the evolution of the Earth as a planet, we will see atmospheric and geological processes.Without life, the evolution of Earth and its present state would be radically different.Alan Appleby's answer to Why did atoms, molecules, evolution and whatever else form living plants and animals on Earth? Why does the Earth have life and not the nearby planets?By Paul Harrison - Photograph taken by Paul Harrison (Reading, UK) using a Sony CyberShot DSC-H1 digital camera., CC BY-SA 3.0, File:Stromatolites in Sharkbay.jpgModern Cyanobacteria clumped into Modern stromatolites in Shark Bay, Western AustraliaThe early (Chemically) REDUCING atmosphere was devoid or oxygen until photosynthetic cyanobacteria evolved, so without the evolution of these, none of the oxidised minerals would be present in Earth’s geology. Nor would there be any coal or oil deposits.The was a lot of iron dissolved in Earth’s, early seas, and this and other minerals oxidised when free oxygen was produced. This laid down the iron ore deposits we mine today.Living things created much of the third atmosphere, the one that now exists on Earth.Cyanobacteria were responsible for the rise in the atmospheric concentration of oxygen beginning 2.3 billion years ago.These bacteria, algae, and other plants produce oxygen by photosynthesis.Although most of this oxygen is used in respiration (biological oxidation) or in the atmospheric oxidation of the carbon-containing products, approximately 0.1 % of the organic matter is sequestered in sediments and that quantity of oxygen is added to the atmosphere.Over time, the excess oxygen has built up so that it is now makes up nearly 20% of the gases close to Earth.Without life, none of these oxidised minerals would be present in the geology, and the carbon dioxide, and ammonia, along with small quantities of SO2, H2S, HCl, N2, NO2, He, Ar, and other noble gases. would still make up Earth’s atmosphere.With a CO2 atmosphere and water vapour, the Earth would probably have been a lot hotter throughout its history.{Of course there are those who understand NONE OF THIS, and simply claim they have a “superior revealed knowledge” that god-did-it-all-by-magic” - as explained in a bronze-age book of mythology!}These answers (below) follow on to give more details on the abiogenesis which led to the early biological evolution and stromatolites.Alan Appleby's answer to How does life come into existence when the environment (universe) after the big bang is lifeless? What are some of the theories - Both scientific and religious?Alan Appleby's answer to What evidence is there that life could create itself by chance if scientists cannot succeed in creating life in the laboratory?Biological evolution then follows on from there to the present day.