Right. Some people seem to have the opinion that if she wasn't jumping out of planes and hunting down bad guys in James Bond style, or handing off packages in strange cities after using cool sounding code phrases and such, then there is no real reason to have her identity protected. But there really, really are reasons. And you just mentioned one of them.
Further, if the proper channels decided that she should have cover, then whoever blew that cover had better have a really good reason for why that was necessary for the national (not personal or political) interests.
It is polite to mark opinions with terms like "I think" or "personally" or "imho" and the like. Overuse of absolute wording is a path to both shoddy thinking and blocked communication.
I was hoping we wouldn't see a fully developed Vader suit in ep 3. Just some suggestive, early prototype. That way seeing him at the beginning of ep 4 would still have a big impact.
Finally, placing Luke with Owen and Beru makes no sense at all. With an Empire at his disposal, surely Anakin would have sent a couple stormtroopers to check out whether Luke was there, even if it's just a remote possibility.
Those episodes were nice because the writers let lots of stuff happen. But they were only able to do that because it was a throw-away universe. No lasting concequences for the characters and such. Make the whole series there, in that universe, and they would be stifled back to the pace of the normal Trek universe.
I have, and it was an eye opening experience. I remember the times in NJ, driving bumper to bumper in all six lanes (one way), in dreary drizzle, at 55mph. I would come over a hill and realize just how many of us there were, and just how dangerous the whole thing looked. Any one of us hitting our brakes wrong, or a tire going out, or some little thing and the pile up would have been big. But that didn't happen. The thousands and thousands of us managed to do what look like a hard task without a single flaw those many days I drove. Apparently driving is something that people (well trained, as they are in NJ) can do pretty well.
Voyage from Yesteryear was a fun book and all, but even the society it postulated was not arrived at by transitions from our current one. It was formed by people that were raised by the robots and with the robot labor pool from the beginning, without any inertia from history. In fact, the point of the book is the conflict between the two systems when they interact.
The only reason it seemed realistic that the "free" society won out was that they were larger, entrenched, and prepared. Any transition to that type of structure in reality would have have to deal with the period on which the "free" economy interacted with the capitalistic one, and the tension that would cause.
Seems to me that if you aren't teaching a 14 year-old girl that you are comfortable with her seeing, and learning about such things, someone else will soon be happy to fill that role.
Wow, 30 to 60 min. And to think, some people still pick television shows in a listing spanning a full week on dead-tree matter. Did you miss the part about RSS feeds and selecting such that you trust to bring in the "better" stuff?
The administration took intelligence reports, deleted the qualifiers (like "possibly", "could", and "might"), and passed along the sound bites at every opportunity.
If you had cancer, and the doctor took the words like "might" and "possibly" out of the descriptions about the efficacy of (expensive and painful) treatment X, would you consider that a lie?
There is no reason why a third, fourth, fifth,..., nth point of view on the issue can't be included. As for dialectic and synthesis, I don't see why it is the place of an encylopedia to do such things. Nothing should be decided in the production of an encylopedia. Things should be recorded.
Re:SHHHHHHHH Don't tell my Grandma
on
IE7 Details Emerge
·
· Score: 0, Troll
O.k, but your mamma already knows. We told her last night.
Of course the room speaks Chinese. That is, Given well-constructed Chinese inputs, it produces senible, well-constructed Chinese outputs. The question isn't really about that. It is about understanding Chinese.
Here is a thought experiment. Give both the room and a human Chinese speaker the Chinese equivalent to "I am about to kill you". Both the room and the person will output well-constructed Chinese questions of why and pleas for their life and such and so forth. Now, I know that in the human there is a system that will be feeling fear. I don't see any fear in the room system.
Understanding a language is, for humans, tied to the rest of their mind.
If you honestly believe that homeschooling is a viable alternative for even 50% of the families in this country, then you have a woefully distorted representation of the world in your head.
The Chinese Room argument is an illustration of a normal 'dumb' computer program that is coded by a human, not artificial intelligence that learns and figures out its own rules of how to behave.
This can be surmounted with a trivial change to the argument.
Instead of a static rule-book, the room's inhabitant also has a pencil. Some of the rules relate inputs to the room to marks in the book that the person is supposed to make, remove, and change. Including do so to sections of the rules. Unbeknowst to the person, that making and removing of marks alters the rules according to a system that allows for all the learning you describe.
I'm afraid Searle still has no reason to think there is any understanding of Chinese going on.
Artists have "artistic liberty" to go ahead and do any damn thing they want and call it art. Why not scientists, too?
Well, at least in my culture, the scientist caste realised that they had developed something which could lead to the destruction of their species, namely the nuclear age. Pugwash and others were the result of this. Coupled with the institutional and cultural self-regulation in things like informed consent before experiments, I think there is reason to believe that scientists are in the front of the movement to have public discussion and checking of scientific pursuits.
I.e. when you give scientists liberty, they use it to monitor and modify their own directions.
As I said in another leaf, I think the politician running on the platform of "my opponent voted to outlaw your immortality" will win in every case where the people believe them.
Slashdot Mirror
Further, if the proper channels decided that she should have cover, then whoever blew that cover had better have a really good reason for why that was necessary for the national (not personal or political) interests.
His turned into an amusing political satire.
The only reason it seemed realistic that the "free" society won out was that they were larger, entrenched, and prepared. Any transition to that type of structure in reality would have have to deal with the period on which the "free" economy interacted with the capitalistic one, and the tension that would cause.
You didn't even switch the arrows around? Hell, I done that on keyboards all over for years now. Tisk tisk.
If you had cancer, and the doctor took the words like "might" and "possibly" out of the descriptions about the efficacy of (expensive and painful) treatment X, would you consider that a lie?
There is no reason why a third, fourth, fifth,..., nth point of view on the issue can't be included. As for dialectic and synthesis, I don't see why it is the place of an encylopedia to do such things. Nothing should be decided in the production of an encylopedia. Things should be recorded.
Here is a thought experiment. Give both the room and a human Chinese speaker the Chinese equivalent to "I am about to kill you". Both the room and the person will output well-constructed Chinese questions of why and pleas for their life and such and so forth. Now, I know that in the human there is a system that will be feeling fear. I don't see any fear in the room system.
Understanding a language is, for humans, tied to the rest of their mind.
Instead of a static rule-book, the room's inhabitant also has a pencil. Some of the rules relate inputs to the room to marks in the book that the person is supposed to make, remove, and change. Including do so to sections of the rules. Unbeknowst to the person, that making and removing of marks alters the rules according to a system that allows for all the learning you describe.
I'm afraid Searle still has no reason to think there is any understanding of Chinese going on.
I.e. when you give scientists liberty, they use it to monitor and modify their own directions.