Technically, he didn't get it right unless he derived the idea from observations by a valid method.
If you just make up some stuff, say in a science fiction book, which then turns out to sound like something scientists discover 100 years later to be a fact, that doesn't mean you were right. It's just an interesting coincidence.
Errnt. Wrong. The judges cannot accept your answer.
What the chicks are doing is tracking perceptual sets. They deal with each capsule as a separate entity, and can keep track of some upper limit on the number of those entities. The fact that there is an upper limit on what they can track proves that is is what's happening.
If they were actually "counting", there would be no upper limit to the number of entities they could track. That's what counting is - an inductive method for reducing a set of entities to the set's order, making it one abstract intellectual entity.
Newsflash one: The ability to experience pain is not the basis of the "moral status" of any animal.
Newsflash two: There is no such thing as a "moral duty". Morality is not a list of thou-shalts and thou-shalt-nots.
Newsflash three: There are no qualifications for the job of "ethicist". None. Anyone with a label machine and too much free time can make a badge for himself and - poof! - become an "ethicist".
allocation of society's resources toward themselves
"Society" does not have resources that people "allocate to themselves". That one phrase gives away your basic worldview, and explains the vehemence you feel toward anyone who believes that they can achieve individual success - that any one can earn what they have.
External factors do exist. No one with any sense would deny that. But do you really believe that individual skill and effort has no effect on that individual's personal outcomes? That their actual outcomes are truly defined by external factors not within their control, and not, perhaps, by their ability to foresee, plan for, and possibly deal with those facts?
The view that individuals never actually deserve to have more than others, that they just grab an unfair cut from a collectively-owned pool of "resources", is really just hatred of others for being successful.
Useful data to help the industry? That's not what the government does. At best, we can hope that they don't completely destroy the industry while they put on the political theater that justifies their existence.
Ahh, yes. Another exciting episode of "Regulation will make everything perfect!"
So, the hardwire phone system supposedly has a 99.999% uptime performance. We also see that the government has demanded a 99.999% uptime performance. Therefore, the phone system must be good *because* of the government demands!
Well, no. Who do you think helped write those regulations? Yes, that's right. Ma Bell. What do you think they wrote into those regulations? That's right.. a goal that was easy for them to reach, and in fact one they had already reached - but the smaller companies couldn't guarantee. The phone system was a government-dictated monopoly for many decades, which means it was essentially a branch of the government.
If their service has, in fact, performed at 5-9's uptime then the first conclusion should be that 5-9's is the most basic level of competence for that service, not an outstanding achievement.
But how to you start to explain the difference between a priori and a posteriori without people rolling their eyes and walking off?
If you're trying to convince people to accept Kantian premises, then when they roll their eyes and walk off they are demonstrating a deeper understanding of science than you possess.
You're making the mistake of buying into the idea that America's "left" wants Cuba to become more free. In reality, America's "left" wants the US to become more like Cuba.
The problem is that they have *everyone else's* advanced technology and manufacturing plants, and those teachers who are so hot in their fields are *here*, not there. China's political system, and at root its culture, is the real barrier to their ability to become an economic powerhouse. Socialism doesn't work in the real world. It just doesn't. They've lived under it for the last 40-50 years, and it will take an equivalent of the Enlightenment for them to overcome the damage that has done to them.
Their profits are generated by exploiting their workers--paying them less than what their labor is worth.
Absolutely wrong. The value of the labor is determined by the market for that labor, not the proceeds generated by the company as a result of the labor.
Labor unions are a negotiating tactic which attempt to drive up the price obtained for labor. The way the laws work today, they do so by artificial means - the use of government-backed force which eliminates many rightful options the buyer of labor would otherwise have available.
The idea that employees of a company are part of some collective block, some "class" separate from management, regardless of the type of labor they perform, is truly silly. Further, the idea that a strike is employees' "only means of improving their working conditions" is downright stupid. This, in a post on *Slashdot* which caters to people primarily in tech - an industry which is the ultimate counter-example to such a religious belief. The belief doesn't even describe unskilled laborers in the real world, but we're supposed to accept it between calls from headhunters who want to show us another way to "improve our working conditions"? Please.
The single most important problem with games that try to include consequences for "moral decisions" is that virtually no one knows that there can be more than one idea of what constitutes morality. Most people in the U.S. who talk about morality take it as given that the Judeo-Christian ethos *is* morality. Not just one option, not just a view, it is the entirety of the subject. People take as given that self-sacrifice is good, self-interest is bad, "spirituality" is superior to "materialism", etc.
That is why these morality games will and must fail. There are no real moral issues explored, only a scorecard of how well you've conformed to the designer's idea of what morality is.
Games might very well become more immersive and emotionally involving. They will *not* become real-world moral laboratories. If the player's view of morality differs in any way from the designer's then that disconnect will destroy the entire illusion.
No. H2O is a couple orders of magnitude stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2. If we switched over to a hydrogen economy, we actually *would* have to worry about human-caused global warming.
Communism in Russia only survived because of a) massive foreign investment into the early Soviet Union to prop up their system and b) their propensity to steal massive amounts of both material wealth and technical know-how from the West, which was the virtually exclusive source of both until after WW2.
Everything I've heard from Chomsky about a "universal language" and "built-in grammar" etc. sound exactly like the claims made by Immanuel Kant. I think Chomsky has just stolen from him wholesale and declared those ideas his "discoveries" - and since Kant simply pulled them from his ass in the first place it's no surprise that "Chomsky's" ideas turned out to be wrong as well.
Remember.. Chomsky actually believes that there is no such thing as the physical world. He thinks that this "fact" was discovered in the 1950's. Is this a man who has anything to say about.. anything?
Damn, I wish my kid had been born alive. I know it would be a completely different kid, but, you know, it might have been better for him.// no kids, alive or otherwise.. just making a point
Oh, and I'm pretty sure Al Gore was a professor at Columbia for a time (visiting I know..) and that he's smarter than the idiot who seriously believes the earth is a few thousand years old.
He was a visiting professor... in journalism. Any monkey that can jump on a keyboard can be a "journalist" these days, and anyone who has been a Democrat in the White House can get a position at a leftist University.
Al Gore has never been known as intelligent. Quite the opposite, in fact - the worst combination of arrogant and dull-witted. Not truly stupid, perhaps, but definitely nothing more than a mediocre intellect which doesn't remotely measure up to the hype from his fanboys.
Slashdot Mirror
Before they were illegal, they weren't criminal enterprises. If you repeal the law that bans them, they will no longer be criminal enterprises.
So, they're illegal because they're criminal because they're illegal.
The Golden Rule and Kant's Categorical Imperative have absolutely nothing to do with actual ethics, so there's no problem.
Technically, he didn't get it right unless he derived the idea from observations by a valid method.
If you just make up some stuff, say in a science fiction book, which then turns out to sound like something scientists discover 100 years later to be a fact, that doesn't mean you were right. It's just an interesting coincidence.
Errnt. Wrong. The judges cannot accept your answer.
What the chicks are doing is tracking perceptual sets. They deal with each capsule as a separate entity, and can keep track of some upper limit on the number of those entities. The fact that there is an upper limit on what they can track proves that is is what's happening.
If they were actually "counting", there would be no upper limit to the number of entities they could track. That's what counting is - an inductive method for reducing a set of entities to the set's order, making it one abstract intellectual entity.
Newsflash one: The ability to experience pain is not the basis of the "moral status" of any animal.
Newsflash two: There is no such thing as a "moral duty". Morality is not a list of thou-shalts and thou-shalt-nots.
Newsflash three: There are no qualifications for the job of "ethicist". None. Anyone with a label machine and too much free time can make a badge for himself and - poof! - become an "ethicist".
allocation of society's resources toward themselves
"Society" does not have resources that people "allocate to themselves". That one phrase gives away your basic worldview, and explains the vehemence you feel toward anyone who believes that they can achieve individual success - that any one can earn what they have.
External factors do exist. No one with any sense would deny that. But do you really believe that individual skill and effort has no effect on that individual's personal outcomes? That their actual outcomes are truly defined by external factors not within their control, and not, perhaps, by their ability to foresee, plan for, and possibly deal with those facts?
The view that individuals never actually deserve to have more than others, that they just grab an unfair cut from a collectively-owned pool of "resources", is really just hatred of others for being successful.
Envy is such an ugly emotion.
Useful data to help the industry? That's not what the government does. At best, we can hope that they don't completely destroy the industry while they put on the political theater that justifies their existence.
.. you just need to nod & smile so Kaylee thinks you're listening.
Ahh, yes. Another exciting episode of "Regulation will make everything perfect!"
So, the hardwire phone system supposedly has a 99.999% uptime performance. We also see that the government has demanded a 99.999% uptime performance. Therefore, the phone system must be good *because* of the government demands!
Well, no. Who do you think helped write those regulations? Yes, that's right. Ma Bell. What do you think they wrote into those regulations? That's right.. a goal that was easy for them to reach, and in fact one they had already reached - but the smaller companies couldn't guarantee. The phone system was a government-dictated monopoly for many decades, which means it was essentially a branch of the government.
If their service has, in fact, performed at 5-9's uptime then the first conclusion should be that 5-9's is the most basic level of competence for that service, not an outstanding achievement.
But how to you start to explain the difference between a priori and a posteriori without people rolling their eyes and walking off?
If you're trying to convince people to accept Kantian premises, then when they roll their eyes and walk off they are demonstrating a deeper understanding of science than you possess.
> They're orthogonic.
They're orthogonal. I reject your entire argument.
You're making the mistake of buying into the idea that America's "left" wants Cuba to become more free. In reality, America's "left" wants the US to become more like Cuba.
The problem is that they have *everyone else's* advanced technology and manufacturing plants, and those teachers who are so hot in their fields are *here*, not there. China's political system, and at root its culture, is the real barrier to their ability to become an economic powerhouse. Socialism doesn't work in the real world. It just doesn't. They've lived under it for the last 40-50 years, and it will take an equivalent of the Enlightenment for them to overcome the damage that has done to them.
This is called "economics" and is as inescapable a fact as the Earth orbiting the Sun.
Their profits are generated by exploiting their workers--paying them less than what their labor is worth.
Absolutely wrong. The value of the labor is determined by the market for that labor, not the proceeds generated by the company as a result of the labor.
Labor unions are a negotiating tactic which attempt to drive up the price obtained for labor. The way the laws work today, they do so by artificial means - the use of government-backed force which eliminates many rightful options the buyer of labor would otherwise have available.
The idea that employees of a company are part of some collective block, some "class" separate from management, regardless of the type of labor they perform, is truly silly. Further, the idea that a strike is employees' "only means of improving their working conditions" is downright stupid. This, in a post on *Slashdot* which caters to people primarily in tech - an industry which is the ultimate counter-example to such a religious belief. The belief doesn't even describe unskilled laborers in the real world, but we're supposed to accept it between calls from headhunters who want to show us another way to "improve our working conditions"? Please.
The single most important problem with games that try to include consequences for "moral decisions" is that virtually no one knows that there can be more than one idea of what constitutes morality. Most people in the U.S. who talk about morality take it as given that the Judeo-Christian ethos *is* morality. Not just one option, not just a view, it is the entirety of the subject. People take as given that self-sacrifice is good, self-interest is bad, "spirituality" is superior to "materialism", etc.
That is why these morality games will and must fail. There are no real moral issues explored, only a scorecard of how well you've conformed to the designer's idea of what morality is.
Games might very well become more immersive and emotionally involving. They will *not* become real-world moral laboratories. If the player's view of morality differs in any way from the designer's then that disconnect will destroy the entire illusion.
No. H2O is a couple orders of magnitude stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2. If we switched over to a hydrogen economy, we actually *would* have to worry about human-caused global warming.
Communism in Russia only survived because of a) massive foreign investment into the early Soviet Union to prop up their system and b) their propensity to steal massive amounts of both material wealth and technical know-how from the West, which was the virtually exclusive source of both until after WW2.
In the latter half of the century, due directly to advances in the computer industry - the last industry left almost completely unregulated.
Exactly. When you let the government interfere beyond its proper realm, you get no service without anyone making a profit.
Everything I've heard from Chomsky about a "universal language" and "built-in grammar" etc. sound exactly like the claims made by Immanuel Kant. I think Chomsky has just stolen from him wholesale and declared those ideas his "discoveries" - and since Kant simply pulled them from his ass in the first place it's no surprise that "Chomsky's" ideas turned out to be wrong as well.
Remember.. Chomsky actually believes that there is no such thing as the physical world. He thinks that this "fact" was discovered in the 1950's. Is this a man who has anything to say about.. anything?
Damn, I wish my kid had been born alive. I know it would be a completely different kid, but, you know, it might have been better for him. // no kids, alive or otherwise.. just making a point
I run a computer simulation on my home computer every night, but I don't actually believe that I'm a level 63 warlock.
Were you one of those Randroids who didn't actually read her books, perhaps?
Oh, and I'm pretty sure Al Gore was a professor at Columbia for a time (visiting I know..) and that he's smarter than the idiot who seriously believes the earth is a few thousand years old.
He was a visiting professor... in journalism. Any monkey that can jump on a keyboard can be a "journalist" these days, and anyone who has been a Democrat in the White House can get a position at a leftist University.
Al Gore has never been known as intelligent. Quite the opposite, in fact - the worst combination of arrogant and dull-witted. Not truly stupid, perhaps, but definitely nothing more than a mediocre intellect which doesn't remotely measure up to the hype from his fanboys.