Are you kidding? I give you the following argument:
1) Homo sapiens will have sex with ANYTHING.
2) Homo sapiens is a significant step up in attractiveness from homo neanderthalensis (as evidenced by Discovery's impeccable reconstructions of homo neanderthalensis).
3) Things like to do things that are more attractive than they are.
4) By 2 and 3, homo neanderthalensis liked to do homo sapiens.
5) By 1 and 4, I give you a pair of beings that want to do one another.
I see no significant leap of faith necessary to conclude that sex was had.
It's worth pointing out that this is not the "death of the campus computer lab". While ITC, UVa's university-wide information technology department, is going to be removing public computer labs, individual schools will still host their own school-specific computer labs. For instance, the McIntire School of Commerce will continue running four student labs for various important reasons that appear to be overlooked in Slashdot's summary. Here's a couple that came to mind in the brief five minutes' thought I gave this, so if anything turns out to be retarded, sorry:
1) Software: The school makes use of significant amounts of financial and otherwise business-oriented software which would simply be too burdensome for students to be responsible for purchasing and setting up themselves. It seems that this must be the case for other schools such as engineering and computer science.
2) Teaching Space: Labs are commonly used by professors in teaching classes which require technology-specific instruction or classwork which requires that users be capable of networking with one another over the local area network, such as trading simulation software.
3) Excuse Prevention: Students currently have access to virus and malware free computers 24/7. They cannot claim to be unable to complete their classwork due to personal computer failure. Not only is all of the necessary software accessable 24/7, but their data is capable of being stored on school network drives (which are accessable by the students from home) as well.
4) Reduction of IT Overhead: If students are required to make use of their home computers for their classwork, it seems as though the school will inevitably be required to service these home computers. This may be easily done for students who simply use Microsoft Office on Windows machines, but when school specific software is involved (and if anyone here has been in IT support for a business school, for example, they know all about the quality of business software out there...) it could quickly become a nightmare.
I'm actually interested to hear if anyone has coherent suggestions as to how musicians might make money without royalties from albums - or if anyone feels like the free download of music doesn't impact the royalties from these albums significantly, or somesuch.
You always read/hear people saying that the RIAA has a "fatally flawed business model", and I think that's true. It does seem like there's going to be very little in the means of defense of intellectual property in the future. However, instead of laughing and pointing at the RIAA, does anyone have good ideas for business models that take this into account and are still able to succeed? This will impact more than just the RIAA. What happens when scholars can't sell books because as soon as it's published, it's on the interwebs for free?
In short: How do people out there on Slashdot feel about the decline of intellectual property rights and does anyone have any good solutions to the problems that this would hypothetically (I'm open to these problems being non-issues, too, if someone can demonstrate it) plague those who depend on intellectual property for their survival?
Gaming is so subjective that there is no single "greatest" system ever.
Well put. And yet we attempt a discussion.
It's not clear that the fact that gaming is subjective means that there is no greatest system. If it is unanimously agreed that gaming is intensely subjective as far as likes and dislikes go, then perhaps the system which does the best job of appealing to and facilitating that broad subjectivity should be considered to be the best one.
It seems, then, that the Wii may take the prize for this one, although, as a Wii owner, I've been somewhat disappointed by its lack of range and Nintendo's insistence on releasing low-quality "casual game" spam that consistently ranks in less than a 3.0 on IGN.
It's pretty frustrating.
The PS3 may get my endorsement as time moves forward in development.
You know the REAL problem is when voice chat impedes on real life, not real life impeding on voice chat.
My problem isn't that the morons on the other end of my Ventrilo server are 11 - it's when they scream and I've left my computer on while I'm..uh..with my girlfriend.
Nothing will make you nerdier than having to get up and mute Ventrilo in the middle of that.
I'm lucky I still get any.
I'm so sick of this "gaming addiction" crap. If they really want to understand the problem, perhaps they should stop labeling it as a disorder on such a surface level, lacking any insight or thought whatsoever, and really try to figure out why these kids decide that it's a better life to stare at a virtual world in a computer than to actually participate in society outside of the virtual world.
Maybe they'd discover something about humans: namely, that we've caged ourselves up in an over-regulated, overprotected society where all of the natural animal aspects of our existence are gone. We no longer hunt for our own food, we no longer are required to be physically active, we are no longer small groups of closely interacting people, but rather nameless figures in cages.
And they wonder why people get "addicted to gaming".
We're animals, and when animals are caged, they do crazy things - like gnaw off their own tails, or shake uncontrollably, or become overly violent.
Good thing we only cut ourselves, kill each other, and sit in dark rooms with nothing but a computer and an internet-based fantasy world.
Seriously - what the hell is that website? Could anyone figure out what it was? It's so insane and creepily idiotic, that one almost can't believe it's just insane and idiotic, but rather that it must be some sort of cryptic signal to the KGB or CIA or something.
Just to clarify his position, though, http://www.timecube.com/ is his source that he links to. Clearly you understand his point now that you've seen that and are no longer "ignorant of natures harmonic time cube creation".
Lots of people try to pull this one - the old "if my idea's so wrong, why don't you let everyone decide!" method.
The reason that doesn't work is because creationism is just ONE of MANY crackpot ideas. No scientist backing evolution is really saying that God didn't create the universe, they're saying that all the evidence we have points to the conclusion that God did not create the universe 6000 years ago, nor are all the animals that exist today in the exact same state they were when they were created.
So, when all evidence points to the conclusion that the idea is totally ridiculous (an assertion that must be weighed very carefully, I agree - but creationism is just insane), we can't afford to waste our time teaching our students about it alongside serious education. If we forced ourselves to address every single absurd theory out there when teaching our children, we'd never get anywhere. We'd waste all of our time going over why invisible flying monkeys aren't really responsible for keeping us from flying into space as opposed to gravity, or why it's probably not true that those who eat paint are less likely to get cancer, or why creationism is probably not right.
We have to admit that we can come to a rational conclusion (i.e. creationism = crazy) and know to not waste our children's time on it.
Well, it's one thing to criticize infallibilistic dogma, and it's another to criticize religion. I'm all for the former, since the former is clearly insane. It just bothers me when people claim that they're one and the same.
I think that, unfortunately, many of the "rational" people in America have come to believe that religion is necessarily a poison to rationality. They sit in a festering pool of evangelical sludge, so it's not hard to see why they might come to that conclusion, but it's not true.
Religion and rationality don't have to be mutually exclusive. One might have religious beliefs due to religious experience, for instance, but still maintain a rational fallibilism by which he acknowledges that his religious standpoint on existence is not necessarily true, and that his religious experience - while convincing - may be caused by explicable, physical phenomena rather than something spiritual. That would not make religion a poison to rationality, for the believer is maintaining a rational frame of mind by keeping a degree of agnosticism regarding his or her spiritual side. Religion only becomes a poison to rationality when it becomes insane and people start holding infallibilistic doctrines that cause them to assert their beliefs as unquestionably correct despite any new evidence to the contrary.
That is insane, but it is not representative of all religion.
So, while the creationists and the intelligent designers are obviously off their rockers, don't extrapolate from these (albeit too common) instances into a universal claim that all religion is a poison to rationality. It can be a very beautiful thing. It's kind of like a paintbrush - in the right hands, it can do amazing things. In the wrong hands, it produces nothing worth noticing. In the REALLY wrong hands, it gets sharpened down into a weapon and someone ends up with it embedded in his braincase.
Show me one religion that hasn't changed or "adapted" over the years. I don't think you can say that, because science adapts, that excludes it from being a religion (not to say that science is a religion, but to contest your apparent requirement that, in order for something to be a religion, it must not adapt or change).
Slashdot Mirror
Are you kidding? I give you the following argument: 1) Homo sapiens will have sex with ANYTHING. 2) Homo sapiens is a significant step up in attractiveness from homo neanderthalensis (as evidenced by Discovery's impeccable reconstructions of homo neanderthalensis). 3) Things like to do things that are more attractive than they are. 4) By 2 and 3, homo neanderthalensis liked to do homo sapiens. 5) By 1 and 4, I give you a pair of beings that want to do one another. I see no significant leap of faith necessary to conclude that sex was had.
You think that robots who developed secret malicious intent without our knowledge couldn't figure out how to remove their off switches?
Fools. FOOLS.
It's worth pointing out that this is not the "death of the campus computer lab". While ITC, UVa's university-wide information technology department, is going to be removing public computer labs, individual schools will still host their own school-specific computer labs. For instance, the McIntire School of Commerce will continue running four student labs for various important reasons that appear to be overlooked in Slashdot's summary. Here's a couple that came to mind in the brief five minutes' thought I gave this, so if anything turns out to be retarded, sorry:
1) Software: The school makes use of significant amounts of financial and otherwise business-oriented software which would simply be too burdensome for students to be responsible for purchasing and setting up themselves. It seems that this must be the case for other schools such as engineering and computer science.
2) Teaching Space: Labs are commonly used by professors in teaching classes which require technology-specific instruction or classwork which requires that users be capable of networking with one another over the local area network, such as trading simulation software.
3) Excuse Prevention: Students currently have access to virus and malware free computers 24/7. They cannot claim to be unable to complete their classwork due to personal computer failure. Not only is all of the necessary software accessable 24/7, but their data is capable of being stored on school network drives (which are accessable by the students from home) as well.
4) Reduction of IT Overhead: If students are required to make use of their home computers for their classwork, it seems as though the school will inevitably be required to service these home computers. This may be easily done for students who simply use Microsoft Office on Windows machines, but when school specific software is involved (and if anyone here has been in IT support for a business school, for example, they know all about the quality of business software out there...) it could quickly become a nightmare.
I'm actually interested to hear if anyone has coherent suggestions as to how musicians might make money without royalties from albums - or if anyone feels like the free download of music doesn't impact the royalties from these albums significantly, or somesuch.
You always read/hear people saying that the RIAA has a "fatally flawed business model", and I think that's true. It does seem like there's going to be very little in the means of defense of intellectual property in the future. However, instead of laughing and pointing at the RIAA, does anyone have good ideas for business models that take this into account and are still able to succeed? This will impact more than just the RIAA. What happens when scholars can't sell books because as soon as it's published, it's on the interwebs for free?
In short: How do people out there on Slashdot feel about the decline of intellectual property rights and does anyone have any good solutions to the problems that this would hypothetically (I'm open to these problems being non-issues, too, if someone can demonstrate it) plague those who depend on intellectual property for their survival?
It's not clear that the fact that gaming is subjective means that there is no greatest system. If it is unanimously agreed that gaming is intensely subjective as far as likes and dislikes go, then perhaps the system which does the best job of appealing to and facilitating that broad subjectivity should be considered to be the best one.
It seems, then, that the Wii may take the prize for this one, although, as a Wii owner, I've been somewhat disappointed by its lack of range and Nintendo's insistence on releasing low-quality "casual game" spam that consistently ranks in less than a 3.0 on IGN.
It's pretty frustrating.
The PS3 may get my endorsement as time moves forward in development.
It becomes an addiction when you make up a creepy name for it. You know, like "Technolust".
You know the REAL problem is when voice chat impedes on real life, not real life impeding on voice chat. My problem isn't that the morons on the other end of my Ventrilo server are 11 - it's when they scream and I've left my computer on while I'm..uh..with my girlfriend. Nothing will make you nerdier than having to get up and mute Ventrilo in the middle of that. I'm lucky I still get any.
I'm so sick of this "gaming addiction" crap. If they really want to understand the problem, perhaps they should stop labeling it as a disorder on such a surface level, lacking any insight or thought whatsoever, and really try to figure out why these kids decide that it's a better life to stare at a virtual world in a computer than to actually participate in society outside of the virtual world.
Maybe they'd discover something about humans: namely, that we've caged ourselves up in an over-regulated, overprotected society where all of the natural animal aspects of our existence are gone. We no longer hunt for our own food, we no longer are required to be physically active, we are no longer small groups of closely interacting people, but rather nameless figures in cages.
And they wonder why people get "addicted to gaming".
We're animals, and when animals are caged, they do crazy things - like gnaw off their own tails, or shake uncontrollably, or become overly violent.
Good thing we only cut ourselves, kill each other, and sit in dark rooms with nothing but a computer and an internet-based fantasy world.
Seriously - what the hell is that website? Could anyone figure out what it was? It's so insane and creepily idiotic, that one almost can't believe it's just insane and idiotic, but rather that it must be some sort of cryptic signal to the KGB or CIA or something. Just to clarify his position, though, http://www.timecube.com/ is his source that he links to. Clearly you understand his point now that you've seen that and are no longer "ignorant of natures harmonic time cube creation".
Lots of people try to pull this one - the old "if my idea's so wrong, why don't you let everyone decide!" method. The reason that doesn't work is because creationism is just ONE of MANY crackpot ideas. No scientist backing evolution is really saying that God didn't create the universe, they're saying that all the evidence we have points to the conclusion that God did not create the universe 6000 years ago, nor are all the animals that exist today in the exact same state they were when they were created. So, when all evidence points to the conclusion that the idea is totally ridiculous (an assertion that must be weighed very carefully, I agree - but creationism is just insane), we can't afford to waste our time teaching our students about it alongside serious education. If we forced ourselves to address every single absurd theory out there when teaching our children, we'd never get anywhere. We'd waste all of our time going over why invisible flying monkeys aren't really responsible for keeping us from flying into space as opposed to gravity, or why it's probably not true that those who eat paint are less likely to get cancer, or why creationism is probably not right. We have to admit that we can come to a rational conclusion (i.e. creationism = crazy) and know to not waste our children's time on it.
Well, it's one thing to criticize infallibilistic dogma, and it's another to criticize religion. I'm all for the former, since the former is clearly insane. It just bothers me when people claim that they're one and the same.
I think that, unfortunately, many of the "rational" people in America have come to believe that religion is necessarily a poison to rationality. They sit in a festering pool of evangelical sludge, so it's not hard to see why they might come to that conclusion, but it's not true. Religion and rationality don't have to be mutually exclusive. One might have religious beliefs due to religious experience, for instance, but still maintain a rational fallibilism by which he acknowledges that his religious standpoint on existence is not necessarily true, and that his religious experience - while convincing - may be caused by explicable, physical phenomena rather than something spiritual. That would not make religion a poison to rationality, for the believer is maintaining a rational frame of mind by keeping a degree of agnosticism regarding his or her spiritual side. Religion only becomes a poison to rationality when it becomes insane and people start holding infallibilistic doctrines that cause them to assert their beliefs as unquestionably correct despite any new evidence to the contrary. That is insane, but it is not representative of all religion. So, while the creationists and the intelligent designers are obviously off their rockers, don't extrapolate from these (albeit too common) instances into a universal claim that all religion is a poison to rationality. It can be a very beautiful thing. It's kind of like a paintbrush - in the right hands, it can do amazing things. In the wrong hands, it produces nothing worth noticing. In the REALLY wrong hands, it gets sharpened down into a weapon and someone ends up with it embedded in his braincase.
Show me one religion that hasn't changed or "adapted" over the years. I don't think you can say that, because science adapts, that excludes it from being a religion (not to say that science is a religion, but to contest your apparent requirement that, in order for something to be a religion, it must not adapt or change).