I'm glad you're not concerned with it, but as a name.com customer, it does concern me and I'm pretty glad this story was posted so I could take action.
If you can figure out what's wrong with responding to an article about a rape with "what's the bet he's black?," you can figure out what's wrong with your post. If you cannot, you're probably a bigot.
"'By the time we're even 20, we've filled it up,' he said, adding that the only way to add information after that point is to 'repurpose our neocortex to learn something new.'"
What exactly does that mean? I'm well past 20 and constantly learn new things. If I'm "repurposing my neocortex" every time I do it, it seems to be working as intended I guess?
Are helicopters even reasonable in the thin Martian atmosphere? I assume it would still be possible, but the rotors would have to spin way faster and require much more energy.
That's exactly my point. If such things can be controlled, what's to stop the hypothetical torturer from turning them to the max? I'm sure there would be some kind of electronic locks, but those don't exactly have a track record of always working.
You're probably joking, but that's actually an interesting thought.
What are the implications of immortality tech on punishment / torture? Currently no matter how bloodthirsty and depraved someone is, the most they can do is torture someone for a (few days?) Death provides a natural escape to that and many other things.
Some apps spy on me -> I pirate everything!
Sounds like someone is trying to justify being a cheap-ass. (With a dose of sociopathy since apparently you're excited about the prospect of devs losing their jobs so you don't have to pay $0.99!)
The article specifically says "Sodas sold at grocery and convenience stores would be exempt as well." So you'll still be able to get your diabetes size big gulp at Sleven.
Not good enough. People don't give a shit about high-minded ideals like "freedom." Also, China and Iran are evil because they are evil- when we do similar things it's because of good and stopping terrorism or something.
What is the one-liner that tells non-geeks why it's bad *for them* and will disrupt *their* lives?
People who support dealing with climate change don't seriously think nothing will ever change again. They think that since we now have the ability to effect global climate we should probably be at least trying to do it in a way that isn't terrible for us.
Of course the Earth and its life would survive a massive climate shift. But, as a human, I'd rather us go to the stars instead of bombing and polluting ourselves into a regressed society or even extinction.
As this is not my area of expertise, I have no idea if this is valid or not; but something having dire consequences does not allow you to simply dismiss it as "alarmism."
What are you talking about re: Google censoring the Internet?
Also, what convinces you that the UN would do a better job? What large nation isn't putting corp interests first that would influence a UN body to behave differently?
We are in a funding crunch! Quick! Stop science!!! Seriously stopping things that will actually advance your society because times are rough seems like a great way to keep things from improving.
You can teach science without attacking religion. (Although you may be indirectly attacking it.) Why bother? Because a teacher (as an authority figure) publicly attacking a part of some of his students' identities is out-of-line. He should focus less on "being right" and more on serving his students. Beating them over the head with SCIENCE! presented as opposed to something they identify with is not helping anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
What if it was zombie Hitler? What then? Huh?
People trying to make the world a better place- it's awful!
I'm glad you're not concerned with it, but as a name.com customer, it does concern me and I'm pretty glad this story was posted so I could take action.
Where are you supposed to be positioning your hands now?
The point is that "religious" is no more a monolithic term you can make specific assumptions based on than "black."
If you can figure out what's wrong with responding to an article about a rape with "what's the bet he's black?," you can figure out what's wrong with your post. If you cannot, you're probably a bigot.
Well, I guess that's yet another way to make sure Linux stays niche in desktop use forever.
"'By the time we're even 20, we've filled it up,' he said, adding that the only way to add information after that point is to 'repurpose our neocortex to learn something new.'" What exactly does that mean? I'm well past 20 and constantly learn new things. If I'm "repurposing my neocortex" every time I do it, it seems to be working as intended I guess?
According to wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 ), the Falcon 9 can deliver 29k lbs to LEO.
Are helicopters even reasonable in the thin Martian atmosphere? I assume it would still be possible, but the rotors would have to spin way faster and require much more energy.
That's exactly my point. If such things can be controlled, what's to stop the hypothetical torturer from turning them to the max? I'm sure there would be some kind of electronic locks, but those don't exactly have a track record of always working.
You're probably joking, but that's actually an interesting thought. What are the implications of immortality tech on punishment / torture? Currently no matter how bloodthirsty and depraved someone is, the most they can do is torture someone for a (few days?) Death provides a natural escape to that and many other things.
And by "they" you mean 1 guy acting alone who was near-universally denounced for his murder. Nice try.
Some apps spy on me -> I pirate everything! Sounds like someone is trying to justify being a cheap-ass. (With a dose of sociopathy since apparently you're excited about the prospect of devs losing their jobs so you don't have to pay $0.99!)
The article specifically says "Sodas sold at grocery and convenience stores would be exempt as well." So you'll still be able to get your diabetes size big gulp at Sleven.
Have you considered that trying to change things and becoming a "Former X" might be related?
Not good enough. People don't give a shit about high-minded ideals like "freedom." Also, China and Iran are evil because they are evil- when we do similar things it's because of good and stopping terrorism or something. What is the one-liner that tells non-geeks why it's bad *for them* and will disrupt *their* lives?
Where is the quick-to-read article / resource to link to that non-geeks can understand explaining why this is so bad? (Serious question)
Has anyone written a good article on why this is so bad that non-geeks could understand? Something you could link non-technical friends to?
People who support dealing with climate change don't seriously think nothing will ever change again. They think that since we now have the ability to effect global climate we should probably be at least trying to do it in a way that isn't terrible for us. Of course the Earth and its life would survive a massive climate shift. But, as a human, I'd rather us go to the stars instead of bombing and polluting ourselves into a regressed society or even extinction.
As this is not my area of expertise, I have no idea if this is valid or not; but something having dire consequences does not allow you to simply dismiss it as "alarmism."
What are you talking about re: Google censoring the Internet? Also, what convinces you that the UN would do a better job? What large nation isn't putting corp interests first that would influence a UN body to behave differently?
We are in a funding crunch! Quick! Stop science!!! Seriously stopping things that will actually advance your society because times are rough seems like a great way to keep things from improving.
I thought patents lasted for 7 years and could be extended to 14 if you could come up with a functional improvement. Has that changed?
You can teach science without attacking religion. (Although you may be indirectly attacking it.) Why bother? Because a teacher (as an authority figure) publicly attacking a part of some of his students' identities is out-of-line. He should focus less on "being right" and more on serving his students. Beating them over the head with SCIENCE! presented as opposed to something they identify with is not helping anyone.