Think of opening a door by pushing on the handle versus the bit of wood right next to the door frame. The latter is easy, and the former requires much more force (equation for torque is =Fd).
From merely classical mechanics, you can see that it would be incredibly difficult to move this stick. Then you'd have mass dilation acting on the far end, which would make it progressively more difficult.
If Hitler thought what he was doing was okay, then Hitler was wrong.
People who think it's morally acceptable to kill their daughter after she's been raped are wrong.
This kind of moral relativism is flawed because it puts roughly equal weight on all opinions. Popular opinion does not determine whether or not something is morally correct. The Inquisition had almost unanimous support by those who were not finally killed by it (itself no small number, but at any one time, not nearly the majority). That does not mean it was okay.
Why is it such a problem for people to accept that they might actually be right about something? Not right in their own particular corner of the world, but just plain right.
If you think killing six million Jews in the span of half a decade is wrong, congratulations, you're right. You have a better sense of morals and ethics than the Nazis did. Deal with it.
Yeah, I'm wondering what's so special about this, other than that they got permission to do it.
I mean, it'd have to be a relatively powerful radio compared to what students would regularly build, but other than that, I can't see any real issues here.
I'd definitely like to know what technical feats these students achieved. Sounds to me like they made a high-quality radio with a good antenna.
It's a trade-off. Do we want more flexibility and competition, or do we want to push free software?
I do agree that competition accounts for a lot of innovation. I wonder if this innovation could be maintained if we merged into one desktop distro. We do still have a couple of other heavyweights to compete with.
I think Ubuntu's model is good. They have their main distro, and other side distros to deal with more specific cases. They have a lightweight distro, a totally free one, one for multimedia enthusiasts, one for schools, etc. With this all under the banner of Ubuntu, once the choice to use Ubuntu has been made, all the user needs is to decide what they want to use it for. It also allows them to switch easily, whenever they want. If Ubuntu were the only major distro, then it's actually a far easier decision than trying to decide between the different Windows editions, because they all come fully featured with no lock-in.
Not saying Ubuntu should rule Linux. Just saying that this method has a lot of potential. As it is, I feel Ubuntu neglects their side distros a bit too much. If it was decided to put development behind one distro, then effort could go behind these different flavours, and could result in something truly great.
Of course, this kind of chokes the free software model. Nowadays, if someone has a great idea, they can showcase it in their very own distro. They also have dozens of opportunities to get their idea adopted by existing distros. This would have to be addressed, but I think the boon to free software could be worth it.
It would not be an easy transition, but with care and a clear model of how things would work, it might be doable. Luckily, a thread on Slashdot is pretty much guaranteed to incite change, so we should be seeing this by late next week.
You can't just say that you'll do bad either way, so relativism wins.
Allowing a violent criminal to go free when you have the power to hold him captive would be immoral. It may be the case that you're picking between two wrongs (if you believe freedom is not something one can forfeit, which I don't) but it is right to pick the lesser of the two.
You also can't make the decision that something is bad in all situations. Killing is generally considered to be wrong, but there are situations in which it's the preferred course of action. This is not to say that there is no moral objectivity, but only to say that morality is context sensitive. This is an extreme example only to make the point. We learn early on in life that lying is bad, and then later the situations in which it's okay, or even required.
Of course, there will not always be a clear right choice. There may be situations in which there are multiple right things to do. If you have a choice to save your child or ten strangers, either one would be morally acceptable. There are different ways to come to a moral decision, and they're often incompatible, but that doesn't mean they're not each valid and conclusive.
These laws were a response to the Mass. courts imposing gay marriage on the people there.
Great, so now we're just imposing anti-gay marriage laws on homosexuals. It's okay, they're a minority! We don't have to care about them!
The fact is that everywhere that anti-gay marriage laws have made it to the ballot, the measure has passed and been implemented.
Given this, I think it's about time that we realised these issues should never come to a vote. They don't need to. They should be thrown out the minute they're proposed. It's shows a blatant disregard for the principles of equality and the separation of church and state.
Yes, I said it. This is important. The religious views of any group, no matter how large, must never be allowed to infringe upon the right of another, no matter how small. If everyone in California were against gay marriage save for one gay couple, their rights must take priority over the religious views or personal discomfort of the rest.
So the argument goes that we can't prove that gay marriage is good, on the whole, for society, so until then, we'll deny them their proper rights.
Equal rights benefits society. It doesn't matter if it benefits me directly. I'm not a woman, but I feel that gender equality has made the world a better place to live. What would it matter to me if women couldn't work or vote? I'd have fewer people with a valid opinion to disagree with, I'd have less competition in the job market, and I'd be able to rest safe in the knowledge that my biggest rival from high school will be tasked with reproduction.
Equality is not something we introduced for pragmatism. We didn't give women or blacks the right to vote because we needed more people with a voice to agree that white christian males are the thing to be. We did it because it's the right thing to do. Society recognised this. Society has benefited.
Line of sight would be a big issue. For example, I couldn't use my laptop under the covers (for, uhh, research purposes...)
If I tilted my head forward in the path of the light, I'd lose the signal.
I'd need at least one transmitter in every room of my house.
If I rotated my laptop the wrong way, my laptop would cut its own signal.
True, you might have some limited applications. In mobile applications, though, I doubt this will take off.
I agree that paying for software could help free software's usability, but I don't think it's worth the cost. People in the free software community are encouraged to share openly, to hand out CDs to their family and friends. Sure, it sounds corny, but sometimes it works.
This would be impossible if everyone had to pay for the software. Then there's the question of replacing a lost disc: easier to just say this person has paid for the right to use that software, right? That's where the basic premise of free software (as in speech) goes out the window.
You can't have free (as in speech) software that is not free (as in beer).
Most people in the free software community, including end users, would tell you they'd rather wait for good interfaces than take that step. Many would also say it's perfectly usable right now.
We never budged on our right to bear arms. We never had that right, and most of us down here are glad.
So, since this isn't a slippery slope of rights violations, the only conclusion I can draw from your comment is that you believe the right to own a gun, in itself, would somehow stop this.
I'd hate to live in your world.
Slashdot Mirror
Think of opening a door by pushing on the handle versus the bit of wood right next to the door frame. The latter is easy, and the former requires much more force (equation for torque is =Fd). From merely classical mechanics, you can see that it would be incredibly difficult to move this stick. Then you'd have mass dilation acting on the far end, which would make it progressively more difficult.
This could also be a convenient way to beat rush hour traffic.
If Hitler thought what he was doing was okay, then Hitler was wrong.
People who think it's morally acceptable to kill their daughter after she's been raped are wrong.
This kind of moral relativism is flawed because it puts roughly equal weight on all opinions. Popular opinion does not determine whether or not something is morally correct. The Inquisition had almost unanimous support by those who were not finally killed by it (itself no small number, but at any one time, not nearly the majority). That does not mean it was okay.
Why is it such a problem for people to accept that they might actually be right about something? Not right in their own particular corner of the world, but just plain right.
If you think killing six million Jews in the span of half a decade is wrong, congratulations, you're right. You have a better sense of morals and ethics than the Nazis did. Deal with it.
Yeah, I'm wondering what's so special about this, other than that they got permission to do it.
I mean, it'd have to be a relatively powerful radio compared to what students would regularly build, but other than that, I can't see any real issues here.
I'd definitely like to know what technical feats these students achieved. Sounds to me like they made a high-quality radio with a good antenna.
It's a trade-off. Do we want more flexibility and competition, or do we want to push free software?
I do agree that competition accounts for a lot of innovation. I wonder if this innovation could be maintained if we merged into one desktop distro. We do still have a couple of other heavyweights to compete with.
I think Ubuntu's model is good. They have their main distro, and other side distros to deal with more specific cases. They have a lightweight distro, a totally free one, one for multimedia enthusiasts, one for schools, etc. With this all under the banner of Ubuntu, once the choice to use Ubuntu has been made, all the user needs is to decide what they want to use it for. It also allows them to switch easily, whenever they want. If Ubuntu were the only major distro, then it's actually a far easier decision than trying to decide between the different Windows editions, because they all come fully featured with no lock-in.
Not saying Ubuntu should rule Linux. Just saying that this method has a lot of potential. As it is, I feel Ubuntu neglects their side distros a bit too much. If it was decided to put development behind one distro, then effort could go behind these different flavours, and could result in something truly great.
Of course, this kind of chokes the free software model. Nowadays, if someone has a great idea, they can showcase it in their very own distro. They also have dozens of opportunities to get their idea adopted by existing distros. This would have to be addressed, but I think the boon to free software could be worth it.
It would not be an easy transition, but with care and a clear model of how things would work, it might be doable. Luckily, a thread on Slashdot is pretty much guaranteed to incite change, so we should be seeing this by late next week.
You can't just say that you'll do bad either way, so relativism wins.
Allowing a violent criminal to go free when you have the power to hold him captive would be immoral. It may be the case that you're picking between two wrongs (if you believe freedom is not something one can forfeit, which I don't) but it is right to pick the lesser of the two.
You also can't make the decision that something is bad in all situations. Killing is generally considered to be wrong, but there are situations in which it's the preferred course of action. This is not to say that there is no moral objectivity, but only to say that morality is context sensitive. This is an extreme example only to make the point. We learn early on in life that lying is bad, and then later the situations in which it's okay, or even required.
Of course, there will not always be a clear right choice. There may be situations in which there are multiple right things to do. If you have a choice to save your child or ten strangers, either one would be morally acceptable. There are different ways to come to a moral decision, and they're often incompatible, but that doesn't mean they're not each valid and conclusive.
An adult pig has the equivalent intelligence of a three-year-old human.
What's the point in debating whether or not it's ethical if you're not even sure you can do it? Not very efficient.
These laws were a response to the Mass. courts imposing gay marriage on the people there.
Great, so now we're just imposing anti-gay marriage laws on homosexuals. It's okay, they're a minority! We don't have to care about them!
The fact is that everywhere that anti-gay marriage laws have made it to the ballot, the measure has passed and been implemented.
Given this, I think it's about time that we realised these issues should never come to a vote. They don't need to. They should be thrown out the minute they're proposed. It's shows a blatant disregard for the principles of equality and the separation of church and state.
Yes, I said it. This is important. The religious views of any group, no matter how large, must never be allowed to infringe upon the right of another, no matter how small. If everyone in California were against gay marriage save for one gay couple, their rights must take priority over the religious views or personal discomfort of the rest.
So the argument goes that we can't prove that gay marriage is good, on the whole, for society, so until then, we'll deny them their proper rights.
Equal rights benefits society. It doesn't matter if it benefits me directly. I'm not a woman, but I feel that gender equality has made the world a better place to live. What would it matter to me if women couldn't work or vote? I'd have fewer people with a valid opinion to disagree with, I'd have less competition in the job market, and I'd be able to rest safe in the knowledge that my biggest rival from high school will be tasked with reproduction.
Equality is not something we introduced for pragmatism. We didn't give women or blacks the right to vote because we needed more people with a voice to agree that white christian males are the thing to be. We did it because it's the right thing to do. Society recognised this. Society has benefited.
Line of sight would be a big issue. For example, I couldn't use my laptop under the covers (for, uhh, research purposes...) If I tilted my head forward in the path of the light, I'd lose the signal. I'd need at least one transmitter in every room of my house. If I rotated my laptop the wrong way, my laptop would cut its own signal. True, you might have some limited applications. In mobile applications, though, I doubt this will take off.
I don't like these new fembots. They make me feel far creepier than polite society will generally allow me to feel...
Due to the copy protection on the CD, my copy of Neverwinter Nights never installed. That was lovely.
I agree that paying for software could help free software's usability, but I don't think it's worth the cost. People in the free software community are encouraged to share openly, to hand out CDs to their family and friends. Sure, it sounds corny, but sometimes it works. This would be impossible if everyone had to pay for the software. Then there's the question of replacing a lost disc: easier to just say this person has paid for the right to use that software, right? That's where the basic premise of free software (as in speech) goes out the window. You can't have free (as in speech) software that is not free (as in beer). Most people in the free software community, including end users, would tell you they'd rather wait for good interfaces than take that step. Many would also say it's perfectly usable right now.
You should at least put your body to good use. How many starving children are there in the world?
We never budged on our right to bear arms. We never had that right, and most of us down here are glad. So, since this isn't a slippery slope of rights violations, the only conclusion I can draw from your comment is that you believe the right to own a gun, in itself, would somehow stop this. I'd hate to live in your world.