In large part, that depends upon how you define "win". Your definition (and mine) involves meeting a specific objective by using a set procedure. IOW, following the rules is inherent in the very definition. To a lot of people, the word win seems to mean something like "humiliate the other person as much as possible by any means necessary." To their way of thinking, "cheating" is merely creative strategy. The fact that they were "smart" enough to cheat and you weren't is just more proof of their superiority.
if you start defending the rights of the unborn, or potentially the unfertilised, then you're getting into familiar territory, and the comparison with abortion becomes inevitable.
One of the key differences is that with abortion, you don't have a human being who's life you affected. The aborted embryo never becomes a human being. OTOH, the altered embryo DOES become a human being, one able to look back and say "Why did you do this to me? What or who would I have been had you not done this?" What if your genetic manipulation has some terrible, unintended consequence?
your argument can be extended to mean that if two people get together and have a child that inevitably will carry some terrible inherited traits from their parents (disease, ugliness, something even more controvertial...), then they're doing something equally terrible
I'd tend to argue that deliberately bringing a diseased child into being IS a morally terrible act. I don't think it should be legally actionable, however, and obviously some people will disagree with me.
Please note that I'm following on from previous posts rather than replying to them so don't take offence!
Heavens to Murgatory, why would I take offense? The whole point of/., trolls and other b.s. aside, should be to inform and generate spirited discussion on relevant issues. I certainly don't have all the answers. In fact, I'm convinced that there ARE no real answers, merely opinions and viewpoints, and those are (or at least should be) subject to change based upon the available evidence.
I agree, which was why I said no modern physicist questions either relativity or QM. However, I've seen it stated by some quite knowledgable people that Newton was wrong. His equations, while reasonable approximations for most macro situations, give incorrect results if measured to enough precision and are therefore incorrect. It's more a matter of semantics, I think, than scientific "truth."
Every society with which I'm familiar recognizes limits on the authority of the parent. If you put your kids in a sweatshop and take a bullwhip to them if they don't make quota, they'll be taken from you. Granted, that's extreme, but it does show that your rights as to what you can do with your children are morally and legally limited.
Altering the genetics of a person changes who that person is. It is undoubtedly and unquestionably the most profoundly altering thing you can do to a human being. Does anyone, even a parent, have the right to make such decisions for another person?
I'm not saying that genetics are necessarily evil or that genetic studies should be banned. I'm merely pointing out that there are legitimate issues to be discussed and considered. It isn't all merely Luddite panic.
Been awhile since I read BNW, but I don't see where genetic engineering relates. Certainly genetic engineering provides a despotic government with new ways to abuse their power, but I don't see genetics causing the corruption of the government.
I'd question the assumption that genetics will have a bigger effect on the individual's life than computers. What impact will genetics have on your day to day life? Certainly, it may alter the overall course of your life but likely not your daily routine. Vaccinations had a profound effect on humanity. They eliminated a tremendous amount of human pain, suffering and death. We don't wake daily thinking of how lucky we were to have received vaccinations. Medical care is pretty much taken for granted until you need it. When you do need it, you're profoundly grateful for awhile but soon you're healthy again and you go right back to the same daily routine. The computer revolution altered the way our society functions. I sit down at a computer every day. My day to day life is profoundly different than it would have been without computers. I don't see genetics having that kind of daily impact for a long time, even if the overall scope of its impact on humanity is more profound.
Doesn't a gene sequencer merely decode a gene sequence? That is, it takes a bit of DNA and tells you the order of the individual bases within that strand. I really have a hard time seeing how one of these on your desktop would benefit you. Now, when they come out with an economical gene splicer or whatever the term is for a machine which generates a specific sequence on command...
I don't think it's a matter of questioning QM so much as it is a matter of refining it. I suppose it depends upon how you define the terms. Did relativity replace or refine Newton's laws?
OK, the plan of the day seems to be to feed the trolls, so I'll do my part.
A lot of people question theories of physics. For the most part, they have no evidence and show a gross lack of understanding of the actual principles involved, so they're dismissed out of hand. The exact same is true for evolution. Evolution is a comprehensive theory which fits the available facts quite well. I doesn't fit a number of people's personal philosophies, but that's hardly a requirement for a scientific theory. If you come up with evidence which truly calls into question the principles of evolution, the truth will be heard. It may not happen over night, and the entire scientific establishment may not beat a path to your door, but it WILL happen. A number of classical physicist did not want to accept Einstein's theories. Einstein himself, and others, did not want to accept QM. No modern physicist seriously questions either theory. Science moves slow sometimes, but it does work. If evidence supports a theory, it survives. If it doesn't, it dies.
There are only about a half dozen different basic love story plots. This one was not any worse than most of the others that hit the big screen. As far as that goes, Shakespeare's plots weren't original when he wrote them. Not to say that Titanic was anywhere close to Shakespeare, of course, but there really ain't nothing new under the sun when it comes to plots. You just mix and match the pieces and adjust the settings a bit.
South park , is the worst animation ever, a 3 year old child can do better. Agree with your overall point but I have to disagree with this statement. It takes talent to do something consistently at just the right degree of primitiveness.
Cool, leaves more for the rest of us. Er, well, guess that doesn't really apply but you'll understand the sentiment, I hope.
Re:Do Holywood sheep dream of electric movies?
on
End Of Fox Animation
·
· Score: 1
Yes and no. If Casablanca had never been seen and you released it today as a commercial movie, it would be a dismal flop. It might get rave reviews from the critics but it would stink at the box office. Casablanca isn't a masterpiece because it is black and white. It was filmed using pretty much state of the art techniques at the time and remains an incredible movie today because it transcends its technical limitations. You're absolutely correct that the story is much more important than the medium, but that doesn't mean that the choice of medium becomes irrelevant.
Not exactly. Paintings and sculpture actually ARE 2D and 3D mediums, respectively. They're quite distinct. 2D and 3D as applied to video are misnomers. Both 2D and 3D are actually a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional scene. Both try to look 3D on a flat screen. A better analogy might be the difference between oils and watercolors. Even this (like all analogies) is inexact, since neither the purpose nor the method of judging success is the same for an artistic expression and a commercial movie.
Conspiracy theories are one thing. Companies do, however, have marketing plans and business strategies. They do get together to discuss and plan how they're going to respond to outside events. Microsoft's marketplace and court tactics are not a conspiracy - they are a deliberate, carefully planned philosophy. This isn't the "Randian" outlook Roblimo mentioned. He was referring to individual actions, usually to unplanned and unexpected events (such as the posting of an MS API to/.), which give the appearance of a conspiracy.
Part of it is consistency. Most of my co-workers don't have the luxury of having their own personal system. There are several "Learning Centers," each of which has a half dozen computers for "public" use. This leads to:
User: "I can't find this! I know it was under the Edit menu yesterday!"
Me: "It's still there, just hidden. You have to go down to the bottom, hit the little arrow and then you'll see the full menu."
User: "What? But I didn't have to do that yesterday."
Me: "You were using a different computer yesterday."
User: "Well, why don't you set them all up the same so I can find stuff when I want it."
Me: "Sigh!"
Incidently, I do normally turn off the feature on the LC machines. But someone always turns it back on.
The clarity of your logic, the force of your arguments and the facile nature of your presentation overwhelm me. Have you ever conidered a career in politics?
The demarcation problem can be solved if you realize that a verbal UI isn't limited to words. A limited "vocabulary" of pops, clicks, clucks, etc. (easily customized to fit each user) could replace certain keys or change from a "type" mode to a "command" mode, similar to the ESC key in vi. Saying "<click>delete<click>" is just as quick as hitting the delete key.
I'm not sure that scaling is the ideal future of the UI. The idea of scaling implies essentially adding and deleting features to match the user's skill level. A good novice UI isn't simply a slimed down power user UI, and a good power user UI isn't simply a beefed up novice UI. The two will likely be as fundamentally different as a command line and a GUI.
Certainly the sig applies to the MPAA. What made you think it didn't?
As for NASA, I didn't mean to imply that they were necessarily clueless, although they are in some areas. Rather, I was pointing out the fact that they are very slow in implementing new technology, even though they are responsible for a significant chunk of it. There are some very good reasons why they're slow at it, but it doesn't change the fact that they are slow.
Basing something on a book is technically copyright violation. You did ask for permission, didn't you?
BS. People base stuff on books all the time. It's called "research" and you should have learned how to do it in junior high or earlier.
Bah humbug. They own the computer, they dictate how it's used. Simple as that. This isn't about privacy or lack of it - my employer has every right to watch what I'm doing at work (like this post), whether by a physical boss with eyes or with an electronic monitoring system. I can be fired at any time for any reason relating to inappropriate use, even if it's excessive eBay watching.
So you wouldn't object to your company putting bugs in the workers lounge and making tapes of your conversations with your co-workers? You wouldn't object to them recording all of your telephone calls?
There are a few different issues here. One is the issue of how you spend your time. If your employer is paying you to do a job and you spend your time doing something else (whether it's browsing eBay, browsing pr0n, reading romance novels or building ships in bottles), your employer has a right to take action, including firing you. Another issue is the use of company consumables. If you're sending private letters using company-stamped envelopes or making long distance calls on company phones, you're spending company money. That's theft. If you're making personal trips in the company car, you're putting wear and tear on the vehicle, reducing its value. You also may be using company purchased gas or claiming personal mileage as business related travel. Again, this is a form of theft. You're taking value away from the company. But if I send a personal email using the company system on my break, I am taking nothing from the company. Company resource or not, if I'm not harming the company or taking value from them, then it's none of their business.
The object isn't necessarily to come up with a fool proof system. A company could follow you around day and night (in the real world) to see where you went, what you purchased, etc. Nobody does. Why? It isn't worth the time and effort involved. Right now, it's ridiculously easy for Doubleclick, etc., to e-tail you. Make it difficult enough for them, and they'll go away.
(e-tail? Did I actualy say that? Bad dog! No karma!)
Slashdot Mirror
In large part, that depends upon how you define "win". Your definition (and mine) involves meeting a specific objective by using a set procedure. IOW, following the rules is inherent in the very definition. To a lot of people, the word win seems to mean something like "humiliate the other person as much as possible by any means necessary." To their way of thinking, "cheating" is merely creative strategy. The fact that they were "smart" enough to cheat and you weren't is just more proof of their superiority.
One of the key differences is that with abortion, you don't have a human being who's life you affected. The aborted embryo never becomes a human being. OTOH, the altered embryo DOES become a human being, one able to look back and say "Why did you do this to me? What or who would I have been had you not done this?" What if your genetic manipulation has some terrible, unintended consequence?
your argument can be extended to mean that if two people get together and have a child that inevitably will carry some terrible inherited traits from their parents (disease, ugliness, something even more controvertial...), then they're doing something equally terrible
I'd tend to argue that deliberately bringing a diseased child into being IS a morally terrible act. I don't think it should be legally actionable, however, and obviously some people will disagree with me.
Please note that I'm following on from previous posts rather than replying to them so don't take offence!
Heavens to Murgatory, why would I take offense? The whole point of /., trolls and other b.s. aside, should be to inform and generate spirited discussion on relevant issues. I certainly don't have all the answers. In fact, I'm convinced that there ARE no real answers, merely opinions and viewpoints, and those are (or at least should be) subject to change based upon the available evidence.
I agree, which was why I said no modern physicist questions either relativity or QM. However, I've seen it stated by some quite knowledgable people that Newton was wrong. His equations, while reasonable approximations for most macro situations, give incorrect results if measured to enough precision and are therefore incorrect. It's more a matter of semantics, I think, than scientific "truth."
Altering the genetics of a person changes who that person is. It is undoubtedly and unquestionably the most profoundly altering thing you can do to a human being. Does anyone, even a parent, have the right to make such decisions for another person?
I'm not saying that genetics are necessarily evil or that genetic studies should be banned. I'm merely pointing out that there are legitimate issues to be discussed and considered. It isn't all merely Luddite panic.
Been awhile since I read BNW, but I don't see where genetic engineering relates. Certainly genetic engineering provides a despotic government with new ways to abuse their power, but I don't see genetics causing the corruption of the government.
I'd question the assumption that genetics will have a bigger effect on the individual's life than computers. What impact will genetics have on your day to day life? Certainly, it may alter the overall course of your life but likely not your daily routine. Vaccinations had a profound effect on humanity. They eliminated a tremendous amount of human pain, suffering and death. We don't wake daily thinking of how lucky we were to have received vaccinations. Medical care is pretty much taken for granted until you need it. When you do need it, you're profoundly grateful for awhile but soon you're healthy again and you go right back to the same daily routine. The computer revolution altered the way our society functions. I sit down at a computer every day. My day to day life is profoundly different than it would have been without computers. I don't see genetics having that kind of daily impact for a long time, even if the overall scope of its impact on humanity is more profound.
Doesn't a gene sequencer merely decode a gene sequence? That is, it takes a bit of DNA and tells you the order of the individual bases within that strand. I really have a hard time seeing how one of these on your desktop would benefit you. Now, when they come out with an economical gene splicer or whatever the term is for a machine which generates a specific sequence on command...
I don't think it's a matter of questioning QM so much as it is a matter of refining it. I suppose it depends upon how you define the terms. Did relativity replace or refine Newton's laws?
A lot of people question theories of physics. For the most part, they have no evidence and show a gross lack of understanding of the actual principles involved, so they're dismissed out of hand. The exact same is true for evolution. Evolution is a comprehensive theory which fits the available facts quite well. I doesn't fit a number of people's personal philosophies, but that's hardly a requirement for a scientific theory. If you come up with evidence which truly calls into question the principles of evolution, the truth will be heard. It may not happen over night, and the entire scientific establishment may not beat a path to your door, but it WILL happen. A number of classical physicist did not want to accept Einstein's theories. Einstein himself, and others, did not want to accept QM. No modern physicist seriously questions either theory. Science moves slow sometimes, but it does work. If evidence supports a theory, it survives. If it doesn't, it dies.
There are only about a half dozen different basic love story plots. This one was not any worse than most of the others that hit the big screen. As far as that goes, Shakespeare's plots weren't original when he wrote them. Not to say that Titanic was anywhere close to Shakespeare, of course, but there really ain't nothing new under the sun when it comes to plots. You just mix and match the pieces and adjust the settings a bit.
South park , is the worst animation ever, a 3 year old child can do better. Agree with your overall point but I have to disagree with this statement. It takes talent to do something consistently at just the right degree of primitiveness.
Cool, leaves more for the rest of us. Er, well, guess that doesn't really apply but you'll understand the sentiment, I hope.
Yes and no. If Casablanca had never been seen and you released it today as a commercial movie, it would be a dismal flop. It might get rave reviews from the critics but it would stink at the box office. Casablanca isn't a masterpiece because it is black and white. It was filmed using pretty much state of the art techniques at the time and remains an incredible movie today because it transcends its technical limitations. You're absolutely correct that the story is much more important than the medium, but that doesn't mean that the choice of medium becomes irrelevant.
Don't know about any of the others, but animation of The Simpsons is contracted out (to a Tiawanees company, if I remember correctly).
Not exactly. Paintings and sculpture actually ARE 2D and 3D mediums, respectively. They're quite distinct. 2D and 3D as applied to video are misnomers. Both 2D and 3D are actually a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional scene. Both try to look 3D on a flat screen. A better analogy might be the difference between oils and watercolors. Even this (like all analogies) is inexact, since neither the purpose nor the method of judging success is the same for an artistic expression and a commercial movie.
Conspiracy theories are one thing. Companies do, however, have marketing plans and business strategies. They do get together to discuss and plan how they're going to respond to outside events. Microsoft's marketplace and court tactics are not a conspiracy - they are a deliberate, carefully planned philosophy. This isn't the "Randian" outlook Roblimo mentioned. He was referring to individual actions, usually to unplanned and unexpected events (such as the posting of an MS API to /.), which give the appearance of a conspiracy.
User: "I can't find this! I know it was under the Edit menu yesterday!"
Me: "It's still there, just hidden. You have to go down to the bottom, hit the little arrow and then you'll see the full menu."
User: "What? But I didn't have to do that yesterday."
Me: "You were using a different computer yesterday."
User: "Well, why don't you set them all up the same so I can find stuff when I want it."
Me: "Sigh!"
Incidently, I do normally turn off the feature on the LC machines. But someone always turns it back on.
The clarity of your logic, the force of your arguments and the facile nature of your presentation overwhelm me. Have you ever conidered a career in politics?
The demarcation problem can be solved if you realize that a verbal UI isn't limited to words. A limited "vocabulary" of pops, clicks, clucks, etc. (easily customized to fit each user) could replace certain keys or change from a "type" mode to a "command" mode, similar to the ESC key in vi. Saying "<click>delete<click>" is just as quick as hitting the delete key.
Yeah, I know. I use Office 2000 daily. And those damned menus are one of the first things I turned off. YMMV, of course.
I'm not sure that scaling is the ideal future of the UI. The idea of scaling implies essentially adding and deleting features to match the user's skill level. A good novice UI isn't simply a slimed down power user UI, and a good power user UI isn't simply a beefed up novice UI. The two will likely be as fundamentally different as a command line and a GUI.
As for NASA, I didn't mean to imply that they were necessarily clueless, although they are in some areas. Rather, I was pointing out the fact that they are very slow in implementing new technology, even though they are responsible for a significant chunk of it. There are some very good reasons why they're slow at it, but it doesn't change the fact that they are slow.
Actually, NASA is an excellent example of this. Exactly when was the technology used in the space shuttle invented?
BS. People base stuff on books all the time. It's called "research" and you should have learned how to do it in junior high or earlier.
Bah humbug. They own the computer, they dictate how it's used. Simple as that. This isn't about privacy or lack of it - my employer has every right to watch what I'm doing at work (like this post), whether by a physical boss with eyes or with an electronic monitoring system. I can be fired at any time for any reason relating to inappropriate use, even if it's excessive eBay watching.
So you wouldn't object to your company putting bugs in the workers lounge and making tapes of your conversations with your co-workers? You wouldn't object to them recording all of your telephone calls?
There are a few different issues here. One is the issue of how you spend your time. If your employer is paying you to do a job and you spend your time doing something else (whether it's browsing eBay, browsing pr0n, reading romance novels or building ships in bottles), your employer has a right to take action, including firing you. Another issue is the use of company consumables. If you're sending private letters using company-stamped envelopes or making long distance calls on company phones, you're spending company money. That's theft. If you're making personal trips in the company car, you're putting wear and tear on the vehicle, reducing its value. You also may be using company purchased gas or claiming personal mileage as business related travel. Again, this is a form of theft. You're taking value away from the company. But if I send a personal email using the company system on my break, I am taking nothing from the company. Company resource or not, if I'm not harming the company or taking value from them, then it's none of their business.
(e-tail? Did I actualy say that? Bad dog! No karma!)