The idea's of a "right" is a complex thing...obviously we can't all be completely autonomous..if we were we'd be just like country's and so we should be fighting one another all the time. Obviously this isn't desirable so we give up some of our "rights" so as to protect other "rights. Meaning we'd rather have a better life over all as opposed to absolute liberty.
Also I'd like to note that there are two kinds of rights (liberties) which we are referring to..and they are very different.
Positive liberties: political liberties/ what you may exert on others/society
Negative Liberties: What people/society can't do against yourself.
Both are needed to allow us to pursue happiness and yet coexist with one another.
llZENll (545605) had some great points but in addition to this I just want to point out that this article seems very very cheesy..at best.
First of all throughout the article they give opinion, obviously not the best journalistic approach. Now this site probably isn't a serious news site and most of its articles are some what op-ed in nature but still.
Secondly (either this comment is correct or the article is just badly written enough that I think it is) the article doesn't cite real knowledge that A) dell is getting into the phone market B) that they will brand it under alienware C) and the crazy phone design (though I admit it does look like alienware) rendered in 3d only adds to the unbelievability of this article.
This article is full of conjecture and opinion and i'm not sure how seriously we can take it...though it is possible that everything it says is correct it is just hard to tell due to the manner that it was written.
Exactly; that first half hour is real news. Sure the second half is opinion (it is suppose to be, it is a panel for discussion).
Those here who bash Fox News all the time may not realize that yes Fox News chooses to have a lot of right wing hosts (perhaps as a counter balance?); but most of the shows where it really comes out are opinion shows...in which case they are giving their opinion. The same should be said of every network. I am not a Fox News junky by any stretch of the imagination; I just happen to think Brit Hume is the best at giving news (yes he is a conservative I realize, which he shows when he gives his opinion but as a news person he is great). I watch CNN more then fox news, Wolf is great what can I say? However as much as I may agree with people like Lou Dobbs or some other "talking head" (which obviously varies depending on topic) I don't like it when they have prime spots at say 6 and present their shows as news when it obviously isn't just news..but also opinion. There is a place for both; but they are not the same.
The same goes for all shows on all networks (and in fact all medias).
I actually didn't have the opportunity to read this report in-depth, I was mainly just going off of my own observations and the comments of some others, I am going to read this though. It sounds very interesting.
Currently in many states, in order for a child to go to school he is required to have certain vaccines; could this be added to it? while it sounds good (drugs won't appeal to them, because it does nothing) but to essentially take free choice away is quite scary. I don't think we should use science to manipulate law abiding citizens; who knows one day we may need to use the properties of cocain for something good.
However I do think this could be very useful. People could voluntarily take it (if they want an extra reason not to be tempted), they could also take it for rehab, but perhaps the biggest use would be on criminals. Currently we have far to many drug addicts in prisons, costing us loads, so perhaps just like we castrate certain sex offenders, maybe we should get rid of the high for drug offenders. Even better, we somehow infect the distribution of crack,coke, etc and destroy the whole market.
The biggest concern with the second approach of using it to punish criminals though is the fact (as someone else pointed out) that people can just turn to another drug...and you know what if you are use to high's and you don't get it now. Well you are going to find something else to replace it. It seems like this technology would probably be very diverse though; you could immunize them to many drugs, not just one.
Is the problem with TV News, the news itself or the audience which watches it? After all in Capitalism the, "market will choose" which shows end up coming on the air. Shows which just only spend a minute or two on a subject and seem to repeat every 20 minutes have place; like on CNN Head Line news. Shows about relatively unimportant people and events have a place, say one little light piece in the news (to take the edge off) or in the newspaper, or as someone else mentioned..the tabloids; honestly there is a reason they exist. There is also a place for in depth political analysis (who is doing how well where?); say on a political show. And the kicker there is room on TV for opinion, but not in the news (wait; isn't that all we get?)
What we need is choices; choices breed the best news. When we want to catch up on what is going on; turn to the 24 hour headlines news. When we want the broader picture, we turn on the nightly 6 news (which I believe the best most unbiased one is with Brit Hume; though Wolf Blitzer is really good to he just has some reporters who seem to talk a lot). And after I know what is going on and what it all means, I can turn to an in depth analysis from some show and then get an opinion from someone like O'Reilly or Lou Dobbs (yes...his show is opinion not news...)
Obviously we will never get opinion completely out of the news; but I think it is important that news agencies make the difference more apparent then it sometimes is now. AS for how we can move forward with real news when most Americans frankly don't care...well i'm not sure. This is a topic which we could discuss in a political science class for weeks.
As a counterpoint to the beginning of your comment;I have heard people tell me that they figured how to solve problems in their sleep and woken up and carried out what they had done in their sleep to resolve it.
Inversely, I have also noticed that, in general, what you focus on in your wakening hours can really effect your dreams.
Based on these two observations (which may not always hold true for every dream, but is worth analyzing) our dreams and our real lives are linked. To what extend and usefulness? Well that is up to debate. But think about it; often when you dream your mind comes up with either worse case scenarios and you have to try to deal with them (which this article applies to) or it is coming up with some sort of scenario where something you want could happen. Now obviously many of these dreams don't seem very useful (say imagining your a knight and you are rescuing a princess or something else non-related to real life) but they non the less can demonstrate and allow you to think through what your priorities are (you, or her, or whatever) and how you would act.
I think this theory is very plausible..though probably not complete.
"Employee of overstock.com spams Wikipedia, uses lots of sockpuppets to avoid being blocked, and uses spyware to infect at least one user. Wikipedia blocks him. The Reg writes an article defending said employee and attacking Wikipedia (which Slashdot promptly reposts)."
Journalists often do things which are unscrupulous in order to attain a story. They seem to subscribe that they, and only they, have the right to justify their means by the ends, but in a sense our society does this. For example look at shows like StarTrek TNG or Voyager and they break rules all the time in order to be doing "the right thing" (as they see it).
To say that this is bad journalism, I think, is a bit unfounded. Sure it may not cover all the needed information but most news coverage is lacking in background information. I think it is clear that there is a problem with Wikipedia, just as gaged from all the articles about it, and even if there isn't the belief or appearance of their being one is just as bad for a site, indeed a community, where things are suppose to happen in the open and for the better good of the entire community. Whether or not the problem is as severe as articles like this claim; certainly wikipedia must address it in order to continue as the vast source of information that it is.
The biggest problem with the cell phone industry today is that while you may physically own the phone your contract prevents you from actually utilizing the capabilities on the phone (Well you can always go against your contract and start hacking..it can get messy). This can be seen in nearly every phone. For example pick up a sprint razor..why can't you transfer files over bluetooth and use a bluetooth headset to listen to music...because sprint chooses not to support it that is why (and that is just the tip of the iceberg on how carriers limit phones capabilities).
What will truly be the next revolution in phones is when phones become open mediums for open source. This will allow anyone to make content for it and make it easy for people to install.. No longer will people have to use a carrier services for music or video, etc. No instead people will be doing all sorts of neat things that we could talk about for hours. Carriers won't like this...they will lose money, so I'm not sure how Google is going to sell it but it seems whenever Google has their mind set on something..it works (well...except for Google answers but that might be partially because of sites like wikipedia).
this is nonsense. In the theory of evolution data is mostly lost and note gained so function is lost and not gained. The only time data is added is with some sort of fluke mutation in which case the mutation alone will not help and so will be cast aside (according to evolution). This is known as irreducibly complex and is one of the biggest arguments from many scientists against evolution or at least against the standard theory of evolution.
The evolution that happens here is closely monitored and designed around certain criteria in order to reach a certain goal. The person who wrote the article is obviously expressing his own views and not those of a an unbiased journalist when he says at the end that this clearly proves darwin right once again. Indeed I doubt leading evolutionist scientists would care to relate these two barely related forms of evolution.
now lets not get to hasty here by judging the product before it is out on the shelves; we all know microsoft is perfectly capable in software production just like congress is perfectly capable of spending our money effectivly...
seriously though, I think microsoft should push for integration and streamlining their OS; we don't need speech and all those other nify gadgets which we won't use. I mean sure here and there they'd be nice but overall... why can't they just make things work well; and efficiently?
Slashdot Mirror
The idea's of a "right" is a complex thing...obviously we can't all be completely autonomous..if we were we'd be just like country's and so we should be fighting one another all the time. Obviously this isn't desirable so we give up some of our "rights" so as to protect other "rights. Meaning we'd rather have a better life over all as opposed to absolute liberty. Also I'd like to note that there are two kinds of rights (liberties) which we are referring to..and they are very different. Positive liberties: political liberties/ what you may exert on others/society Negative Liberties: What people/society can't do against yourself. Both are needed to allow us to pursue happiness and yet coexist with one another.
llZENll (545605) had some great points but in addition to this I just want to point out that this article seems very very cheesy..at best. First of all throughout the article they give opinion, obviously not the best journalistic approach. Now this site probably isn't a serious news site and most of its articles are some what op-ed in nature but still. Secondly (either this comment is correct or the article is just badly written enough that I think it is) the article doesn't cite real knowledge that A) dell is getting into the phone market B) that they will brand it under alienware C) and the crazy phone design (though I admit it does look like alienware) rendered in 3d only adds to the unbelievability of this article. This article is full of conjecture and opinion and i'm not sure how seriously we can take it...though it is possible that everything it says is correct it is just hard to tell due to the manner that it was written.
Exactly; that first half hour is real news. Sure the second half is opinion (it is suppose to be, it is a panel for discussion).
Those here who bash Fox News all the time may not realize that yes Fox News chooses to have a lot of right wing hosts (perhaps as a counter balance?); but most of the shows where it really comes out are opinion shows...in which case they are giving their opinion. The same should be said of every network. I am not a Fox News junky by any stretch of the imagination; I just happen to think Brit Hume is the best at giving news (yes he is a conservative I realize, which he shows when he gives his opinion but as a news person he is great). I watch CNN more then fox news, Wolf is great what can I say? However as much as I may agree with people like Lou Dobbs or some other "talking head" (which obviously varies depending on topic) I don't like it when they have prime spots at say 6 and present their shows as news when it obviously isn't just news..but also opinion. There is a place for both; but they are not the same.
The same goes for all shows on all networks (and in fact all medias).
I actually didn't have the opportunity to read this report in-depth, I was mainly just going off of my own observations and the comments of some others, I am going to read this though. It sounds very interesting.
Currently in many states, in order for a child to go to school he is required to have certain vaccines; could this be added to it? while it sounds good (drugs won't appeal to them, because it does nothing) but to essentially take free choice away is quite scary. I don't think we should use science to manipulate law abiding citizens; who knows one day we may need to use the properties of cocain for something good. However I do think this could be very useful. People could voluntarily take it (if they want an extra reason not to be tempted), they could also take it for rehab, but perhaps the biggest use would be on criminals. Currently we have far to many drug addicts in prisons, costing us loads, so perhaps just like we castrate certain sex offenders, maybe we should get rid of the high for drug offenders. Even better, we somehow infect the distribution of crack,coke, etc and destroy the whole market. The biggest concern with the second approach of using it to punish criminals though is the fact (as someone else pointed out) that people can just turn to another drug...and you know what if you are use to high's and you don't get it now. Well you are going to find something else to replace it. It seems like this technology would probably be very diverse though; you could immunize them to many drugs, not just one.
Is the problem with TV News, the news itself or the audience which watches it? After all in Capitalism the, "market will choose" which shows end up coming on the air. Shows which just only spend a minute or two on a subject and seem to repeat every 20 minutes have place; like on CNN Head Line news. Shows about relatively unimportant people and events have a place, say one little light piece in the news (to take the edge off) or in the newspaper, or as someone else mentioned..the tabloids; honestly there is a reason they exist. There is also a place for in depth political analysis (who is doing how well where?); say on a political show. And the kicker there is room on TV for opinion, but not in the news (wait; isn't that all we get?) What we need is choices; choices breed the best news. When we want to catch up on what is going on; turn to the 24 hour headlines news. When we want the broader picture, we turn on the nightly 6 news (which I believe the best most unbiased one is with Brit Hume; though Wolf Blitzer is really good to he just has some reporters who seem to talk a lot). And after I know what is going on and what it all means, I can turn to an in depth analysis from some show and then get an opinion from someone like O'Reilly or Lou Dobbs (yes...his show is opinion not news...) Obviously we will never get opinion completely out of the news; but I think it is important that news agencies make the difference more apparent then it sometimes is now. AS for how we can move forward with real news when most Americans frankly don't care...well i'm not sure. This is a topic which we could discuss in a political science class for weeks.
As a counterpoint to the beginning of your comment;I have heard people tell me that they figured how to solve problems in their sleep and woken up and carried out what they had done in their sleep to resolve it. Inversely, I have also noticed that, in general, what you focus on in your wakening hours can really effect your dreams. Based on these two observations (which may not always hold true for every dream, but is worth analyzing) our dreams and our real lives are linked. To what extend and usefulness? Well that is up to debate. But think about it; often when you dream your mind comes up with either worse case scenarios and you have to try to deal with them (which this article applies to) or it is coming up with some sort of scenario where something you want could happen. Now obviously many of these dreams don't seem very useful (say imagining your a knight and you are rescuing a princess or something else non-related to real life) but they non the less can demonstrate and allow you to think through what your priorities are (you, or her, or whatever) and how you would act. I think this theory is very plausible..though probably not complete.
"Employee of overstock.com spams Wikipedia, uses lots of sockpuppets to avoid being blocked, and uses spyware to infect at least one user. Wikipedia blocks him. The Reg writes an article defending said employee and attacking Wikipedia (which Slashdot promptly reposts)." Journalists often do things which are unscrupulous in order to attain a story. They seem to subscribe that they, and only they, have the right to justify their means by the ends, but in a sense our society does this. For example look at shows like StarTrek TNG or Voyager and they break rules all the time in order to be doing "the right thing" (as they see it). To say that this is bad journalism, I think, is a bit unfounded. Sure it may not cover all the needed information but most news coverage is lacking in background information. I think it is clear that there is a problem with Wikipedia, just as gaged from all the articles about it, and even if there isn't the belief or appearance of their being one is just as bad for a site, indeed a community, where things are suppose to happen in the open and for the better good of the entire community. Whether or not the problem is as severe as articles like this claim; certainly wikipedia must address it in order to continue as the vast source of information that it is.
The biggest problem with the cell phone industry today is that while you may physically own the phone your contract prevents you from actually utilizing the capabilities on the phone (Well you can always go against your contract and start hacking..it can get messy). This can be seen in nearly every phone. For example pick up a sprint razor..why can't you transfer files over bluetooth and use a bluetooth headset to listen to music...because sprint chooses not to support it that is why (and that is just the tip of the iceberg on how carriers limit phones capabilities). What will truly be the next revolution in phones is when phones become open mediums for open source. This will allow anyone to make content for it and make it easy for people to install.. No longer will people have to use a carrier services for music or video, etc. No instead people will be doing all sorts of neat things that we could talk about for hours. Carriers won't like this...they will lose money, so I'm not sure how Google is going to sell it but it seems whenever Google has their mind set on something..it works (well...except for Google answers but that might be partially because of sites like wikipedia).
this is nonsense. In the theory of evolution data is mostly lost and note gained so function is lost and not gained. The only time data is added is with some sort of fluke mutation in which case the mutation alone will not help and so will be cast aside (according to evolution). This is known as irreducibly complex and is one of the biggest arguments from many scientists against evolution or at least against the standard theory of evolution. The evolution that happens here is closely monitored and designed around certain criteria in order to reach a certain goal. The person who wrote the article is obviously expressing his own views and not those of a an unbiased journalist when he says at the end that this clearly proves darwin right once again. Indeed I doubt leading evolutionist scientists would care to relate these two barely related forms of evolution.
now lets not get to hasty here by judging the product before it is out on the shelves; we all know microsoft is perfectly capable in software production just like congress is perfectly capable of spending our money effectivly... seriously though, I think microsoft should push for integration and streamlining their OS; we don't need speech and all those other nify gadgets which we won't use. I mean sure here and there they'd be nice but overall... why can't they just make things work well; and efficiently?