> With a bomb, what's the worst that can happen? A few million people die. With time travel, we can wipe out the entire universe.
First, before the first H-Bomb was detonated, there are probably some who thought the universe could be wiped out. They were wrong.
Ignoring that past ignorance for a second, that statement is current ignorance: I don't see how the universe could be wiped out by time travel. Even if you could go back in time to the "big bang," you probably wouldn't survive long enough to stop anything from happening. Even if you did, a human or 6 billion is a little insignificant compared to that energy.
To sum up: Varley is an author of fiction, not a scientist.
> Once people understand the implications and the power behind the technology and they still aren't concerned that it could have profound good and bad consequences for all life here then that's proof that it needs to be controlled.
Proof that the U.S. needs to clamp down on the Internet!
> it's pretty fucking hypocritical to say anything about capitalism while you're typing away...
I think technophobes are idiots, but seriously, that's not a good argument, IMO. If I want to spread a message to the largest number of Christians I could, where better to go than a church where they are already assembled? If I want to convince geeks that they are ruining the world, where will I find them? Am I supposed to go to every basement in the U.S. searching for them? No, they are assembled on the Internet. In huge numbers.
It may be a bit hypocritical, but it sorta' makes sense to me. Using evil to fight evil, I suppose. If one is truly for the betterment of people and not trying to just look like a luddite for his whacko friends, they will accept using evil to defeat evil. Look at George Bush. You can't honestly claim Saddam was a good guy, but I don't believe GW is either.
"The lesser of two evils is still evil," yet when you have no other tools, what are you to do besides suffer? Of course, when it comes to someone forcing an opinion, I'd actually prefer they suffer, but I believe that's a secondary issue.
> If it is possible for someone to use nanotech to make machines that present a realistic threat to the general population, then by all means we can and should look at taking legal steps to prevent such abuse.
If it is possible and viable, laws won't do JACK SHIT to stop them. If someone was creating a nanoweapon, they weren't exactly paying attention to existing laws, so new ones are not an obstacle to anyone who would threaten us.
Or educate the person as to why their fears are completely unfounded and show them that they are doing nothing but hurting the future of progress "for the children" due to their own ignorance and stubbornness.
Assuming the action in question is, in fact, safe.
> Such an argument might not be logical, it might not be reasonable, but the opinion should be counted nevertheless. If there's enough of them, then so be it.
Otherwise known as "mob rule." Actually, "ignorant mob rule."
> "shut up, shut up, shut up - I can make a lot of money with this, so you've better shut up about anything negative we might face when developing nanotech".
Uuuh... can you explain to me how laws of nature have loopholes? WRT science, if you can "get away with" something, it wasn't "against the rules" to begin with.
> People respond not to reason, but to intuition and impression. Just take the example of genetically modified foods.
You need another 'i' word in there. Intimidation. The use of that stupid frankenshit is meant to scare people because they don't have any VALID reasons, so they use buzzwords instead. Not to mention the government intimidation used to pass LOOOOADS of unconstitutional laws.
> doesn't then automatically make you the moral authority on the matter.
"Moral authority" doesn't enter into it. There is no (im)morality to be attached to this. It is science (supposedly) based on fact, not faith based on subjective views of right & wrong.
All we really need to know from the technical authority (aside from the purpose) is if it will adversely affect anyone's health, and if it will work correctly. If it's harmless and works, then it is "good" and there should be no further debate about the ability to produce it.
Where morality DOES apply is when individuals choose to misrepresent or lie about their findings. That's the potential problem here, IMO.
OK, smartass, no those names don't represent their products, but those products did not claim that it "represents their Global Presence." Mandriva DID. If that sentence was not in there I wouldn't have brought it up. THEY are the ones that claim it's supposed to mean something.
> the recent Mandrakesoft - Conectiva merger calls for a new identity that better represents the combination of two key companies and their global presence.
How does "Mandriva" "represent their Global Presence?" If I had no idea what they made and was asked to guess, it would be some sort of male driving school... Or a singing fruit (mandarin, Diva)... But in no way does Mandriva make me think "Linux, of course!"
> > A whole lot of asses need to be soundly kicked and then tossed in jail forever." > Uh, yeah, because the USA has an exclusive on this area of politics.
These sentences imply that "a whole lot of asses" do NOT "need to be soundly kicked" "because the USA [does not have] an exclusive on this area of politics." (edited phrasing to remove sarcasm)
So yes, you did say something like that, although not in quite so many words.
> I am not showing bias here. > Left leaning sites don't count.
I think you need to work on your bullshitting skills a bit more. There are only three sentences, but you still managed to contratict yourself completely.
Wow, that's messed up. If used to the fullest extent, there will be a few thousand school children that will become millionaires. Or maybe that's not as common a schoolyard 'insult' in Canada as it is in the U.S...
Probably a dumb question, but I wonder... It doesn't state the person's orientation in the article, but could one sue for being called gay when he is not? I would think so, just curious about that.
> [you can get a fine/jailtime for saying] that gays should not be permitted to be married.
You get jail time for expressing an opinion? Wow, that's pretty messed up. I mean, I could understand "I'll kill that GD'd F@$$*T" landing you in a civil court or something (criminal if you follow through), but how are you supposed to know what thoughts are verboten and which are just minorly offensive or totally ignorant?
If I said that straights should not marry, would I get the same punishment? What about dogs? What about people who aren't employed at the time? Is it just gays that get special protection?
Slashdot Mirror
> With a bomb, what's the worst that can happen? A few million people die. With time travel, we can wipe out the entire universe.
First, before the first H-Bomb was detonated, there are probably some who thought the universe could be wiped out. They were wrong.
Ignoring that past ignorance for a second, that statement is current ignorance: I don't see how the universe could be wiped out by time travel. Even if you could go back in time to the "big bang," you probably wouldn't survive long enough to stop anything from happening. Even if you did, a human or 6 billion is a little insignificant compared to that energy.
To sum up: Varley is an author of fiction, not a scientist.
> Once people understand the implications and the power behind the technology and they still aren't concerned that it could have profound good and bad consequences for all life here then that's proof that it needs to be controlled.
Proof that the U.S. needs to clamp down on the Internet!
> it's pretty fucking hypocritical to say anything about capitalism while you're typing away...
I think technophobes are idiots, but seriously, that's not a good argument, IMO. If I want to spread a message to the largest number of Christians I could, where better to go than a church where they are already assembled?
If I want to convince geeks that they are ruining the world, where will I find them? Am I supposed to go to every basement in the U.S. searching for them? No, they are assembled on the Internet. In huge numbers.
It may be a bit hypocritical, but it sorta' makes sense to me. Using evil to fight evil, I suppose. If one is truly for the betterment of people and not trying to just look like a luddite for his whacko friends, they will accept using evil to defeat evil. Look at George Bush. You can't honestly claim Saddam was a good guy, but I don't believe GW is either.
"The lesser of two evils is still evil," yet when you have no other tools, what are you to do besides suffer? Of course, when it comes to someone forcing an opinion, I'd actually prefer they suffer, but I believe that's a secondary issue.
"I don't like to accept reality, so once I am proven wrong, I'll go somewhere where I think reality is different."
Oh no, look out! It's a karmaslide!
> If it is possible for someone to use nanotech to make machines that present a realistic threat to the general population, then by all means we can and should look at taking legal steps to prevent such abuse.
If it is possible and viable, laws won't do JACK SHIT to stop them. If someone was creating a nanoweapon, they weren't exactly paying attention to existing laws, so new ones are not an obstacle to anyone who would threaten us.
Or educate the person as to why their fears are completely unfounded and show them that they are doing nothing but hurting the future of progress "for the children" due to their own ignorance and stubbornness.
Assuming the action in question is, in fact, safe.
> Such an argument might not be logical, it might not be reasonable, but the opinion should be counted nevertheless. If there's enough of them, then so be it.
Otherwise known as "mob rule." Actually, "ignorant mob rule."
> roll does not mean "I disagree".
Nope, but this means troll:
> "shut up, shut up, shut up - I can make a lot of money with this, so you've better shut up about anything negative we might face when developing nanotech".
> loopholes in thermodynamics and chemistry.
Uuuh... can you explain to me how laws of nature have loopholes? WRT science, if you can "get away with" something, it wasn't "against the rules" to begin with.
> People respond not to reason, but to intuition and impression. Just take the example of genetically modified foods.
You need another 'i' word in there. Intimidation. The use of that stupid frankenshit is meant to scare people because they don't have any VALID reasons, so they use buzzwords instead. Not to mention the government intimidation used to pass LOOOOADS of unconstitutional laws.
> doesn't then automatically make you the moral authority on the matter.
"Moral authority" doesn't enter into it. There is no (im)morality to be attached to this. It is science (supposedly) based on fact, not faith based on subjective views of right & wrong.
All we really need to know from the technical authority (aside from the purpose) is if it will adversely affect anyone's health, and if it will work correctly. If it's harmless and works, then it is "good" and there should be no further debate about the ability to produce it.
Where morality DOES apply is when individuals choose to misrepresent or lie about their findings. That's the potential problem here, IMO.
Or that we are in the first iteration of this section of our timeline.
The person you replied to never said that it should. That is where the confusion arises.
OK, smartass, no those names don't represent their products, but those products did not claim that it "represents their Global Presence." Mandriva DID. If that sentence was not in there I wouldn't have brought it up. THEY are the ones that claim it's supposed to mean something.
> the recent Mandrakesoft - Conectiva merger calls for a new identity that better represents the combination of two key companies and their global presence.
How does "Mandriva" "represent their Global Presence?" If I had no idea what they made and was asked to guess, it would be some sort of male driving school... Or a singing fruit (mandarin, Diva)... But in no way does Mandriva make me think "Linux, of course!"
I tried again and came to the same conclusion. If that is NOT what you meant, what was your point?
> Let's patent a time machine (Score:1)
> Or am I late already?
You are only late if it gets created some time in the future. If it will never happen, you can go ahead.
Fair enough :) The rest should have tipped them off anyway...
> none of them even realized that Normandy was 8 years before I was born.
Did you tell them how old you were?
> > A whole lot of asses need to be soundly kicked and then tossed in jail forever."
> Uh, yeah, because the USA has an exclusive on this area of politics.
These sentences imply that "a whole lot of asses" do NOT "need to be soundly kicked" "because the USA [does not have] an exclusive on this area of politics." (edited phrasing to remove sarcasm)
So yes, you did say something like that, although not in quite so many words.
What the hell do you want, uncontrolled swearing? That does not "prove" you anything. Right OR wrong.
> I am not showing bias here.
> Left leaning sites don't count.
I think you need to work on your bullshitting skills a bit more. There are only three sentences, but you still managed to contratict yourself completely.
OMG, Crack was found in the shuttle tank??? No wonder Columbia exploded... All the engineers were so high they even left their drugs onboard.
Wow, that's messed up. If used to the fullest extent, there will be a few thousand school children that will become millionaires. Or maybe that's not as common a schoolyard 'insult' in Canada as it is in the U.S...
Probably a dumb question, but I wonder... It doesn't state the person's orientation in the article, but could one sue for being called gay when he is not? I would think so, just curious about that.
> [you can get a fine/jailtime for saying] that gays should not be permitted to be married.
You get jail time for expressing an opinion? Wow, that's pretty messed up. I mean, I could understand "I'll kill that GD'd F@$$*T" landing you in a civil court or something (criminal if you follow through), but how are you supposed to know what thoughts are verboten and which are just minorly offensive or totally ignorant?
If I said that straights should not marry, would I get the same punishment? What about dogs? What about people who aren't employed at the time? Is it just gays that get special protection?