I think he is trying to make an association with technological progress. As we develop more and more technology to do the tasks that formerly required a human being it is reasonable to say we don't "need" a human to do the job.
Technogical advancement to the point of obsolesence is different than human beings blowing each other up in a war because in the case of war we don't have a future. It's over for humanity. In the other case everything about our society continues (except of course for us). Hence, the future doesn't need us.
I don't know if this is what he intended to communicate and I haven't written it as well as I'd like to have, but I hope you get the point I'm trying to make.
These plates allow the police or anyone else to link you to a car with a unique VIN. All of the dangers of abuse that could take place with RFID exist already with license plates.
I don't think I'd agree with this. I believe the difference is in terms of application. For example, with the RFIDs authorities could embed scanners at every intersection (note that this eliminates the issue of range) that can be used to track any car. You cannot, obviously, post enough policemen at every corner to track every license plate that goes by.
Obviously there are countless other ways that the RFIDs can be used that the license plate cannot. I won't go into them, so use your imagination.
A couple other points I'd like to make. Many people have been discussing the various issues involved with using a part of the car that needs replacing to store the RFIDs in terms of them being used to track cars and how inefficient this is. I don't think the point of this is so much about tires specifically. The question is where else will these tags be embedded (in the car's frame for example. Or in clothing, which has been discussed here before) and what can be done with them then.
Obviously this alone (RFIDs in tires, that is) is not a huge blow to privacy. A knee-jerk reaction is unwarranted however it is valuable to look at this in terms of a larger trend.
I agree, I don't know that I would advocate actual implants. But if this could be placed in his shoe or something like that. That's more what I had in mind.
It's not even just for puppies. You can do it with your grown dogs as well and I think even cats and other pets.
I think it's a great idea. If my dog gets loose and winds up at some shelter I WANT them to know who I am and be able to contact me. Plus I doubt my dog minds.
If I were a parent I could also maybe see it for my kids (young kids, not necessarily teenagers).
The problem comes when this kind of thing is either legally mandated or forced through by companies (i.e. you can't buy anything, get on a plane, etc. without having been tagged). Yeah it's possible to live your life untagged but that in and of itself makes you suspicious to the authorities.
Most of the time I've seen things connected through the VCR, the VCR was being used as an RF modulator for a video game console or camcorder with no RF output connected to a television set with no A/V input. How does the owner of a television set without A/V inputs connect a DVD player to his television set? Do DVD players have coax out on RF channel 3/4?
This is my situation and with my old VCR (very old, 12 or more years) DVDs wouldn't play properly. I purchased a new VCR (which can handle Macrovision) and connected the DVD player through that. DVDs play fine, but don't record. New VCRs allow Macrovision content to be played, but not recorded. At least that is my understanding.
What I meant by definition was more a question of what these words mean in context so a dictionary definition is insufficient.
God is the existence of all three states, your looking for an it definition of God and funny enough there wasn't one.
I don't have any idea what that means. I'm looking for an "it" definition?
Anyway, it seems clear that you are using the goal of your argument (god is the trinity) to provide a definition of your terms. Of course your argument appears logically consistent but it means nothing.
It was a proof, you didn't know what the words meant, and you were looking for something that wasn't there. The proof was fine, your misconceptions weren't.
Perhaps what I was looking for was some actual meaning which still appears to be absent.
Well, let's start by your lack of a defintion of what exactly a state is. All I can gather from your post is that they apparently have the capacity to "see" each other (whatever that means), but only if a third "observation" state is added to the mix.
Also, (and this is frightenly common) you fail to define what God is. The only defintion given is "the trinity" which is a tad lacking in terms of details or any actual information at all. You can call something "sally" if you want but it won't mean anything.
I wouldn't call this falsifying your proof because I wouldn't call what you posted a proof, or even an argument for that matter. You presuppose that your assertion is correct then create ambiguous language to support it. And the you call that proof.
I think you would benefit from taking some philosophy courses.
My feeling has always been that the power of OSS is not that every user can and will fix his own problems but that by having the source available people who DO have the time and interest will fix problems/add features and make those available to everyone (even those who never bother to look at the source at all).
how many people actually consider an outlook-killer such a killer app as to be worth $5 million?
This would be huge in my opinion. While Outlook and Notes have their problems they kick the crap out of any opensource/cross platform offerings at this point (haven't looked at Evolution in a while, so I don't know where it stands). If there were a viable alternative to Outlook+Exchange/Lotus Notes I think plenty of companies would look it adopting it.
Frontpage? Dreamweaver? both produce CRAP html code. sure, they're nice for some business analyst type person to mock up a web page, but then they give the code to a developer who has to spend 1/2 a day fixing up the code in there to get it to work at all.
I don't find this to be the case at all with Dreamweaver. I have been very happy with the HTML that it produces, no extra crap and it encourages you to follow proper coding standards.
I suppose it could be in how you use it but I've never had any problems. Frontpage on the other hand is in my opinion, unusable.
Well, this is hardly the place to get in a silly argument about abortion where we both just restate our opinions, each time getting louder (wait, this IS Slashdot, maybe it is the place for that).
So I'll just say this. I am not a dualist, because I see no evidence to suggest that dualism is correct; the bible doesn't count as evidence in my opinion. Since I am not a dualist it is difficult for me to equate a bunch of undifferentiated cells to a living, thinking, human being. So I can in fact agree with you that taking human life unjustly is murder, and is not acceptable. What I can't agree with you on is that extraction of stem cells from an embryo constitues taking a human life.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually Pepsi doesn't own Dr. Pepper. They are in fact owned by Cadbury (and by Coca-Cola in the UK).
Pepsi does bottle and distribute Dr. Pepper in the states, however.
As this article suggests, you are not the only one with this misconception.
Okay, he wasn't in a SuperMax, but he was in solitary for eight months.
I've always looked at it like this.
I think he is trying to make an association with technological progress. As we develop more and more technology to do the tasks that formerly required a human being it is reasonable to say we don't "need" a human to do the job.
Technogical advancement to the point of obsolesence is different than human beings blowing each other up in a war because in the case of war we don't have a future. It's over for humanity. In the other case everything about our society continues (except of course for us). Hence, the future doesn't need us.
I don't know if this is what he intended to communicate and I haven't written it as well as I'd like to have, but I hope you get the point I'm trying to make.
These plates allow the police or anyone else to link you to a car with a unique VIN. All of the dangers of abuse that could take place with RFID exist already with license plates.
I don't think I'd agree with this. I believe the difference is in terms of application. For example, with the RFIDs authorities could embed scanners at every intersection (note that this eliminates the issue of range) that can be used to track any car. You cannot, obviously, post enough policemen at every corner to track every license plate that goes by.
Obviously there are countless other ways that the RFIDs can be used that the license plate cannot. I won't go into them, so use your imagination.
A couple other points I'd like to make. Many people have been discussing the various issues involved with using a part of the car that needs replacing to store the RFIDs in terms of them being used to track cars and how inefficient this is. I don't think the point of this is so much about tires specifically. The question is where else will these tags be embedded (in the car's frame for example. Or in clothing, which has been discussed here before) and what can be done with them then.
Obviously this alone (RFIDs in tires, that is) is not a huge blow to privacy. A knee-jerk reaction is unwarranted however it is valuable to look at this in terms of a larger trend.
Funnily enough, the length of your forearm is exactly the same length as your foot. Try it!
I did. It isn't.
I agree, I don't know that I would advocate actual implants. But if this could be placed in his shoe or something like that. That's more what I had in mind.
It's not even just for puppies. You can do it with your grown dogs as well and I think even cats and other pets.
I think it's a great idea. If my dog gets loose and winds up at some shelter I WANT them to know who I am and be able to contact me. Plus I doubt my dog minds.
If I were a parent I could also maybe see it for my kids (young kids, not necessarily teenagers).
The problem comes when this kind of thing is either legally mandated or forced through by companies (i.e. you can't buy anything, get on a plane, etc. without having been tagged). Yeah it's possible to live your life untagged but that in and of itself makes you suspicious to the authorities.
Ostensibly.
I concur.
And yes, I'm done posting on this thread (well, after this post anyway) and I'm not sure whether I should have gone on as much as I did.
Ah well.
Most of the time I've seen things connected through the VCR, the VCR was being used as an RF modulator for a video game console or camcorder with no RF output connected to a television set with no A/V input. How does the owner of a television set without A/V inputs connect a DVD player to his television set? Do DVD players have coax out on RF channel 3/4?
This is my situation and with my old VCR (very old, 12 or more years) DVDs wouldn't play properly. I purchased a new VCR (which can handle Macrovision) and connected the DVD player through that. DVDs play fine, but don't record. New VCRs allow Macrovision content to be played, but not recorded. At least that is my understanding.
What I meant by definition was more a question of what these words mean in context so a dictionary definition is insufficient.
God is the existence of all three states, your looking for an it definition of God and funny enough there wasn't one.
I don't have any idea what that means. I'm looking for an "it" definition?
Anyway, it seems clear that you are using the goal of your argument (god is the trinity) to provide a definition of your terms. Of course your argument appears logically consistent but it means nothing.
It was a proof, you didn't know what the words meant, and you were looking for something that wasn't there. The proof was fine, your misconceptions weren't.
Perhaps what I was looking for was some actual meaning which still appears to be absent.
Well, let's start by your lack of a defintion of what exactly a state is. All I can gather from your post is that they apparently have the capacity to "see" each other (whatever that means), but only if a third "observation" state is added to the mix.
Also, (and this is frightenly common) you fail to define what God is. The only defintion given is "the trinity" which is a tad lacking in terms of details or any actual information at all. You can call something "sally" if you want but it won't mean anything.
I wouldn't call this falsifying your proof because I wouldn't call what you posted a proof, or even an argument for that matter. You presuppose that your assertion is correct then create ambiguous language to support it. And the you call that proof.
I think you would benefit from taking some philosophy courses.
Yeah, but if they really want to be taken seriously why did they name their headquarters "UFO Land"? That's just asking to be made fun of.
Pascal's Wager, I believe.
I tried for several minutes to think of a joke relating to the programming language but I couldn't so screw it.
That's your "proof"?
well at least on thursdays - seems to be the favorite layoff day around here
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Great Scot! You're correct.
I can't be held responsible for what happens between my page refreshes damn it.
My feeling has always been that the power of OSS is not that every user can and will fix his own problems but that by having the source available people who DO have the time and interest will fix problems/add features and make those available to everyone (even those who never bother to look at the source at all).
Well, someone has to do it right.
If I recall it's just "great scot", not "great scots".
Yes, I'm a pedantic bastard.
I've never even heard of anyone making such rash guarantees (prior to this exchange, of course). Do you have any examples of this?
how many people actually consider an outlook-killer such a killer app as to be worth $5 million?
This would be huge in my opinion. While Outlook and Notes have their problems they kick the crap out of any opensource/cross platform offerings at this point (haven't looked at Evolution in a while, so I don't know where it stands). If there were a viable alternative to Outlook+Exchange/Lotus Notes I think plenty of companies would look it adopting it.
Riiiiight. I'll be sure to let my clients know that next time they're asking for DHTML and Flash content.
Frontpage? Dreamweaver? both produce CRAP html code. sure, they're nice for some business analyst type person to mock up a web page, but then they give the code to a developer who has to spend 1/2 a day fixing up the code in there to get it to work at all.
I don't find this to be the case at all with Dreamweaver. I have been very happy with the HTML that it produces, no extra crap and it encourages you to follow proper coding standards.
I suppose it could be in how you use it but I've never had any problems. Frontpage on the other hand is in my opinion, unusable.
Well, this is hardly the place to get in a silly argument about abortion where we both just restate our opinions, each time getting louder (wait, this IS Slashdot, maybe it is the place for that).
So I'll just say this. I am not a dualist, because I see no evidence to suggest that dualism is correct; the bible doesn't count as evidence in my opinion. Since I am not a dualist it is difficult for me to equate a bunch of undifferentiated cells to a living, thinking, human being. So I can in fact agree with you that taking human life unjustly is murder, and is not acceptable. What I can't agree with you on is that extraction of stem cells from an embryo constitues taking a human life.
There I'm done.
Very possibly.
My feeling is that we should explore both options. It's too early to tell whether one or the other will be superior.
It also may end up that adult stem cells are useful in some situations and embryonic in others.