In the US at least their is some sort of weird moral structure that says it is okay to "fix defects" but not to improve healthy people.
I'd love to ask these people why they think glasses are okay. Hell, I'd love to ask them why clothing is okay... I sure hope they don't answer with something as silly as "but that's OUTSIDE of the body!"
I'm a pretty big fan of free speech, and I can tell you why I do NOT believe/. moderation is censorship.
Slashdot is not suppressing anyone's opinion to the point of making them unheard. It's merely giving you a suggestion.
Do you have a problem against positive moderation? I think it's one of the most useful systems I've seen. Do you think it's also censorship because increasing the score of one post inherently devalues the other posts to some degree (since the more high-score posts a person reads, the fewer normal-scored posts they're likely to read).
Think of -1 scores not as negative scores, but as giving everyone else a positive score.. In a way, it's just saying, "I think everything else is more worthwhile than this."
Imagine if we all started out with default thresholds of -1, and people had to manually set their thresholds to 0, just like some people set their thresholds to 2 or 3 or more. Do you still think that'd be censorship?
But the main point remains that you can very very easily read the -1 comments, and thus they are not being suppressed. In fact, quite to the contrary, Slashdot employs multiple mechanisms to facilitate your reading -1 comments. That's hardly suppression!
It's so sad... All this stuff really makes me want to be a teacher just so I can teach a few kids the scientific method that was taught so poorly to me when I was in middle school..
Have you actually read any science texts or even popular books in the last 30 years? They almost universally begin by assuming that evolution is a fact, even when they actually say "theory", then scrabble around trying to support their assumption. Many of them have phrases like "the fact of evolution" dotted around.
Then you've been reading some pretty crappy books, is all I can say.:) Actually, I can say one more thing.. Because of the stigma about the word "theory", some scientists may occassionally use the word "fact" to refer to scientific theories.. nonetheless, these "facts" are still as subject to scientific inquiry as anything else.
I'm also not saying all scientists behave scientifically all the time. After all, scientists are human beings, and are notorious for being resistant to change. Tons of ideas, from relativity to black holes to pulsars, were resisted vehemently by many top scientists because they didn't want their own perfect little picture of the Universe disrupted. These scientists could very well want to refer to their own ideas as "facts" to make them feel more correct because of their own insecurities or whatnot, but that doesn't make it a "fact"!
Let's also keep in mind that not all scientists keep in mind scientific method at all times, though they should.
The method of science calls nothing a fact. Just because a few wayward scientists say something is fact doesn't make it so. Actually, it is these scientists who are probably most often proven wrong!:)
So, do they really believe, or are they lying?
I'd say these scientists are either using bad terminolgy, saying "fact" when they mean "scientific theory that's been rigorously proven", themselves unclear on the scientific method, or just plain self-righteously annoyed as "those idiots" and feel a need to assert the superiority they feel by calling their stuff "facts".
Personally, I'd say it's most likely a combination of all three.
I can't speak for him, but I would assume that his argument is based not observation within his own lifetime, rather the complete lack of any transitional forms in the available paleontological evidence.
May I direct you to the Talk.Origins Archive's list of transitional fossils, which includes far more than just the Archeopteryx. The table of transitional fossils is certainly not complete, since fossils are fragile and hard to find, but it is FAR more filled than Creationists would like us to believe.
(In the specific case of the Archeopteryx, we have yet to find its direct ancestor, but we have found many candidates and cousins which themselves bear many traits of both birds and reptiles.)
Of course, there is also the core issue of whether evolution can be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics. Which of course brings in the debate about whether the earth can be considered a closed system or not, yada yada yada
LOL! You're basically saying, "Then there's this argument... which I know is completely bogus, but I'm just going to ignore that little fact and say it anyway." "The debate about whether the earth can be considered a closed system"? What debate? If the earth were a closed system, there'd be no photosynthesis (since no light could enter from the outside), and thus no plant or animal life. At best there'd be some of that bacteria that feeds off of geothermal energy (which again is finite).
So yes.. the entropy argument is completely bogus because life on Earth is fueled by solar (and geothermal) energy, and the increase in entropy caused by those emissions of heat more than offset the decrease in entropy of more structured life.
You seem to be ridiculing his position, when the simple fact is that there is probably no way we will ever *prove* either a creationist or an evolutionary point of view. At best, several thousand years of observation (including, hopefully, the opportunity to observe planets other than our own), should more clearly show the likelihood of one or the other.
You're almost right, of course. The only issue is that we don't need several thousand years of observation. We already have plenty of evidence to support evolution. As for the whole micro vs. macro evolution thing, the Talk.Origins archive lists many documented cases of speciation.
I enjoyed your hidden agenda slam against creationists. They of course would say that you have to be careful of the textbooks that claim that any theory is proven unless it actually is. Just because the average humanist scientist believes in evolution doesn't mean it should be taught as fact, but rather as a plausible theory.
I agree, sort of.. No good science textbook should be teaching evolution as fact any more than it teaches anything as fact. You have the common misconception that scientists believe evolution to be fact. They don't. Scientists do not believe ANYTHING to be fact.
In science, a "theory" is merely a hypothesis which has been backed up by a lot of evidence. In science, EVERYTHING is potentially wrong, since we know our observation techniques are imperfect. Newton's laws of motion (at low speeds), Maxwell's equations, evolution, these are all "theories" in science, yet we use apply them every day.
We could potentially find out that Newton's laws of motion are wrong (and we did.. though only at high speeds), or that our cherished laws of electromagnetism are wrong, and that the computer you're using now is really being run by something we don't understand at all.. It's JUST NOT DAMN LIKELY. Similarly, evolution is a "theory" because we must always be open to the possibility of our observations and logic being faulty, but it has been so well supported that it's just not damn likely that evolution is completely wrong.
In short, if you want science books to teach only "facts", then you'll start seeing some really empty science books with nothing but blank pages. Science books must therefore teach scientific "theories", which are hypotheses which have been supported greatly by evidence. Among these theories is the theory of evolution.
And of course, I must plug The Talk.Origins Archive, which has lists of this and other common misconceptions about evolution.
Nope, the whole concept of the Olympics isn't to foster world harmony, it's to engage in nationalistic my-country-is-better-than-yours propaganda.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic...
But assuming you're not, you're wrong. Perhaps nationalism has contaminated the Olympics to a large degree, but that's not the PURPOSE of the Olympics. Ever heard of sportsmanship? People may lack it at times, but it's the underlying principle behind competitive sports nonetheless.
In any case, despite the unsportsmanlike conduct of its participant countries at times, the Olympics have done quite a bit to foster world harmony, often managing to bring together mutually antagonistic nations in a similar way to Ping Pong Diplomacy.
There are few things in the world that can prevent the U.S. from bombing people.. Not religious holidays, not even the U.N. can do that.. but the Olympics caused Clinton to hold off bombing Iraq until after the Games were over.
Exactly. They probably have something known as scientific integrity that compells them not to make public announcements until their results have been peer-reviewed.
Re:Espionage or Avoiding Re-invention of the Wheel
on
China Enters Space
·
· Score: 2
The point is, their government doesn't really like us at all.
You know what? MOST governments, including most Western European ones.. hell.. even most citizens of most countries.. don't like the US government very much at all, and I think they're completely justified. China pretty much keeps to themselves. Sure, there are internal human rights violations, and that's a problem, but at least China's not stomping around the world violating other countries' citizens' rights.
So yeah, China doesn't like the US government very much.. it's because no one likes the US government very much.
As I said before, the people don't have control over the government, do they?
That's a really naive statement. Just because the government does bad things certainly does NOT mean they are not at all accountable to the people. They are. Ultimately, making your people happy is the best way to stay in power. Why do you think China has been slowly but surely progressing to be more open both economically and (yes) politically? It's because that's what the people want.. it's because that's how people are made happier.
Freedom of speech in China still needs work, but it has improved greatly since 1989. Those students who protested DID have an effect. The government isn't going to just agree to all demands outright, but they are slowly implementing the changes that people want.
(Before you say so, yes, there are some areas where the government won't budge, like Tibet. But that doesn't mean they haven't been improving in other areas.)
This reminds me of another place where the capitalistic model fails: Olympic coverage in the US (or lack thereof).
Most people rather watch how some runner overcame his father's death than to see actual sports. The problem is, unlike the Superbowl, the whole concept of the Olympics is for money-making.. (At least it shouldn't be.) It should be to foster world harmony. And thus, I think it should be publicly funded.
When I happened to be visiting China during the Atlanta games, the Olympics were on 2 gov't owned cable channels 24/7.. with EVERYTHING live whenever possible. (Reruns only came when there was nothing to see.) The primary (gov't owned) non-cable channel also carried all the big games.. live, of course, and in full. Obviously, the coverage still focused on sports China was good at, but ferchrissake I actually got to see SPORTS! Can't say the same for NBC.
The fact of the matter is, advertiser-based support of Olympic coverage is NOT working, and neither is subscriber-based support (as evidenced by the ill-fated TripleCast). What we need is for the Olympics to be aired on, say, public television, with massive donations from rich people who care (and viewers), as well as the governement.
I wonder if anyone is contemplating implementing this?
Re:Espionage or Avoiding Re-invention of the Wheel
on
China Enters Space
·
· Score: 2
You do realize they do pose a threat to our existance right?
Good grief! Please actually go take a trip to China and look around. You'll see Coke stands next to Adidas stores (along with domestic merchandise). Talk to the people who live there. They're making a living, investing in stocks, etc. Same kinds of things that you do. Go to a restaurant, and when a beeper goes off, half the people in the area look down at their belts..
Life in China is hardly 1984-ish at all.
countries that are bent with killing the 'evil capitalists'.
Capitalism is the rule in China these days. It's far more capitalist than even the US in many ways. In a typical middle-class family, everyone from grandparents to kids know more about stocks than most people in this country do. Please look up some first-hand info.
Go talk to some people who actually come from China. China does not "pose a threat to our existence". I can't believe how effective the propagandizing media has been in affecting intelligent Slashdotters.
*Ahem*.. Excuse me, but which country has actually droopped nukes on people? Which country is constantly bombing other sovereign nations with neither declaring war nor consulting the U.N.? China threatens Taiwan with weapons, but has it actually attacked them?
Before you get scared that China is going to attack other countries, look at the countries that are ALREADY attacking other countries!
Espionage or Avoiding Re-invention of the Wheel?
on
China Enters Space
·
· Score: 2
I think it's odd that people see the use of existing knowledge as this evil espionage thing.
I mean, hello? If something exists elsewhere, why re-invent the wheel? There are lots of programmers here, right? Don't you try finding libraries for things that have already been done instead of re-implementing everything yourself? You COULD implement everything yourself, but that'd take a lot more time, and is just plain silly.
Re-inventing the wheel is generally considered a STUPID thing to do. Yet, if people don't do it in these cases, they're being inferior and incapable of coming up with something themselves. I see it as just common sense.
Chinese military rockets and other achievements
on
China Enters Space
·
· Score: 3
And dont forget gunpowder, guess what the Chinese used it for? Firecrackers. The europeans came up with the idea of using it to fire a projectile.
Actually, you're quite wrong. The chinese invented rocketry for the purpose of sieging castles. They were firing explosive rockets over city walls long before Europeans even had cannons.
And as you may know, it took European inventiveness to put a practical use to paper, i.e. the printing press.
Actually, iirc, movable type printing was invented long before Gutenberg in the East as well. It's just that with Gutenberg, it really took off.
But you're right (sort of) when you allude to the fact that the Chinese's biggest fault was in being too self-congratulatory and unaccepting of outsiders because they were "just barbarians". The ancient Greeks had a similar attitude and they likewise fell.
But you know what? After all the crap China went through from European abuse in the 19th and early 20th Century, it learned its lesson. China now is more eager to assimilate other cultures than almost any other place. And you know who's becoming really arrogant and unaccepting of others (always thinking they're the best)? The US.
If history taught us anything, that's going to be a problem for the US...
Whatever happened to scientific cooperation?
on
China Enters Space
·
· Score: 1
You know, there used to be a thing called the "scientific community" where people are supposed to SHARE knowledge rather than horde it.:P
Maybe. Maybe. Director's Cut: Yes; other cuts and book: No Not yet, but Dark City made a commendable attempt, as did Strange Days (to a lesser degree).
While I think this is a good point, I don't think most philosophers would agree. There is a major debate in philosophy about whether humans actually "think or have desires" or if we, too, simply follow (extremely complex) programs.
I don't see there as being a difference between the two.. I think thought and desires arise from those complex programs.
Ug. There are few things more annoying than people trying to justify pseudo-scientific beliefs with crappy use of little-known areas of physics, quantum mechanics being the current favorite.
If you even read a layman's book on quantum physics, you'll be able to see right through most "quantum mechanics proves our point" claims.
What REALLY irks me is when Christians try to use science to justify things.. I mean.. hello? The whole point of Christianity is that you have to believe certain things on FAITH.. What are you doing trying to justify them with science?
If I can teach a computer to do that, then, technically, a computer has reached the same spiritual level as many Catholics," she says. ... Okay, I agree that the notion of such a thing (computers being religious) is mildly interesting to consider.. but not for more than about 2 seconds.
Actually, I think it's QUITE thought-provoking to suggest that a cluster of iMacs obviously mindlessly displaying prayers is no different from those young kids who recite prayers without understanding them.
Not to be short-sighted or closed-minded, as I don't usually dismiss all of the future-cyber-robotic warfare movies, but at our current stage in AI development, moral structure for computers is another one of those "sounds interesting" (for 2 seconds) ideas.
Again, I think such things are definitely worth thinking about for more than 2 seconds. A couple of decades ago, I'm sure most people thought modification of the human genome to create mutant superhumans was the realm of comic books (let alone sf novels).. And now we're already at that stage. One of the most dangerous things we can ever do is NOT to think about such things. That's what brings us all the harms of technologies. I think we should think of ALL the moral implications of technology LONG before they arrive.
Slashdot Mirror
In the US at least their is some sort of weird moral structure that says it is okay to "fix defects" but not to improve healthy people.
I'd love to ask these people why they think glasses are okay. Hell, I'd love to ask them why clothing is okay... I sure hope they don't answer with something as silly as "but that's OUTSIDE of the body!"
But, if you say something more obvious like "Molten Lead is cool" it's pretty easy to assume which version of cool you mean.
Even then, you couldn't be sure, because it could easily just be sarcasm.
Just curious: Is that a reference to something?
How do you know that he didn't post his reply BEFORE the parent post was moderated up?
It's not good to assume things you can't prove.
I'm a pretty big fan of free speech, and I can tell you why I do NOT believe /. moderation is censorship.
Slashdot is not suppressing anyone's opinion to the point of making them unheard. It's merely giving you a suggestion.
Do you have a problem against positive moderation? I think it's one of the most useful systems I've seen. Do you think it's also censorship because increasing the score of one post inherently devalues the other posts to some degree (since the more high-score posts a person reads, the fewer normal-scored posts they're likely to read).
Think of -1 scores not as negative scores, but as giving everyone else a positive score.. In a way, it's just saying, "I think everything else is more worthwhile than this."
Imagine if we all started out with default thresholds of -1, and people had to manually set their thresholds to 0, just like some people set their thresholds to 2 or 3 or more. Do you still think that'd be censorship?
But the main point remains that you can very very easily read the -1 comments, and thus they are not being suppressed. In fact, quite to the contrary, Slashdot employs multiple mechanisms to facilitate your reading -1 comments. That's hardly suppression!
Actually, he can get at most 3 karma points per post because he has a default score of 2.
It's so sad... All this stuff really makes me want to be a teacher just so I can teach a few kids the scientific method that was taught so poorly to me when I was in middle school..
:(
But alas I am an engineer at heart...
Have you actually read any science texts or even popular books in the last 30 years? They almost universally begin by assuming that evolution is a fact, even when they actually say "theory", then scrabble around trying to support their assumption. Many of them have phrases like "the fact of evolution" dotted around.
:) Actually, I can say one more thing.. Because of the stigma about the word "theory", some scientists may occassionally use the word "fact" to refer to scientific theories.. nonetheless, these "facts" are still as subject to scientific inquiry as anything else.
:)
Then you've been reading some pretty crappy books, is all I can say.
I'm also not saying all scientists behave scientifically all the time. After all, scientists are human beings, and are notorious for being resistant to change. Tons of ideas, from relativity to black holes to pulsars, were resisted vehemently by many top scientists because they didn't want their own perfect little picture of the Universe disrupted. These scientists could very well want to refer to their own ideas as "facts" to make them feel more correct because of their own insecurities or whatnot, but that doesn't make it a "fact"!
Let's also keep in mind that not all scientists keep in mind scientific method at all times, though they should.
The method of science calls nothing a fact. Just because a few wayward scientists say something is fact doesn't make it so. Actually, it is these scientists who are probably most often proven wrong!
So, do they really believe, or are they lying?
I'd say these scientists are either using bad terminolgy, saying "fact" when they mean "scientific theory that's been rigorously proven", themselves unclear on the scientific method, or just plain self-righteously annoyed as "those idiots" and feel a need to assert the superiority they feel by calling their stuff "facts".
Personally, I'd say it's most likely a combination of all three.
I can't speak for him, but I would assume that his argument is based not observation within his own lifetime, rather the complete lack of any transitional forms in the available paleontological evidence.
May I direct you to the Talk.Origins Archive's list of transitional fossils, which includes far more than just the Archeopteryx. The table of transitional fossils is certainly not complete, since fossils are fragile and hard to find, but it is FAR more filled than Creationists would like us to believe.
(In the specific case of the Archeopteryx, we have yet to find its direct ancestor, but we have found many candidates and cousins which themselves bear many traits of both birds and reptiles.)
Of course, there is also the core issue of whether evolution can be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics. Which of course brings in the debate about whether the earth can be considered a closed system or not, yada yada yada
LOL! You're basically saying, "Then there's this argument... which I know is completely bogus, but I'm just going to ignore that little fact and say it anyway."
"The debate about whether the earth can be considered a closed system"? What debate? If the earth were a closed system, there'd be no photosynthesis (since no light could enter from the outside), and thus no plant or animal life. At best there'd be some of that bacteria that feeds off of geothermal energy (which again is finite).
So yes.. the entropy argument is completely bogus because life on Earth is fueled by solar (and geothermal) energy, and the increase in entropy caused by those emissions of heat more than offset the decrease in entropy of more structured life.
You seem to be ridiculing his position, when the simple fact is that there is probably no way we will ever *prove* either a creationist or an evolutionary point of view. At best, several thousand years of observation (including, hopefully, the opportunity to observe planets other than our own), should more clearly show the likelihood of one or the other.
You're almost right, of course. The only issue is that we don't need several thousand years of observation. We already have plenty of evidence to support evolution. As for the whole micro vs. macro evolution thing, the Talk.Origins archive lists many documented cases of speciation.
I enjoyed your hidden agenda slam against creationists. They of course would say that you have to be careful of the textbooks that claim that any theory is proven unless it actually is. Just because the average humanist scientist believes in evolution doesn't mean it should be taught as fact, but rather as a plausible theory.
I agree, sort of.. No good science textbook should be teaching evolution as fact any more than it teaches anything as fact. You have the common misconception that scientists believe evolution to be fact. They don't. Scientists do not believe ANYTHING to be fact.
In science, a "theory" is merely a hypothesis which has been backed up by a lot of evidence. In science, EVERYTHING is potentially wrong, since we know our observation techniques are imperfect. Newton's laws of motion (at low speeds), Maxwell's equations, evolution, these are all "theories" in science, yet we use apply them every day.
We could potentially find out that Newton's laws of motion are wrong (and we did.. though only at high speeds), or that our cherished laws of electromagnetism are wrong, and that the computer you're using now is really being run by something we don't understand at all.. It's JUST NOT DAMN LIKELY. Similarly, evolution is a "theory" because we must always be open to the possibility of our observations and logic being faulty, but it has been so well supported that it's just not damn likely that evolution is completely wrong.
In short, if you want science books to teach only "facts", then you'll start seeing some really empty science books with nothing but blank pages.
Science books must therefore teach scientific "theories", which are hypotheses which have been supported greatly by evidence. Among these theories is the theory of evolution.
And of course, I must plug The Talk.Origins Archive, which has lists of this and other common misconceptions about evolution.
Nope, the whole concept of the Olympics isn't to foster world harmony, it's to engage in nationalistic my-country-is-better-than-yours propaganda.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic...
But assuming you're not, you're wrong. Perhaps nationalism has contaminated the Olympics to a large degree, but that's not the PURPOSE of the Olympics. Ever heard of sportsmanship? People may lack it at times, but it's the underlying principle behind competitive sports nonetheless.
In any case, despite the unsportsmanlike conduct of its participant countries at times, the Olympics have done quite a bit to foster world harmony, often managing to bring together mutually antagonistic nations in a similar way to Ping Pong Diplomacy.
There are few things in the world that can prevent the U.S. from bombing people.. Not religious holidays, not even the U.N. can do that.. but the Olympics caused Clinton to hold off bombing Iraq until after the Games were over.
I find that quite amazing.
Exactly. They probably have something known as scientific integrity that compells them not to make public announcements until their results have been peer-reviewed.
The point is, their government doesn't really like us at all.
You know what? MOST governments, including most Western European ones.. hell.. even most citizens of most countries.. don't like the US government very much at all, and I think they're completely justified.
China pretty much keeps to themselves. Sure, there are internal human rights violations, and that's a problem, but at least China's not stomping around the world violating other countries' citizens' rights.
So yeah, China doesn't like the US government very much.. it's because no one likes the US government very much.
As I said before, the people don't have control over the government, do they?
That's a really naive statement. Just because the government does bad things certainly does NOT mean they are not at all accountable to the people. They are. Ultimately, making your people happy is the best way to stay in power. Why do you think China has been slowly but surely progressing to be more open both economically and (yes) politically? It's because that's what the people want.. it's because that's how people are made happier.
Freedom of speech in China still needs work, but it has improved greatly since 1989. Those students who protested DID have an effect. The government isn't going to just agree to all demands outright, but they are slowly implementing the changes that people want.
(Before you say so, yes, there are some areas where the government won't budge, like Tibet. But that doesn't mean they haven't been improving in other areas.)
This reminds me of another place where the capitalistic model fails: Olympic coverage in the US (or lack thereof).
Most people rather watch how some runner overcame his father's death than to see actual sports. The problem is, unlike the Superbowl, the whole concept of the Olympics is for money-making.. (At least it shouldn't be.) It should be to foster world harmony. And thus, I think it should be publicly funded.
When I happened to be visiting China during the Atlanta games, the Olympics were on 2 gov't owned cable channels 24/7.. with EVERYTHING live whenever possible. (Reruns only came when there was nothing to see.) The primary (gov't owned) non-cable channel also carried all the big games.. live, of course, and in full. Obviously, the coverage still focused on sports China was good at, but ferchrissake I actually got to see SPORTS! Can't say the same for NBC.
The fact of the matter is, advertiser-based support of Olympic coverage is NOT working, and neither is subscriber-based support (as evidenced by the ill-fated TripleCast). What we need is for the Olympics to be aired on, say, public television, with massive donations from rich people who care (and viewers), as well as the governement.
I wonder if anyone is contemplating implementing this?
You do realize they do pose a threat to our existance right?
Good grief! Please actually go take a trip to China and look around. You'll see Coke stands next to Adidas stores (along with domestic merchandise). Talk to the people who live there. They're making a living, investing in stocks, etc. Same kinds of things that you do. Go to a restaurant, and when a beeper goes off, half the people in the area look down at their belts..
Life in China is hardly 1984-ish at all.
countries that are bent with killing the 'evil capitalists'.
Capitalism is the rule in China these days. It's far more capitalist than even the US in many ways. In a typical middle-class family, everyone from grandparents to kids know more about stocks than most people in this country do. Please look up some first-hand info.
Go talk to some people who actually come from China. China does not "pose a threat to our existence". I can't believe how effective the propagandizing media has been in affecting intelligent Slashdotters.
We all know China's previous record.
*Ahem*.. Excuse me, but which country has actually droopped nukes on people? Which country is constantly bombing other sovereign nations with neither declaring war nor consulting the U.N.? China threatens Taiwan with weapons, but has it actually attacked them?
Before you get scared that China is going to attack other countries, look at the countries that are ALREADY attacking other countries!
I think it's odd that people see the use of existing knowledge as this evil espionage thing.
I mean, hello? If something exists elsewhere, why re-invent the wheel? There are lots of programmers here, right? Don't you try finding libraries for things that have already been done instead of re-implementing everything yourself?
You COULD implement everything yourself, but that'd take a lot more time, and is just plain silly.
Re-inventing the wheel is generally considered a STUPID thing to do. Yet, if people don't do it in these cases, they're being inferior and incapable of coming up with something themselves. I see it as just common sense.
And dont forget gunpowder, guess what the Chinese used it for? Firecrackers. The europeans came up with the idea of using it to fire a projectile.
Actually, you're quite wrong. The chinese invented rocketry for the purpose of sieging castles. They were firing explosive rockets over city walls long before Europeans even had cannons.
And as you may know, it took European inventiveness to put a practical use to paper, i.e. the printing press.
Actually, iirc, movable type printing was invented long before Gutenberg in the East as well. It's just that with Gutenberg, it really took off.
But you're right (sort of) when you allude to the fact that the Chinese's biggest fault was in being too self-congratulatory and unaccepting of outsiders because they were "just barbarians". The ancient Greeks had a similar attitude and they likewise fell.
But you know what? After all the crap China went through from European abuse in the 19th and early 20th Century, it learned its lesson. China now is more eager to assimilate other cultures than almost any other place.
And you know who's becoming really arrogant and unaccepting of others (always thinking they're the best)? The US.
If history taught us anything, that's going to be a problem for the US...
You know, there used to be a thing called the "scientific community" where people are supposed to SHARE knowledge rather than horde it. :P
Great! They're both really underrated, imho. Go see them, then email me and tell me what you thought. :)
Maybe.
Maybe.
Director's Cut: Yes; other cuts and book: No
Not yet, but Dark City made a commendable attempt, as did Strange Days (to a lesser degree).
While I think this is a good point, I don't think most philosophers would agree. There is a major debate in philosophy about whether humans actually "think or have desires" or if we, too, simply follow (extremely complex) programs.
I don't see there as being a difference between the two.. I think thought and desires arise from those complex programs.
Ug. There are few things more annoying than people trying to justify pseudo-scientific beliefs with crappy use of little-known areas of physics, quantum mechanics being the current favorite.
If you even read a layman's book on quantum physics, you'll be able to see right through most "quantum mechanics proves our point" claims.
What REALLY irks me is when Christians try to use science to justify things.. I mean.. hello? The whole point of Christianity is that you have to believe certain things on FAITH.. What are you doing trying to justify them with science?
Imagine a world where people can sing songs, but they're online! e-karaoke! Where's my patent?
Let's make sure we note this post down for purposes of prior art when someone actually DOES patent "eKaraoke"!
If I can teach a computer to do that, then, technically, a computer has reached the same spiritual level as many Catholics," she says.
...
Okay, I agree that the notion of such a thing (computers being religious) is mildly interesting to consider.. but not for more than about 2 seconds.
Actually, I think it's QUITE thought-provoking to suggest that a cluster of iMacs obviously mindlessly displaying prayers is no different from those young kids who recite prayers without understanding them.
Not to be short-sighted or closed-minded, as I don't usually dismiss all of the future-cyber-robotic warfare movies, but at our current stage in AI development, moral structure for computers is another one of those "sounds interesting" (for 2 seconds) ideas.
Again, I think such things are definitely worth thinking about for more than 2 seconds. A couple of decades ago, I'm sure most people thought modification of the human genome to create mutant superhumans was the realm of comic books (let alone sf novels).. And now we're already at that stage. One of the most dangerous things we can ever do is NOT to think about such things. That's what brings us all the harms of technologies. I think we should think of ALL the moral implications of technology LONG before they arrive.