You misunderstand GP. He didn't say 'The EU has prevented one or more wars between member states', he said 'War between EU member states is very unlikely, this can at least partially be explained by the existence of the EU'. Which is true. The whole point of the EU was to give European countries common economic interests, so they would work together instead of attack eachother. The fact that a European constitution was even considered should be an indication of how well the member states work together these days.
> However, that constitution was still better than nothing.
I'd rather we give them 5 more years to come up with a proper 'constitution' than accept that piece of crap. I'm Dutch and we Dutchies said 'No' to that treaty. Our 'democratic' government has since decided that, should our country try to ratify the 'constitution' again, there will be no need for a referedum. Assholes.
> If they didn't ask me before they started shooting if I wanted to donate my efforts and resources to their cultural work, then why should I give them anything after it is finished? What a warped view of the world you have.
Huh? Are you seriously suggesting every person/organization that plans to create a cultural work should come to you in advance to request a donation? And then you accuse somebody else (!) of having a warped view of the world?
> In the mean time, you might want to take a google maps look at the Western U.S. and Canada.
There may be space for more more people, but do you really think we could support even the 6 billion people we have now if all of them would have american standards of living?
> So what you're saying is, it might be easier when the body consists of fewer cells?
It will be easier but still impossible. You would have to remove a complete choromose from every cell in the body. We cannot even remove a single chromosome from a cell, by the time it is possible to diagnose downs syndrome, there are millions/billions of cells already. Even if such a treatment were possible (and I daresay this will not happen during our lifetimes), it would have all kinds of risks, and it would probably be ridiculously expensive.
Why even go there? Just get an abortion and try again. I'm sure medical science has more important things to cure.
> hey, that reminds me... what do you think, would it be possible to completely weed out aggression from a society or is it too deeply ingrained in our being?
Should we want to weed out aggression from a society? I don't think so. I think in some situations, aggression is the right course of action (or simply the fun thing to do, I for one enjoy a little senseless murder and mayhem now and then when playing videogames. Sometimes so-called 'friendly' NPCs really need to get shotgunned in the face). A better goal would be to eliminate aggression in situations where it is uncalled-for.
> Hmm... conflict is an essential part of evolution.
Maybe, but war isn't. Many bacteria and plants and herbivores happily live their lives without ever being at risk of being killed by their own kind. A 'war' against others of your kind is something very few species do (I guess ants can be considered an exception). Let's not use 'evolution' as an excuse for war. Even if war was part of evolution, the whole thing that defines us humans is that we can mostly ignore what would happen in nature.
> The illusion, that we can do without conflicts (which sometimes end in wars), comes from the illusion that there is one global truth, when in reality, everything is relative.
If we have two countries whose citizens have exactly the same culture and beliefs about the world, when country A wants something from country B and country B won't give that thing to A, there is a conflict. So even with a 'global truth' people will have conflicting interests. Personally I believe there is such a thing as a universal truth, and science is creating increasingly acurate theories about this truth. The problem is that many people (myself included) have misconceptions about this truth, and incomplete knowledge, and, most importantly, consider their culture to be part of this truth.
> What we must realize, is that, no matter how disgusting and strange the views of others look to us (if you want an example, think of a group, where it is generally accepted to rape everybody you see, and then eat him), as long as they do not hurt anyone (eating someone of that group, who thinks that way too, is not hurting someone), we have no right so tell them what to do.
Fair enough, but in this particular example it might be best to inform these people about 'our' culture so they can make a choice. And what about a culture that abuses a particular group (let's say, women) and believes that anyone who tries to leave their culture must be tortured and killed? Or a culture wherein it is not allowed to learn about other cultures?
> That's why I oppose something like big countries and world governments: Because, if you disagree, there is no place you could go to anymore.
I don't see the problem with big countries, if many, many people have the same culture, they should be able to live in one (big) country. I agree a world government would suck, though. Even when it had very little power over its people, governments tend to slowly take more and more power without giving it back.
> Before I realized this, I thought, a world government where everything is peaceful, would be an ideal. In theory: Yes. In reality, there is no such thing, as long as there is evolution.
Stop the evolution thing, please. Evolution is never a cause of things, it is the result.
> Oh, and if we must have a world government, then at least I want to be the leader.;)
I hear that a lot, but what does it mean? I get less than two hours of social interaction (this includes chatting) per day most days of the week, and I can't say that bothers me. I don't feel lonely. And I'm not addicted to anything. Can someone come up with a proper definition of 'social creatures'?
We'll just start by cloning one. Hard to take over the world when you can't reproduce.
But I doubt they'll be smarter than us.
The real issue here would be, suppose the Neanderthal is created in the US, would he then count as a natural-born citizen and be able to run for president?
> Secondly, the ability to sue file transfer software editor is just ridiculous. It violates the principle that software is neutral and that it is individuals that perform the acts.
With some regret I must point out that in the EU, this is not without precedent. Germany has banned 'hacking tools':
Yeah, someone gave it that name and now we can't get rid of it. I find the whole thing rather annoying, it is a just a particle and no more 'divine' than a potato. The media seem to love the name, though. People want to believe.
The guy who modded you interesing must be one of those idiots.
That would allow for people to inject malware, wouldn't it?
To compile:
void printhello() {
printf("Hello world!\n"); }
evil bastard changes to:
void printhello() {
{
}
printf("Hello world\n"); }
Since the most practical way to spot the evil binary would be to compile the code yourself and compare, that sort of defeats the purpose of having someone else compile it. I guess you could have many random people compile the same piece of source-code and then compare all produced code, but that makes the whole thing rather complicated. Also, the p2p thing would only be useful for open source, as I doubt it would be smart for people trying to produce some closed source product to send their source to a p2p network that may or may not store everything. And this is all assuming the delays introduced by sending all this stuff over the internet are not so large that compiling locally is faster or almost as fast.
It's probably best to compile your stuff on your lan, on machines that are close, and that can be trusted.
A. Hitler sterilized people he considered inferior. B. Hitler is bad. C. Thus sterilizing people you consider inferior is bad.
Which is wrong.
I agree that sterilizing people is bad, but that is because the thing in itself is bad, not because 'Hitler did it too'. Hitler wasn't the only one who practiced eugenetics you know... *cough*U.S.*cough*.
This whole thing is kind of blown out of proportion, it appears I have 12 reactions now on a post that was merely meant to point at GGP's Reduction ad Hitlerum. I probably should have been less vague.
You sure forced sterilization, particularly by the State, isn't extreme?
I'm not saying it isn't bad (I think it is bad and we shouldn't do it), I'm just saying that just because Hitler did X does not automatically make X bad, which was what Lershac seemed to imply.
You made me wonder though, what did you mean by 'particulary by the State'? Do you think forced sterilization would be less extreme if it came from some other organization?
> But if you have full blown AIDS, would your immune system be strong enough survive HIV and kill off a donor's marrow and its "alien" immune system at the same time?
Technically, HIV is not that hard to survive. HIV does not kill you, it just weakens your immune system and then you get killed by something else. If you have full blown AIDS, I doubt you could succesfully reject other peoples bone marrow. On the downside, full blown AIDS means you are already suffering from all kinds of diseases because your immune system is broken, so would never survive the transplant.
Slashdot Mirror
You misunderstand GP. He didn't say 'The EU has prevented one or more wars between member states', he said 'War between EU member states is very unlikely, this can at least partially be explained by the existence of the EU'. Which is true. The whole point of the EU was to give European countries common economic interests, so they would work together instead of attack eachother. The fact that a European constitution was even considered should be an indication of how well the member states work together these days.
> However, that constitution was still better than nothing.
I'd rather we give them 5 more years to come up with a proper 'constitution' than accept that piece of crap. I'm Dutch and we Dutchies said 'No' to that treaty. Our 'democratic' government has since decided that, should our country try to ratify the 'constitution' again, there will be no need for a referedum. Assholes.
> If they didn't ask me before they started shooting if I wanted to donate my efforts and resources to their cultural work, then why should I give them anything after it is finished? What a warped view of the world you have.
Huh? Are you seriously suggesting every person/organization that plans to create a cultural work should come to you in advance to request a donation? And then you accuse somebody else (!) of having a warped view of the world?
> In the mean time, you might want to take a google maps look at the Western U.S. and Canada.
There may be space for more more people, but do you really think we could support even the 6 billion people we have now if all of them would have american standards of living?
> So what you're saying is, it might be easier when the body consists of fewer cells?
It will be easier but still impossible. You would have to remove a complete choromose from every cell in the body. We cannot even remove a single chromosome from a cell, by the time it is possible to diagnose downs syndrome, there are millions/billions of cells already. Even if such a treatment were possible (and I daresay this will not happen during our lifetimes), it would have all kinds of risks, and it would probably be ridiculously expensive.
Why even go there? Just get an abortion and try again. I'm sure medical science has more important things to cure.
> hey, that reminds me... what do you think, would it be possible to completely weed out aggression from a society or is it too deeply ingrained in our being?
Should we want to weed out aggression from a society? I don't think so. I think in some situations, aggression is the right course of action (or simply the fun thing to do, I for one enjoy a little senseless murder and mayhem now and then when playing videogames. Sometimes so-called 'friendly' NPCs really need to get shotgunned in the face). A better goal would be to eliminate aggression in situations where it is uncalled-for.
> Hmm... conflict is an essential part of evolution.
Maybe, but war isn't. Many bacteria and plants and herbivores happily live their lives without ever being at risk of being killed by their own kind. A 'war' against others of your kind is something very few species do (I guess ants can be considered an exception).
Let's not use 'evolution' as an excuse for war. Even if war was part of evolution, the whole thing that defines us humans is that we can mostly ignore what would happen in nature.
> The illusion, that we can do without conflicts (which sometimes end in wars), comes from the illusion that there is one global truth, when in reality, everything is relative.
If we have two countries whose citizens have exactly the same culture and beliefs about the world, when country A wants something from country B and country B won't give that thing to A, there is a conflict. So even with a 'global truth' people will have conflicting interests.
Personally I believe there is such a thing as a universal truth, and science is creating increasingly acurate theories about this truth. The problem is that many people (myself included) have misconceptions about this truth, and incomplete knowledge, and, most importantly, consider their culture to be part of this truth.
> What we must realize, is that, no matter how disgusting and strange the views of others look to us (if you want an example, think of a group, where it is generally accepted to rape everybody you see, and then eat him), as long as they do not hurt anyone (eating someone of that group, who thinks that way too, is not hurting someone), we have no right so tell them what to do.
Fair enough, but in this particular example it might be best to inform these people about 'our' culture so they can make a choice. And what about a culture that abuses a particular group (let's say, women) and believes that anyone who tries to leave their culture must be tortured and killed? Or a culture wherein it is not allowed to learn about other cultures?
> That's why I oppose something like big countries and world governments: Because, if you disagree, there is no place you could go to anymore.
I don't see the problem with big countries, if many, many people have the same culture, they should be able to live in one (big) country. I agree a world government would suck, though. Even when it had very little power over its people, governments tend to slowly take more and more power without giving it back.
> Before I realized this, I thought, a world government where everything is peaceful, would be an ideal. In theory: Yes. In reality, there is no such thing, as long as there is evolution.
Stop the evolution thing, please. Evolution is never a cause of things, it is the result.
> Oh, and if we must have a world government, then at least I want to be the leader. ;)
My vote goes to cowboyneal!
> We are social creatures.
I hear that a lot, but what does it mean? I get less than two hours of social interaction (this includes chatting) per day most days of the week, and I can't say that bothers me. I don't feel lonely. And I'm not addicted to anything. Can someone come up with a proper definition of 'social creatures'?
I'm no cocaine addict, I just like the way it smells!
Your Dutch is wrong. You're saying 'I can stop with when I want'.
We'll just start by cloning one. Hard to take over the world when you can't reproduce.
But I doubt they'll be smarter than us.
The real issue here would be, suppose the Neanderthal is created in the US, would he then count as a natural-born citizen and be able to run for president?
dun-dun-DUN.
> So, what exactly makes games the special case?
They might get away with it.
> Secondly, the ability to sue file transfer software editor is just ridiculous. It violates the principle that software is neutral and that it is individuals that perform the acts.
With some regret I must point out that in the EU, this is not without precedent. Germany has banned 'hacking tools':
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/31/1629259
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/13/0218246
It would appear not everyone agrees about the 'software is neutral' thing.
Explain how this is obstruction of justice?
> When did "American" become a lifestyle rather than a place of birth?
When conflics were no longer about the problem that caused them but about 'us' versus 'them'? Don't think this only happens in the US.
If that is the case I hope he reads this and accepts my apologies. Or mods this post offtopic :p
> And Higgs is known as the God particle
Yeah, someone gave it that name and now we can't get rid of it. I find the whole thing rather annoying, it is a just a particle and no more 'divine' than a potato. The media seem to love the name, though. People want to believe.
The guy who modded you interesing must be one of those idiots.
> A hint: what happened in March 2000?
The constitution of Finland was rewritten? Oh my god, this explains everything!
> Also, even if it were possible, I'd surprised if they could beat photosynthesis from an perspective of efficiency.
Solar panels already do. Have done for quite a while. Photosynthesis runs at about 5-6% efficiency under optimal conditions.
There are many tricky things in biology, but beating the efficiency of photosynthesis is not one of those things.
That would allow for people to inject malware, wouldn't it?
To compile:
void printhello() {
printf("Hello world!\n");
}
evil bastard changes to:
void printhello() {
{
}
printf("Hello world\n");
}
Since the most practical way to spot the evil binary would be to compile the code yourself and compare, that sort of defeats the purpose of having someone else compile it. I guess you could have many random people compile the same piece of source-code and then compare all produced code, but that makes the whole thing rather complicated.
Also, the p2p thing would only be useful for open source, as I doubt it would be smart for people trying to produce some closed source product to send their source to a p2p network that may or may not store everything.
And this is all assuming the delays introduced by sending all this stuff over the internet are not so large that compiling locally is faster or almost as fast.
It's probably best to compile your stuff on your lan, on machines that are close, and that can be trusted.
> Ockham's Razor.
As much as I like to shave with that razor, it is a guideline, not a law. Sometimes the simplest explanation is not the correct one.
Finally a device to combat trolls!
I was merely objecting to GGPs implied reasoning:
A. Hitler sterilized people he considered inferior.
B. Hitler is bad.
C. Thus sterilizing people you consider inferior is bad.
Which is wrong.
I agree that sterilizing people is bad, but that is because the thing in itself is bad, not because 'Hitler did it too'. Hitler wasn't the only one who practiced eugenetics you know... *cough*U.S.*cough*.
This whole thing is kind of blown out of proportion, it appears I have 12 reactions now on a post that was merely meant to point at GGP's Reduction ad Hitlerum. I probably should have been less vague.
You sure forced sterilization, particularly by the State, isn't extreme?
I'm not saying it isn't bad (I think it is bad and we shouldn't do it), I'm just saying that just because Hitler did X does not automatically make X bad, which was what Lershac seemed to imply.
You made me wonder though, what did you mean by 'particulary by the State'? Do you think forced sterilization would be less extreme if it came from some other organization?
> But if you have full blown AIDS, would your immune system be strong enough survive HIV and kill off a donor's marrow and its "alien" immune system at the same time?
Technically, HIV is not that hard to survive. HIV does not kill you, it just weakens your immune system and then you get killed by something else. If you have full blown AIDS, I doubt you could succesfully reject other peoples bone marrow. On the downside, full blown AIDS means you are already suffering from all kinds of diseases because your immune system is broken, so would never survive the transplant.