And you're another example of a spoiled generation whose mommies never told them "no".
The guy was tazed after violently resisting security/police that were lawfully escorting him out of the public area he was disrupting with his spazztastic behavior. They should have turned it up a few notches higher.
Science can be predicated on any paradigm (possibly with the exception of the Flying Spaghetti Monster), and still operate, but I rather think that it should be predicated on none, which is what, I guess, I was trying to say before
No. The foundation of the scientific method is materialism - you said it yourself, observation. Since only physical, material phenomena can be observed and measured, science is necessarily materialist. Unless you propose to return to the age where "revelation" was accepted as a source of knowledge, ie mysticism. If there is a separation of mind and body, then it is not scientifically provable, because the mind is therefor non-physical and not observable.
Descartes did the West a terrible error with all that mind-body rubbish.
The release of chemicals is just the mechanism by which part of our brain communicates with another part of our brain. It's conceivable that intelligent beings could be empathetic without any chemical reactions happening
Pure logic doesn't produce emotion, endorphins do. Without emotion, ie chemically induced feeling, there can be no empathy. A machine cannot be empathic from mere "yes, no" logic.
Yes, emotion is dependent on chemical stimuli. We feel good about something because of chemical stimulus, and vice versa. Empathy is not merely a logical conclusion that an external thing is similar to us. It requires a further step of an emotional reaction to some behavior if that behavior was directed at us. Cutting off the legs of a spider (see Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep) creates an empathic response because we identify with the emotional response to someone cutting off our legs. It would induce terrible pain and sheer terror, we experience those feelings - ie chemical induced reactions, concluding that it is undesirable, and then we project that onto the spider. Not wishing to cause such disturbance in another creature, we desist, even if that creature is wholly incapable of experiencing terror or pain.
Logic is necessary, but not sufficient, for empathy. If a machine cannot experience the same pull/push emotional reaction to a stimuli, then it cannot empathize. Intelligence does not create this. Brain chemistry does.
This evidentiary order is not a "precedent". First, it's a mere evidentiary order. Second, the decisions of state district courts are not precedential. They aren't in any way binding on any other court. Third, this is almost certainly error and will almost certainly be reversed on appeal if it isn't harmless error. The federal rules of evidence and the rules of evidence of every state that I know of bars polygraph evidence as unreliable, and has been so held in state appellate courts. THAT is precedential.
That was my first thought. My second thought was "where does this bunghole live that they don't get NBC broadcast?" Then my third thought was "stupid shit".
The AD&D 3.5 manuals are just too damned complicated. Hundreds of pages and table after table after table
You're obviously a youngster that never played DnD 1st ed. The 1st ed Dungeon Master's Guide penned by Gygax was a table with some text spread about. And it rocked. None of this 200 pages of blathering text and purty full-page color pictures; I want tools, ie tables, dammit.
With that said, I haven't played DnD in decades and won't play this edition either. Who has time for RPGs after 20?
Yes. "Not leaving a child behind", in educational context means lowering the level of the education for the average and the smart students
Lowering? You mean demanding that children learn the most basic rudiments and test out? This is a perfect example of how broken the education system is. Teachers can't even freaking teach the fundamentals, and calling them on it is referred to as "lowering the level of education".
Anyone with half a brain would tune education for the average person
Anyone with half a brain should be able to teach fundamentals and more in a school year, but apparently that's too much to ask.
Leaving no man behind is a stupid analogy to the problem, as the stupid kid who can't learn more drags down the kids who can
It's the teachers that came up with the hairbrained theory that "gifted classes" that catered to the more intelligent was bad, and that mixing the smart and dumb kids was good because it supposedly, and counter-intuitively, was supposed to raise the dumb kids. It is also the teachers that insist on not being accountable for their own miserable failures, entrenching the problem.
People do have an expectation of privacy in public -- certainly not complete privacy, but I guarantee you that if you take a random sample, at least 90% will not expect that they're being constantly watched and recorded everywhere they go
This is what happens when people too ignorant to educate themselves are left to blather on all over the Internet about what they feel is illegal. Willful ignorance, it's an ugly thing. You have company here, though. The moniker on Slashdot should be "Anonymous Ignorant Dumbass Coward", it would fit better.
Long story short, it's not useful to 'discover' criminal activity & is just begging to be abused. We have warrants for a reason, get them in place on this
If it has no use in "discovering criminal activity", then how exactly will it be abused?
Police currently do not need warrants to overfly your property and take all the pictures they want. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy from overflight. By simple analogy, you also have no reasonable expectation of privacy from satellite photography. Ergo, no warrant required because it is not a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
Let's see: liquid water for millions of years, check; clay, check; organic molecules, check. Hey, the odds of life originating on Earth are a trillion trillion trillion gazzillion to one! Whaddya think about that, mister?
The Universe doesn't give two shits whether we live or die. The Universe isn't sentient. The Universe does not feel. The Universe is the baddest mutha on the block and it won't even notice our passing.
She advised Hastert, House and Senate leadership, and senior staff on legislative policy and strategy, including judiciary issues such as intellectual property protection, the Web site said
Patent is intellectual property. You don't have to be a "patent attorney", ie someone who has passed the specialized patent bar for bar examiners, to be knowledgeable and qualified in patent law.
Breaking the law isn't an injury? If the government refuses to enforce the law, is there no redress available?
No, it's a generalized grievance. There's a long line of precedent that holds you can't sue the government for doing something that you think is wrong, or the government fails to follow its own procedures, where there is no direct harm to the suing party. The Constitution requires actual cases and controversies, not generalized harms.
That's right. They represent people who may be harmed, they have no injury. What's next? Plaintiffs lawyers have standing to sue because their clients are harmed?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh for real? In that case I take it back. Using a taser is definitely justified when acting in self-defense
You have no privilege to use force against a police officer's lawful use of force. It wasn't "self defense". So lay off the crap.
And you're another example of a spoiled generation whose mommies never told them "no".
The guy was tazed after violently resisting security/police that were lawfully escorting him out of the public area he was disrupting with his spazztastic behavior. They should have turned it up a few notches higher.
He wasn't even "allowed in" to ask his question. He grabbed the mic and asked his question, uninvited.
This guy is yet another symptom of a class of Americans that have an entitlement complex and no sense of what is socially acceptable behavior.
There's an even lower level of reduced functionality than Windows out of the box?
Science can be predicated on any paradigm (possibly with the exception of the Flying Spaghetti Monster), and still operate, but I rather think that it should be predicated on none, which is what, I guess, I was trying to say before
No. The foundation of the scientific method is materialism - you said it yourself, observation. Since only physical, material phenomena can be observed and measured, science is necessarily materialist. Unless you propose to return to the age where "revelation" was accepted as a source of knowledge, ie mysticism. If there is a separation of mind and body, then it is not scientifically provable, because the mind is therefor non-physical and not observable.
Descartes did the West a terrible error with all that mind-body rubbish.
The release of chemicals is just the mechanism by which part of our brain communicates with another part of our brain. It's conceivable that intelligent beings could be empathetic without any chemical reactions happening
Pure logic doesn't produce emotion, endorphins do. Without emotion, ie chemically induced feeling, there can be no empathy. A machine cannot be empathic from mere "yes, no" logic.
Having lived in Houston, Texas, for several years I feel your pain. I will acknowledge an exception for la cucarache.
They were knights (the game was loosely medieval-themed)
Hence, "joust". Some people need the obvious thrown in their face to get it across.
Yes, emotion is dependent on chemical stimuli. We feel good about something because of chemical stimulus, and vice versa. Empathy is not merely a logical conclusion that an external thing is similar to us. It requires a further step of an emotional reaction to some behavior if that behavior was directed at us. Cutting off the legs of a spider (see Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep) creates an empathic response because we identify with the emotional response to someone cutting off our legs. It would induce terrible pain and sheer terror, we experience those feelings - ie chemical induced reactions, concluding that it is undesirable, and then we project that onto the spider. Not wishing to cause such disturbance in another creature, we desist, even if that creature is wholly incapable of experiencing terror or pain.
Logic is necessary, but not sufficient, for empathy. If a machine cannot experience the same pull/push emotional reaction to a stimuli, then it cannot empathize. Intelligence does not create this. Brain chemistry does.
Sorry, didn't read the article. Why bother when the headline gets it wrong from the get-go?
This evidentiary order is not a "precedent". First, it's a mere evidentiary order. Second, the decisions of state district courts are not precedential. They aren't in any way binding on any other court. Third, this is almost certainly error and will almost certainly be reversed on appeal if it isn't harmless error. The federal rules of evidence and the rules of evidence of every state that I know of bars polygraph evidence as unreliable, and has been so held in state appellate courts. THAT is precedential.
Oh gee, the h4x0rs got my resume. What are they gonna do? SPREAD IT AROUND?
Uh, watching it for free over-the-air?
That was my first thought. My second thought was "where does this bunghole live that they don't get NBC broadcast?" Then my third thought was "stupid shit".
The AD&D 3.5 manuals are just too damned complicated. Hundreds of pages and table after table after table
You're obviously a youngster that never played DnD 1st ed. The 1st ed Dungeon Master's Guide penned by Gygax was a table with some text spread about. And it rocked. None of this 200 pages of blathering text and purty full-page color pictures; I want tools, ie tables, dammit.
With that said, I haven't played DnD in decades and won't play this edition either. Who has time for RPGs after 20?
Yes. "Not leaving a child behind", in educational context means lowering the level of the education for the average and the smart students
Lowering? You mean demanding that children learn the most basic rudiments and test out? This is a perfect example of how broken the education system is. Teachers can't even freaking teach the fundamentals, and calling them on it is referred to as "lowering the level of education".
Anyone with half a brain would tune education for the average person
Anyone with half a brain should be able to teach fundamentals and more in a school year, but apparently that's too much to ask.
Leaving no man behind is a stupid analogy to the problem, as the stupid kid who can't learn more drags down the kids who can
It's the teachers that came up with the hairbrained theory that "gifted classes" that catered to the more intelligent was bad, and that mixing the smart and dumb kids was good because it supposedly, and counter-intuitively, was supposed to raise the dumb kids. It is also the teachers that insist on not being accountable for their own miserable failures, entrenching the problem.
People do have an expectation of privacy in public -- certainly not complete privacy, but I guarantee you that if you take a random sample, at least 90% will not expect that they're being constantly watched and recorded everywhere they go
This is what happens when people too ignorant to educate themselves are left to blather on all over the Internet about what they feel is illegal. Willful ignorance, it's an ugly thing. You have company here, though. The moniker on Slashdot should be "Anonymous Ignorant Dumbass Coward", it would fit better.
If the police gets the data, data-mining companies will get the data
This is by far one of the most ludicrous paranoid screeds I've read in a long time.
Long story short, it's not useful to 'discover' criminal activity & is just begging to be abused. We have warrants for a reason, get them in place on this
If it has no use in "discovering criminal activity", then how exactly will it be abused?
Police currently do not need warrants to overfly your property and take all the pictures they want. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy from overflight. By simple analogy, you also have no reasonable expectation of privacy from satellite photography. Ergo, no warrant required because it is not a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
Let's see: liquid water for millions of years, check; clay, check; organic molecules, check. Hey, the odds of life originating on Earth are a trillion trillion trillion gazzillion to one! Whaddya think about that, mister?
The Universe doesn't give two shits whether we live or die. The Universe isn't sentient. The Universe does not feel. The Universe is the baddest mutha on the block and it won't even notice our passing.
Are these big changes related to increased highway deaths from people being crushed in those little death-cans?
Actually, it makes no such requirement
Wow. Your version of Article III section 2 must be different than, well, everybody else's.
She advised Hastert, House and Senate leadership, and senior staff on legislative policy and strategy, including judiciary issues such as intellectual property protection, the Web site said
Patent is intellectual property. You don't have to be a "patent attorney", ie someone who has passed the specialized patent bar for bar examiners, to be knowledgeable and qualified in patent law.
Breaking the law isn't an injury? If the government refuses to enforce the law, is there no redress available?
No, it's a generalized grievance. There's a long line of precedent that holds you can't sue the government for doing something that you think is wrong, or the government fails to follow its own procedures, where there is no direct harm to the suing party. The Constitution requires actual cases and controversies, not generalized harms.
That's right. They represent people who may be harmed, they have no injury. What's next? Plaintiffs lawyers have standing to sue because their clients are harmed?